Willis Eschenbach's guest post
Well, I see that Canadian climate scammers are better than school teachers in Philadelphia in simple arithmetic. This is Canada's outstanding plan-forced use of CO2 direct air capture (DAC). DAC means to extract carbon dioxide directly from the air and pump it deep underground, where it will not escape. Theoretically speaking.
From the article:
The Canadian DAC agreement is not only voluntary credit. It lays the foundation for DAC and integrates it into a compliance carbon market. At present, compliance markets such as the EU emission trading system and California and California dominate global carbon transactions.
By allowing the main launcher from power plants to manufacturing facilities to purchase DAC offset to meet the government's regulations, this transition will greatly increase the demand for DAC points. This transformation will greatly expand the investment in DAC infrastructure, and the cost will be reduced over time.
Oh my god, this sounds like a climate nirvana. What do you like?
As usual, the devil is the US dollar … this is how to do this.
All Federal budgets in Canada are about $ 450 billion. (CAD = Canadian dollar)
Canada emits about 550 million tons of carbon dioxide each year.
According to the article again:
According to CDR.Fyi, it has purchased more than 1.6 million tons of DAC carbon credit for $ 470 per ton to date.
CAD is $ 470 per ton of 550 million tons/year ≈ CAD is $ 260 billion per year.
They suggest that spending (DAC) each year is directly captured (DAC), which is equal to 60 % of the total Canadian budget … this will not help. Nothing will happen. No Canadians will be rich. No one will be fed or dressed. Will not create any value.
As I said before, the law requires anyone to propose such a climate plan to publish the calculation of temperature saving in the idea of genius. The following is a plan calculation using IPCC assumptions. Please pay attention I don’t say that IPCC claims that CO2 is the temperature control knob is correctEssence I just use their assumptions to calculate the impact of climate policy, if they are correct.
After thinking about it, I accidentally discovered a simple method to use IPCC assumptions to estimate the relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and temperature. However, I first need to issue warnings to people who are allergic to mathematics. Don't be afraid, this is just a multiplication. This is a warning:
Therefore, the following Figure 1 shows calculations. I think I think I think I will cut off the mist instead of using emissions to calculate the changes in the level of carbon dioxide. Instead, the changes in the carbon dioxide levels are used to calculate the change of carbon dioxide forced.
I decided to ignore all intermediate steps, just check the relationship between emission and temperature.
Figure 1. The surface temperature and surface temperature of the Berkeley Earth year, the human estimation from the formula of the top of the figure is the estimation of carbon dioxide emissions. The emissions are Gigaton, GT, which is 1 billion tons or 10^9 tonsEssence And remind you that related causality. I can use the crowd to replace the emissions. I can be related to the temperature, but I am out of the problem …
Please pay attention to the simplicity of this method. If the IPCC is correct, the temperature that avoids the avoidance of the A degree on C degrees is the total number of CO2 emissions avoided in Gigatons, times. 0008 degrees Celsius/ Gigaton C.
For example, I found this:
How many tons of carbon dioxide emissions are there in the wind farm in the neighborhood?
About 40,000 tons per year
Despite the moderate size, the wind farm of about 300 million US dollars still represents a substantial decrease in carbon dioxide emissions-about 40,000 tons per year.
Similarly, the use of IPCC claims is correct. Using the conversion coefficient of 0.0008 ° C using CO2 emissions to avoid using CO2 emissions, we find that Block Island avoids the temperature of 0.00000003 ° C each year.
Obviously “Significant reduction” … This is more information about the defeat on the street island.
This is another example. IEA said in 2022:
The deployment of increasing clean energy technology (such as renewable energy, electric vehicles and heat pumps) helps to prevent carbon dioxide emissions by 550 tons.
It sounds impressive, well … But when we convert the temperature to temperature, it can avoid warming from all technologies of 0.0004 ° C per year … it takes a while at this speed.
In order to return to Canada, the above 7.4 GT avoided carbon dioxide emissions was 2050. The cost of direct air capture (DAC) per ton is $ 470, which will cost about $ 3.5 trillion.
For this huge cost, the possible theoretical cooling of 2050AD will not be one -tenth of a degree. It will not even be a hundred degrees.
This will be one of the sixths of the sorrow. Lost noise. Unable to measure.
Canada proposes to cost trillions of dollars to make the result too small but not measure. Avoid warming from 0.006 ° C to 2050Essence How to think of it as a reasonable action plan?
Finally, please don't say “However, if Canada does this, the rest will follow their lofty model!” The like. First of all, the Chinese and Indians will not follow, they are realists. Next, almost every other country is waking up and realized that from now on, it costs $ 3.5 trillion to cool down from 0.006 ° C every quarter century. This is Bull Goose Looney, let alone It is completely unbearable.
Interesting facts today. Only three countries are still committed to “by 2050”, the chimeric concept of Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom. The Commonwealth needs to wake up. People were foolish. This is what Canadians think they are doing.
Wow, impressive! Carbon dioxide emissions have been flat! Let's throw more money!
However, in the real world, this is how Canada has changed.
No matter how many trillion dollars have beented in discharge control, there will be no difference. Canada may enter zero tomorrow. This will not be different.
Wake up, dear friends!
After the backbone in January, the “Pineapple Express” once again faced the Pacific Ocean northwest. From midnight, we plan to rain 5 inches (125 mm) in the next week.
As a result, the world is constantly changing again. What do you like?
I am best at each of you
W.
As usual: I ask, when you comment, you will quote the exact word you are discussing. I can defend my words. I can't defend your explanation of my words.
Related
Discover more from Watt?
Subscribe to send the latest post to your email.
