Paris Agreement would have reduced T by 0.17 degrees

I'm a bit surprised at this coming from you.
The manufacture of EVERYTHING requires energy input.
In most cases that energy does NOT come from renewable sources so the end product's energy savings needs to be offset just a little because of the fossil energy used to make it........if you want to be precisely correct.

NOW......in many cases, I think that is brought up just for arguements sake because the energy used to create the energy saving product usually is pretty insignificant.

Something as obvious as that shouldn't have to have a source quoted........for most people.

 

No problem, you don't have a source so it doesn't exist.

Bob Wilson

 

Really ??
I don't remember you being such a prick in the past.
Are you having a bad day ??

 

Reminder:

Terms of Service and Rules | PriusChat

People do get suspended on occasion. BTDT.

 

Wouldn't be the first time/place.......nor probably the last either.

 

Don't forget the total energy used from the transportation of raw materials to the final product delivery, also the pollution caused by manufacturing in countries where they ignore the types of precautions taken in the USA. Maybe we should also consider the energy used by the total work force involved in the production of every item before we deem it green.

 

For energy efficiency items, don't forget to include a comparison of the energy saved from the avoided transportation of the fuels needed to run the device.

 

I want less mercury in my fish@33. As well you might. After stating that mercury (Hg) has no direct connection with Paris agreement we can continue.

Before humans started nibbling into earth's crust, mercury was little involved in biological cycles. Good thing too because it is quite an unfriendly element. But then of course there was nibbling and mercury was brought to the fore.

Before I go on, has anyone not had the joy of playing with this only liquid metal?

It has unique, valuable uses including several touches with gold. It gets hauled up unintentionally with coal, with sulfur as intermediate player. Wiki page

Mercury (element) - Wikipedia

suggests nibbling increased mercury cycling sixfold, but accurate global accounting remains unknown.

There are two important biological aspects after mercury is 'liberated'. One is bioconcentration; relating to food fish that are top predators. Other is biocycling in low-oxygen sediments (mud, sludge) whence mercury will keep coming back up and no human agency can stop that.

We nibbled and liberated, and now much more mercury is biocycling. We'd not want to ingest because it makes our brains go wrong. So, simply put, some aquatic top predators may just be off the menu, to some degree, for a time that cannot be known.Longer than your lifespan would be a fair guess.

It cannot be undone. We might only choose to make it not worse, by not 'ventilating' a whole lot more coal. Small-secondarily, by not involving mercury in future gold extraction. That extraction will happen because dang, we love gold.

For all that, the largest coal problem is not mercury. It is that coal burning produces small aerosols (PM2.5) that are expensive to not emit. Those are somewhat effective in shortening human lifespan. For all that, any Paris thing against coal is simply energy produced divided by CO2 released. Coal is not efficient.

 

Ok, where is your source?

An Internet posting has no credibility without some source material. After all, you're not @mojo, we think.

Bob Wilson

 

Getting a little thin skinned @mojo? Facts are you simply cut-and-paste without understanding from your usual sources. The @mojo pattern is to fail to follow-up with any understanding of the obvious flaws in the Internet scrapped nonsense. Still, let's use the 'way back' machine:

It is simply a case of @Sam Spade doesn't follow your practice of citing misleading sources from the 'usual suspects.' His contrast is to make some assertion without referencing who led him to state nonsense.

In contrast, you find nonsense and cite it freely without follow-up. Two sides of the same Janus coin and neither works ... shooting fish in a barrel comes to mind.

Bob Wilson

 

Damn it Bob.
Source for WHAT exactly ??
IIRC your first confrontational reply in this thread did not specify......and neither have any of the subsequent ones.
I refuse to play your silly game.

P.S. Sometimes assertions backed up with sources are even more misleading and untrue than simple personal opinions.

 

Apparently @Sam Spade shows he is too lazy to review the thread. As a hint, the "Search" function works on keywords, usernames, and can even limit to a specific thread. For example:

1. Post
   Paris Agreement would have reduced T by 0.17 degrees
   No problem, you don't have a source so it doesn't exist. Bob Wilson
   Post by: bwilson4web, Yesterday at 2:18 PM in forum: Environmental Discussion
2. 
   Post
   Paris Agreement would have reduced T by 0.17 degrees
   Ok, where is your source? An Internet posting has no credibility without some source material. After all, you're not @mojo, we think. Bob Wilson
   Post by: bwilson4web, Today at 2:30 AM in forum: Environmental Discussion
3. 
   Post
   Paris Agreement would have reduced T by 0.17 degrees
   ...are you simply cut-and-paste without understanding from your usual sources. The @mojo pattern is to fail to follow-up with any understanding of...
   Post by: bwilson4web, 54 minutes ago in forum: Environmental Discussion
4. 
   Post
   Paris Agreement would have reduced T by 0.17 degrees
   Sounds quite reasonable but lacks a source: Before looking, my understanding is they crush 'sweet violets, sweeter than all the daisies, covered...
   Post by: bwilson4web, Yesterday at 10:03 AM in forum: Environmental Discussion
5. 
   Post
   Paris Agreement would have reduced T by 0.17 degrees
   ...into his 'work.' A more effective technique is to cite empirical sources. For example: Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever...
   Post by: bwilson4web, Tuesday at 10:24 AM in forum: Environmental Discussion

​

Furthermore, @Sam Spade still claims 'simple personal opinions' is accurate. Ok, sure reads like the other side of @mojo who cuts-and-pastes without understanding or apparently even reading the whole source.

Bob Wilson

 

Regarding lifecycle emissions of CO2 (including manufacturing) for things renewable such as solar and vehicles such as plug-ins/BEVs:




NREL: Energy Analysis - Life Cycle Assessment Harmonization Results and Findings

Keep in mind that this data is a few years old and the CO2 footprint of renewables, like solar, keeps getting rapidly better:

For every doubling of installed photovoltaic capacity, energy use decreases by 13 and 12% and greenhouse gas footprints by 17 and 24%, for poly- and monocrystalline based photovoltaic systems, respectively.​

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13728





http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cleaner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf

 

I only have to go back ONE post to illustrate what the problem IS:
I asked you to point out exactly what I said that requires a source reference.
Instead of answering that question, you replied by quoting a bunch of YOUR ramblings, which contains no clue as to Wth you are talking about in the first place.

Are you REALLY that dense, or is it that you don't understand English well.......or are you just trying to cause trouble where none exists ??

Your last few posts have just wasted everybody's time. They don't even rise to the level of a good insult.

 

Let's try the experiment, "Ignore User."

EDIT: It works! The quality of postings in this thread have significantly improved. Problem solved!

Thanks @iplug :

I'm reminded of the old 'Dust-to-Dust' report from 2006. I'd hoped we'd moved beyond that but apparently the latest troll didn't get the memo: Exposé of the CNW Marketing Research "Dust to Dust" study

If past is prolog, he'll have disappeared soon enough. The old adage, "Don't feed the troll" applies.

Bob Wilson

 

Wasn't the tomb of Qin Shi Huang, China's first Qin emperor, surrounded by a moat of mercury? Mercury has been used for millennia and poisoning people.

 

Mercury has been used for millennia@57. Yes. Small-scale use is absolutely use. Yet it was later, large scale use that got mercury broadly distributed 'on top' From where microbes could redistribute it freely.

Main ore of mercury, cinnabar, HgS, has unusual bright red color. Would get noticed at any surface exposure. Would get powdered for red paint. Put that stuff in fire and wow, liquid metal.

Attractive, user-friendly and dangerous. Neolithic trifecta.

 

I did not forget.My point was when calculating the efficiency of a "green" product, to take everything involved into consideration for that particular product's efficiency calculation. Even the energy used by the workforce to get to work, eat, and maintain themselves. That would a hell of a mathematical effort. I would agree though that that should be included in the calculation also.