CO2 can be stored underground for 10 times the length needed to avoid climatic impact: study

CO2 can be stored underground for 10 times the length needed to avoid climatic impact
Image shows a cold water geyser driven by carbon dioxide erupting from an unplugged oil exploration well drilled in 1936 into a natural CO2 reservoir in Utah. Credit: Professor Mike Bickle

Study of natural-occurring 100,000 year-old CO2 reservoirs shows no significant corroding of 'cap rock', suggesting the greenhouse gas hasn't leaked back out - one of the main concerns with greenhouse gas reduction proposal of carbon capture and storage.

New research shows that natural accumulations of (CO2) that have been trapped underground for around 100,000 years have not significantly corroded the rocks above, suggesting that storing CO2 in reservoirs deep underground is much safer and more predictable over long periods of time than previously thought.

These findings, published today in the journal Nature Communications, demonstrate the viability of a process called and storage (CCS) as a solution to reducing carbon emissions from coal and gas-fired power stations, say researchers.

CCS involves capturing the carbon dioxide produced at power stations, compressing it, and pumping it into reservoirs in the rock more than a kilometre underground.

The CO2 must remain buried for at least 10,000 years to avoid the impacts on climate. One concern is that the dilute acid, formed when the stored CO2 dissolves in water present in the reservoir rocks, might corrode the rocks above and let the CO2 escape upwards.

By studying a natural reservoir in Utah, USA, where CO2 released from deeper formations has been trapped for around 100,000 years, a Cambridge-led research team has now shown that CO2 can be securely stored underground for far longer than the 10,000 years needed to avoid climatic impacts.

Their new study shows that the critical component in geological carbon storage, the relatively impermeable layer of "cap rock" that retains the CO2, can resist corrosion from CO2-saturated water for at least 100,000 years.

"Carbon capture and storage is seen as essential technology if the UK is to meet its climate change targets," says lead author Professor Mike Bickle, Director of the Cambridge Centre for Carbon Capture and Storage at the University of Cambridge.

"A major obstacle to the implementation of CCS is the uncertainty over the long-term fate of the CO2 which impacts regulation, insurance, and who assumes the responsibility for maintaining CO2 storage sites. Our study demonstrates that geological carbon storage can be safe and predictable over many hundreds of thousands of years."

The key component in the safety of geological storage of CO2 is an impermeable cap rock over the porous reservoir in which the CO2 is stored. Although the CO2 will be injected as a dense fluid, it is still less dense than the brines originally filling the pores in the reservoir sandstones, and will rise until trapped by the relatively impermeable cap rocks.

"Some earlier studies, using computer simulations and laboratory experiments, have suggested that these cap rocks might be progressively corroded by the CO2-charged brines, formed as CO2 dissolves, creating weaker and more permeable layers of rock several metres thick and jeopardising the secure retention of the CO2," explains Bickle.

"However, these studies were either carried out in the laboratory over short timescales or based on theoretical models. Predicting the behaviour of CO2 stored underground is best achieved by studying natural CO2 accumulations that have been retained for periods comparable to those needed for effective storage."

To better understand these effects, this study, funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council and the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, examined a natural reservoir where large natural pockets of CO2 have been trapped in sedimentary rocks for hundreds of thousands of years. Sponsored by Shell, the team drilled deep down below the surface into one of these natural CO2 reservoirs to recover samples of the rock layers and the fluids confined in the rock pores.

The team studied the corrosion of the minerals comprising the rock by the acidic carbonated water, and how this has affected the ability of the cap rock to act as an effective trap over geological periods of time. Their analysis studied the mineralogy and geochemistry of cap rock and included bombarding samples of the rock with neutrons at a facility in Germany to better understand any changes that may have occurred in the pore structure and permeability of the cap rock.

They found that the CO2 had very little impact on corrosion of the minerals in the cap rock, with corrosion limited to a layer only 7cm thick. This is considerably less than the amount of corrosion predicted in some earlier studies, which suggested that this layer might be many metres thick.

The researchers also used computer simulations, calibrated with data collected from the rock samples, to show that this layer took at least 100,000 years to form, an age consistent with how long the site is known to have contained CO2.

The research demonstrates that the natural resistance of the minerals to the acidic carbonated waters makes burying CO2 underground a far more predictable and secure process than previously estimated.

"With careful evaluation, burying carbon dioxide underground will prove very much safer than emitting CO2 directly to the atmosphere," says Bickle.


Explore further

Water sampling technique paves way for safe storage of CO2

Journal information: Nature Communications

Citation: CO2 can be stored underground for 10 times the length needed to avoid climatic impact: study (2016, July 28) retrieved 26 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-07-co2-underground-length-climatic-impact.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1403 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jul 28, 2016
Sponsored by Shell...

OK. I stopped reading there.

Jul 28, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 28, 2016
Why? Does Shell sponsoring invalidate the conclusion?

Not really, But there's a bit of conflict of interest in this. If they can get somone independent of the fossil fuel lobby to check the study (or better: replicate it) then that's all good. But for now this sounds too much like a study funded by the Koch Brothers that says global warming isn't happening.

Jul 28, 2016
Sponsored by Shell...

OK. I stopped reading there.

I'm guessing you also drive pass all those petrol stations in your car that runs on magic.

Jul 28, 2016
This may at least stop further CO2 increase and enable a softer switch to non-fossil technology.

Sure. The benefits would be undeniable, IF true. The involvement of Shell makes this a capital "IF" (for me).
In the end the UK will have to decide whether they adopt such a strategy or not.

The danger I see is that (assuming it actually works the way they say) this might be viewed as a solution rather than a stopgap measure. Underground reservoirs aren't infinitely big. But some companies/governments might go back to an approach of "they are big enough for this quarterly report/this election cycle"...until they 'suddenly' run out and we're back to square one with yet another big problem on our collective plates.

Sometimes a bit of an 'no alternative' scenario is a good thing to make us move from a problem to a final solution...instead of going through a series of band-aids that might fall apart halfway through. It's not like there aren't any direct solutions available.

Jul 28, 2016
suddenly' run out and we're back to square one with yet another big problem on our collective plates.

Sometimes a bit of an 'no alternative' scenario is a good thing to make us move from a problem to a final solution...instead of going through a series of band-aids that might fall apart halfway through. It's not like there aren't any direct solutions available.
I think this is being unrealistic. It must still be considered that there is almost as much power generation on this planet arising from coal-fired power plants than pretty much all other sources combined. Add in natural gas fired plants, and you are over 50% of all power produced. These plants are not going to shut down any time soon, so anything that reduces their Co2 footprint is welcome.

The next step is getting the plants to actually capture and sequester the Co2 they produce.

Jul 28, 2016
Out of sight, out of mind.

Jul 28, 2016
We mine CO2 all over the western US, but mainly Colorado. Bore holes, pipe the CO2 where needed, used mainly to inject into older petroleum wells.

Drill here, drill now. Don't forget to kiss a Fracker. If you don't support nuclear power for electrical generation you really don't care about "climate change" in any case.


Jul 28, 2016
Yeah, when an anonymous internet poster says something, you know he really understands and believes it.

Jul 28, 2016
Add in natural gas fired plants, and you are over 50% of all power produced.

But what if this technology takes all the incentive away from not building any more (or closing down the most polluting ones and replacing them with something else)? Then we'd just kick the can down the road until the reservoirs are full. And then what?

Reucing CO2 footprint is good. But the way the markets work (at least as I see them) this is something that might well backfire in a big way.

Jul 28, 2016
Add in natural gas fired plants, and you are over 50% of all power produced.

But what if this technology takes all the incentive away from not building any more (or closing down the most polluting ones and replacing them with something else)? Then we'd just kick the can down the road until the reservoirs are full. And then what?

Reucing CO2 footprint is good. But the way the markets work (at least as I see them) this is something that might well backfire in a big way.

I understand your argument, and your concern. But the relaities of the situation must still be considered. Governments and utilities have spent billions building these plants, and there are more still being planned and built as we speak. It is unrealistic to think that they will just stop. I don't like it, and the short-sightedness of the people building them is, well bad. But the reality is what it is.

We have often discussed stop gaps. This is one.

Jul 28, 2016
But what if this technology takes all the incentive away from not building any more (or closing down the most polluting ones and replacing them with something else)? Then we'd just kick the can down the road until the reservoirs are full. And then what?


That would be assuming that the people implementing the method would choose to ignore the eventuality and deliberately act stupid.

As for Shell being an unreliable source with a conflict of interest - consider that they've also indirectly proven that nuclear waste can be kept underground for hundreds of thousands of years, and nuclear energy is the main competitor for fossil fuels in terms of its sheer ability to generate massive amounts of energy without CO2 and toxic chemical and particulate emissions.

In other words, if their finding is true, it's also true for their worst enemy.

Jul 28, 2016
"I'm guessing you also drive pass all those petrol stations in your car that runs on magic."
-----------------------

No, not magic but electricity, produced by the panels on my roof and put into the line, and "banked"in the grid by the power company.

No noise, like with your clattering Diesel. No pollutants like the oily smoke from your car. No maintenance and oil leaks because it needs none.

Clean up your own act before you criticize others.

Jul 28, 2016
as generation from wind and natural gas has risen to supplant coal-fired power, average prices in the Southwest Power Pool dropped to $17.37/MWh


The bit of the story you left untold is the ever-increasing subsidies for wind power that actually cause the price drop. The natural gas costs about $30-40/MWh and the wind power is pushed into the grid at near zero to negative prices because it wouldn't sell otherwise. The result is an average grid price hovering in the neighborhood of $20/MWh and under.

http://www.platts...21055854
SPP North Hub off-peak real-time locational marginal prices averaged about negative $4.25/MWh Sunday and averaged negative $12.75/MWh as of 10 am CST Monday


Question: how do you "sell" wind power at -$12.75/MWh and make a profit?
Answer: the taxpayer is paying the difference - the real cost of power is not what it costs to buy off the grid.

Jul 28, 2016
Sponsored by Shell...

OK. I stopped reading there.

I'm guessing you also drive pass all those petrol stations in your car that runs on magic.


Indeed. And Shell is quite good at what they get *paid* to do: produce oil. But we also shouldn't expect them to publish research that runs contrary to their monetary incentives. Corporations aren't charities; they exist to serve their bottom line.

History has shown that we should take corporate research with a large heaping of salt.

Jul 28, 2016


"I'm guessing you also drive pass all those petrol stations in your car that runs on magic."
-----------------------

No, not magic but electricity, produced by the panels on my roof and put into the line, and "banked"in the grid by the power company.

No noise, like with your clattering Diesel. No pollutants like the oily smoke from your car. No maintenance and oil leaks because it needs none.

Clean up your own act before you criticize others.


gkam, does antialias_physorg drive an electric car? If so, i can understand why you defend him. If not....what the heck?

Will that CO2 be safe? If something bad and unexpected happens underground, it may end badly....

Jul 28, 2016
The lowest peaks in the texan power grid went below -$50/MWh before they installed over 3,500 new power lines to transmit the production over a wider area, which cost the utility customers about $7 billion and is collected through surcharges on their electric bills at about $70-100 per year per household.

The reason why Texas keeps producing more wind power despite it causing them so much trouble is that the federal government - in other words the rest of the US - keeps paying Texas $22/MWh in PTC subsidies for all the wind power projects they're building. No PTC, no new wind power.

So as long as the wind power doesn't cause more than $22/MWh worth of harm, it's basically net income for the state. If that means paying the local utilities to take the power - selling it at negative prices - that's just internal redistribution in the economy, and it comes back to the state coffers through taxes.

Jul 28, 2016
gkam, does antialias_physorg drive an electric car? If so, i can understand why you defend him. If not....what the heck?


Gkam himself doesn't drive an electric car. Someone checked with the DMV if anyone by his name, or close by, had the car he claims to have and came out empty. He's simply lying about it for attention seeking purposes.

But we also shouldn't expect them to publish research that runs contrary to their monetary incentives.


But that doesn't mean the study is bunk. That would be just an ad-hominem.

Jul 28, 2016
"gkam, does antialias_physorg drive an electric car? If so, i can understand why you defend him."
-----------------------------------------

I have not done so with AAP in this thread, but I vote mainly for content, not personality.

Go look at all the rage "ones" I get from the raging vandals, if you want to see some cases of poor emotional control.

Jul 28, 2016
Once again, this thread is not about me,


Until you show up, eh?

No, not magic but electricity, produced by the panels on my roof and put into the line, and "banked"in the grid by the power company.


Well that is nice, really nice to know. (Like we would forget him after you told us that a hundred times already)

Go look at all the rage "ones" I get from the raging vandals, if you want to see some cases of poor emotional control.


Ragin' "ones" for the Ragin' One. Fair is fair.

Yeah, I am a real man, George Kamburoff.


Yeah Cher, I know what you mean. It sure is good you got so much "emotional control".

Jul 28, 2016
I'm guessing you also drive pass all those petrol stations in your car that runs on magic.

Well, as soon as Tesla puts out the Model 3 I'm gonna go and nab me one (sometime 2018 if the usual Tesla schedule overruns are anything to go by).
Just last week I asked the people in the apartment complex whether they'd be OK with it if I put up a charging station next to my parking space. Luckily no one had a problem with this, so I'm going to go have an electrician take a look at this next.

So: True, I drive a 45mpg 'gas guzzler'. However there's currently no affordable alternative.

Jul 28, 2016
Corporations aren't charities; they exist to serve their bottom line. History has shown that we should take corporate research with a large heaping of salt.

And, history has also shown that a very effective way to get to a corporation's bottom line is to boycott their products. So, why don't you Chicken Littles?

Jul 28, 2016
I drive a 45mpg 'gas guzzler'. However there's currently no affordable alternative
@AA_P
that "gas guzzler" is still a better option than an EV that will not function properly in cold climates, which is why i didn't buy an EV for traveling

this is the biggest problem of the EV market next to power storage and range

batteries just don't work well in freezing (or colder) temps

.

.

STOLEN VALOR liar-kam
but I vote mainly for content, not personality.
this is a blatant lie and i can prove it... but all you really want is attention so i will not derail yet another thread proving (yet again) that you're a lying POS who can't read

if you're gonna lie, stick to things that can't be validated because you tend to lose when you are checked

Jul 28, 2016
"you're a lying POS who can't read"
------------------------------------------
Rumpy still dreams of me.

And he thinks reactor vessels are recyclable, like reprocessed radioactive waste. I think it is because he went crazy with the need to punish and responded before he even read my post. Uncontrollable emotions do that.

Jul 28, 2016
Stumpy, I'm letting you know that from now on every message you post that has nothing to do with the article and is nothing but insults to someone else on here is getting reported. Maybe after the folks that run this site get enough reports they will ban you. I don't know about everyone else on here but I personally am really sick of your stupid crap and insults. Either stick to the subject of the article or shut the hell up!

Jul 28, 2016
Carbon sequester is a fallacy, it's a "get real" moment for all the dreamers that think, in spite of stuffing enough carbon fast enough to put us geologically into a "carbon excursion" we can out-balance the 10-PgC/37-GtCO2eqv last year by somehow hiding it, If frozen taking up 37-cubic-kilometers of carbon each year, oh yeah that'll be easy.

The Icelandic experiment was 250-tons, to put that much mass anywhere on the planet will stress the strata, the CO2 gets out and poisons the environment via acidification.

Stuff the CO2 into the oceans gives a benthic extinction, fracking waste near a latent fault gives earthquakes and pollutes groundwater & aquifers.

So the obvious ending emissions a dream, the clincher is being in an excursion, 25% of last year's carbon will be there 10,000-years from now, the planet has it covered!

This legacy carbon has been accruing since about the late 50's as a carbon excursion.

End the Steam-Age for electrons, stop burning fossil fuels!

Jul 28, 2016
"In his first year in office, President Obama directed the Central Intelligence Agency to divert significant assets from the war against real threats from terrorists and enemy nations to the hypothetic dangers of "climate change."

The Defense Department was ordered to follow suit, and under Obama's direction, launched massive building programs at American naval bases to shelter them from rising seas.

President Obama squandered billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in pursuit of an ideological agenda.

This past May, the CIA quietly shuttered its climate change initiative, since it was unable to find data to sustain the Left's faith in its new religion that man-made climate change would destroy the earth, or significant portions of it."

Jul 28, 2016
"This past May, the CIA quietly shuttered its climate change initiative, since it was unable to find data to sustain the Left's faith in its new religion"

Get that from Pootie?

Ever meet Paul Manafort?

Jul 28, 2016
"This past May, the CIA quietly shuttered its climate change initiative, since it was unable to find data to sustain the Left's faith in its new religion"

Get that from Pootie?

Ever meet Paul Manafort?

From the CIA, you trolling fuck

Jul 28, 2016
So: True, I drive a 45mpg 'gas guzzler'. However there's currently no affordable alternative.

So, you see conflict of interest because an oil company supported this study, but you, supporting oil companies by paying for their oil, are above reproach. Or perhaps, you imagine yourself a hapless victim of oil companies, pushing their evil product to sustain your habit.

Jul 28, 2016
45mpg is great!

And for most folk, price practicality is still a real problem. We got our EV by cashing in an IRA.

But in five years, lots will be full of nice IC-Engined cars.

Jul 29, 2016
I'm letting you know that from now on every message you post that has nothing to do with the article and is nothing but insults to someone else on here is getting reported
@24volts
1- ok. but that means i get to reciprocate when you post pseudoscience or anything electric universe, ok?

2- topical must also include comments in the thread. like i did above with AA_P (the first half of the post you either didn't read or are ignoring?)

3- so long as you also downrate and report benni, gkam, cantdrive, hannes alfven, 24Volts (yeah, i mean you), shooty, antiG and everyone else that also does the exact same thing (be it posting known blatant pseudoscience, religion or ad hominem) then i will actually help you by also doing it and i will refrain from posting ad hominem

deal?

let me know via PM or post!
Thanks

Jul 29, 2016
I remember when a joke in the West said that the Soviets, to create jobs would have one group of men dig a hole and another group fill it in. This is order of magnitude more stupid than that. Multi-billion $$$ expenditures in a business that produces NOTHING.

Jul 29, 2016
that "gas guzzler" is still a better option than an EV that will not function properly in cold climates, which is why i didn't buy an EV for traveling

In Europe stuff is closer together (and there's a LOT of infrastructure). I wouldn't use a car for travelling long distances (I use trains, mostly....and sometimes a bicycle;) ). Though a tech magazine over here recently did a self-test for a 1000km trip with a Nissan Leaf (which has a realistic range of 150-200km between fillups). Yes, it takes longer...but not by as much as one would expect.
And 'travel' is really only something that happens to me once a year or so. Not a major blocking point for me.

Freezing condition is something that has become less of an issue over the years in germany (climate change). Even with reduced range the Model 3 would get me wherever I need, easily.

As a side note: By all accounts EVs are doing well in Norway/Sweden ... and these countries do have issues with *serious* cold spells.

Jul 29, 2016
Yes, it takes longer...but not by as much as one would expect.

To elucidate further why this is so (as it wasn't obvious to me at first glance): When you go on longer trips by car you have a few rest stops: Food, coffee, bathroom, stretching, whatever. For the regular sort of car this is time spent in addition to filling up at the pump. For EVs this is times spent in parallel to recharging. So the significantly longer recharge times are somewhat offset.

Jul 29, 2016
24V, I should have warned you that the snipers would come after you. Next, count on Ira getting a picture of your house, putting the URL here and making fun of it, like he did to Mike Masson.

These are nasty kids playing that game.

As for the CO2, I like the idea of solidifying it underground.

Jul 29, 2016
Next, count on Ira getting a picture of your house, putting the URL here and making fun of it, like he did to Mike Masson.


That is the GREAT BIG LIE Skippy. You keep telling it, but it is still the GREAT BIG LIE. It never happen Cher. That is even easier to check than most of your other lies. Physorg keeps the permanent record for anybody who wants to check.

Jul 29, 2016
As for the CO2, I like the idea of solidifying it underground.
Well we are just so happy you are happy with that idea. (As if you knew enough about that to make up your mind about if you like him, or don't like him.)

Jul 29, 2016
I wouldn't use a car for travelling long distances (I use trains, mostly....and sometimes a bicycle
@AA_P
i remember
one thing i loved about Europe was that travel was only limited to how lazy one was - nothing is "too far" with a Eurail
:-)
And 'travel' is really only something that happens to me once a year or so
except for work... right?
LOL
my 82y/o landlady used to walk down a hill, 5km minimum to town every day to get groceries (except SUN- which was church)
Euro's have a different lifestyle and expectations than typical USA, where in US anything more than 200 meters means taking the car - LOL
Freezing condition ... less of an issue over the years in germany (climate change)
i noticed...
but i am sure they still get cold enough to make an EV impractical in the winter
it does even in the South of the US, esp in the mountains

Jul 29, 2016
one thing i loved about Europe was that travel was only limited to how lazy one was - nothing is "too far" with a Eurail


Steven Wright: "Everywhere is walking distance...if you have the time"

except for work... right?

I try to take the bycicle to work when I can. But our offices will be moved in a couple of months. Then distance will double to about 40km each way. Which is kinda tough.

but i am sure they still get cold enough to make an EV impractical in the winter

Since I'll be topping it up every night (and the Model 3 is said to come with a 315km range) that'll give me plenty to spare for the daily commute (and shopping). I'm expecting plug-in stations to multiply over the next few years along the autobahn streches. So I'm not really worried about any 'range anxiety' issues. (In really snowy weather I don't want to drive, anyways. I'd rather take the train or a bus. Luckily the main railway station is all of 2 minutes on foot from my front door)

Jul 29, 2016
Ah, for once there is a headline that I can agree with. Since CO2 is a harmless if not beneficial trace gas there is no need to sequester it thus sequestration is not need and the headline is 101% correct correct.

Jul 29, 2016
Steven Wright: "Everywhere is walking distance...if you have the time"
@AA_P
ROTFLMFAO
one of my favourite comics ever
Then distance will double to about 40km each way. Which is kinda tough.
sissy
LMFAO
joking... yeah, i can see where you would need a car/other transportation for that one
Used to make a trek from Marktbreit to Kitzingen (SE of Wurzburg) daily on a 12 speed... only 10k, but still a bummer when you need to be somewhere on time
used to head to Wurzburg on weekends.
I'm expecting plug-in stations to multiply over the next few years along the autobahn streches
what about near your work?
Luckily the main railway station is all of 2 minutes on foot from my front door
NICE... would have loved to have that in my youth... had to bus to the train from the countryside (Marktbreit and Otterbach both) just to get to trains (Wurzburg and Kaiserslautern, respectively)

preferred Bavaria to Rheinland-Pfalz, too...


Jul 29, 2016
Since CO2 is a harmless if not beneficial trace gas there is no need to sequester it
@MR166
so you wouldn't mind if a plastic bag was put over your head and there is no such thing as CO2 narcosis?

why would you make such a blatantly absurd comment?|

going for hyperbole?

you already know i will point you back to the oft-posted Lacis et al, right?

and then point you to:
Lobell et al. 2008, Luo 2009, Zhao and Running 2010, Challinor et al. 2010, Lobell et al. 2011, Leaky et al. 2009, Long et al. 2006, Ainsworth 2005, Morgan et al. 2005, Leaky et al. 2006, Stöcklin and Körner 2002, Norby et al. 2010, Larson et al. 2010, Bloom et al. 2010, Taub and Wang 2008, Zavala et al. 2008 and Eastburn et al. 2010

plenty more i have already linked to you at least 10 times in the past proving you wrong on this CO2 topic (CO2 being plant food, how we know it's causing warming and your claims that limiting will make little/no difference & other CO2 related claims)

Jul 29, 2016
so you wouldn't mind if a plastic bag was put over your head and there is no such thing as CO2 narcosis?

If you ever wondered why he became Stumpid, well, he obviously took the experiment too far.

Jul 29, 2016
I guess that depends on your definition of impractical
@GreenO
the reason i chose ICE over EV or Hybrid was that i would get a continuous 41+ Mpg rather than the periodic Mpg touted on the stat's posted by the company (i averaged between 38 in mountains to 44 on flatland)
if you can get only 25Mpg (depending) in the winter when you do your most traveling like i do, it's not practical to have an EV/Hybrid in the winter in cold climates for your worst mileage... so you go with a more consistent mileage that doesn't require warmer temps

overall, i did far less polluting with double the range, Mpg, capacity etc with my ICE than with a Hybrid or EV

not even going to talk about EV/Hybrid depreciation, replacement batteries, no off-road or towing capacity, charging from Generators etc

no such thing as no pollution EV so long as it still requires AC to charge

now, if i traveled mostly in the warmer climates, it would be different

Jul 29, 2016
@greenO cont'd
but will wait a couple of years - and see where things stand. Lot's of potential battery developments - so I am optimistic
so am i
in fact, i saw where they're talking SUV's and Off-road vehicles that are EV, which will be a potential boon to the rural communities seeking a greener lifestyle or a reduced carbon footprint

but like i said: requiring the grid still means pollution, regardless of what the idiots say
so long as the electric companies still use polluting tech to generate the electricity, it's still polluting

building a battery UV system for charging an EV will be prohibitively expensive (i know: i looked into this because i am strictly UV/Wind/Hydro power here)

just like i know being tied to the grid with UV means selling power/net metering
http://www.reside...tem-work

even PGE says this (see: net metering/Time of Use rates)
http://www.pge.co...sics.pdf

Jul 29, 2016
what about near your work?

Being THE major german electrical company they have opted to...*sigh*...not build any at the new location.

NICE... would have loved to have that in my youth

I've been really lucky with that wherever I've lived. Never further away than 5 minutes walking distance to trains or tramways. Public transportation is really good if you know you always have it to fall back on at a moment's notice.

Lot's of potential battery developments - so I am optimistic.

I think this is something that often gets overlooked: There's a good chance that better batteries can be manufactured as a "drop-in" replacement (since voltage has to be stepped up in any case). That's the sort of upgadeability you don't get in regular cars.

Jul 29, 2016
Being THE major german electrical company they have opted to...*sigh*...not build any at the new location
@AA_P
cost issues?
or lack of interest?
I think this is something that often gets overlooked: There's a good chance that better batteries can be manufactured as a "drop-in" replacement (since voltage has to be stepped up in any case). That's the sort of upgadeability you don't get in regular cars
absolutely!
like i said, i am waiting for those improvements to hit the market... it's especially important when your electricity comes from batteries, IMHO

if i can upgrade my storage and reduce the space while improving the system simply by replacing the batteries... that is something worth investing $$ into

especially when you have issues that require large amounts of electricity, like cooling, heating or driving, etc (any electric motor or heating element)

Jul 29, 2016
I agree - all methods subsidized with fossil fuel lobby actually increase the total fossil fuel consumption and their net effect for elimination of greenhouse gases is therefore disputable. Once the cold fusion will get implemented ...

stop right there; there isn't such thing as cold fusion except in the wild delusional imagination of a few nutters.

Jul 29, 2016
stop right there; there isn't such thing as cold fusion except in the wild delusional imagination of a few nutters.
@Humy
epoxy is the latest incarnation of Zephir

just in case you didn't already know it... there is a list in various forum floating around that tracks the many incarnations... i've posted the sock army list more than a few times myself

feel free to Google "zephir sock army Phys.org" for more information or the list published here on PO if you care to, or visit the various forum for details and the list


Jul 29, 2016
Just as a request for more information

@STOLEN VALOR liar-kam:
what was not factual about the last post you just downrated? (my last one to GreenO)

more to the point:
please use evidence or factual references/links to refute any claim made which caused you to downrate, since you claim you rate on content and scientific content

considering that, you should be able to prove where i was wrong and be able to validate the claim with evidence

this is especially important considering i used your own power company information and evidence to demonstrate the fallacious argument you've previously put forward about your grid-tie system

thanks for posting the evidence, links, references and information and proving a (any) point

Jul 29, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 29, 2016
"this is especially important considering i used your own power company information and evidence to demonstrate the fallacious argument you've previously put forward about your grid-tie system"
--------------------------------

As I told you many times before, you are looking at the wrong rate schedules.

I am on EV-A. I have said it before.

Do you now understand my point, made over and over, about you folk who read a sentence and assume you understand the technology? Let alone the implications?

Please outgrow your need to get even.

Jul 29, 2016
And he thinks reactor vessels are recyclable, like reprocessed radioactive waste
George kamburoff the lying cheating psychopath thinks that fission events in dirty molten Pu puddles, triggered by H2 explosions, could throw fukushima reactor vessel parts 130km even though conventional nuclear explosives can't throw debris more than a few km.

And when asked why there were no huge craters, george offered a few historic airburst events as evidence.
I think it is because he went crazy
George kamburoff must be crazy if he thinks people would trust his opinions on anything after reading garbage like this.

BTW he has no PV system or EV car. They're also lies.

Jul 29, 2016
Good news! It will not be necessary to spend money on carbon storage.

http://joannenova...warming/

Jul 29, 2016
I am on EV-A. I have said it before.


Nice try at the smoke and mirrors Skippy. But the EV-A has only to do with charging your "real" electric car. It don't have anything to do with putting power into system during the day. For that you got use what Captain-Skippy says, net-metering. I already knew you did not have the electric car and solar panes. Now everybody else does too.

Jul 29, 2016
I love it when the folk on the sidelines think they know better than those doing it.

I told all of you what we have. Some of you have ego problems with that. Did you think PG&E would put us on TWO rate schedules for one service? EV and PV? What an idiot!

I don't know what all your phony skippy nonsense is about, but it is fake. When you get mad, the real Ira comes out, without the silly affectation. Checking up on everybody like the KGB will not save you Toots - in my case it just proved I really did work on rocket planes, do studies and reports for NASA, and produce the Power Quality course for the nation's utilities.

What have you done? Gripe? Whine? Attack?

Lots of guts for someone hiding behind a pseudonym.

Jul 29, 2016
I love it when the folk on the sidelines think they know better than those doing it.

I told all of you what we have. Some of you have ego problems with that. Did you think PG&E would put us on TWO rate schedules for one service? EV and PV? What an idiot!

I don't know what all your phony skippy nonsense is about, but it is fake. When you get mad, the real Ira comes out, without the silly affectation. Checking up on everybody like the KGB will not save you Toots - in my case it just proved I really did work on rocket planes, do studies and reports for NASA, and produce the Power Quality course for the nation's utilities.

What have you done? Gripe? Whine? Attack?

Lots of guts for someone hiding behind a pseudonym.


You are still a liar Cher. But we all knew that already. All you are doing is proving you are not very good at it.

Jul 29, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR liar-kam
I am on EV-A...Do you now understand
this has nothing to do with your PV setup: it's a charging rate system for your EV
per your own PG&E -
Rate EV-A is for customers that do not have a separately metered electric vehicle charging station.
This option provides a single meter
http://www.pge.co...options/

IOW- this still means your PV system puts electricity into the grid at wholesale cost (as i said) and you still require the grid to charge your EV, and you get charged per the rate when you use it
http://www.pge.co...S_EV.pdf

- read the links. IRA and i are correct - you just don't like that we know more about solar and your own setup than you do

that isn't "sidelines" making a wiki-claim

it's people who are experience trying to teach with evidence - unlike your false claims without evidence refuted by your own PG&E company


Jul 30, 2016
"you don't look at the research you reference."
You redact research throwing out the parts you don't like.

From the title: "Absence of 21st century warming on Antarctic Peninsula"

From the first paragraph: "Here we use a stacked temperature record to show an absence of regional warming since the late 1990s. The annual mean temperature has decreased at a statistically significant rate,"
https://manicbean...-trends/

Jul 30, 2016
"most people are surprised to learn that humans have so far contributed
only about 1 molecule of CO2 to every 10,000 molecules of air over the last 60
years. About 50 percent of all we emit is absorbed by nature"

https://notalotof...df-1.pdf

Jul 30, 2016
https://manicbeancounter.com/
@philstacy
1- a blog is not a study, it's "opinion" and "belief". not science

2- a dot-com is not source material, nor is it a good source of information when your argument is "You redact research throwing out the parts you don't like"

in the case of said argument, you should be linking a study at it's source, not some idiot's misinterpretation of information

and more to the point, your site link actually states it's arguments pander to those who fear "climate change policy"
... hell, it indicated this on the page you linked!

it's not science, it's someone's personal beliefs on what they find using confirmation bias out of fear and lack of education in STEM... and more importantly, scientific ignorance

if that's your argument, its an epic fail

Jul 30, 2016
Why? Does Shell sponsoring invalidate the conclusion?

Not really, But there's a bit of conflict of interest in this. If they can get somone independent of the fossil fuel lobby to check the study (or better: replicate it) then that's all good. But for now this sounds too much like a study funded by the Koch Brothers that says global warming isn't happening.


What you're also implying is that you don't have or don't want to use critical reading skills to know whether this study is actually a practical proposal. I understand not wanting to waste mental bandwidth on something whose efficacy you might doubt, but if you don't read something you have reason to doubt critically here and there, and you only read things you agree with, how can you be reasonably assured that you know enough of the situation to be impartial?

Jul 30, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 30, 2016
" I'll see that you get lots of bookings that fall through."
--------------------------------------

Another cowardly sniper with a threat? Really?? Have none of you any decency whatever?

For fifteen bucks, according to Ira, you can go to the DMV and find out for yourself.

Then, come back and tell Ira how to do it correctly.


Jul 30, 2016
"what have you demonstrated?"
Storing carbon is a waste of money to support a political agenda. Science has become a political endorsement of this left wing agenda which has caused Venezuela to enslave its population to produce food.

http://www.dailym...sts.html

https://notalotof...df-1.pdf

Jul 30, 2016
"it's "opinion" and "belief". not science"
It is your opinion and belief that there is a difference.

Jul 30, 2016
I don't know what all your phony skippy nonsense is about, but it is fake. When you get mad, the real Ira comes out, without the silly affectation
Mad or not youre still a liar. Why are you too stupid to see how obvious this is to everybody?

Jul 30, 2016
It is your opinion and belief that there is a difference
@philstuckup
wow... you really believe that, don't you?
you actually think there is no difference between opinion and science!
wow

well...
1- it isn't my belief or opinion, it's fact

2- https://en.wikipe...evidence

3- https://en.wikipe...c_method

when have you ever seen a scientific study use a blog as a reference for anything other than:
a quote?
proof of trolling?
psychology?

you don't!

Why?
because a blog isn't a peer reviewed journal with standards to maintain. it's an opinionated post

this is the reason no one will take you seriously
it's also the reason you're considered a crank, troll or pseudoscience nut-job

if you can't tell the difference between source material and you think a blog is equivalent to a study, then the problem isn't science or mainstream scientists, it's you

Jul 30, 2016
What you're also implying is that you don't have or don't want to use critical reading skills to know whether this study is actually a practical proposal. I understand not wanting to waste mental bandwidth on something whose efficacy you might doubt, but if you don't read something you have reason to doubt critically here and there, and you only read things you agree with, how can you be reasonably assured that you know enough of the situation to be impartial?
This is correct, and deserves a 5. Confirmation bias works both ways. To dismiss an article because you disagree with it on a political or belief level is wrong on either side of the coin. If you have an objection to the findings, then take issue with the methods or the conclusions. If the methods are sound and the conclusions follow the evidence, then it is worthy of consideration.

Jul 30, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 30, 2016
/* Storing carbon is a waste of money to support a political agenda */

I also think, that it will make the carbon emissions worse, because it's energetically hungry. Better approach would be not to produce carbon dioxide at all - but it would require not to ignore scientific findings http://www.lenr-c.../acrobat and to really start work on it with full seriousness.

Whereas this deserves a one because he is not providing comments on science, but rather trying to promote something he "believes" should work despite all of the evidence suggesting that it actually does not. It is an example of confirmation bias - he wants it to be true, and so promotes anything he thinks offers support, and ignores anything else.

Zephir you are such a quack and a fraud.

Jul 30, 2016
"And now you want to introduce the Daily Mail - and that volcanic activity bullshit again."

http://rtechnews....rs-14342
http://www.dailym...ouse-gas
https://notalotof...df-1.pdf

Jul 30, 2016
Evidence for no carbon sequestration needed.
"A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice."
http://www.nasa.g...n-losses

Jul 30, 2016
"this is the reason no one will take you seriously"
I only take you seriously as a political threat. You are a true believer instead of a skeptic so you are anti science policing threads for heresy.

Jul 30, 2016
philandstacey, did you rad the entire article? It is already changing, and in 20-30 years it will all be over.

BTW, the problem in Antarctica is not the loss of glaciers, like in the rest of the world, but the fact they are dumping their large masses of ice into the seas, raising the sea levels.

At the same time, it is insufficient dilution to affect the oceanic acidification which threatens to kill the seas.

Jul 30, 2016
Well, let's have a look at this research:

New research shows that natural accumulations of carbon dioxide (CO2) that have been trapped underground for around 100,000 years have not significantly corroded the rocks above, suggesting that storing CO2 in reservoirs deep underground is much safer and more predictable over long periods of time than previously thought.


Nothing at all surprising or novel in this finding. The longevity and integrity of these structures are entirely dependent upon a certain set of circumstances.

So --anywhere that these particular circumstances exist, one can reasonably expect to find long term residence of entombed CO2.

The difficulty being that these circumstances are rare, and those reservoirs which are currently extant are the SURVIVORS.

Jul 30, 2016

The CO2 must remain buried for at least 10,000 years to avoid the impacts on climate. One concern is that the dilute acid, formed when the stored CO2 dissolves in water present in the reservoir rocks, might corrode the rocks above and let the CO2 escape upwards.



Again, entirely dependent upon the requisite preconditions, and essentially merely a question of well understood geochemistry. Replicating these conditions on a large enough scale to make them useful is another issue altogether, and one whose expense really isn't likely to be undertaken by Big Carbon.

Jul 30, 2016


The key component in the safety of geological storage of CO2 is an impermeable cap rock over the porous reservoir in which the CO2 is stored. Although the CO2 will be injected as a dense fluid, it is still less dense than the brines originally filling the pores in the reservoir sandstones, and will rise until trapped by the relatively impermeable cap rocks.



Except for the vast pressure differential needed for the injection and the added volume of material would very obviously pose a risk in terms of deformation and fracture of the entire structure and surrounding strata.

So much for "containment".

Jul 30, 2016

Sponsored by Shell, the team drilled deep down below the surface into one of these natural CO2 reservoirs to recover samples of the rock layers and the fluids confined in the rock pores.


Uh huh...

Their analysis studied the mineralogy and geochemistry of cap rock and included bombarding samples of the rock with neutrons at a facility in Germany to better understand any changes that may have occurred in the pore structure and permeability of the cap rock.


As I said before --all of this "testing", especially Neutron bombardment in A GERMAN LAB-- is entirely unecessary.

Simple, well-understood, time tested geochemistry would have supplied all the information needed.

Jul 30, 2016
The reality is this:

These extant reservoirs aren't likely to be able to accept any significant injection without structural degradation(= leaks and contamination, possibly seismic disturbance).

Currently, there is no technology available to replicate these conditions, let alone on a large enough scale for them to have any practical use.

Thirdly, the very fact of these structures' rarity should be a clue for any one with half a brain as to just how fragile they really are.

Lastly the fact that this "science" was funded by Shell should ring the alarm for the aforesaid half-brained.

Plainly a big smelly pile of Shellshite, that even the half-brained would know to avoid.

What they have done is to publicise this disinformation, knowing that it will never be accomplished, to lead us to think that they are working assiduously towards the "GEE WHIZ!" solution as they continue to poison, pollute and cook us all in the same pot.

DISTRACTION, pure and simple.

Jul 31, 2016
I only take you seriously as a political threat
@philkilledstacy
ROTFLMFAO
really? on PO?
politics will not take it's lead because of comments on a science news aggregate: it requires something a mite more substantial, and i am neither rich nor in politics
You are a true believer instead of a skeptic so you are anti science policing threads for heresy
1- i believe in science: i can prove you don't

2- you have yet to produce anything equivalent to a scientific study for your "skepticism"; you're just trying to justify your political fears

3- you have produced and shared no science, so that makes you (by definition) a pseudoscience advocate (or a fear-monger)

4- posting opinion and saying it's science demonstrates you're not educated enough to comprehend the difference in levels of evidence, like Bschitt, benni and all other conspiracist idiots claiming their brand of cult pseudoscience is more real

IOW- you're a paid hack or bad troll

Jul 31, 2016
/* Storing carbon is a waste of money to support a political agenda */

I also think, that it will make the carbon emissions worse, because it's energetically hungry. .


That is a totally illogical false inference; storing the carbon out of the atmosphere being "energetically hungry" doesn't "make the carbon emissions worse" because storing all the carbon out of the atmosphere logically implies NO carbon emissions! How can the carbon emissions be 'made' "worse" if NO emissions result?

(the cost effectiveness of carbon storage compared with the cost effectiveness of going all renewable sooner is an entirely different issue and one that I imply nothing about with the above comment)

Jul 31, 2016
@Caliban
I disagree. Th eoil industry is considering or already injecting much more dangerous gases, such as H2S.
http://www.ogj.co...ons.html


@phys1

You are absolutely right regarding what the eoil companies are doing.
You probably know that they are doing these things along with --even concurrently-- hydraulic fracturing.

Does this make you feel better?

More importantly, what, exactly, are you disagreeing with?

Jul 31, 2016
You are absolutely right regarding what the eoil companies are doing.
You probably know that they are doing these things along with --even concurrently-- hydraulic fracturing.

Does this make you feel better?

More importantly, what, exactly, are you disagreeing with?
I can't speak for Phys1 but I would guess he is alluding to something I also am in disagreement with. I don't think it matters who is paying for the research, and I think this could be an important means by which to reduce the amount of Co2 being released into the atmosphere. Yes Shell is continuing with their fracking and I do not support that, but that is a different battle.

I think they should be applauded, or at least not booed, for funding such studies and for making an effort to at least try and find the means to help reduce the carbon being added to the atmosphere. Take the good where you can find it!

Jul 31, 2016
Just because there are natural reservoirs of CO2 which have lasted for thousands of years is no assurance that reservoirs, natural or human made, will similarly last for thousands of years.

We are sequestering CO2 near high density population centers. A leak has the potential to kill hundreds or thousands of people.

Jul 31, 2016
The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is low, about .093%. Shouldn't we be more concerned with the reduction in the concentration of that which that unwanted CO2 is displacing? Or does that naturally beg the question, where is our O2 going? Is it being converted to CO2 because it is being used to support the combustion of jet fuels by way of the ridiculous amount of air travel over our skies?

This ridiculous amount of air travel.. http://www.duggle.../flight/ look at all the airplanes over the U.S.!

Jul 31, 2016
The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is low, about .093%. Shouldn't we be more concerned with the reduction in the concentration of that which that unwanted CO2 is displacing?
The short answer is no. It's not 'displacing" other gasses, it is adding to them.
Or does that naturally beg the question, where is our O2 going? Is it being converted to CO2 because it is being used to support the combustion of jet fuels by way of the ridiculous amount of air travel over our skies?
Well actually very little to jet fuels, although that is part of it. The bigger parts are the burning of coal and concrete production.

Concrete is outside your question, but as it relates to burning of coal, keep in mind that burning anything involves oxidation. So yes, O2 is being drawn out of the atmosphere. That is actually one of the reasons we know that humans are largely responsible for raising Co2 in the atmosphere.

Jul 31, 2016
"Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change."
"Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years."
http://www.telegr...old.html

Jul 31, 2016
http://principia-...tely-so/

"there isn't enough CO2 in the atmosphere to make much difference to the ocean's pH;"

Aug 01, 2016
http://principia-...tely-so/

"there isn't enough CO2 in the atmosphere to make much difference to the ocean's pH;"


That link is obviously a very infantile unscientific link that makes stupid emotional infantile hateful and even hysterical straw man argument with the "The Climate Alarmist's Case" name calling and gives a mass of misinformation, ignorant comments that reveal the commentator is completely ignorant of the basic physics involved, and lies.
If you want to know the truth rather than just this stupid propaganda, study basic physics properly and then come back to us.

Aug 01, 2016
http://principia-...tely-so/

"there isn't enough CO2 in the atmosphere to make much difference to the ocean's pH;"
@phil
take a look at the type of evidence you are posting as "proof" of your argument: it consists of political articles, fear-mongering sites and blatantly infantile and pseudoscience sites

that last link:
it is an opinion based upon politics (so much for their claims)

how can you tell?
1- it doesn't reference a single study that supports it's claim but tries to say it has a "scientist" who supports the claims- but the link goes to a site that refuses to guarantee the information is legit (see TOS)

2- it isn't a study yet it is trying to post information that "looks" legit

3- it doesn't even use a valid peer-reviewed journal as a source of material

4- it ain't peer reviewed at all

5- it'st source material comes form a site that is not only political, but has no scientific backing


Aug 01, 2016
You accuse Captain S. of not being critical in thinking - and yet you demonstrate the most amazing lack of critical thinking yourself. Your confirmation bias is off the charts. You are a little child in your thinking level
@greenO
fear is a powerful motivator

- and phil fears the delusional conspiracist potential, having fallen for the rhetoric while not being capable of comprehending the basics of the science


Aug 01, 2016
The name 'philistacy' is well chosen

In the fields of philosophy and aesthetics, the term philistinism describes the social attitude of anti-intellectualism that undervalues and despises art, beauty, spirituality, and intellect; "the manners, habits, and character, or mode of thinking of a philistine".[1] A philistine person is an individual who is smugly narrow of mind...

https://en.wikipe...istinism

'nuff said.

Aug 01, 2016
Does this make you feel better?

Go give yourself a big hug :-) .

I disagree with your arguments against injecting CO2, the worst that may happen is that it comes out through some [...]
Don't bark along with Dogbert ...


I see. But I don't think you do.

I would recommend that you do some reading in regards to the physics of the proposition. This process will requirre enormous amounts of pressure in order to inject the CO2(and in what form?)
into any structure which they deem useful.

Fracked gas is extracted from this and gtrater depths, and we already know of quite a few negative consequences from that alone, don't we?

Don't be fooled by some puff publicity piede, phys1-- this is a dangerous proposition, and, in any event, is as I said just some $hellshite intended to make you think that they are working on the answers.

They are not.

The only thing they're working on is making more PETRODOLLAR$.


Aug 02, 2016
Caliban
The only thing they're working on is making more PETRODOLLAR$.
And right now they are watching their profit margins, and stock values go down the crapper. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They can't make money with oil at $40 a barrel, but if they limit output - and push the cost up - renewable energy, and EV's gain the advantage even faster. The next 20 years are going to be interesting.


So what, basically, either they take the road to green energy because it's value is increasing or they'll miss it, maybe even foolishly pursue the way of petroleum and lose money?
I wonder if there's not other roads. They should have seen it coming after all.

Aug 02, 2016
CO2 is totally harmless compared to aggressive fracking chemicals or high pressure H2S.
Even if some CO2 leakage occurs, no big deal ? Dogbert's 100.000's of deaths are completely outrageous. [...] The other involved a faulty CO2 fire installation on a windstill day in a location surrounded by hills. No casualties there and again, not relevant. CO2 naturally comes out of the earth in many places and no one is killed.
NIMBY hysteria is all it is.


I see the problem here.

While you are usually quite savvy and scientifically literate and knowledgeable, the exception appears to be in regards to the issue at hand, which I'll chalk up to a lack of understanding on your part. I don't see any reason to get in a dogfight over this, so you may consider this to be my last words on the subject in this thread.

My apologies for condescending, vagueness, etc.


Aug 03, 2016
Global warming narrative is fanatical faith detached from reality because faith in reality has been deconstructed in a postmodern world where facts become ideological constructs. The democracy of the bell curve is voting for belief in simplicity right or wrong. Like greed creates financial bubbles a craving for meaning inflates belief creating a political bubble of fanaticism.

Aug 03, 2016
Global warming narrative is fanatical faith
@philf*ckwad
1- a faith is the belief of something without (or despite) evidence
but AGW is supported by overwhelming amounts of evidence
therefore, by definition, you've just labeled yourself an idiotic fanatic faith/political based believer of delusion

See also: http://journals.p....0075637

2- if you had evidence of your claim, you would be more popular than the second coming to the xtians [hyperbole intended]
The democracy of the bell curve is voting for belief
1- science isn't a democracy: it's all based upon evidence

2- you can't vote for science to be "true". that's called politics: you're demonstrating that your political (and other) fears are more real to you than proven validated science, which indicate you are the only one who is delusional

congratulations: you just validated the study i linked in this very post

Aug 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 04, 2016
I detect a racial bias against the Philistines here.
https://en.wikipe...listines

i doubt it

it is similar to the use of "good samaritan" by people as well as being of the same or similar source

it's a phrase or turn of phrase that is, on the surface, indicative of a specific meaning as it is based upon a parable, story or message often used to teach some point

i don't think there is any prejudice or bias in it...

it's like calling any North American Indigenous tribal member an "indian"

Aug 04, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 05, 2016
"One of the worst consequences of the global warming scam is the corrupting effect it has had on science – to the point where even senior professors and heads of department no longer appear to understand what science actually is."
http://www.breitb...science/

Aug 05, 2016
"THE MASSIVE Greenland ice sheet is being melted as a result of heat emitted from within the Earth, rather than rising atmospheric temperatures, a new NASA study has claimed."

http://www.expres...-warming

Aug 10, 2016
It's not 'displacing" other gasses, it is adding to them.
If CO2 content is increasing in our atmosphere, then the relative percentages of all the gases in our atmosphere are changing. Simple math. O2 and C become CO2, therefore it is a pretty safe bet that we are losing oxygen content. Don't do the math via how much CO2 is represented by x amount of fuel, rather, do it by how many cubic meters of oxygenated air is being sucked up into the compressors in those jet engines every second of every day and pushed out as CO2-laden exhaust. Don't say that it's negligible,because it ain't. Add to that the deforestation that everyone is so concerned about even while it brazenly continues to denude vast swaths of territories. One of these eras in the not so distant future life will slowly and peacefully die off as it starves for lack of Oxygen. All because airlines and agro-industry want to make more money.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more