BajaNomad

The palm tree is going two feet under water

 Pages:  1  ..  9    11    13  ..  21

mtgoat666 - 5-13-2023 at 03:30 PM

Quote: Originally posted by surabi  
Quote: Originally posted by JZ  
Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666  

I see elec cars everywhere, the tide has turned, most people prefer e cars… new ice cars will be extinct in 15 years.

[Edited on 5-13-2023 by mtgoat666]


Just bought my wife a Genesis GV70 for mother's day. 370hp. Went with forest green to help with environment. Might go EV next time.



What possible reason is there to post a giant photo of the shiny new car you bought your wife except to brag for attention.


It’s just a Hyundai with fancier leather, different plastic trim, and extra sound insulation.

surabi - 5-13-2023 at 03:38 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Lobsterman  
. I cannot think of a more impractical car on a road trip than an ev.


And this is why the planet is suffering- because people like you aren't willing to be the least bit inconvenienced.

Don Pisto - 5-13-2023 at 03:59 PM

Quote: Originally posted by surabi  
Quote: Originally posted by Lobsterman  
. I cannot think of a more impractical car on a road trip than an ev.


And this is why the planet is suffering- because people like you aren't willing to be the least bit inconvenienced.


just being nomads!:lol:


JZ - 5-14-2023 at 01:36 PM

Elon has ideas on how to solve water shortages and rising sea levels.





[Edited on 5-14-2023 by JZ]

mtgoat666 - 5-14-2023 at 02:43 PM

Quote: Originally posted by JZ  
Elon has idea's on how to solve water shortages and rising sea levels.





[Edited on 5-14-2023 by JZ]


Desal cost a lot more than well water or surface water. Like 10x more.

Cliffy - 5-14-2023 at 03:28 PM

BoLA used to have a nice desal plant right on the waters edge in town

It went he way of all other Baja improvements-wasted away

elgatoloco - 5-14-2023 at 03:54 PM

"We will not stop until every car on the road is electric." - Elon Musk on his Master Plan

AKgringo - 5-14-2023 at 05:03 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  
BoLA used to have a nice desal plant right on the waters edge in town

It went he way of all other Baja improvements-wasted away


What did they do with the concentrated minerals left over from the desalinization process?

mtgoat666 - 5-17-2023 at 06:41 PM

Heat Will Likely Soar to Record Levels in Next 5 Years, New Analysis Says
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/17/climate/record-heat-forec...

The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof
Definitive answers to the big questions.
https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warmin...

RFClark - 5-17-2023 at 07:26 PM

Goat,

Sounds like a way more serious response than just rearranging the deck chairs is required! Perhaps a cruse missile or two into a few coal loading & offloading facilities to underscore that there are just 5 years until the end of the world.

Oh, that’s right there’s a coal shipping facility right here in Long Beach CA. Imagine that! California could shut it down in minutes. No cruse missile required!

[Edited on 5-18-2023 by RFClark]

Cliffy - 5-17-2023 at 08:15 PM

Quote: Originally posted by AKgringo  
Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  
BoLA used to have a nice desal plant right on the waters edge in town

It went he way of all other Baja improvements-wasted away


What did they do with the concentrated minerals left over from the desalinization process?


I think they were flushed back into the sea This is Baja not So Cal
We're not talking millions of gallons here Probably less than 10,000/day

surabi - 5-18-2023 at 01:20 AM

A desal plant that only produces less than 10,000 gal./day would really only be useful for a very small community of people or as back-up if wells were running low.
Average water usage per person per day is 60 gallons. Of course, some people are much more conservative with water than others. And that stat is for the US- Mexicans are probably far more frugal with water than Americans, because they know that water gushing out of the tap 24/7 isn't something they can rely on. But if we go by 60 gallons per day/person, 10,000 gallons would provide enough water for 166 people for 1 day.


[Edited on 5-18-2023 by surabi]

[Edited on 5-18-2023 by surabi]

RFClark - 5-18-2023 at 04:32 AM

The Weight of New York City: Possible Contributions to Subsidence From Anthropogenic Sources

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022EF00...

What this means is that while we have always known the sea is rising, we now know that the land is sinking too! Cities can literally sink under their own weight.

mtgoat666 - 5-18-2023 at 05:08 AM

Quote: Originally posted by surabi  
A desal plant that only produces less than 10,000 gal./day would really only be useful for a very small community of people or as back-up if wells were running low.
Average water usage per person per day is 60 gallons. Of course, some people are much more conservative with water than others. And that stat is for the US- Mexicans are probably far more frugal with water than Americans, because they know that water gushing out of the tap 24/7 isn't something they can rely on. But if we go by 60 gallons per day/person, 10,000 gallons would provide enough water for 166 people for 1 day.


[Edited on 5-18-2023 by surabi]

[Edited on 5-18-2023 by surabi]


Bola population is probably under 1000.

mtgoat666 - 5-18-2023 at 04:27 PM

BLAME IT ON A GRINGO BAJA NOMAD!

Mexico plans to ban solar geoengineering after rogue experiment
A US startup carried out a geoengineering experiment in Mexico, which the country claims was done without prior notice and consent
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/how-two-weather...

MEXICO CITY, March 27 (Reuters) - On an April day, the founder of a U.S. startup called Make Sunsets stood outside a camper van in Mexico’s Baja California and released two weather balloons containing sulfur dioxide into the air, letting them float towards the stratosphere.

Entrepreneur Luke Iseman said the sulfur dioxide in the balloons would deflect sunlight and cool the atmosphere, a controversial climate strategy known as solar geoengineering. Mexico said the launch violated its national sovereignty.

Iseman, 39, said he does not know what happened to the balloons. But the unauthorized release, which became public in January, has already had an impact: setting off a series of responses that could set the rules for future study of geoengineering, especially by private companies, in Mexico and around the world.

Iseman told Reuters in an email he chose Mexico because "most researchers report that particles launched into the stratosphere near the tropics will create more cooling by staying up longer." Also, he had a truck and camper in Baja and thinks the region is beautiful, he wrote.

surabi - 5-18-2023 at 04:52 PM

Another entitled American who thinks he can do whatever he wants in Mexico without permission.

SFandH - 5-18-2023 at 05:19 PM

Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666  

Entrepreneur Luke Iseman said the sulfur dioxide in the balloons would deflect sunlight and cool the atmosphere,


sulfur dioxide plus water yields sulfuric acid

not a good idea

JDCanuck - 5-18-2023 at 06:27 PM

Another carbon removal initiative?
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/charm-industrial-getting-5...

tomieharder - 5-18-2023 at 09:39 PM

Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666  
Heat Will Likely Soar to Record Levels in Next 5 Years, New Analysis Says
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/17/climate/record-heat-forec...

The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof
Definitive answers to the big questions.
https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warmin...



[img][/img]

surabi - 5-19-2023 at 12:02 AM

How many times are you going to post that mean-spirited meme, tomie? Or do you just forget what you've already posted?

tomieharder - 5-19-2023 at 08:37 AM

Quote: Originally posted by surabi  
How many times are you going to post that mean-spirited meme, tomie? Or do you just forget what you've already posted?


Honey, how many times are you going to do your virtue signaling right after getting off the Airbus 300 you flew from Vancouver to Puerto Vallarta? That plane consumed 4,500 gallons of fuel to carry your butt all that distance. That is 9 times what the average car in the US consumes in an entire year of use.

And Cooper lives in the middle of the desert, where an EV is entirely useless. He couldn't even get to Tucson and back on one charge.

What a bunch of crepe hangers!

JDCanuck - 5-19-2023 at 08:41 AM

New Chev Silverado base EV already sold out 1 year in advance, priced the same as the original F-150 Lightning Pro at just under 40,000 before rebates. Luxury models run all the way up over 100,000 in price.

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/pictures/2024-chevy-silverado-...

Don Pisto - 5-19-2023 at 10:30 AM

Quote: Originally posted by JDCanuck  
New Chev Silverado base EV already sold out 1 year in advance, priced the same as the original F-150 Lightning Pro at just under 40,000 before rebates. Luxury models run all the way up over 100,000 in price.

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/pictures/2024-chevy-silverado-...


without getting into the whole EV debate, that sure is a purdy work truck!:D

JDCanuck - 5-19-2023 at 11:30 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Don Pisto  
Quote: Originally posted by JDCanuck  
New Chev Silverado base EV already sold out 1 year in advance, priced the same as the original F-150 Lightning Pro at just under 40,000 before rebates. Luxury models run all the way up over 100,000 in price.

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/pictures/2024-chevy-silverado-...


without getting into the whole EV debate, that sure is a purdy work truck!:D


This is the stripped down fleet model, similar to the original F-150 Lightning Pro. Due to high initial demand on the work vehicles, they will be selling the "luxury" ones for much higher prices. North Americans love their luxury trucks, it seems.

Similar to the fleet model of the F-150 Lightning Pro, they should be able to buy these with full rebates for the cost of an inexpensive small car and realize next to no, if any depreciation for the first 5 years on top of the reduced operating expenses to use them as work trucks.

[Edited on 5-19-2023 by JDCanuck]

SFandH - 5-19-2023 at 04:32 PM

Quote: Originally posted by JDCanuck  
New Chev Silverado base EV already sold out 1 year in advance, priced the same as the original F-150 Lightning Pro at just under 40,000 before rebates. Luxury models run all the way up over 100,000 in price.

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/pictures/2024-chevy-silverado-...


I heard on the radio news that EVs chew up tires 30 to 50% faster cuz of the extra weight. Great!! More tire dust to breathe, more COPD. Unintended consequences.

mtgoat666 - 5-19-2023 at 05:27 PM

Quote: Originally posted by SFandH  
Quote: Originally posted by JDCanuck  
New Chev Silverado base EV already sold out 1 year in advance, priced the same as the original F-150 Lightning Pro at just under 40,000 before rebates. Luxury models run all the way up over 100,000 in price.

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/pictures/2024-chevy-silverado-...


I heard on the radio news that EVs chew up tires 30 to 50% faster cuz of the extra weight. Great!! More tire dust to breathe, more COPD. Unintended consequences.


E motos have much greater acceleration, so increased tire wear probably mostly from lead-foot driving

surabi - 5-19-2023 at 05:41 PM

Quote: Originally posted by tomieharder  


Honey, how many times are you going to do your virtue signaling right after getting off the Airbus 300 you flew from Vancouver to Puerto Vallarta? That plane consumed 4,500 gallons of fuel to carry your butt all that distance. That is 9 times what the average car in the US consumes in an entire year of use.

/rquote]

First of all, addressing me as "Honey" is a misogynist's typical method of dismissing what a woman has to say.
Secondly, an airplane doesn't use 4500 gallons of fuel to transport me from Vancouver to Puerto Vallarta- it uses that much fuel to transport over 400 passengers, so about 10 gallons per person. And considering that most passengers weigh far more than I do, like double in this day and age of mass obesity, it probably is more like 5 gallons per small person like me.

None of us is perfect when it comes to doing what we can to be environmentally conscious. That doesn't mean that suggesting and living in ways to lessen our impact is "virtue-signalling" or that we have no right to discuss those things because we occasionally take an airline flight.



[Edited on 5-20-2023 by surabi]

[Edited on 5-20-2023 by surabi]

mtgoat666 - 5-19-2023 at 06:04 PM

a commercial airliner gets 40 to 100 mpg per pax.

2 to 4 pax in a 30 mpg car often gets mileage per pax than an airliner.

you people driving solo or double in a v8 pickup probably are less efficient than an airliner.

Btw, you jet setters get around 0.5 mpg per passenger when you fly private jets.

;;;

SOCIAL COST OF CARBON
The social cost of carbon (SCC) is an estimate of the cost, in dollars, of the damage done by each additional ton of carbon emissions. It also is an estimate of the benefit of any action taken to reduce a ton of carbon emissions.

HOW IS THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON USED?
Policymakers who are weighing regulatory proposals that may increase or curb carbon emissions can use the SCC as an input to their decisions. For example, if a policy to prevent one ton of carbon emissions costs less than the SCC, then the benefits of the policy outweigh the costs and it pays for itself in the long run. If the policy is more expensive than the SCC, the costs outweigh the benefits. Currently, the federal governments of both the U.S. and Canada, as well as several states, use the SCC when considering policy options.

The SCC has been used to determine fuel economy standards in the U.S., and five states require electric utility companies to consider the SCC in their operations. Though these considerations might increase household and business expenses in the short term, if a policy costs less than the SCC, excess carbon emissions in the long term would have cost society even more than the increased prices of goods in the short term.

WHAT ARE THE ESTIMATES OF THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON?
They vary. The Obama administration initially estimated the social cost of carbon at $43 a ton globally, while the Trump administration only considered the effects of carbon emissions within the United States, estimating the number to be between $3 and $5 per ton. As it stands, the official estimate from the Biden administration is $51, but in November 2022, the EPA proposed a nearly fourfold increase to $190. (The EPA is weighing public comments on that proposal.)

——

Learn more:
Stanford explainer: Social cost of carbon
https://news.stanford.edu/2021/06/07/professors-explain-soci...

What are the greatest costs associated with carbon emissions?

The short answer: The greatest costs to an economy depend on its structure, but significant costs associated with carbon emissions include impacts on agriculture, human health and labor productivity.

Longer answer: This is still debated. The costs depend to some degree on how an economy is structured. In many tropical countries, impacts on agriculture are likely the most important. In industrialized countries such as the U.S., where agriculture is a small share of the overall economic output, impacts on health and labor productivity are the most important effects.

For example, many studies now show very clearly that our productivity at work declines quickly as the temperature gets hot. If that happens to every single person in an economy, even if the temperature has gone up only a little bit, economy-wide effects can be quite large.

There’s also very good research showing that hotter temperatures lead to worse health outcomes. Hot temperatures directly affect cardiovascular function and that is linked with heat stroke and heat-related deaths. Homicides, suicides and traffic accidents also all go up in response to high temperatures.



[Edited on 5-20-2023 by mtgoat666]

TMW - 5-20-2023 at 08:31 AM

The EV chevy looks like the chevy Avalanche from the picture in the article.

RFClark - 5-20-2023 at 08:45 AM

Goat,

60 mpg Hybrid with 2 people and cargo goes from the 28th to Costco in Mexicali on 37L of gas!

RFClark - 5-20-2023 at 08:51 AM

Goat,

60 mpg Hybrid with 2 people and cargo goes from the 28th to Costco in Mexicali on 37L of gas!

tomieharder - 5-20-2023 at 09:09 AM




So then, Arizona has 16 coal-fired powerplants, which produce only 45% of the power demand, but 83% of the carbon dioxide emissions, so people like Cooper can claim they are saving the environment by driving their EV, which they are charging with coal burning powerplants.

When are guys going to figure out that you don't have the complete story? How many tons of coal will need to be burned to produce the energy for your EV trip to the border from the 28th? Hmmmmm?

mtgoat666 - 5-20-2023 at 09:16 AM

Quote: Originally posted by RFClark  
Goat,

60 mpg Hybrid with 2 people and cargo goes from the 28th to Costco in Mexicali on 37L of gas!


Nomads drive 4x4 trucks! Driving a truck makes your pecker bigger!

SFandH - 5-20-2023 at 10:21 AM

Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666  
Driving a truck makes your pecker bigger!


Really? I'm gonna buy two! One-ton dually diesels, so I can tow my luxury 40-foot, triple axle, 5th-wheel pop-out condominium
to the beach and my 32-foot center-console fishing boat with triple 150 hp Honda outboards.
But hey, I have a low carbon footprint. I have 10 solar panels and 5 lithium batteries! ;)

I actually saw all of this stuff at Bahia Concepcion this past winter. Conspicuous consumption.

Consumerism is the root cause of atmospheric warming. You have to burn a lot of fossil fuel to make all the non-essential stuff people buy.


[Edited on 5-20-2023 by SFandH]

[Edited on 5-20-2023 by SFandH]

RFClark - 5-21-2023 at 05:06 AM

Goat,

Wrong as usual!

Frequent strenuous exercise not driving a big set of wheels is how you build up your body!

Cliffy - 5-21-2023 at 07:42 AM

What is the cleanest "reliable" 24/7 power source available today?
Recycling its waste yields more usable material and lessens the total impact of the final waste product, except we can't do that because of a fear of plutonium production. False hysterical fears governing policy.

I wonder how much CO2 humans and animals give off in relation to other emitters? Shall we include ants? The most numerous specie on the planet? I'm asking, I don't know. Plants thrive on CO2 don't they?

Even in the article cited above there are "detractors" to it included in the article with cautious if not opposite views to the articles premise.
How long will it be before they are called "deniers" or heretics for their counter position? Scientists all but differing views.

Sounds like normal science to me
I wonder why that is a fear of one side of the question?

RFClark - 5-21-2023 at 08:37 AM

Cliffy,

I believe that ants and termites are at the top of the CO2 list for multi-cell animals. They are also at the top of the list for Methane emission.

JZ - 5-21-2023 at 09:54 AM

Scotland uses diesel generators to power wind farm.

https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2023/02/06/dozens-of-giant-t...

Cliffy - 5-21-2023 at 11:10 AM

Has anyone here except me actually seen the thousands of wind machines off the European coast? Thousands of them

If the premise that they save on carbon emissions is true then there should be accessible data on cradle to grave cost vs electricity produced and a prepaid for disposal scheme for when the all die (and they will), right now we have thousands of blades that can't be disposed of anywhere. What does the future hold?

I've never heard that talked about.
Also in all my research I have never found any detailed information of how much ACTUAL time per day each wind generator actually produces electricity. And I have searched for that data for over a decade. its not available.
Estimates are from 10% to 30% of the time they actually produce viable electricity.

My question still remains - What do we do (if we go total renewable wind and solar which is the current Holy Grail) at night when the wind doesn't blow?

Also where doe we get the land for all the renewable generators? To go 100% we need to increase the current land mass devoted to them about 700%
Who's land you gonna put it on? Last I checked all the people in NE coast don't want them off their shore like they have in Europe.

Or is it like the current immigrant crisis- put them anywhere but in my city even if it is an "immigrant sanctuary",

Every proposed position has its draw backs.
Solve the issues before you mandate the program and you might get more support for your position.

SFandH - 5-21-2023 at 12:04 PM

Iffy Cliffy,

All the questions you ask have been thought out to the Nth degree.

Keep reading.

I'm knowledgeable about the nuclear power industry. I'll try to answer any questions you may have about it that you can't find the answers to yourself.

surabi - 5-21-2023 at 12:55 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  
hold?



My question still remains - What do we do (if we go total renewable wind and solar which is the current Holy Grail) at night when the wind doesn't blow?




You keep asking this stupid question, which has been answered multiple times, and keep ignoring the answers. Are you purposely being obtuse, or does it come naturally?

Your agenda is obviously not to gain understanding and information, but to come up with all kinds of reasons to oppose sustainable energy.

[Edited on 5-21-2023 by surabi]

mtgoat666 - 5-21-2023 at 01:48 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  

My question still remains - What do we do (if we go total renewable wind and solar which is the current Holy Grail) at night when the wind doesn't blow?


cliffy,
nobody has said we are going ALL solar and wind.

the wind does blow at night. (p.s. populations generally use less power at night relative to day)

most populated areas are on a grid, a grid powered by multiple generating sources, if one generating source has low output then other generating sources fill the gap.

surabi - 5-21-2023 at 02:18 PM

Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666  
Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  

My question still remains - What do we do (if we go total renewable wind and solar which is the current Holy Grail) at night when the wind doesn't blow?




the wind does blow at night.


Pointless to explain things to someone who thinks when the sun doesn't shine, the wind doesn't blow.

[Edited on 5-21-2023 by surabi]

surabi - 5-21-2023 at 02:59 PM

Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, ***ushima. Attacks on nuclear power plants releasing radiation. Trading in one serious threat to human and animal life for another isn't a viable solution.

[Edited on 5-21-2023 by surabi]

SFandH - 5-21-2023 at 03:05 PM

Quote: Originally posted by JZ  
Until Libs start talking about nuclear I'll know they aren't serious about reducing C02.



Look into the costs of building a nuke plant. There's a huge capital investment cost with nukes and it takes over twice as long to build one. If nukes were more profitable than fossil-fueled plants, they would be built. Everything about nukes is EXPENSIVE, including the fuel cycle from mining to waste management.

mtgoat666 - 5-21-2023 at 03:06 PM

Quote: Originally posted by JZ  
Until Libs start talking about nuclear I'll know they aren't serious about reducing C02.



Half pint,
Nuclear is one power source. You like it. Others don’t. Nuclear is a dirty fuel, as the waste is technically and politically challenging to deal with. Solutions like solar and wind don’t come with the problems of radioactive waste


SFandH - 5-21-2023 at 03:11 PM

"In 2017, two South Carolina utilities abandoned two unfinished Westinghouse AP1000 reactors due to difficulties in equipment manufacturing, significant construction delays, and cost overruns—leaving just two other AP1000 reactors under construction, in the state of Georgia. These reactors have also faced delays and cost overruns. The original cost estimate of $14 billion has risen to $23 billion, but construction is proceeding, given the promise of government financial support for these reactors—the first of their kind in the United States."

https://thebulletin.org/2019/06/why-nuclear-power-plants-cos...

JZ - 5-21-2023 at 03:11 PM

Quote: Originally posted by SFandH  
Quote: Originally posted by JZ  
Until Libs start talking about nuclear I'll know they aren't serious about reducing C02.



Look into the costs of building a nuke plant. There's a huge capital investment cost with nukes and it takes over twice as long to build one. If nukes were more profitable than fossil-fueled plants, they would be built. Everything about nukes is EXPENSIVE, including the fuel cycle from mining to waste management.


Have you seen the billions and billions that are being wasted on nonsense?

Watch this TED Talk. This guy has spent his entire life trying to make renewables work.
https://youtu.be/N-yALPEpV4w

SFandH - 5-21-2023 at 03:39 PM

Quote: Originally posted by JZ  


Have you seen the billions and billions that are being wasted on nonsense?

Watch this TED Talk. This guy has spent his entire life trying to make renewables work.
https://youtu.be/N-yALPEpV4w


I thought we were talking about nukes. I like nukes but ***ushima scared me. Those reactors melted down because of sheer stupidity. The earthquake happened, and the reactors shut down - good. The quake also knocked out the power grid so the backup diesel generators started to power the cooling water pumps - good. The tsunami came and flooded the diesel generators - bad. The reactor cores melted because of a lack of cooling water - really bad. Why did the generators flood? - Because they were UNDER the ground. The idiots put the generators in an underground room where tsunamis are to be expected. Really stupid.

How many other really stupid engineering decisions have been made?

Perhaps nukes are just too dangerous. After all, you can't stop them from generating heat energy. Essentially, you can't turn them off, no matter what.

I'll watch the video later.

surabi - 5-21-2023 at 03:54 PM

Quote: Originally posted by JZ  
Quote: Originally posted by SFandH  
Quote: Originally posted by JZ  
Until Libs start talking about nuclear I'll know they aren't serious about reducing C02.



Look into the costs of building a nuke plant. There's a huge capital investment cost with nukes and it takes over twice as long to build one. If nukes were more profitable than fossil-fueled plants, they would be built. Everything about nukes is EXPENSIVE, including the fuel cycle from mining to waste management.


Have you seen the billions and billions that are being wasted on nonsense?


Whenever you have no cogent argument to support your opinions, you deflect to "whataboutism".

JZ - 5-21-2023 at 04:57 PM

Quote: Originally posted by surabi  

Whenever you have no cogent argument to support your opinions, you deflect to "whataboutism".


No. He said it's expensive. I said we have plenty of money. Just start spending it on the right things.

I mean for starters there is $70B in unspent Covid relief funds.


[Edited on 5-22-2023 by JZ]

JZ - 5-21-2023 at 05:18 PM


:lol::lol:

mtgoat666 - 5-21-2023 at 06:07 PM

Quote: Originally posted by JZ  

:lol::lol:


is that funny? you probably find that funny because you don't understand that all cars need to refuel.

RFClark - 5-21-2023 at 09:33 PM

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/03/bill-gates-w...

The Left in the west has been against nuclear power since at least 1947. Unless of course the CCCP was doing it! Gates has a better idea and the money to back it up.

Solar or wind are lousy for base load unless they have huge storage facilities attached to them. Geothermal, hydro and nukes are far better for base load.

[Edited on 5-22-2023 by RFClark]

surabi - 5-21-2023 at 09:59 PM

Quote: Originally posted by JZ  


Watch this TED Talk. This guy has spent his entire life trying to make renewables work.
https://youtu.be/N-yALPEpV4w


Michael Shellenberger, founder of Breakthrough Institute.

" Scholars such as Professor of American and Environmental Studies Julie Sze and environmental humanist Michael Ziser criticize Breakthrough's philosophy as one that believes "community-based environmental justice poses a threat to the smooth operation of a highly capitalized, global-scale Environmentalism." Further, Environmental and Art Historian TJ Demos has argued that Breakthrough's ideas present a "nothing more than a bad utopian fantasy" that function to support the oil and gas industry and work as "an apology for nuclear energy."

Journalist Paul D. Thacker alleged that the Breakthrough Institute is an example of a quasi-lobbying organization which does not adequately disclose its funding.

The institute has also been criticized for promoting industrial agriculture and processed foodstuffs while also accepting donations from the Nathan Cummings Foundation, whose board members have financial ties to processed food companies that rely heavily on industrial agriculture. After an IRS complaint about potential improper use of 501(c)(3) status, the Institute no longer lists the Nathan Cummings Foundation as a donor. However, as Thacker has noted, the institute's funding remains largely opaque.

Climate scientist Michael E. Mann also questions the motives of the Breakthrough Institute. According to Mann, the self-declared mission of the BTI is to look for a breakthrough to solve the climate problem. However Mann states that basically the BTI "appears to be opposed to anything - be it a price on carbon or incentives for renewable energy - that would have a meaningful impact." He notes that the BTI "remains curiously preoccupied with opposing advocates for meaningful climate action and is coincidentally linked to natural gas interests" and criticises the BTI for advocating "continued exploitation of fossil fuels." Mann also questions that the BTI on the one hand seems to be "very pessimistic" about renewable energy, while on the other hand "they are extreme techno-optimists" regarding geoengineering.

JZ - 5-21-2023 at 10:30 PM

Quote: Originally posted by surabi  
Quote: Originally posted by JZ  


Watch this TED Talk. This guy has spent his entire life trying to make renewables work.
https://youtu.be/N-yALPEpV4w


Michael Shellenberger, founder of Breakthrough Institute.

" Scholars such as Professor of American and Environmental Studies Julie Sze and environmental humanist Michael Ziser criticize Breakthrough's philosophy as one that believes "community-based environmental justice poses a threat to the smooth operation of a highly capitalized, global-scale Environmentalism." Further, Environmental and Art Historian TJ Demos has argued that Breakthrough's ideas present a "nothing more than a bad utopian fantasy" that function to support the oil and gas industry and work as "an apology for nuclear energy."

Journalist Paul D. Thacker alleged that the Breakthrough Institute is an example of a quasi-lobbying organization which does not adequately disclose its funding.

The institute has also been criticized for promoting industrial agriculture and processed foodstuffs while also accepting donations from the Nathan Cummings Foundation, whose board members have financial ties to processed food companies that rely heavily on industrial agriculture. After an IRS complaint about potential improper use of 501(c)(3) status, the Institute no longer lists the Nathan Cummings Foundation as a donor. However, as Thacker has noted, the institute's funding remains largely opaque.

Climate scientist Michael E. Mann also questions the motives of the Breakthrough Institute. According to Mann, the self-declared mission of the BTI is to look for a breakthrough to solve the climate problem. However Mann states that basically the BTI "appears to be opposed to anything - be it a price on carbon or incentives for renewable energy - that would have a meaningful impact." He notes that the BTI "remains curiously preoccupied with opposing advocates for meaningful climate action and is coincidentally linked to natural gas interests" and criticises the BTI for advocating "continued exploitation of fossil fuels." Mann also questions that the BTI on the one hand seems to be "very pessimistic" about renewable energy, while on the other hand "they are extreme techno-optimists" regarding geoengineering.


Lib playbook 101, attack the speaker, not their ideas.

I'm beginning to think you are a bot.


surabi - 5-21-2023 at 10:36 PM

All of what I quoted was criticism of his ideas, not the speaker. Guess you didn't actually bother to read it.


[Edited on 5-22-2023 by surabi]

surabi - 5-21-2023 at 11:22 PM

"2019, Shellenberger also testified in support of Ohio House Bill 6.20 The bill, which was signed into law by Governor Mike DeWine later that year, provided subsidies to uncompetitive nuclear and coal plants, and rolled back Ohio’s renewable energy and energy efficiency standards for electric utilities."

"Shellenberger worked with left-wing groups in the San Francisco Bay Area in the 1990s, but has since renounced the Democratic Party. On Twitter, he frequently criticizes "wokeism" and critical race theory."

Of course you would promote his video. So predictable.



[Edited on 5-22-2023 by surabi]

willardguy - 5-21-2023 at 11:46 PM

:lol:... no seriously, :lol:

surabi - 5-22-2023 at 12:23 AM

What did I label him? I simply quoted facts. If those facts discredit him to some, that's not my doing.

Bots seek to misinform and twist the facts. All I did was quote objective facts anyone can look up for themselves.

Knowing the agenda and background and biases of those one is going to listen to and believe is important.
Sorry (not) if you don't like anyone to research the sources you promote.


[Edited on 5-22-2023 by surabi]

[Edited on 5-22-2023 by surabi]

Cliffy - 5-22-2023 at 06:45 AM

Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666  
Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  

My question still remains - What do we do (if we go total renewable wind and solar which is the current Holy Grail) at night when the wind doesn't blow?


cliffy,
nobody has said we are going ALL solar and wind.

the wind does blow at night. (p.s. populations generally use less power at night relative to day)

most populated areas are on a grid, a grid powered by multiple generating sources, if one generating source has low output then other generating sources fill the gap.


"cliffy,
nobody has said we are going ALL solar and wind."

OK if we now admit that going 100% renewable won't work just how much more renewable do we need? Right now we have about 15% of our energy by solar/wind. Do we want 4 times that much to reach over 50% generation by renewables? If so who's land does that get put on? Is all that land conducive to wind or solar generation? Are we OK with the flora and fauna cost of doing that? This hasn't even been broached yet by the proponents of renewables. I mentioned it many weeks ago. Why sidestep it?


"the wind does blow at night. (p.s. populations generally use less power at night relative to day)"

The sun is a major factor in the wind blowing - Fact not fiction! One only has to fly over wind farms in the early morning hours and then again in the afternoon to actually see the affect of solar gain on the earth surface and the action of the wind generators. Go to wunderground and select any city you want and view the wind prediction graph to see how the sun affects the forecast wind speed every day. At night the wind dies down most every day thereby rendering the wind mills ineffective,
Find me the information that I seem unable to find after more than a decade of looking, showing wind generation power output by the hour 24/7 for any wind generator you want. I have never found that information but I will bet it is tracked by the power company owning the wind farm. They just don't let that information out. WHY?


"most populated areas are on a grid, a grid powered by multiple generating sources, if one generating source has low output then other generating sources fill the gap."

You have described exactly how the power grid works and why fossil fueled power plants will never go away. We CAN'T get rid of them period. Glad to see we have finally made some progress here on the forum.
So the hyper rhetoric about going solar and wind is just scare tactics. I have no problem with building renewables if those renewables go along with a reasonable pace that is financially sound for the population to accept AND their problems are solved before they are built. Right now we have the cart before the horse. We mandate renewables with the statement that "time will bring the solutions to the future problems they produce". Solve the cost issue and the recycling issues first then we can move forward with PARTIAL renewable generation. No issue with that.

Renewables can't provide total power to the grid reliably as I have mentioned before.

With that in mind, I believe we could also(where possible) transfer over to natural gas as a power source for generation with a huge decrease in emitted gases compared to the coal we now use. That would kill the coal industry here in the USA UNLESS we allow it to be shipped to the bigger users of coal- CHINA and INDIA but then they use more coal making our efforts to lower emissions globally totally ineffective overall- do we see another problem here?

Going to natural gas would be a big step toward your goal (here in the USA). BUT that meets with hysterical opposition also and in the global picture will make no progress what so ever.

Question- Why did the Energy Secretary when questioned before Congress, refuse to answer just how much, in percentage, our going total renewable would affect the global atmosphere?

RFClark - 5-22-2023 at 07:50 AM

So if most of the old gas guzzlers continue to live on some minus their emission control systems the net pollution decrease worldwide is less than “0”!

This article is about Africa but anyone watching the inbound traffic to Baja California will see a solid line of the same old cars towing other old cars waiting to cross the border.

The pollution is just “exported” far away where it’s more difficult to see not eliminated.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/21/africa/west-africa-benin-...

mtgoat666 - 5-22-2023 at 08:04 AM

Quote: Originally posted by RFClark  
So if most of the old gas guzzlers continue to live on some minus their emission control systems the net pollution decrease worldwide is less than “0”!

This article is about Africa but anyone watching the inbound traffic to Baja California will see a solid line of the same old cars towing other old cars waiting to cross the border.

The pollution is just “exported” far away where it’s more difficult to see not eliminated.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/21/africa/west-africa-benin-...


Exporting old cars to mexuco. It’ like exporting retired people to mexico :lol::lol:

Cliffy - 5-22-2023 at 10:02 AM

Its a political game being played for votes unless you are willing to let an elite global cabal dictate what every country in the world will do.

Without a total global commitment small efforts will yield nothing in a global perspective. And a "global perspective" is the current mantra!

Do you think for a minute that all those elites in DAVOS will give up their big corporate jets in the name of "Climate Change"?

Its time to wake up and smell the roses!
The earth survived just fine when the average temperature and CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.
The earth has a great propensity to heal itself.
Only "Chicken Little" thinks the end is near.
The sky is not falling.

SFandH - 5-22-2023 at 10:10 AM

Quote: Originally posted by RFClark  

anyone watching the inbound traffic to Baja California will see a solid line of the same old cars towing other old cars waiting to cross the border.


I cross the San Ysidro border frequently during the summer. The only cars I've seen towed south are race cars. I'm pretty sure you can't tow a junker or any other passenger car into Mexico. Mexico authorities will stop you.

surabi - 5-22-2023 at 11:58 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  

The earth survived just fine when the average temperature and CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.


You keep endlessly repeating this obviousness, as if you're telling us something we don't know. It's irrelevant. Yes, the planet will keep spinning in the universe, it just won't support life and the climate change will cause untold suffering on the way, as it already is, to the extinction of human and animal life.
You obviously don't care about that because you're an old man who won't be around long enough for it to affect you, likely have no grandchildren, or none you care about.

SFandH - 5-22-2023 at 12:36 PM

One of my biggest concerns about atmospheric warming, big because it may directly affect me and most probably will my descendants, is the northbound climate migration out of Central American tropics as crops fail, daily temperatures rise, and storms become more destructive.

I bet the current border crisis pales compared to what's going to happen in the coming decades.

surabi - 5-22-2023 at 01:05 PM

For all of you man-made climate change deniers, and those who espouse the ridiculous notion that there is no point in individuals reducing the things we do that pollute, all you have to do is look at how rapidly and how much pollution stats dropped worldwide during Covid lockdowns.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/09/1099092

[Edited on 5-22-2023 by surabi]

JZ - 5-22-2023 at 03:00 PM

Quote: Originally posted by surabi  
For all of you man-made climate change deniers, and those who espouse the ridiculous notion that there is no point in individuals reducing the things we do that pollute, all you have to do is look at how rapidly and how much pollution stats dropped worldwide during Covid lockdowns.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/09/1099092

[Edited on 5-22-2023 by surabi]


Many have thought they can out wit Mother Nature, none have succeeded.

"Carbon pollution from California’s 2020 wildfires erased 16 years of the state’s greenhouse gas emission cuts, according to a new UCLA study."


[Edited on 5-22-2023 by JZ]

surabi - 5-22-2023 at 03:22 PM

Quote: Originally posted by JZ  
Quote: Originally posted by surabi  
For all of you man-made climate change deniers, and those who espouse the ridiculous notion that there is no point in individuals reducing the things we do that pollute, all you have to do is look at how rapidly and how much pollution stats dropped worldwide during Covid lockdowns.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/09/1099092

[Edited on 5-22-2023 by surabi]


2 years of forest fires in California wiped out 21 years of C02 savings by the govt.



Non-sequitor. Deflecting again. It's like saying it's a waste of time and effort to ever clean your house, because it's just going to get dirty again. Or that there's no point in keeping your vehicle well-maintained because someone could run into you and total it.

And the increasing proliference and intensity of forest fires is directly related to man-made climate change, not just "mother nature".

Trying to mitigate and solve worldwide issues like climate change and pandemics requires lateral, not linear, thinking, co-operation, caring about something larger than oneself, and a certain amount of personal sacrifice or inconvenience, obviously none of which is a part of your mind-set.



[Edited on 5-22-2023 by surabi]

[Edited on 5-22-2023 by surabi]

SFandH - 5-22-2023 at 03:27 PM

Quote: Originally posted by JZ  
[/rquote]



"Carbon pollution from California’s 2020 wildfires erased 16 years of the state’s greenhouse gas emission cuts, according to a new UCLA study."


[Edited on 5-22-2023 by JZ]


It's a good thing that CA reduced its CO2 emissions. Otherwise, the CO2 due to wildfires would be in addition to the CO2 CA didn't eliminate. The situation would be worse.

mtgoat666 - 5-22-2023 at 04:52 PM

Quote: Originally posted by SFandH  
Quote: Originally posted by JZ  
[/rquote]



"Carbon pollution from California’s 2020 wildfires erased 16 years of the state’s greenhouse gas emission cuts, according to a new UCLA study."


[Edited on 5-22-2023 by JZ]


It's a good thing that CA reduced its CO2 emissions. Otherwise, the CO2 due to wildfires would be in addition to the CO2 CA didn't eliminate. The situation would be worse.


The thing about wildfires is that vegetation grows back, so over decades each individual fire is net zero GHG emissions. So is sort of silly to evaluate carbon release from vegetation burning without also looking at vegetation growth that sequesters carbon. Perhaps the vegetation Regrowth removes carbon relatively faster than than old growth vegetation removes carbon, eh?
I suppose they did not teach science and logic at Ohio state :lol::lol:

RFClark - 5-22-2023 at 04:52 PM

There are still lots of cars towing a 2nd car waiting in line at the East Mexicali Commercial crossing.

RFClark - 5-22-2023 at 04:56 PM

Goat,

The world as we know is going to end soon (5 years or 15 years). The wild lands grow back time is 40 - 100 years.

mtgoat666 - 5-22-2023 at 05:00 PM

Quote: Originally posted by RFClark  
The wild lands grow back time is 40 - 100 years.


Clarky,
Here in SoCal and baja, the coastal sage scrub grows back much faster than your time frame. Not sure what the biomass rates are for northern forests…
And perhaps these smart scientists have factored wildfire and vegetation sequestering into their climate models, eh?

JZ - 5-22-2023 at 06:19 PM

Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666  

And perhaps these smart scientists have factored wildfire and vegetation sequestering into their climate models, eh?


Hmmm, these "smart scientists" thought a glacier was going to cover the US by 2000. :light:


surabi - 5-22-2023 at 06:33 PM

Pretty amusing to be calling out scientists for being a decade or two off in their predictions (a relatively tiny smidgen of time), when you have nothing to say about your own erroneous predictions, you just go silent about that stuff when proven wrong. Red wave, Kari Lake rockstar, DeSantis next POTUS? I believe the expression is "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".

RFClark - 5-22-2023 at 08:42 PM

Goat,

I Lived in Malibu. There were bad fires every 40 to 80 years. We built a house there after the 80 year fire. We sold it and it burned a few years ago, about 40 years later. The same for the houses around it.

The ecology of the SM costal range (Malibu) requires fires every 20 - 40 years. 80 years was way too long. The area should be managed better.

RFClark - 5-22-2023 at 08:50 PM

S,

I believe Jesus said “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her”. John 8:7 King James edition.

[Edited on 5-23-2023 by RFClark]

mtgoat666 - 5-22-2023 at 08:54 PM

Quote: Originally posted by JZ  
Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666  

And perhaps these smart scientists have factored wildfire and vegetation sequestering into their climate models, eh?


Hmmm, these "smart scientists" thought a glacier was going to cover the US by 2000. :light:



Half pint,
These scientists managed to finish their phd and get a research position in their chosen field. You went to law school, flunked the bar, and gave up. Who is the smart one? :lol::lol::no:

surabi - 5-22-2023 at 08:59 PM

You have no idea what Jesus said, only what other people claimed he said. Of course, you are free to believe whatever you choose. And I wasn't referring to "sin", a religious concept, I was referring to hypocrisy.

RFClark - 5-22-2023 at 09:02 PM

Goat,

PHD or not those guys admit in writing that they can’t understand why the real world weather doesn’t match their models.

I can repost the article.

RFClark - 5-22-2023 at 09:10 PM

S,

I said that “I believe”. I also believe sin is more than “a religious concept”. Hypocrisy on the other hand is straight forward, flying around in a private jet to tell people to ride a bicycle to save the planet does come to mind here.

surabi - 5-22-2023 at 11:18 PM

Quote: Originally posted by RFClark  
S,

I also believe sin is more than “a religious concept”.


As I said, you can believe whatever you want, and make up whatever word definitions you please, you can believe the moon is made of blue cheese, but factually "sin" is a Judeo-Christian religious concept, the earliest known use of the word is in Genesis, and which means contrary to the will or laws of God. Sin is therefore a religious concept- it's something you believe you shouldn't do because it is displeasing to God.

As opposed to moral values one holds which dictate that one behaves in certain ways because it's simply the right thing to do, that doing otherwise would hurt others or that certain values and behaviors are required in order for people to co-exist in a civilized society- not because you believe there is some divine law that says you shouldn't do it, that you will be judged by God, or that you will go to heaven or hell according to your behavior in life.

Of course people use the word sin loosely these days- saying they were sinful because they ate too much chocolate cake doesn't necessarily mean they think God is going to judge them at the pearly gates for doing so.



[Edited on 5-23-2023 by surabi]

surabi - 5-23-2023 at 12:17 AM

Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666  


The thing about wildfires is that vegetation grows back, so over decades each individual fire is net zero GHG emissions. So is sort of silly to evaluate carbon release from vegetation burning without also looking at vegetation growth that sequesters carbon. Perhaps the vegetation Regrowth removes carbon relatively faster than than old growth vegetation removes carbon, eh?


It's not that simple. Some plants and trees absorb more CO2 than others. The faster growing a plant is, the more CO2 it absorbs and the more oxygen it puts out. Bamboo absorbs 5 times more greenhouse gases and emits 35% more oxygen than an equivalent amount of trees, because of the difference in growth rate. So depending on the type of vegetation that burns up in a fire and the type of regrowth that appears naturally or is replanted, there can be a huge variation in the balance of CO2 released and later on absorbed, and the time span in which that happens.

And precisely because of climate change, the idea that forests will just grow back isn't a given. It may be too hot, too wet, too dry, for what flourished because it was already established for hundreds of years to grow back. Just because ancient redwoods stood in an area before it burnt doesn't mean redwood seedlings will thrive there now.

But the flip side of the fastest growing plants absorbing the most CO2, is that the fastest growing plants also have the shortest life span and when they die, they release CO2 into the atmosphere.

It's really crucial that old growth forests, both temperate and tropical, do not get logged, because those huge old trees absorb the most carbon and live for hundreds of years.

There is also an interesting CO2 interaction between soil and plants: https://news.stanford.edu/press/view/38728

Soil provides about 30% of the earth's carbon capture, which is a really good reason to not pave things over. While they aren't nearly as nice as far as driving on them, dirt roads are far better for the planet than paving them. The more concrete and cement on the earth, the more CO2 in the atmosphere.






[Edited on 5-23-2023 by surabi]

[Edited on 5-23-2023 by surabi]

[Edited on 5-23-2023 by surabi]

RFClark - 5-23-2023 at 04:10 AM

This being a site about Baja California and Mexico an understanding of North American Monsoon’s importance to the area we all love might be useful.

Below is a link to a pre-“Climate as a religion” article (1997) which is a retrospective of articles on the subject going back to the late 1800’s. Some of the takeaways are:

1) The NA Monsoon is a very complex weather event.
2) Many areas in the SW US & NE Mexico receive half their rain from it.
3) Generally warmer seas and higher humidity increase the amount of rain delivered by the NA monsoon.

It is interesting to note that to date the best current models still don’t match the actual weather in this area.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/78/10/1520-0...

RFClark - 5-23-2023 at 04:43 AM

S,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maat

“Sin” as a concept predates even Judaism which defines the violation of any of the 613 commandments as a “Sin”.

The Egyptians understood and practiced the concept about 5000 years ago. See the above link.

“Thus shall it be written, thus shall it be done” probably makes not doing it the equivalent of a “Sin”.

That said Hypocrites too, have been with us always!

Glidergeek - 5-23-2023 at 09:13 AM

How's that palm tree doin:?:

Lee - 5-23-2023 at 09:35 AM

Quote: Originally posted by RFClark  
S,

I believe Jesus said “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her”. John 8:7 King James edition.

[Edited on 5-23-2023 by RFClark]


geesus. Try to spare the choir your holy roller crap huh Clark? You post anything to drifts into your head. Guessing you don't have much of a life.

Get one. F*ck religion and politics.

RFClark - 5-23-2023 at 09:54 AM

Lee,

You left out flock anyone who disagrees with you. I actually have a very good life and if you view the posts on the house were furnishing up, keep quite busy.

How’s your life doing?

JZ - 5-23-2023 at 07:45 PM

Quote: Originally posted by lencho  

If you honestly believe that your individual behavior is irrelevant to the future of the planet (not to mention that of your kids), then... why are you even bothering to argue about this?
:?::?::?:


I like you. You are a smart, reasonable person. I'll give you a detailed answer.


willardguy - 5-23-2023 at 07:49 PM

Quote: Originally posted by JZ  
Quote: Originally posted by lencho  

If you honestly believe that your individual behavior is irrelevant to the future of the planet (not to mention that of your kids), then... why are you even bothering to argue about this?
:?::?::?:


I like you. You are a smart, reasonable person. I'll give you a detailed answer.



woohoo please share with all!

mtgoat666 - 5-23-2023 at 08:46 PM

News for zonies!

Heat Wave and Blackout Would Send Half of Phoenix to E.R., Study Says
New research warns that nearly 800,000 residents would need emergency medical care for heat stroke and other illnesses in an extended power failure. Other cities are also at risk.

If a multiday blackout in Phoenix coincided with a heat wave, nearly half the population would require emergency department care for heat stroke or other heat-related illnesses, a new study suggests.

While Phoenix was the most extreme example, the study warned that other cities are also at risk. Since 2015, the number of major blackouts nationwide has more than doubled. At the same time, climate change is helping make heat waves worse and increasing instances of extreme weather around the world.

The study, published Tuesday in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, suggests that the risk to cities would be compounded if a hurricane, cyberattack or wind storm were to knock out power during a heat wave and deprive thousands of air-conditioning.

This summer, two-thirds of North America, including the Southwest, could experience shortfalls in the electrical grid, particularly during periods of extreme heat when demand for air-conditioning spikes, straining resources, according to an analysis released this month. Phoenix’s mayor, Kate Gallego, has urged the federal government to add extreme heat to the list of disasters like floods and hurricanes that could prompt a federal disaster declaration.

RFClark - 5-23-2023 at 08:56 PM

Goat,

You can’t have it both ways. If the electric grid is overloaded now what’s going to happen when more and more people try to charge their cars?

I’m sure glad we live off the grid in BCS Mexico. I’ve got an extra 10KW propane generator. You might want to consider buying it.

JDCanuck - 5-23-2023 at 09:52 PM

Quote: Originally posted by RFClark  
Goat,

You can’t have it both ways. If the electric grid is overloaded now what’s going to happen when more and more people try to charge their cars?

I’m sure glad we live off the grid in BCS Mexico. I’ve got an extra 10KW propane generator. You might want to consider buying it.


Here is how utilities are attempting to manage and stabilize the grid in the face of the growth of ev's plugging in:

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/electric-vehicle-charging-...

The Ontario government rolled out its new ultra-low overnight electricity price option through the Ministry of Energy on Monday, dropping the overnight rate from 7.4 to 2.4 cents per kilowatt hour every day between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. In exchange for that 67 per cent savings from the current off-peak rate, those who choose the new option will pay a 59 per cent higher price during dinner time and in the evening. The government estimates customers could save up to $90 per year.


2.4 cents per kwh is an amazingly low price to pay to recharge an EV battery, or for that matter, a residential power wall. The utilities are essentially paying users to provide their grid stability as opposed to installing their own battery storage systems at a much higher cost.




[Edited on 5-24-2023 by JDCanuck]

RFClark - 5-24-2023 at 03:44 AM

JD,

Ontario Hydro has sold energy to the US in the past. They have the Pickering nuclear complex. It’s amazing, the difference in attitudes across a few miles of water. You could never build anything like Pickering in the US, especially New York.

mtgoat666 - 5-24-2023 at 07:06 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Lobsterman  
Amen Cliffy. I stopped debating on this site years ago because of a few individuals on this board just can not accept the fact that others have a different point of view on the subject. The childish name calling, personal attacks, and racist comments are not worth it. These individuals just want their POV advertised to the detriment of others who disagree.

I just keep to fishing and BBQing posts and leave the political discussions to the grade school children. So enjoy your soapbox.



Lobster boy:
Your political trash talking once led you to bet it all: http://forums.bajanomad.com/viewthread.php?tid=88283
You lost that bet, and did not live up to the terms of the bet. Have you no honor? :no::no:

SFandH - 5-24-2023 at 07:16 AM

Quote: Originally posted by RFClark  
JD,

Ontario Hydro has sold energy to the US in the past. They have the Pickering nuclear complex. It’s amazing, the difference in attitudes across a few miles of water. You could never build anything like Pickering in the US, especially New York.


Those are CANDU reactors. This is from a 2009 Toronto Star article:

"Sources close to the bidding, one involved directly in one of the bids, said that adding two next-generation Candu reactors at Darlington generating station would have cost around $26 billion."

"AECL's $26 billion bid was based on the construction of two 1,200-megawatt Advanced Candu Reactors, working out to $10,800 per kilowatt of power capacity."

"During Ontario Energy Board hearings last summer, the power authority indicated that anything higher than $3,600 per kilowatt would be uneconomical compared to alternatives, primarily natural gas."

----------------

Like the proverb, "If you pray for rain don't complain about the mud", if you pray for nuclear power, don't complain about expensive electricity. Really expensive.

https://www.thestar.com/business/2009/07/14/26b_cost_killed_...

[Edited on 5-24-2023 by SFandH]

Lee - 5-24-2023 at 08:24 AM

Quote: Originally posted by RFClark  
Lee,

You left out flock anyone who disagrees with you. I actually have a very good life and if you view the posts on the house were furnishing up, keep quite busy.

How’s your life doing?


Calm down Clark. People can disagree with anything I write. I rarely debate those people. Fact check this.

I'm referring to climate change, carbon footprints, and whatever ppl like to spend time thinking about. I don't think about those things. I'm too busy.

If you are referring to me disagreeing with religion or politics here, yeah, you'll read me jumping in vehemently stating those opinions DO NOT belong on this forum. Disagree with that or not, I don't really give a shlt.

I believe you have a good life Clark. Just too much time on your hands to do the amount of posting you do here -- much of it nonsense and argumentative.

This forum is about Baja. Say what you want about that. Good or bad. Plenty of both there. By the way, nice house you're building. Had some interest early on but got bored. Question your location and don't think you know the history of the area. It's the underbelly and only spoken about by locals.

RFClark - 5-24-2023 at 08:32 PM

SH&H

https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1002916/ontario-launches-...

The reason they can do this is 60% of ontario’s power comes from Nukes. They are building a new 300MW reactor at Darlington and refurbishing 3 of their old light water reactors.

Compare that to Goat’s post on the state of the US grid.

As I said glad to be solar off the grid in BCS.

 Pages:  1  ..  9    11    13  ..  21