DITCH YOUR DIRTY ENERGY COMPANY

[ramblingboy42]

I received an email saying ditch your dirty energy company.

It states that the 3 major power companies in Australia produce 20% of Australia's carbon emissions which is a lot, in fact 82.5 million tons of CO2.

It states that by switching to a certified !00% carbon neutral free provider ie retailer that I can contribute to clean energy.

My question....how can a 100% carbon neutral free provider control where the power is sourced? Doesn't all power generated whether green or brown go into the mixer and fed into the one grid?

I don't think I can copy the email here as it contains company names.

Maybe if you google the title of this thread you may see it.

Anyway , I'm confused , it appears to me this organisation is saying you can buy clean/green power through them.

[cuppabillytea]

You're right. It all comes from the grid and a lot of it is from Coal fired power stations.
What they do is buy energy from renewables suppliers only and (don't quote me here because I don't really Know) For any that can't be supplied they by carbon offsets I suppose. I buy mine off one such Company because it's cheaper.

[JDNSW]

Yes - once the power goes into the grid, it is indistinguishable what came from coal and what is renewable. What is distinguishable, is who is paying for which type. At short intervals the market regulator matches demand and supply by asking for quotes to buy and sell, a bit like a stock exchange. A 'green' distributor might only buy from renewable suppliers, although at some times there may not be sufficient supply of renewables, and they would, as suggested, make it up by buying equivalent carbon credits. I suspect there is some question as to just how transparently this is actually carried out though! Same thought applies to 'ethical' investment companies.

[350RRC]

Lots of fleas on this dog.

DL

[Eevo]

power is expensive enough without making it more expensive

[ramblingboy42]

the idea of this email is that it was cheaper.....[bighmmm]

[AndyG]

Who certifies 100% carbon free suppliers,
How do carbon credits make the planet greener, or do we just assume somewhere someone is planting trees with no overheads no waste.
There have been enough reports of 'Charities' skimming the revenue to make a good lifestyle for the administrators, could this be the same.

I know where i work we have carbon minimization obligations, and we get audited annually, who audits those that gets the carbon credit money.

Skeptical, yes

[goingbush]

How can renewable energy be cheaper .

My provider buys the excess Electricity I generate from solar for .65c a kwh
And I only pay .24c Kwh to buy power from them .

I 'm happy about it , but I don't understand it.

[Roverlord off road spares]

Maybe it's a scam to get you to fit solar panels to your house and ditch the dirty power companies by making your own.

[Eevo]

Maybe it's a scam to get you to fit solar panels to your house and ditch the dirty power companies by making your own.

going to need a lot of solar panels.

[Ean Austral]

Maybe it's a scam to get you to fit solar panels to your house and ditch the dirty power companies by making your own.

Im not sure if its the same everywhere, but we recently fitted out our house with panels , and I was amazed that there was a limit to how much I was allowed to have. We got the maximum allowable in the Northern Territory which I think, but could be wrong was 4.8kw. That system has covered about 1/3 of our roof , and before they fitted the smart meter you could watch the old style meter run backwards.


My point is , if the authorities were serious they would let me install whatever size system I wanted and the more power I generated the better. I would be more than happy to fit the same size system on the other side of our house.

Cheers Ean

[Eevo]

Im not sure if its the same everywhere, but we recently fitted out our house with panels , and I was amazed that there was a limit to how much I was allowed to have. We got the maximum allowable in the Northern Territory which I think, but could be wrong was 4.8kw. That system has covered about 1/3 of our roof , and before they fitted the smart meter you could watch the old style meter run backwards.


My point is , if the authorities were serious they would let me install whatever size system I wanted and the more power I generated the better. I would be more than happy to fit the same size system on the other side of our house.

Cheers Ean


i think its 4.8kw on a single phase.

but your point is a good one.

[Ean Austral]

i think its 4.8kw on a single phase.

but your point is a good one.

We only have single phase here , it was bigger if we had 3 phase . At the end of the day what is the difference. If I can pump 10kw back into the grid then I should have the option, surely its not going to cause a melt down on the system. Sure I could buy a battery storage set up and go that way but why shouldn't I have the option to pump it straight into the grid.

Just tells me power companies are in bed with all sides of government and don't want the people affecting thier margins anymore than the minimum so it can look like fair trading.


Cheers Ean

[Eevo]

We only have single phase here , it was bigger if we had 3 phase . At the end of the day what is the difference. If I can pump 10kw back into the grid then I should have the option, surely its not going to cause a melt down on the system. Sure I could buy a battery storage set up and go that way but why shouldn't I have the option to pump it straight into the grid.

Just tells me power companies are in bed with all sides of government and don't want the people affecting thier margins anymore than the minimum so it can look far trading.


Cheers Ean

thats depends.
if the street/area has 3 phase. and your dumping 10kw on phase 1, and zero kw into phase 2 & 3. thats unbalanced and if that gets enough out of wack, it can damage equipment.

the power companies are in it for themselves.

[Ean Austral]

thats depends.
if the street/area has 3 phase. and your dumping 10kw on phase 1, and zero kw into phase 2 & 3. thats unbalanced and if that gets enough out of wack, it can damage equipment.

the power companies are in it for themselves.

My simple brain tells me that if as a country we are serious about having clean energy , then the power companies shouldn't be able to use what you say as a reason to stop people putting back into the grid. If they have the ability to supply it , then they should have the ability to receive it if that's what people want to do.

I do understand what you are saying, I worked with power generation for 30 yrs albeit on a smallish scale.

Cheers Ean

[JDNSW]

Eevo has, I think, the reason. The network is not designed to have large power inputs from residential blocks - it was designed to supply power to them.

[Ean Austral]

Eevo has, I think, the reason. The network is not designed to have large power inputs from residential blocks - it was designed to supply power to them.

yep - and as long as we are prepared to accept that and not insist on a change then renewable energy will remain a non serious alternative.

just my simplistic view of course.

cheers Ean

[Eevo]

yep - and as long as we are prepared to accept that and not insist on a change then renewable energy will remain a non serious alternative.

just my simplistic view of course.

cheers Ean

the cost to rewire the network to allow would be huge.
the grid is designed to be one way.

solar, wind, etc. all require changes to the grid. which cost money. need to look at the big picture.
your asking the power company to spend money changing the grid, so they can you buy less and spend less money with them. companies are here to make a profit and rip us off.

[goingbush]

Its about imbalance, if there are too many houses in the street on solar the network goes out of whack.

I learned the other day that your Inverter sets itself to the network frequency & runs 2volt higher . When the grid goes down your inverter senses the loss of 50hz so stops producing power. If you disconnect your main fuse & run a small generator back fed into your house the inverter will see 50hz & start producing power for your own consumption. Illegal but handy to know. just throw all the breakers except what you actually need to get by with.

[DiscoMick]

The three big power companies rank first, second and fourth on the list of the highest emitters of harmful emissions in this country because most of their power comes from burning coal.

When you sign up with a renewable energy company it boosts the viability of that business, which bills you directly.

The renewable company sells it's power into the continuous 24/7 spot market operated by the Australian National Energy Market Operator (ANEMO).
Solar and wind power bids are usually cheaper than coal power bids because, once constructed, solar and wind stations have low operating costs because sunshine and wind are free inputs. Once the loans are paid off, renewable power operating costs are even cheaper.

Coal generators, in contrast, have much higher operating costs because they have to pay to mine, buy, transport and burn the coal. Those costs rise every year. So, over time, renewable production costs fall while coal generation costs rise.
Every day, renewable power is offered to the market cheaper than coal power when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. Coal is only competitive when the wind and sunshine stop. So the coal companies inflate their prices then to recoup the income lost when they are undercut by renewables.
Adding batteries to solar and wind stations will mean they are the cheapest for even longer periods. This is how the market actually operates.

This is why the financiers are refusing to fund new coal power stations - they are becoming more uncompetitive every day.

This has been discussed more fully in Current Affairs, where political comment is allowed, so why not check that out?

[DiscoMick]

This is interesting for cutting power bills.

How to slash your power prices — by using your hot water system as a battery Solar panels innovation gives round-the-clock power without pricey battery storage - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://ab.co/2va5T2Y) - via @abcnews

[Eevo]

Illegal but handy to know. just throw all the breakers except what you actually need to get by with.

as long as its not sending power to the grid, i dont think it would be illegal?

[Tins]

This has been discussed more fully in Current Affairs, where political comment is allowed, so why not check that out?

Sorry, but every post you put up, everything you quote, comes from the ABC or similar, who quite clearly have an agenda of their own.
There are far wider views available than what you will find in CA, or on the ABC. One is that "carbon" is a black particulate matter, and that CO2 is a colourless, odourless trace gas that is vital to life on this planet. So vital, in fact, that life as we know it could not exist without it. The two things, "carbon" and CO2 are completely different, yet you refuse to see or acknowledge that. Your posts continually demonstrate that you haven't taken this on board.
I can link you to countless sites that may educate you on this topic, but I am not going to join up with CA to do so. Broaden your horizons, stop accepting the spoon feeding that you are getting now, and join the real world.

[bee utey]

....and join the real world.

:Rolling::Rolling::Rolling:

[Tins]

:Rolling::Rolling::Rolling:

Care to share the joke, or are you just making fun for the sake of it? Can you point to where Mick is correct? Genuine scientific links, please, not opinion.

[ATH]

I think it's been shown many times that it wouldn't make a single jot of difference to the worlds emissions if Australia emitted nothing at all. So why are states such as SA wasting so much money on so called "free power" from the sun and wind?
And what about the 100 mill battery Tesla are proposing to install in SA? How long will that keep industry and homes going? What about the pubs? Will they have to shut early because they run out of candles?
I certainly believe we should be cutting pollution where ever we can (and that includes arseholes in 4 wheel drives leaving their rubbish behind at every camp site) but this madness about "carbon pollution" is garbage and all part of the biggest scam ever.
AlanH.

[Tins]

For the benefit of those who still hang on to the apron straps of Al Gore ( You know who you are, and you mostly defend SA's power policies ) read this:

Al Gore's Inconvenient Reality: Former VP's Home Energy Use Surges up to 34 Times the National Average Despite Costly Green Renovations (http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA679.html)

Fine bloke to be preaching, hey.

Q: Why do you follow the preachings of someone who refuses to practise them himself?

A: Madness. Nothing else answers it.

[bee utey]

Q: Why do you follow the preachings of someone who refuses to practise them himself?



It must be sad to be so profoundly ignorant of the history of science to imagine that the rational people need a "guru" to follow. Hint: the scientific underpinnings of CO2's contribution to global warming have been understood since the 1890's.

the science of global warming: good, bad, and ugly, Svante Arrhenius, Victor Miguel Ponce, San Diego State University (http://ponce.sdsu.edu/global_warming_science.html)

Which article is of course sooo totes biassed against fossil fools so can be dismissed with scorn. [bigsmile1]

Who's your guru? [bigrolf]

[DiscoMick]

Sorry, but every post you put up, everything you quote, comes from the ABC or similar, who quite clearly have an agenda of their own.
There are far wider views available than what you will find in CA, or on the ABC. One is that "carbon" is a black particulate matter, and that CO2 is a colourless, odourless trace gas that is vital to life on this planet. So vital, in fact, that life as we know it could not exist without it. The two things, "carbon" and CO2 are completely different, yet you refuse to see or acknowledge that. Your posts continually demonstrate that you haven't taken this on board.
I can link you to countless sites that may educate you on this topic, but I am not going to join up with CA to do so. Broaden your horizons, stop accepting the spoon feeding that you are getting now, and join the real world.
Sorry, but your post is just strange.
I didn't come here for a fight about carbon, I just pointed out how the renewable generation system is actually operating, in response to the OP.
Clearly you've been reading a lot of the fake news being spread by the coal industry.
Please get better sources of facts.

[Tins]

Who's your guru? [bigrolf]

Not someone you cherrypick from 100 years ago, that is for sure. Got someone a little more contemporary?? Or is that little laughing man your sig for everything. Come on , I believe you when you talk about fuel systems, make me believe you about your God. You will need to work harder though. What you have done so far is crap.

[ATH]

I don't think I've ever seen figures for the manufacture of wind turbines when ever people spout about their cost against that of traditional ways of power generation.
The costs I'm on about are those huge foundations necessary to hold up turbines with blades 300' long? Must at least be as long as they are high and totally indestructible.
What about the enormous amount of concrete they use to build the things?
How much energy goes into that?
What about the ongoing maintenance and replacement of parts? They don't seem to be particularly long lived from what I've read.
After the initial cost of solar it may be viable, I don't know personally, but what's OK here with many hours of sun but what about the gloomy continents like Europe?
I can't see 500 million people getting enough power from either wind or solar without truly huge battery banks and where are they going to be sited? On productive farm land maybe?
Too many charlatans like Gore and Musk involved for my liking and too many pollies enjoying never ending jollies to talk about it while screwing us for yet higher energy bills and blaming non existent global warming.
AlanH.

[Tins]

Sorry, but your post is just strange.
I didn't come here for a fight about carbon, I just pointed out how the renewable generation system is actually operating.
Clearly you've been reading a lot of the fake news being spread by the coal industry.
Please get better sources of facts.


Sorry, Mick, but you need to go back over what you have posted. Everything has included a position about "carbon", including the post I responded to. Have a look.

[bee utey]

Not someone you cherrypick from 100 years ago, that is for sure. Got someone a little more contemporary?? Or is that little laughing man your sig for everything. Come on , I believe you when you talk about fuel systems, make me believe you about your God. You will need to work harder though. What you have done so far is crap.

Why? No belief required, just basic scientific understanding. If you have none of that I'm afraid I can't help you. Arrhenius's 1890's understanding of the absorptive properties of CO2 have yet to be soundly debunked by anyone.

[trout1105]

We already have the technology to create electricity more efficiently, more environmentally friendly and cheaper than gas and coal fired power stations.
It's called nuclear power plants, Much cheaper and reliable that solar or wind generation and there is also NO need for any batteries.
We also have abundant fuel resources right here in Australia so we won't be held to ransom by oil or gas companies like we are now either.

[cuppabillytea]

We already have the technology to create electricity more efficiently, more environmentally friendly and cheaper than gas and coal fired power stations.
It's called nuclear power plants, Much cheaper and reliable that solar or wind generation and there is also NO need for any batteries.
We also have abundant fuel resources right here in Australia so we won't be held to ransom by oil or gas companies like we are now either.

Some people still remember Tree Mile Island. Most remember Chernobyl. Nearly all know of Fukushima. Nukes give people the jitters and most don't want to know about it. Good luck getting that one up.
Energy companies are pretty much the same regardless of what they peddle.
To my mind making and storing your own seems more and more the way to go. Jump off the grid.
The US experience is that the more people jump off the grid, the higher goes the price to compensate for the losses. The higher the price, the more people jump off the grid. They call it "Die Back".
I suspect that one of the reasons that Electricity is so expensive, is that we have to pay for the infrastructure that was put there to supply the manufacturers who have jumped off the grid and right out of the Country.

[Eevo]

Some people still remember Tree Mile Island. Most remember Chernobyl. Nearly all know of Fukushima. Nukes give people the jitters and most don't want to know about it. Good luck getting that one up.
Energy companies are pretty much the same regardless of what they peddle.
To my mind making and storing your own seems more and more the way to go. Jump off the grid.
The US experience is that the more people jump off the grid, the higher goes the price to compensate for the losses. The higher the price, the more people jump off the grid. They call it "Die Back".
I suspect that one of the reasons that Electricity is so expensive, is that we have to pay for the infrastructure that was put there to supply the manufacturers who have jumped off the grid and right out of the Country.

tree mile: 1st gen tech and process. we've learnt from that
Chernobyl: we're not that stupid, poor technology
Fukushima: lets not build it on a fault line.


next argument please.

[cuppabillytea]

tree mile: 1st gen tech and process. we've learnt from that
Chernobyl: we're not that stupid, poor technology
Fukushima: lets not build it on a fault line.


next argument please.
If you read my post as it was intended to be read, you would see that I wasn't making an argument. I was merely alluding to a determinant of political will. If you want an argument against Nuclear energy I believe it's an economic one, but thats just what I've heard and I haven't looked into it. From memory ( not good in my case) it has something to do with the cost of dealing with the waste.

[Eevo]

If you read my post as it was intended to be read, you would see that I wasn't making an argument. I was merely alluding to a determinant of political will. If you want an argument against Nuclear energy I believe it's an economic one, but thats just what I've heard and I haven't looked into it. From memory ( not good in my case) it has something to do with the cost of dealing with the waste.

fair point, and i agree.

we have reactors now that are so efficient that can run on the waste.

and excess power can pull carbon from the air.

win-win!

[DiscoMick]

For the benefit of those who still hang on to the apron straps of Al Gore ( You know who you are, and you mostly defend SA's power policies ) read this:

Al Gore's Inconvenient Reality: Former VP's Home Energy Use Surges up to 34 Times the National Average Despite Costly Green Renovations (http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA679.html)

Fine bloke to be preaching, hey.

Q: Why do you follow the preachings of someone who refuses to practise them himself?

A: Madness. Nothing else answers it.
Typical example of climate change deniers making personal attacks to discredit people. His house has solar and geothermal so he's certainly doing his bit. Plus, the story doesn't mention that a large number of people work in the house, so it's not his personal consumption.
The site is The National Centre for Public Policy Research which is a private conservative propaganda organization with little credibility.

[DiscoMick]

I don't think I've ever seen figures for the manufacture of wind turbines when ever people spout about their cost against that of traditional ways of power generation.
The costs I'm on about are those huge foundations necessary to hold up turbines with blades 300' long? Must at least be as long as they are high and totally indestructible.
What about the enormous amount of concrete they use to build the things?
How much energy goes into that?
What about the ongoing maintenance and replacement of parts? They don't seem to be particularly long lived from what I've read.
After the initial cost of solar it may be viable, I don't know personally, but what's OK here with many hours of sun but what about the gloomy continents like Europe?
I can't see 500 million people getting enough power from either wind or solar without truly huge battery banks and where are they going to be sited? On productive farm land maybe?
Too many charlatans like Gore and Musk involved for my liking and too many pollies enjoying never ending jollies to talk about it while screwing us for yet higher energy bills and blaming non existent global warming.
AlanH.
The whole earth is solar powered, so more than 7 billion already get their energy from the sun. Without the Sun, we're all dead.

[DiscoMick]

If you read my post as it was intended to be read, you would see that I wasn't making an argument. I was merely alluding to a determinant of political will. If you want an argument against Nuclear energy I believe it's an economic one, but thats just what I've heard and I haven't looked into it. From memory ( not good in my case) it has something to do with the cost of dealing with the waste.
Nuclear is really expensive to construct and difficult to manage. Renewables are much cheaper, safer and easier to manage.

[JDNSW]

Nuclear is really expensive to construct and difficult to manage. Renewables are much cheaper, safer and easier to manage.

Unless you need continuous base load power. Then renewables get more expensive and more difficult to manage, although not necessarily more dangerous. Not that, taken over the whole industry worldwide, the nuclear industry is dangerous compared to other traditional power generation methods. The problem with nuclear is one of perception and hence politics, not economics, although these perceptions add enormously to the cost.

[Eevo]

i would argue that renewable is impossible to manage.
we cant manage the sun, the wind or the rain.

[bee utey]

i would argue that renewable is impossible to manage.
we cant manage the sun, the wind or the rain.

You can argue that all you like but what you really mean is "it is impossible to control 100.00%". People have been managing intermittent sun wind and rain for 1000's of years by using storage. And when storage is insufficient you reduce demand. The bigger a system is the easier it is to manage variable supply with storage and demand reduction. Then there is the magic process called Trade where you move commodities over large distances to meet local demand. It's been a successful strategy for millennia, why stop now? Water, food, fuel and power, all based on intermittent supply have been traded across thousands of km all over the world.

[bee utey]

We already have the technology to create electricity more efficiently, more environmentally friendly and cheaper than gas and coal fired power stations.
It's called nuclear power plants, Much cheaper and reliable that solar or wind generation and there is also NO need for any batteries.
We also have abundant fuel resources right here in Australia so we won't be held to ransom by oil or gas companies like we are now either.

If they're "much cheaper" how do you explain Westinghouse, US builder of nuclear power, going bankrupt? Reactor projects going billions of dollars over budget and getting shut down before they bankrupt entire states? Example:

S.C. utilities halt work on new nuclear reactors, dimming the prospects for a nuclear energy revival - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/sc-utilities-halt-work-on-new-nuclear-reactors-dimming-the-prospects-for-a-nuclear-energy-revival/2017/07/31/5c8ec4a0-7614-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?utm_term=.98894d410efe)


The long quest to revive the nation’s nuclear power industry suffered a crippling setback Monday when two South Carolina utilities halted construction on a pair of reactors that once were expected to showcase a modern design for a new age of nuclear power.

The project has been plagued by billions of dollars in cost overruns, stagnant demand for electricity, competition from cheap natural gas plants and renewables, and the bankruptcy of Westinghouse Electric (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/westinghouse-files-for-bankruptcy-in-a-blow-to-nuclear-power-industry/2017/03/29/4a64b6f2-1338-11e7-833c-503e1f6394c9_story.html?utm_term=.5a5b7a4501e3), the lead contractor and the designer of the AP1000 reactor that was supposed to be the foundation of a smarter, cheaper generation of nuclear power plants.
Instead, the partly finished South Carolina reactors, along with two others under construction in Georgia, have demonstrated that the main obstacle to new nuclear power projects is an economic one. The plants would be more viable if the federal government imposed a tax on carbon as part of climate change policy, but that seems unlikely.
“Today’s announcement is another powerful signal of just how bleak the outlook for nuclear in the United States is, a result of a hollowed-out nuclear industry, cheap gas, falling renewable costs and inadequate policies to account for the climate change costs of carbon emissions,” said Jason Bordoff, director of the Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy.
“Stronger climate policy as well as government support will be needed if we are to realize the much-heralded ‘nuclear renaissance,’ ” he added.



They need a carbon tax to survive! Endless taxpayer support!! Boondoggles!!!

[trout1105]

If they're "much cheaper" how do you explain Westinghouse, US builder of nuclear power, going bankrupt? Reactor projects going billions of dollars over budget and getting shut down before they bankrupt entire states? Example:



The Yanks would struggle to build a dunny for less than a Million bucks when it is a government contract [bigwhistle]


Toshiba has written off more than $6 billion in losses connected to its U.S. nuclear business, citing accounting problems, delays and cost overruns.

Of course a nuclear plant would cost more to build than a gas/coal one but the running costs would be Far cheaper, So in the Long run Yes nuclear power is a cheaper and cleaner option.

[DiscoMick]

i would argue that renewable is impossible to manage.
we cant manage the sun, the wind or the rain.
Sure we can, happens every day.

[Eevo]

Sure we can, happens every day.
can I have a little less windy and a bit warmer today please.
oh, and it only rain at night please.

[DiscoMick]

can I have a little less windy and a bit warmer today please.
oh, and it only rain at night please.

Don't you have air con?

[Eevo]

Don't you have air con?

not with the current price of renewable energy....

[cuppabillytea]

tree mile: 1st gen tech and process. we've learnt from that
Chernobyl: we're not that stupid, poor technology
Fukushima: lets not build it on a fault line.


next argument please.
Could you give us a rough estimate of the cost of these three lessons, Monetary, Human and Environmental?
Could you assure us that all possible lessons have been learned and that no further stuff ups will occur?

[Eevo]

Could you give us a rough estimate of the cost of these three lessons, Monetary, Human and Environmental?
Could you assure us that all possible lessons have been learned and that no further stuff ups will occur?


in australia: cost has been zero.

can never assure you of that, for nuclear or any technology, inclusion existing.

[cuppabillytea]

in australia: cost has been zero.

can never assure you of that, for nuclear or any technology, inclusion existing.

Ask not for whom the Cash Register cachinks. It cachinks for thee.

[Eevo]

Ask not for whom the Cash Register cachinks. It cachinks for thee.

I think its important as it differs betwwen countries

[DiscoMick]

Sorry, but every post you put up, everything you quote, comes from the ABC or similar, who quite clearly have an agenda of their own.
There are far wider views available than what you will find in CA, or on the ABC. One is that "carbon" is a black particulate matter, and that CO2 is a colourless, odourless trace gas that is vital to life on this planet. So vital, in fact, that life as we know it could not exist without it. The two things, "carbon" and CO2 are completely different, yet you refuse to see or acknowledge that. Your posts continually demonstrate that you haven't taken this on board.
I can link you to countless sites that may educate you on this topic, but I am not going to join up with CA to do so. Broaden your horizons, stop accepting the spoon feeding that you are getting now, and join the real world.

I've been pondering why you thought it important to say this:

One is that "carbon" is a black particulate matter, and that CO2 is a colourless, odourless trace gas that is vital to life on this planet. So vital, in fact, that life as we know it could not exist without it. The two things, "carbon" and CO2 are completely different, yet you refuse to see or acknowledge that. Your posts continually demonstrate that you haven't taken this on board.

Obviously, I do know the difference between carbon and CO2, and I know some things about the role of CO2, although I don't claim to be an expert I also know that CO2 in the atmosphere has roughly doubled in the last two centuries and is one of the major causes of the rapid warming of the atmosphere. So, I'm curious about why you thought your comments were important. Would you mind explaining, please?

[Eevo]

humans are carbon lifeforms

[DiscoMick]

humans are carbon lifeforms

Yep, but we would have to burn an awful lot of humans to make much difference to the atmosphere, I think.

[Eevo]

Yep, but we would have to burn an awful lot of humans to make much difference to the atmosphere, I think.

dont need to burn them to make a difference to the atmosphere

[Mick_Marsh]

An interesting read here:
Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere)

A couple of points that stand out to me:


concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have varied from as high as 7,000 parts per million (ppm) during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago to as low as 180 ppm during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years


The increase has been caused by human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

What we need to do is not only stop deforestation
Deforestation - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation)
Madagascar has lost 90% of its eastern rainforests. As of 2007, less than 50% of Haiti's forests remained. Mexico, India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Burma, Malaysia, Bangladesh, China, Sri Lanka, Laos, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Guinea, Ghana and the Ivory Coast, have lost large areas of their rainforest.
but promote reforestation on a large scale. Let Australia be the lungs of the earth.

We should also be growing large forests for harvesting.
We could capture and store this carbon by building houses out of wood, not bricks and mortar.
We should move to a wood based economy. Build things out of wood.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2017/08/180.jpg
our energy should be sourced from wood
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2017/08/181.jpg
and everything should be made from wood.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2017/08/182.jpg

[350RRC]

Agree Mick.

Reforestation is actually going on over large parts of northern Oz and elsewhere without anyone planting a tree.

Just an outcome of the effect of land clearing that happened in the past for purposes that turned out to be 'fruitless'.

DL

[cuppabillytea]

dont need to burn them to make a difference to the atmosphere
You don't need to. Thats right, but it would make a big difference.