BajaNomad

The palm tree is going two feet under water

 Pages:  1  ..  7    9    11  ..  23

JZ - 4-12-2023 at 09:15 PM

Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666  

That was boring as chit! Only made it 30 seconds and turned the channel. And who is that clown who shows up in a ratty t-shirt to give a talk to large audience?



Here is one that compares C02 impact of EV vs. ICE. You'd have to drive an EV for 4 years before it's C02 impact is less than an ICE in total. Because of one specifc thing that they don't tell you about EVs.





[Edited on 4-13-2023 by JZ]

JZ - 4-12-2023 at 09:29 PM

Other factors against mass adoption of EV, or lets say moving too quickly towards them at least.

1. The electric grid is already fragile. No way it can support EV charging at a high level. Renewable energy will never be able to fill the void and they refuse to invest in nuclear.

2. China owns 75% of the world's battery manufacturing capacity. Moving to EV's will shift our dependence to a communist regimen ever more.

3. Child labor is being used to mine the raw battery materials in Africa and China.

4. You can't recycle batteries, where will they all go?

5. Scientists have studied the relationship between temperature and C02 levels going back many thousands of years. They have found that C02 follows temperature changes, it does not drive temperature change.

6. Every climate prediction the scientists have made the last 60 years has failed to come true.

7. Even if the best case scenario's of US/Europe's emissions reductions came true, it wouldn't make a dent in C02 levels because of what the rest of the world is doing.

8. There are many, many reasons to push a climate change narrative that has nothing to do with helping the human race.



Cliffy - 4-12-2023 at 10:54 PM

If we go full renewable just what do we do when the wind doesn't blow at night?

Do we all realize that we have to have 100% back up capability using dino juice OR NUC to any "green" grid because the wind sometimes doesn't blow at night? Its because the "grid" doesn't store electricity. It only delivers it from where its made to where it is used. Coal, gas or oil fired power plants will never go away.
How many coal fired power plants are India and China now building over the next 20 years?
Why did the EU just give up on their 2035 all electric car mandate?

How many birds are we willing to kill with a 1,000% increase in wind farms? Do you know that they now have special dispensation on killing protected birds? Or any birds?

How many animals, bugs and insects are we willing to kill as we scrape millions of acres of land clear of any vegetation to layout solar farms?
Where will the millions of acres come from?

Does anyone know what percentage of the air is actually comprised of CO2?
Does everyone know that plants USE CO2 to survive?
CO2 in the atmosphere was 50 to 100 times higher than it is now 65 million years ago (400PPM now to 2,000 to 4,000PPM 65MYA).
Just prior to the dinosaurs dying out (65MYA), life on earth flourished when the dinosaurs walked on earth (with all that CO2 none the less. ) The planet didn't die with high CO2!


Why hasn't the US Navy ever had a NUC accident with all of their nuclear powered ships? Ask any NUC ship Commander. I have.

Batteries will lose out to hydrogen! The problem of carbon stripping from the base stock has been solved.

If we go batteries will we be willing to approve over 320 new mines for the minerals here in the USA or do we just pay China and be beholding to them for the raw materials?

Show me some valid figures about TOTAL cost cradle to grave of wind turbines and solar panels? Including how you get rid of them when they die. Right now we have thousands of used blades in storage with no way to recycle them. What's going to happen in another 20 years of them?

I hear lots of rhetoric but no actual answers to solve the questions.
I'm listening- give me your solutions to the upcoming problems of going green.
Show me valid cost comparisons per Watt hour WITHOUT subsidies for solar and wind?

Solve the problems instead of just rhetoric
Offer valid counter arguments not just "your wrong"
People are listening!
Can you answer them with intellect instead of argument?
Canceling the opposition and burying your head in the sand won't solve a thing.



JZ - 4-13-2023 at 01:23 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  
If we go full renewable just what do we do when the wind doesn't blow at night?

Do we all realize that we have to have 100% back up capability using dino juice OR NUC to any "green" grid because the wind sometimes doesn't blow at night? Its because the "grid" doesn't store electricity. It only delivers it from where its made to where it is used. Coal, gas or oil fired power plants will never go away.
How many coal fired power plants are India and China now building over the next 20 years?
Why did the EU just give up on their 2035 all electric car mandate?

How many birds are we willing to kill with a 1,000% increase in wind farms? Do you know that they now have special dispensation on killing protected birds? Or any birds?

How many animals, bugs and insects are we willing to kill as we scrape millions of acres of land clear of any vegetation to layout solar farms?
Where will the millions of acres come from?

Does anyone know what percentage of the air is actually comprised of CO2?
Does everyone know that plants USE CO2 to survive?
CO2 in the atmosphere was 50 to 100 times higher than it is now 65 million years ago (400PPM now to 2,000 to 4,000PPM 65MYA).
Just prior to the dinosaurs dying out (65MYA), life on earth flourished when the dinosaurs walked on earth (with all that CO2 none the less. ) The planet didn't die with high CO2!


Why hasn't the US Navy ever had a NUC accident with all of their nuclear powered ships? Ask any NUC ship Commander. I have.

Batteries will lose out to hydrogen! The problem of carbon stripping from the base stock has been solved.

If we go batteries will we be willing to approve over 320 new mines for the minerals here in the USA or do we just pay China and be beholding to them for the raw materials?

Show me some valid figures about TOTAL cost cradle to grave of wind turbines and solar panels? Including how you get rid of them when they die. Right now we have thousands of used blades in storage with no way to recycle them. What's going to happen in another 20 years of them?

I hear lots of rhetoric but no actual answers to solve the questions.
I'm listening- give me your solutions to the upcoming problems of going green.
Show me valid cost comparisons per Watt hour WITHOUT subsidies for solar and wind?

Solve the problems instead of just rhetoric
Offer valid counter arguments not just "your wrong"
People are listening!
Can you answer them with intellect instead of argument?
Canceling the opposition and burying your head in the sand won't solve a thing.




A lot of what you said about renewables is discussed in the 1st video I posted. It comes from a guy who dedicated his life to making renewables succeed. He realized the damage to the Earth and cost to produce energy didn't make sense. He discusses how the US govt. spent $150B on renewables.

CO2 makes up .04% of the atmosphere.


[Edited on 4-13-2023 by JZ]

mtgoat666 - 4-13-2023 at 06:49 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Lobsterman  
Just got back from Tuscaloosa on a site survey at its airport control tower. I rented a Tesla in Birmingham and drove to Tuscaloosa. The Tesla was at 81% charged when I arrived at the motel in Birmingham. Overnight it decreased down to 78%. WTF.

I left the next morning for Tuscaloosa. Upon arriving at the Tuscaloosa, the Tesla said I did not have enough juice (30%) to get back to my motel 62 miles away. Found an out of away charging station and waited 30 minutes in a hot sun for the EV to charge up enough to get back to the motel.

I'm a traveler usually on long drives to my destinations (work, play). And am away from my car weeks at a time. It's not unusual for me to drive 1000 miles in a long day. Having to stop every few hours to charge an EV while passing 100s of gas stations is ludicrous.

You can take your progressive EV cars and shovel them where the sun does not shine. Just another way to force people to live a life dependent on left's way of thinking even if the science does not support their argument as the videos and posts above indicate. Not to mention all the other supporting data that has been published and discounted by the "bunny huggers" as misinformation.

I love my 2000 Camry, bought new, with 250,000 miles that I can actually maintain myself, gets 37 mpg and I can leave it for weeks at a time without the car's battery dying. Its battery is under $100 at Walmart, good for 4 years or more and is recyclable. What's the cost of an EV battery!


You obviously are new to e-cars. If you understood them better, you would know how to refuel them, plan a trip, etc. Old people like you may want to learn, or alternatively ignore due to low need (short lifespan, means you can keep ICE car)
Yes, e fueling will be different than petro fueling. The reality is that 1) petroleum fuel burning at rate we are doing it is bad for the climate, and 2) petroleum fuel supply is finite. The change to alt fuels will happen, it has to.

Change upsets conservatives. But that is OK for the old and rigid, as there are still unrigid thinkers in our society. Scientists and unrigid minds will continue to innovate and lead as always. Plenty of youth today are not stuck in conservative Luddite mindset, these youth will create the vehicles of tomorrow.

JDCanuck - 4-13-2023 at 07:57 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Lobsterman  
Just got back from Tuscaloosa on a site survey at its airport control tower. I rented a Tesla in Birmingham and drove to Tuscaloosa. The Tesla was at 81% charged when I arrived at the motel in Birmingham. Overnight it decreased down to 78%. WTF.

I left the next morning for Tuscaloosa. Upon arriving at the Tuscaloosa, the Tesla said I did not have enough juice (30%) to get back to my motel 62 miles away. Found an out of away charging station and waited 30 minutes in a hot sun for the EV to charge up enough to get back to the motel.

I'm a traveler usually on long drives to my destinations (work, play). And am away from my car weeks at a time. It's not unusual for me to drive 1000 miles in a long day. Having to stop every few hours to charge an EV while passing 100s of gas stations is ludicrous.

You can take your progressive EV cars and shovel them where the sun does not shine. Just another way to force people to live a life dependent on left's way of thinking even if the science does not support their argument as the videos and posts above indicate. Not to mention all the other supporting data that has been published and discounted by the "bunny huggers" as misinformation.

I love my 2000 Camry, bought new, with 250,000 miles that I can actually maintain myself, gets 37 mpg and I can leave it for weeks at a time without the car's battery dying. Its battery is under $100 at Walmart, good for 4 years or more and is recyclable. What's the cost of an EV battery!


What do the rapidly growing in wealth Norwegians know that we don't? They keep setting new records for EV adoption despite having massive surpluses of petroleum fuels available to them. EV's aren't for everyone and every purpose...yet, but in Norway, apparently it suits 90 percent of the new vehicle buyers as the EV's sold were limited by the supply available and could not meet demand. They sure have improved in the past 2 decades though, and the Engineers haven't stopped innovating. Here's the latest out of Norway.
https://insideevs.com/news/629068/norway-electric-car-sales-...


[Edited on 4-13-2023 by JDCanuck]

JZ - 4-13-2023 at 08:16 AM

The population on Norway is 5M. US is 330M.

EV's have utility when matched with the correct usage.


JDCanuck - 4-13-2023 at 08:20 AM

Quote: Originally posted by JZ  
The population on Norway is 5M. US is 330M.

EV's have utility when matched with the correct usage.



If you check out that chart of sales you will note the Tesla still leads the batch at over double the sales of the next competitor (VW ID4). I still remember how people said the Tesla would never survive, but Musk continued to innovate despite his multitude of detractors (and he did it in the US). We need more people like him driving the future trends.

JZ - 4-13-2023 at 08:49 AM

Quote: Originally posted by JDCanuck  
Quote: Originally posted by JZ  
The population on Norway is 5M. US is 330M.

EV's have utility when matched with the correct usage.



If you check out that chart of sales you will note the Tesla still leads the batch at over double the sales of the next competitor (VW ID4). I still remember how people said the Tesla would never survive, but Musk continued to innovate despite his multitude of detractors (and he did it in the US). We need more people like him driving the future trends.


Musk is a stud. He is exactly the guy America needs right now.

I'm looking at Hybrids for my wife's next SUV right now. I'll consider a pure EV in 3-5 years. But because it's right for us, not because the government tells me I have to.



JDCanuck - 4-13-2023 at 08:50 AM

When it comes to the problem of supplying all that renewable power to the grid when solar, wind power is weak, Ford Engineers (US innovation again) threw a new factor into the mix with the F150 Lightning Pro and V2H capability. Rapidly being copied by foreign manufacturers in their newer models. This should have the capability of replacing a huge number of emergency petroleum fueled backup generators as well.
https://www.cars.com/articles/whats-bidirectional-charging-a...
As for Baja use, I am waiting to see how this one plays out.
https://www.cars.com/articles/u-s-bound-2024-kia-ev9-reveale...

[Edited on 4-13-2023 by JDCanuck]

Cliffy - 4-13-2023 at 09:51 AM


"You obviously are new to e-cars. If you understood them better, you would know how to refuel them, plan a trip, etc. Old people like you may want to learn, or alternatively ignore due to low need (short lifespan, means you can keep ICE car)
Yes, e fueling will be different than petro fueling. The reality is that 1) petroleum fuel burning at rate we are doing it is bad for the climate, and 2) petroleum fuel supply is finite. The change to alt fuels will happen, it has to.

Change upsets conservatives. But that is OK for the old and rigid, as there are still unrigid thinkers in our society. Scientists and unrigid minds will continue to innovate and lead as always. Plenty of youth today are not stuck in conservative Luddite mindset, these youth will create the vehicles of tomorrow.?"



You can't win an argument or change minds to your side by name calling! It shows lack of intelligence and ignorance of the subject you verbally support.

Try answering some of the questions posed

Tell us what you do with all the 100s of millions of dead batteries?
Tell us where you propose to get the raw materials needed for 100s of millions of new batteries?
Tell us what we do when the wind doesn't blow at night without 100% backup petroleum powered power stations?
Tell us how you plan to get approvals for new mines?
How do you propose to power ocean going ships without dino juice?
How about farm equipment that can't stop for days at a time during harvest season?
How about earthmoving equipment to build cities?

Tell us this- IF the USA AND Europe went totally "green" how much would that reduce total world wide CO2 emissions? Have you got that answer?
How do you propose to handle the rest of the "developing" world (who uses cheap coal) and China and India who have no intension of dropping coal as a power plant fuel?

Its easy to sit there and say just buy electric vehicles
Its easy to sit there and pontificate-
Its easy to sit there and cast stones
It takes knowledge and guts to stick your neck out and offer solutions to problems your position creates

I'm listening but so far no one has offered solutions to the big problems of going "green"


mtgoat666 - 4-13-2023 at 10:34 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  



Try answering some of the questions posed

Tell us what you do with all the 100s of millions of dead batteries?
Tell us where you propose to get the raw materials needed for 100s of millions of new batteries?
Tell us what we do when the wind doesn't blow at night without 100% backup petroleum powered power stations?
Tell us how you plan to get approvals for new mines?
How do you propose to power ocean going ships without dino juice?
How about farm equipment that can't stop for days at a time during harvest season?
How about earthmoving equipment to build cities?

Tell us this- IF the USA AND Europe went totally "green" how much would that reduce total world wide CO2 emissions? Have you got that answer?
How do you propose to handle the rest of the "developing" world (who uses cheap coal) and China and India who have no intension of dropping coal as a power plant fuel?

Its easy to sit there and say just buy electric vehicles
Its easy to sit there and pontificate-
Its easy to sit there and cast stones
It takes knowledge and guts to stick your neck out and offer solutions to problems your position creates

I'm listening but so far no one has offered solutions to the big problems of going "green"



Many people are working on answering your questions: visionaries, scientist, engineers, entrepeneuers, planners, etc.
change will happen over time. Change is constant.

We dont need all of the solutions today. We set goals today, then work toward those goals. And i am sure the goals will be adjusted as technology and ideas evolve.


Cliffy - 4-13-2023 at 11:02 AM

You want 60% of all vehicle sales to be battery in 10 years but you have no solutions to the problems of today?

Cart before the horse

And again you didn't answer one question just like all the other folks promoting the idea of green.
How come NO ONE is willing to provide or propose answers?
NO ONE is willing to support their position with critical debate?
All we hear is - 'it will come!"
To paraphrase a movie-
"You don't want the truth because you can't handle the truth"

Bury your head in the sand with just hope and dreams.

[Edited on 4-13-2023 by Cliffy]

JDCanuck - 4-13-2023 at 11:20 AM

Quote: Originally posted by JZ  


I'm looking at Hybrids for my wife's next SUV right now. I'll consider a pure EV in 3-5 years. But because it's right for us, not because the government tells me I have to.




Did you take a look at the new EV Telluride? It may be what we are waiting for. And yes, 3-5 years seems like the right time frame to see how reliable they are and whether they actually meet the expectations. Right now, the manufacturers are falling all over themselves trying to justify high pricing for what was simple application with between 1/5 and 1/100 the moving parts to maintain compared to the IC vehicles. When will we get back to simplicity and durability as primary design concepts



[Edited on 4-13-2023 by JDCanuck]

PaulW - 4-13-2023 at 11:37 AM

As Cliffy wrote there are many issues not resolved. Realistically 99% of the EVs offered are for urban use, not for distance traveling.
47% of the US population say the reason they do not buy an EV are:
Chargers - both time to charge and distance between chargers.
Cost of the vehicle.

Meanwhile a PHEV allows distance traveling with ICE and the advantage of short EV used when at home to save gas. Cost of the hybrid of course is remains high and the disadvantages of ICE prevail.

akmaxx - 4-13-2023 at 12:15 PM

No rare earths, no Chinese, 3000% faster charging, Rio Tinto is first partner (aluminum and heavy equipment galore), no fire hazard, 100 easily recyclable...solutions for your questions.

My money is on GMGMF.

https://www.youtube.com/@graphenemanufacturinggroup5402


Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  

"You obviously are new to e-cars. If you understood them better, you would know how to refuel them, plan a trip, etc. Old people like you may want to learn, or alternatively ignore due to low need (short lifespan, means you can keep ICE car)
Yes, e fueling will be different than petro fueling. The reality is that 1) petroleum fuel burning at rate we are doing it is bad for the climate, and 2) petroleum fuel supply is finite. The change to alt fuels will happen, it has to.

Change upsets conservatives. But that is OK for the old and rigid, as there are still unrigid thinkers in our society. Scientists and unrigid minds will continue to innovate and lead as always. Plenty of youth today are not stuck in conservative Luddite mindset, these youth will create the vehicles of tomorrow.?"



You can't win an argument or change minds to your side by name calling! It shows lack of intelligence and ignorance of the subject you verbally support.

Try answering some of the questions posed

Tell us what you do with all the 100s of millions of dead batteries?
Tell us where you propose to get the raw materials needed for 100s of millions of new batteries?
Tell us what we do when the wind doesn't blow at night without 100% backup petroleum powered power stations?
Tell us how you plan to get approvals for new mines?
How do you propose to power ocean going ships without dino juice?
How about farm equipment that can't stop for days at a time during harvest season?
How about earthmoving equipment to build cities?

Tell us this- IF the USA AND Europe went totally "green" how much would that reduce total world wide CO2 emissions? Have you got that answer?
How do you propose to handle the rest of the "developing" world (who uses cheap coal) and China and India who have no intension of dropping coal as a power plant fuel?

Its easy to sit there and say just buy electric vehicles
Its easy to sit there and pontificate-
Its easy to sit there and cast stones
It takes knowledge and guts to stick your neck out and offer solutions to problems your position creates

I'm listening but so far no one has offered solutions to the big problems of going "green"


JDCanuck - 4-13-2023 at 12:20 PM

Legislating IC vehicles off the road seems the wrong way to go to me. Better the government provide both price incentives and support for more charging stations as they did in Europe. Europeans I spoke to are dismayed by the rarity of charging stations when they come for visits. But if there is a way to justify more bureaucracy and increased taxation excuses that seems to be what we are after here in NA at present. Long range travel will come if storage technology continues at the pace it has been. Cost...does everyone need all the auto driving apps and 4 large TV displays in their off-road vehicles? Just more electronics to break down from rough use.

mtgoat666 - 4-13-2023 at 04:53 PM

Feeling sad for the fate of the polar bears and DK's palm tree...

'Uncharted levels': Gases fueling climate change still rising at an alarming rate, NOAA says

The steady drumbeat of emissions fueling global warming continued unabated in 2022, federal scientists announced this week.

Levels of carbon dioxide and methane, the two greenhouse gases emitted by human activity that are the most significant contributors to climate change, continued their "historically high rates of growth" in our atmosphere during 2022, scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said, which added that the gases are now in "uncharted levels."

“The observations collected by NOAA scientists in 2022 show that greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at an alarming pace and will persist in the atmosphere for thousands of years,” said Rick Spinrad, the NOAA administrator, in a statement. “The time is now to address greenhouse gas pollution and to lower human-caused emissions."

'Highest sustained rate of increases' of carbon dioxide
The global surface average for carbon dioxide during 2022 was 417.06 parts per million (ppm), which is an increase of 2.13 ppm over the 2021 average, NOAA said.

2022 was the 11th consecutive year carbon dioxide increased by more than 2 ppm, the highest sustained rate of increases in the 65 years since monitoring began.

The increase in carbon dioxide coincided with yet another anomalously warm year for the planet in 2022: Data from both NASA and NOAA agreed that global average temperatures last year were among the warmest on record.

Which countries emit the most carbon dioxide?
Previous data shows three countries account for the lion’s share of global carbon dioxide emissions. China is highest, at 32%, though that's begun to fall slightly. The United States is next with 14%, an increase of 1.5% over 2021.

India's emissions continue to rise and now make up 8% of the global total. Together, the 27 nations of the European Union account for 8%.

Methane also increased last year
Atmospheric levels of methane, a powerful, heat-trapping greenhouse gas that’s the second-biggest contributor to human-caused global warming after carbon dioxide, also increased in 2022.

Methane increased to an average of 1,911.9 parts per billion (ppb) in 2022. The 2022 methane increase was 14.0 ppb, the fourth-largest annual increase recorded since NOAA’s measurements began in 1983, and follows record growth in 2020 and 2021.

"Our latest measurements confirm that the most important greenhouse gases continue to increase rapidly in the atmosphere,” said Stephen Montzka, a senior scientist with NOAA’s Global Monitoring Laboratory. “It's a clear sign that much more effort will be required if we hope to stabilize levels of these gases in the next few decades."


PaulW - 4-13-2023 at 07:45 PM

goat
Does this NOAA report have independent review?
Or is just one guy at NOAA that wrote a report?

JZ - 4-13-2023 at 08:22 PM

Quote: Originally posted by lencho  
Quote: Originally posted by JZ  
The population on Norway is 5M. US is 330M.

I have no dog in this pony show ("debate"?), but I don't follow your logic: What does relative population have to do with all this?


Have you ever done project management?

I have. For years. Managing a project with 10 ppl is infinitely easier than managing one with a 100 ppl.

Plus we could write a 100 (1,000?) page document of why the infrastructure, culture, economics, climate variety, political environment, world role, etc. of Norway is much, much easier to steer.



[Edited on 4-14-2023 by JZ]

mtgoat666 - 4-13-2023 at 10:58 PM

Quote: Originally posted by JZ  
Quote: Originally posted by lencho  
Quote: Originally posted by JZ  
The population on Norway is 5M. US is 330M.

I have no dog in this pony show ("debate"?), but I don't follow your logic: What does relative population have to do with all this?


Have you ever done project management?

I have. For years.


I bet your PM skills are worse than your law skills :lol::lol::lol:


mtgoat666 - 4-14-2023 at 06:13 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  
You want 60% of all vehicle sales to be battery in 10 years but you have no solutions to the problems of today?

Cart before the horse

And again you didn't answer one question just like all the other folks promoting the idea of green.
How come NO ONE is willing to provide or propose answers?
NO ONE is willing to support their position with critical debate?
All we hear is - 'it will come!"
To paraphrase a movie-
"You don't want the truth because you can't handle the truth"

Bury your head in the sand with just hope and dreams.

[Edited on 4-13-2023 by Cliffy]


Here is an article that answers many of your questions. You ask many, many basic questions that a little googling could answer…

How electrification became a major tool for fighting climate change.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/04/14/climate/elect...

Cliffy - 4-14-2023 at 06:42 AM

I'd read the article- too bad its behind a paywall- I won't go there

I don't want too subscribe and I don't want my email address flooded with more spam (which always happens with these)

And my point being in the section you quoted is that when ever these subjects come up no one on the opposing side is ever able to articulate their position. "They" just shut the debate down.
If we look here again- you do the same thing by transferring the answers to another writer or article keeping you out of the debate.
WHY?
Its easy to make a derogatory comment and transfer the issue -anyone can do it. Its harder to stand on the soap box and espouse your position
Can you do it in an articulate and respectful manner?

Why don't you enlighten us as to what it says in your own words?




Cliffy - 4-14-2023 at 07:42 AM

Have no idea how to turn off Java
I can fly a Boeing around the world but I don't dig deep into computers.

mtgoat666 - 4-14-2023 at 08:24 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  
I'd read the article- too bad its behind a paywall- I won't go there

I don't want too subscribe and I don't want my email address flooded with more spam (which always happens with these)




cliffy:
Two suggestions for paywalls and registration requirements:
1. try opening the link in "incognito window" (chrome browser)
2. establish a "trash" email to use for registering on websites. Use the trash email address for everything you intend to never read, such as website registrations, spam, etc. Then you wont care if you get spam, since you will never use that email address except for registering for services that generate trash emails. let the trash email box fill up, take joy in never checking your email

surabi - 4-14-2023 at 08:48 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  



If we look here again- you do the same thing by transferring the answers to another writer or article keeping you out of the debate.
WHY?

Why don't you enlighten us as to what it says in your own words?



Why do you think that some poster's interpretation of an issue or article is more valuable than reading source material written by experts in their field?

tomieharder - 4-15-2023 at 08:26 AM

Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666  


Singer was a humbug, a merchant of doubt. He started out as a competent scientist, ended up being a crackpot. Naturally, trump relied on him. Birds of a feather flock together.


And what, precisely, is your technical background that makes you so wise? Yale University PhD in American Studies?

In a real debate, not the childish name-calling you do here, but in a real debate where speakers have to state cogent reasons to support their arguments, you would fail miserably. Ever heard of the "Shoot the Messenger" Fallacy? You're its poster child.




Lobsterman - 4-15-2023 at 10:28 AM

We all have opinions so let one state his without the name calling. IMO Teslas are lousy, impractical cars and I would never own one. That's an opinion, not a mandate.

[Edited on 4-15-2023 by Lobsterman]

caj13 - 4-15-2023 at 10:53 AM

actually - Lobsterman and all of you other climate deniers. A=Singer was not an expert on climate change, climate modeling etc. singer was a bright guy who apparently decided he would seek fame and fortune by grabbing headlines being a denier.

He was famously against second hand smoke as dangerous, as well as several other claims he made.

His MO is always the same - he never did any primary research, never designed experiments, never collected data, instead he would cherry pick information - misrepresent it, ignore all evidence contrary to his claims - etc - all very common charlatan denier tactics.

But I'm always very fascinated by the mental Gymnastics of lobsterman , David - etc - have to go through to continue to cling to their beliefs. If tens of thousands of scientists doing gigantic amounts of research over the last 50 years all pretty much come to the same conclusion - and you don't agree with that conclusion - you go find the single guy on the planet willing to say different - then you burnish their credentials - so they are your expert. You ignore the credentials, education, experience, proven science, etc that they do, and cling to your demigod who is willing to make false claims - usually for money or fame.

we get it - sprinkler repair men with a single photo of a palm tree know more that tens of thousands of scientists with hundreds of thousands of years of experience, using petabytes of well collected & verified data.

Go ahead, next time you need heart surgery - why not have your mechanic do it - he says he knows all bout hearts and stuff.

Me. Id probably choose a board approved cardiologist with lots of experience and exceptional results.

But - then again - I make decisions based on facts and information - my opinions follow - and can change as the data and information accumulates.

JZ - 4-15-2023 at 02:11 PM

Quote: Originally posted by caj13  
actually - Lobsterman and all of you other climate deniers. A=Singer was not an expert on climate change, climate modeling etc. singer was a bright guy who apparently decided he would seek fame and fortune by grabbing headlines being a denier.

He was famously against second hand smoke as dangerous, as well as several other claims he made.

His MO is always the same - he never did any primary research, never designed experiments, never collected data, instead he would cherry pick information - misrepresent it, ignore all evidence contrary to his claims - etc - all very common charlatan denier tactics.

But I'm always very fascinated by the mental Gymnastics of lobsterman , David - etc - have to go through to continue to cling to their beliefs. If tens of thousands of scientists doing gigantic amounts of research over the last 50 years all pretty much come to the same conclusion - and you don't agree with that conclusion - you go find the single guy on the planet willing to say different - then you burnish their credentials - so they are your expert. You ignore the credentials, education, experience, proven science, etc that they do, and cling to your demigod who is willing to make false claims - usually for money or fame.

we get it - sprinkler repair men with a single photo of a palm tree know more that tens of thousands of scientists with hundreds of thousands of years of experience, using petabytes of well collected & verified data.

Go ahead, next time you need heart surgery - why not have your mechanic do it - he says he knows all bout hearts and stuff.

Me. Id probably choose a board approved cardiologist with lots of experience and exceptional results.

But - then again - I make decisions based on facts and information - my opinions follow - and can change as the data and information accumulates.


I remember you parroting the establishment's narrative that Covid came from a bat. Telling any of us who thought it more likely came from a lab leak that our ideas were conspiracy theories/misinformation.

Don't be so gullible. The scientists lie (or are wrong) all the time. They have motives to do so.


[Edited on 4-15-2023 by JZ]

tomieharder - 4-15-2023 at 02:26 PM

The last Ice Age peaked 22,000 years ago. The Earth has been continually warming for the last 22,000 years. 22,000 years ago, upstate New York was under an ice sheet 1 mile thick.

So here is the question for the goat all the other geniuses here:

If the Earth has been warming for the past 22,000 years, what caused it to warm the first 21,780 years before the Industrial Revolution?

And what caused the reason for the warming to change only 220 years ago?

[Edited on 4-16-2023 by tomieharder]

LancairDriver - 4-15-2023 at 02:35 PM

Quote: Originally posted by JZ  
Quote: Originally posted by caj13  
actually - Lobsterman and all of you other climate deniers. A=Singer was not an expert on climate change, climate modeling etc. singer was a bright guy who apparently decided he would seek fame and fortune by grabbing headlines being a denier.

He was famously against second hand smoke as dangerous, as well as several other claims he made.

His MO is always the same - he never did any primary research, never designed experiments, never collected data, instead he would cherry pick information - misrepresent it, ignore all evidence contrary to his claims - etc - all very common charlatan denier tactics.

But I'm always very fascinated by the mental Gymnastics of lobsterman , David - etc - have to go through to continue to cling to their beliefs. If tens of thousands of scientists doing gigantic amounts of research over the last 50 years all pretty much come to the same conclusion - and you don't agree with that conclusion - you go find the single guy on the planet willing to say different - then you burnish their credentials - so they are your expert. You ignore the credentials, education, experience, proven science, etc that they do, and cling to your demigod who is willing to make false claims - usually for money or fame.

we get it - sprinkler repair men with a single photo of a palm tree know more that tens of thousands of scientists with hundreds of thousands of years of experience, using petabytes of well collected & verified data.

Go ahead, next time you need heart surgery - why not have your mechanic do it - he says he knows all bout hearts and stuff.

Me. Id probably choose a board approved cardiologist with lots of experience and exceptional results.

But - then again - I make decisions based on facts and information - my opinions follow - and can change as the data and information accumulates.


I remember you parroting the establishment's narrative that Covid came from a bat. Telling us who thought it more likely came from a lab leak was a conspiracy theory.

Don't be so gullible. The scientists lie (or are wrong) all the time. They have motives to do so.


Absolutely correct. The original Covid narrative has been steadily falling apart daily and is supported by facts. The gullible will continue to be gullible and prove it frequently on this forum.

LancairDriver - 4-15-2023 at 03:06 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Lobsterman  
We all have opinions so let one state his without the name calling. IMO Teslas are lousy, impractical cars and I would never own one. That's an opinion, not a mandate.

[Edited on 4-15-2023 by Lobsterman]


Owning a Tesla depends on your personnel driving requirements. I have owned a Tesla for almost three years now and have not had to do a thing for maintenance. It costs me around $6.00 to travel about 250 miles. Way less than gas. I have almost 25,000 miles on it now. Having said this, I would not have a Tesla to take a trip requiring a charger stop and not having a home charger in my garage. I don’t have the patience to sit at a public charger. I have other gas vehicles to use when necessary. The Tesla model 3 has been beating the new mid engined Corvette in quarter mile races so performance is excellent. I think converting to electric cars on a large scale will not be practical for the near future given what is known about the electric grid and the fossil fuel energy and human exploitation cost of mining the rare earth materials needed for battery’s.

JZ - 4-15-2023 at 03:10 PM

Quote: Originally posted by LancairDriver  
Quote: Originally posted by Lobsterman  
We all have opinions so let one state his without the name calling. IMO Teslas are lousy, impractical cars and I would never own one. That's an opinion, not a mandate.

[Edited on 4-15-2023 by Lobsterman]


Owning a Tesla depends on your personnel driving requirements. I have owned a Tesla for almost three years now and have not had to do a thing for maintenance. It costs me around $6.00 to travel about 250 miles. Way less than gas. I have almost 25,000 miles on it now. Having said this, I would not have a Tesla to take a trip requiring a charger stop and not having a home charger in my garage. I don’t have the patience to sit at a public charger. I have other gas vehicles to use when necessary. The Tesla model 3 has been beating the new mid engined Corvette in quarter mile races so performance is excellent. I think converting to electric cars on a large scale will not be practical for the near future given what is known about the electric grid and the fossil fuel energy and human exploitation cost of mining the rare earth materials needed for battery’s.


I think Telsa's are good cars. And they are perfect for some people. Especially ppl living in bigger cities. Reducing emissions there does help the air quality, etc.

Cliffy - 4-15-2023 at 04:01 PM

#1 Follow the money!

#2 Just recently (a couple of weeks ) over 500 published scientific papers (Peer reviewed) were withdrawn as being falsely Peer reviewed.
Most of them dealt in the COVID arena and most pushed the CDC and Fauci narrative. Seems the Peer review was compromised to push a false agenda. HMMMM. Scientists are fallible on a large scale to further a narrative or funding.
If they went against Fauchi they didn't get funded. Just recollect that idea for a moment.

#3 Citing "one" "scientist" as being biased on climate change is just more blowhard rhetoric. There have been hundreds of actual degreed scientists who, have called into question the -"the earth is dying" narrative. Many have been cancelled from all social media because they didn't toe the line. Many have lost all research funding because of their position.

Again those who have lost the argument just toss out name calling to try to silence the opposition.

Here's a link to an article about CO2 and climate since 66 million years ago IF you care to read it.

https://mashable.com/article/co2-earth-history-climate-chang...

What you will find is that back then CO2 was at 2000 to 4000 PPMs (today @ 420PPMs, roughly a 200PPM rise in 150 years, SO to reach the levels at the dinosaur age we will need about 1500 years) and the temperature was 10-15 degrees higher than now. Was the earth dead back then because we had higher CO2 and temperatures? NO!

You will notice a small uptick in CO2 recently (last 150 years) but nothing alarming considering the historical highs. What has changed is the man has flourished on earth in that time (a NATURAL ELVOLUTIONARY EVENT- natural evolution on earth). Man is not a disparate object on earth but just a part of natural evolution. Does that mean man has no influence on the atmosphere? Hell no - BUT the uptick we see has been over 150 years. NOT exactly a dire emergency in the next decade.

So, to push the narrative "the earth is dying" is a false narrative. I suppose all the life on earth back then wasn't really here on earth when the numbers we are so worried about were normal? The earth is NOT dying! Just naturally changing.

All the "climate chicken littles" have to go on is guesses and theories.
BTW there are about 15 different projections on climate change right now and only one actually has paralleled what has actually happened- its the Russian climate projection theory.

We can't currently accurately predict the weather next winter but we CAN predict the end of the earth because of weather 10 to 100 years from now?
The earth has ALWAY had climate change, THE question is what causes it and what is detrimental about it? Obviously the earth won't die and just how many eons will it take to have a noticeable affect? Why the hysteria over 1 degree when we were 10 or 15 degrees higher 66 million years ago and life flourished on earth?


mtgoat666 - 4-15-2023 at 05:18 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  
Why the hysteria over 1 degree when we were 10 or 15 degrees higher 66 million years ago and life flourished on earth?



Cliffy, life flourishing in the end of the Cretaceous? Those Dino’s were huge predators. You wouldn’t have lasted a day in the Cretaceous.

Cliffy - 4-15-2023 at 08:12 PM

I said 'LIFE" I didn't say "homo sapiens"!

The world is not in jeopardy of imminent death by any means.

mtgoat666 - 4-15-2023 at 09:08 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  
I said 'LIFE" I didn't say "homo sapiens"!

The world is not in jeopardy of imminent death by any means.


The science shows that warmer climate has more extreme weather due to more heat (energy) in atmosphere,… more extreme weather = more deaths in natural disasters.
Perhaps increased death rate due to weather.

Cliffy - 4-15-2023 at 10:09 PM

Or better response to large storms to preclude injuries, say in 1,000 years
The world has always been under atmospheric change.
Animals have always had to adapt or die out.
Species have always been dying out even today with all our interventions.
Natural selection and evolution in process Man is not an interloper but part of the evolutionary process.
To say that IF the USA and EU went green tomorrow we would "save" the world is myopic. That impact would be small on the atmosphere (China India and the rest of the developing world staying the course with coal and wood).
The atmosphere did recover after the big meteor that cooled the entire world with its "cloud" that killed off the dinosaurs without any human influence.
The world has an affinity to heal itself

Man has made good strides in cleaning up the atmosphere in the USA and Europe but its affect on the rest of the world is minimal. China has the worst air in the world and NO intension of changing its habits.
Only the USA and the EU is willing to spent their hundreds of billions of dollars in a futile attempt to "save the world".

surfhat - 4-16-2023 at 11:44 AM

Denial is so much more than the river in Egypt.

Cliffy - 4-16-2023 at 12:08 PM

Why don't we stop the name calling and go back to a reasonable debate OK? BOTH sides of the argument please!

Left it a better place? Hmmmm-

Twice we beat back the Bosch bent on world domination
AT the same time we beat back Japan bent on the same thing at the same time, on the other side of the world bent on our destruction.
It was politicians that dropped the ball since then with the exception if Iraq.

We beat back the Soviet Union, now a shell of its former self bent on domination of peoples of the world. (remember Khrushchev "we will bury you" or are you not that old?)
Maybe you didn't have "drop and cover " drills in grammar school in anticipation of a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union as WE did! WE had to live with that at a young age.


We went from horse and buggy to landing on celestial bodies in less than 100 years

We have dominated numerous plagues that wiped out untold millions of humans with medicines developed here.
We 66+ beat polio (maybe you didn't worry as a kid about catching it and living the rest of your life in an Iron Lung!) We did!


We moved from horse delivery of mail to the internet where the entire world is but a click away

In my time I've seen the Los Angeles basin go from less than a mile visibility most every day to most every day you can see 30 miles, yes we've made progress environmentally here in the USA. So much so that the amount of pollution (from mostly cars) was so low compared to what it was in the 50s and 60s that Calif found that lawn mowers were now a larger portion of the over all contributors (cars had cleaned up that much) that they had to be regulated- a point of diminishing returns!

We in the USA can clean up our act (and we have done so ) but if the rest of the world gets a pass (as they do ) the overall affect worldwide will be minimal while we here pay the huge price economically.

The "cry" is "save the world" but the rest of the world gets a pass!
What will be the affect on world pollution (percentage) if only we (USA and EU) go total green and the rest don't? Do your research and come back here and tell us. I suspect you won't do it.

Why do we mandate a 10 year horizon on "guesses" that have proven to be wrong?

Why did we go from "the coming Ice Age in the 50s to "Climate Warming " in the 80s to now 'Climate Change"? Seems we have conveniently changed the narrative to further a political end game.
Could it be that the narrative was proven wrong and a new title was needed to keep something in the forefront for political means?

Tell me why the name was changed from "Global Warming" to Climate Change"

Yes I think I have proven the hypothesis that the 66+ people have left the country and world in a better place than we got it.

Maybe (its quite possible) the younger generations have never gone through any adversity in their life and have no real reference to life threating times.

JDCanuck - 4-16-2023 at 04:49 PM

From a pro EV site: Cradle to grave emissions reductions of EV/IC"

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/cleaner-cars-cradle-grave

" Both types of vehicle begin in much the same way. Raw materials are extracted, refined, transported, and manufactured into various components that are assembled into the car itself. Because electric cars store power in large lithium-ion batteries, which are particularly material- and energy-intensive to produce, their global warming emissions at this early stage usually exceed those of conventional vehicles. Manufacturing a mid-sized EV with an 84-mile range results in about 15 percent more emissions than manufacturing an equivalent gasoline vehicle. For larger, longer-range EVs that travel more than 250 miles per charge, the manufacturing emissions can be as much as 68 percent higher.

These differences change as soon as the cars are driven. EVs are powered by electricity, which is generally a cleaner energy source than gasoline. Battery electric cars make up for their higher manufacturing emissions within eighteen months of driving—shorter range models can offset the extra emissions within 6 months—and continue to outperform gasoline cars until the end of their lives."

mtgoat666 - 4-16-2023 at 05:02 PM

Quote: Originally posted by JDCanuck  
From a pro EV site: Cradle to grave emissions reductions of EV/IC"

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/cleaner-cars-cradle-grave

" Both types of vehicle begin in much the same way. Raw materials are extracted, refined, transported, and manufactured into various components that are assembled into the car itself. Because electric cars store power in large lithium-ion batteries, which are particularly material- and energy-intensive to produce, their global warming emissions at this early stage usually exceed those of conventional vehicles. Manufacturing a mid-sized EV with an 84-mile range results in about 15 percent more emissions than manufacturing an equivalent gasoline vehicle. For larger, longer-range EVs that travel more than 250 miles per charge, the manufacturing emissions can be as much as 68 percent higher.

These differences change as soon as the cars are driven. EVs are powered by electricity, which is generally a cleaner energy source than gasoline. Battery electric cars make up for their higher manufacturing emissions within eighteen months of driving—shorter range models can offset the extra emissions within 6 months—and continue to outperform gasoline cars until the end of their lives."


The Facts!!!



FACT: Electric vehicles typically have a smaller carbon footprint than gasoline cars, even when accounting for the electricity used for charging.

Electric vehicles (EVs) have no tailpipe emissions. Generating the electricity used to charge EVs, however, may create carbon pollution. The amount varies widely based on how local power is generated, e.g., using coal or natural gas, which emit carbon pollution, versus renewable resources like wind or solar, which do not. Even accounting for these electricity emissions, research shows that an EV is typically responsible for lower levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) than an average new gasoline car. To the extent that more renewable energy sources like wind and solar are used to generate electricity, the total GHGs associated with EVs could be even lower. (In 2020, renewables became the second-most prevalent U.S. electricity source. )



FACT: The greenhouse gas emissions associated with an electric vehicle over its lifetime are typically lower than those from an average gasoline-powered vehicle, even when accounting for manufacturing.

Some studies have shown that making a typical EV can create more carbon pollution than making a gasoline car. This is because of the additional energy required to manufacture an EV’s battery. Still, over the lifetime of the vehicle, total GHG emissions associated with manufacturing, charging, and driving an EV are typically lower than the total GHGs associated with a gasoline car. That’s because EVs have zero tailpipe emissions and are typically responsible for significantly fewer GHGs during operation.

For example, researchers at Argonne National Laboratory estimated emissions for both a gasoline car and an EV with a 300-mile electric range. In their estimates, while GHG emissions from EV manufacturing and end-of-life are higher, total GHGs for the EV are still lower than those for the gasoline car.

Recycling EV batteries can reduce the emissions associated with making an EV by reducing the need for new materials. While some challenges exist today, research is ongoing to improve the process and rate of EV battery recycling.






[Edited on 4-17-2023 by mtgoat666]

Lobsterman - 4-16-2023 at 06:08 PM

Ok EVs still suck. My October road trip San Diego-chicago (route 66)-mystic conn-Norfolk -Atlanta-Mobile-Houston- Albuqueque -Tucson-San diego would be one pain in the ass with an EV car. I run my life, not the government.

JZ - 4-16-2023 at 07:58 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/06/chinas-greenhouse-gas-emissi...

mtgoat666 - 4-16-2023 at 08:55 PM

Quote: Originally posted by JZ  
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/06/chinas-greenhouse-gas-emissi...


Usa moved it’s manufacturing overseas. Today the largest consumer of Chinese goods is the USA. China generates a lot of ghg because usa consumes a lot of crap from China :!:

Half pint, you can’t live w/o China!

[Edited on 4-17-2023 by mtgoat666]

Cliffy - 4-16-2023 at 08:58 PM

SEEMS the above report says the US gives off 11% of the total earth GHG NOT 25% HMMMM

Still no one has answered my question posed a long time ago-
What do we do when the wind doesn't blow at night if we go all renewables?

surabi - 4-16-2023 at 09:11 PM

Quote: Originally posted by JZ  
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/06/chinas-greenhouse-gas-emissi...


Published 2 years ago, based on data from 4 years ago.
China's emissions have actually been going down.

As I've asked, but none of you deniers have answered, do you throw trash all over your yard because someone on the other side of the planet does?

JZ - 4-16-2023 at 09:32 PM

I've been to China more than a dozen times. India a half dozen.

Anyone who thinks our pollution is one tenth of theirs isn't very informed.

Plus all emerging countries around the globe are going to burn stuff for fuel.

Even assuming best case scenarios, nothing America does will make a dent in Climate Change. And it's highly debated if man has even impacted Climate Change.

Power and $. Follow the money.

RFClark - 4-16-2023 at 09:49 PM

S,

As I have previously stated the issue is not is the climate changing. Even the flat earthiers know it is. The issue is will putting people who don’t practice what they preach in charge actually solve any of the changes which have been going on for the last 20K+ years?

Currently India is the most populous country on earth, not China. India burns even more coal than does China! Between the to of them they pollute far more than the US and way far more than Mexico which is what Doug said this site is about!

Electric cars don’t work in Mexico yet. As an example BCS’s grid primarily runs on burning very dirty oil and can barely deal with the current load. The load imposed by EVs in any number would crash it.

We have a hybrid kia we drive around BCS. We charge it off of our solar when we’re not using the welder.

I doubt that anything done to try and slow the long standing changes in the climate will be successful until India and China also do them. They might still not be successful even with them actually helping.

Please note that the war going on in Europe again is far worse for the environment than are cars in California or Mexico. In fact human set fires are the major source of increased CO2 and pollution not cars. Do you see anyone doing anything to change that?

JZ - 4-16-2023 at 09:55 PM

Man, oh man this hybrid is beyond awesome.






[Edited on 4-17-2023 by JZ]

surabi - 4-16-2023 at 10:06 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  


Still no one has answered my question posed a long time ago-
What do we do when the wind doesn't blow at night if we go all renewables?


Gee, Cliffy, is there something that prevents you from Googling information like anyone else can do? You get all your education from internet forums?

Battery storage is, of course, already used to store wind and solar energy. You didn't know that? And people are working on these things all the time now and coming up with better and better solutions for renewables.

Here's one:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/business-60066...

Renewables is big business now and there will continue to be new technologies for producing and storing renewable energy. I guess forward thinking and development is an alien concept to you?

It wasn't all that long ago in human history that people got around by horse and buggy and there were no electric lights or refrigerators or airplanes, you know.


[Edited on 4-17-2023 by surabi]

[Edited on 4-17-2023 by surabi]

[Edited on 4-17-2023 by surabi]

mtgoat666 - 4-17-2023 at 06:31 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  

Still no one has answered my question posed a long time ago-
What do we do when the wind doesn't blow at night if we go all renewables?


Stored energy is available at night. Hydroelectric is is available at night. Wind is available at night. Clifford, the wind is always blowing somewhere else if it has stopped in your neighborhood; also realize that elec demand is lower at night.

No one is saying we won’t still have nuke and nat gas generation. We will have reduced reliance on dirty sources.

Clifford, stop worrying, be happy

Instead of asking what happens when the wind does not blow, you should ask what happens when the wind blows? Carbon emissions plummet, power prices fall, innovation is catalysed, fossil fuel imports fall, and the amount of money flowing to ExxonMobil, the Middle East and Kremlin is reduced

[Edited on 4-17-2023 by mtgoat666]

caj13 - 4-17-2023 at 07:20 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Lobsterman  
Ok EVs still suck. My October road trip San Diego-chicago (route 66)-mystic conn-Norfolk -Atlanta-Mobile-Houston- Albuqueque -Tucson-San diego would be one pain in the ass with an EV car. I run my life, not the government.


Thats your opinion, and your choice. i have no problem with that.

I do however have an issue with you insinuating that the government is trying to force you to drive an EV. Unless of course you want to get into the argument that the government is trying to save you money, at the same time as reduce our carbon footprint, - by using financial incentives and new technologies to get you to switch.

I'll take my 500 mile range tesla cybertruck (currently on order) with self driving - and make that same trip - I doubt I would have any issues.

caj13 - 4-17-2023 at 07:25 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  
SEEMS the above report says the US gives off 11% of the total earth GHG NOT 25% HMMMM

Still no one has answered my question posed a long time ago-
What do we do when the wind doesn't blow at night if we go all renewables?


apparently there is a new technology on the horizon - I believe its called batteries, maybe you ought to look it up! (BTW the 25% include the concrete component, I linked to that info in an earlier post)

[Edited on 4-18-2023 by caj13]

geoffff - 4-17-2023 at 09:45 AM

I really try to stay out of this (I'm here for the Baja not the Politics), but I recently learned something that might be interesting to you Palm Tree folks:

It turns out the sea level changes are not consistent across the globe. It's not like a giant bathtub filling. Some areas (like the Caribbean) are rising fast. In some parts of the world, the sea level is actually dropping.

Baja happens to be in an area with only slight sea level increase. Off the California coast, it goes to zero.

from https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/globalsl.html ...


Apparently this is because of the complications of weather patterns (rain) and also localized gravity variations.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/globalsl.html

AKgringo - 4-17-2023 at 10:04 AM

I find it fascinating that some of the greatest changes in rising, and falling sea levels are right next to each other off the coast of Japan!

Cliffy - 4-17-2023 at 11:17 AM

surabi- China's emissions going down? While they are on course to build out their coal powerplants by a factor or 2 or 3 times what they have now?

JZ- I never denied any of your assertions on COVID
JZ- I agree Follow the money and nothing the US does will have any long term affect on the "climate"
If we want to talk pollution lets just go back the the big meteor crash 66 million years ago that threw up so much "trash" in the air that the earth cooled so much and the weather changed so much that most of the life on earth died out (the killing of the dinosaurs)
Man had nothing to do with that but yet the earth recovered all on its own over millions of years. Climate change has been around since the dawn of time.
Why do some deny that fact?

Again I guess its convenient to dodge the question- Why did the names change from the "coming Ice Age to "Climate Warming" to "Climate Change" Especially the last two?
Could it be that the figures didn't support the second hypothesis?

Why have so many discounted all the progress we have seen in the last 100 years as far as pollution goes? Its been an on going process for 100 years. BUT the world is NOT in dire straights and on the verge of dying.

surabi- NO I probably GOOGLE more than most to keep up with research but I also have a keen interest in practicality of research when applied to the problem. Batteries for the power grid? It will never happen in 50 years, The physics aren't there for that much backup power without other compromises.

How much excess wind power is needed to cover those areas that don't have wind?

Where are you going to put all those wing turbines? Not every area of the USA has the wind needed to produce power. Who owns all the land that the turbines have to be placed on?
Why does Martha's Vineyard fight to keep wind power away from their shores? Politics will play a part.
How much bigger do the wind farms have to be to supply the grid?
How much land is needed to build solar farms to supply the grid? In areas that have a high production possibility?
Certainly not Seattle of Portland. Are we going to take over all the BLM land in the west to build solar farms?
What will the public in those areas say about that?
What about the environmental considerations of scraping clean the millions of acres of land needed for the solar fields? - Killing every living thing in those areas to build out the solar fields.
Yes people are working on these issues but it won't happen in the10 years the "chicken littles" are crying about.
The capacity for needed storage is huge. Nothing on the drawing boards now will cover it yet we still try to mandate EVs in 10 years when the infrastructure just isn't there

Never said that EVs weren't possible or even is some cases desirable but they are not for everybody or every industry. Why no proposed VIABLE solutions to ocean shipping, farming equipment or earth moving equipment? Batteries won't cut it for those fields in many decades. So we will still need fossil fuels for a long time.
My issue is the 10 year mandate like Calif is doing. Nothing is in place to cover the issues presented for that scenario.

goat- there isn't anywhere near enough hydropower to cover night time use and no new impoundments are allowed in any state that I know of.
There are not near enough wind farms to cover the power demand (even counting hydro) at night. Again How much excess wind power will be needed to cover the areas that aren't working at night?
Also in most places in the USA the wind speed drops at night thereby lowering the possibility of producing wind power over large areas of the country. Any pilot knows that fact as we like to fly small airplanes early in the mornings before the usual wind starts to bow,
Nuke and gas? I can't believe you are not knowledgeable on the opposition to each of those proposals? Really?
There is massive opposition to any more natural gas power plants (the approvals process is stacked against any issuance) and NUKE opposition? Come on- just look it up. Now not withstanding all the nuke plants in the EU and they are now proposing even more AS WE SHOULD ALSO!
Nuke plants can be as safe as any other power system IF proper procedures are followed. That is why the US Navy has never had a nuke plant problem. ADM Rickover made sure that the procedures were sacrosanct and were to be followed to prevent any accidents. Unfortunately in the civilian world too many want to take short cuts and accidents have happened. It doesn't have to be that way as Nuke energy IS the salvation of our GREEN energy issue. The production and storage of the waste material is now so small that it shouldn't be a danger to anyone but political forces and the uninformed.

Question- Why did the EU just drop their 2035 mandate for EVs?
Because they realized that it was an impractical and impossible goal in that amount of time.

Money to the sand box? We were energy independent 2 years ago. The money doesn't need to go to the sand box BUT also think of the political issues we would have to kill the world market of oil with countries whos entire economy is dependent on oil. We would kill those countries. Are we ready for that sacrifice? That political knot?

If we go back to WWII What started the Japanese on the road to going after Pearl Harbor and trying to kill the USA? It was their thoughts on our economic pressures against them and they thinking we were trying to kill them economically. The same thoughts would surface in the Middle East if we went after a no more oil philosophy. The world ramifications would be huge. We haven't even broached the issues with Russia yet and their reliance on the world oil market for survival. And they have as many nuke warheads as we do!!

The only way the price of oil will decrease is if we start drilling and pumping again. Restrict the supply by say going all EV and the cost per barrel will go up. As is proven by last weeks Middle East decision to cut back on world supply to keep prices up. If the demand goes so low that some countries feel threatened by our policies we will have big international problems to deal with.

The question remains -Why do we want to give all that money to the sand box when we could bring it into the USA coffers if we only went back to producing oil. Oil ain't going away folks. The world runs on fossil fuel and if we don't supply it someone else will because the vast majority of the world needs dino juice for a long time in the future.

We have made great strides in the last 100 years on emissions. That will continue no doubt but to set unrealistic deadlines without the science in place to handle the transition is my concern..

Secondly, as a Capitalist (I know dirty word but that is what makes the world work) Green Power needs to be on an equal footing with fossil power price wise and not the false economics of subsidies. Right now the cost of wind power doesn't come close to the true cost minus subsidies. Green Energy equaks higher energy costs all around, people WILL be paying more for all combined energy than with the current dino juice power.

BTW For those thinking that the cost to "refill" your EV will be lower than a gasoline car just project out where the states are going to go to replace all the gas taxes lost to the gas powered cars as they are eliminated! The free ride won't last long until the states start to add a "mileage tax" or KW TAX on to your "refill" bill.
Think about that one Calif with your highest gas tax in the nation!



mtgoat666 - 4-17-2023 at 12:03 PM

States and towns consider banning gas-powered leaf blowers and lawn mowers and of course people people are moaning and whining…

I have electric leaf blower and mower. I really like them, no smelly gas cans or oil to mess with! With electric motors, very simple maintenance!

Back in the 1970s we swept up dirt and picked up leaves with brooms and rakes. I still use a broom and take in my yard for most clean up because blowers create so much dust in our dry climate, and I prefer to not breathe all that dust.

surabi - 4-17-2023 at 02:44 PM

"Green Power needs to be on an equal footing with fossil power price wise and not the false economics of subsidies. Right now the cost of wind power doesn't come close to the true cost minus subsidies. Green Energy equaks higher energy costs all around, people WILL be paying more for all combined energy than with the current dino juice power."

Duh, all new technologies and inventions are more expensive when they first come out and go down in price as there are new ways developed to produce and distribute them them more economically. As a proud capitalist, I would think that is something you'd be aware of.

JDCanuck - 4-17-2023 at 03:23 PM

Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666  
States and towns consider banning gas-powered leaf blowers and lawn mowers and of course people people are moaning and whining…

I have electric leaf blower and mower. I really like them, no smelly gas cans or oil to mess with! With electric motors, very simple maintenance!

Back in the 1970s we swept up dirt and picked up leaves with brooms and rakes. I still use a broom and take in my yard for most clean up because blowers create so much dust in our dry climate, and I prefer to not breathe all that dust.


I've had an electric mower and snowblower for a few years now from Greenworks. Cost to replace two batteries $600 per year as they fail very quickly, far more than the cost of gas. I hate to think what replacing those two 80v lithium non-recyclable batteries costs in pollution as well. Turned out not to be such a great idea after all. Maybe someone will come out with reliable batteries and this might change.

JDCanuck - 4-17-2023 at 03:31 PM

Rechargeable power tools Lithium batteries the same. Ryobi blow out quickly, while Milwaukee Red Lithiums have been fine for several years of much heavier use. The problem is not the batteries themselves but cheap as possible circuitry thrown into them sourced from China. It is not always cheaper or even effectively pollution saving to try to go green.
And before you start blaming China for this, it's the American suppliers that set standards of quality in manufacturing. If they get greedy and demand cheapest possible, thats what we get thrown at us.

[Edited on 4-17-2023 by JDCanuck]

JZ - 4-17-2023 at 04:21 PM

Quote: Originally posted by JDCanuck  
Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666  
States and towns consider banning gas-powered leaf blowers and lawn mowers and of course people people are moaning and whining…

I have electric leaf blower and mower. I really like them, no smelly gas cans or oil to mess with! With electric motors, very simple maintenance!

Back in the 1970s we swept up dirt and picked up leaves with brooms and rakes. I still use a broom and take in my yard for most clean up because blowers create so much dust in our dry climate, and I prefer to not breathe all that dust.


I've had an electric mower and snowblower for a few years now from Greenworks. Cost to replace two batteries $600 per year as they fail very quickly, far more than the cost of gas. I hate to think what replacing those two 80v lithium non-recyclable batteries costs in pollution as well. Turned out not to be such a great idea after all. Maybe someone will come out with reliable batteries and this might change.


Can you imagine gardeners trying to charge batteries for 20 man crews?


caj13 - 4-18-2023 at 07:07 AM

Quote: Originally posted by JDCanuck  


I've had an electric mower and snowblower for a few years now from Greenworks. Cost to replace two batteries $600 per year as they fail very quickly, far more than the cost of gas. I hate to think what replacing those two 80v lithium non-recyclable batteries costs in pollution as well. Turned out not to be such a great idea after all. Maybe someone will come out with reliable batteries and this might change.


Eco brand stuff sold at Costco is Greenworks. - they have 8 year warrantees on batteries, lots of good reviews on you tube from long time owners. why are you not taking advantage of the warrantee program?

JZ - 4-18-2023 at 08:01 AM

Climate change is the biggest grift of the last 60 years.


JDCanuck - 4-18-2023 at 09:01 AM

Quote: Originally posted by caj13  
Quote: Originally posted by JDCanuck  


I've had an electric mower and snowblower for a few years now from Greenworks. Cost to replace two batteries $600 per year as they fail very quickly, far more than the cost of gas. I hate to think what replacing those two 80v lithium non-recyclable batteries costs in pollution as well. Turned out not to be such a great idea after all. Maybe someone will come out with reliable batteries and this might change.


Eco brand stuff sold at Costco is Greenworks. - they have 8 year warrantees on batteries, lots of good reviews on you tube from long time owners. why are you not taking advantage of the warrantee program?

Perhaps if I'd bought in the US, I would have received an 8 year warranty. Mine came with one year warranty, in each case i noted the failures just past the 1 year warranty I was provided with in the next mowing season. Equipment itself outside the batteries did provide much longer "limited" warranties, I think it may have been 8 years.
I did go through several youtube videos that discussed why they failed and how to (hopefully) repair them. Not applicable to me, so I have 1 battery left operable at 300 CAD per shot, the rest have gone to garbage, so its back to the store to buy another or just run my cheap reliable gas mower. Bought two chargers, both produce the same results, and each battery displays different issues when attempting recharging. Most commonly, the charger runs up for about 5 sec and then shows battery failure(charging circuit), but two showed full charge but as soon as they are installed in mower, they trip out and won't run the equipment(discharging circuit).

[Edited on 4-18-2023 by JDCanuck]

JZ - 4-18-2023 at 09:06 AM

Quote: Originally posted by caj13  
Quote: Originally posted by JDCanuck  


I've had an electric mower and snowblower for a few years now from Greenworks. Cost to replace two batteries $600 per year as they fail very quickly, far more than the cost of gas. I hate to think what replacing those two 80v lithium non-recyclable batteries costs in pollution as well. Turned out not to be such a great idea after all. Maybe someone will come out with reliable batteries and this might change.


Eco brand stuff sold at Costco is Greenworks. - they have 8 year warrantees on batteries, lots of good reviews on you tube from long time owners. why are you not taking advantage of the warrantee program?


I see 4 years for their Pro line and 3 for non-Pro.

If you use it for commercial use, you only get 90 days (lol).

https://www.greenworkstools.com/pages/warranty

JDCanuck - 4-18-2023 at 11:33 AM

Quote: Originally posted by JZ  
Quote: Originally posted by caj13  
Quote: Originally posted by JDCanuck  


I've had an electric mower and snowblower for a few years now from Greenworks. Cost to replace two batteries $600 per year as they fail very quickly, far more than the cost of gas. I hate to think what replacing those two 80v lithium non-recyclable batteries costs in pollution as well. Turned out not to be such a great idea after all. Maybe someone will come out with reliable batteries and this might change.


Eco brand stuff sold at Costco is Greenworks. - they have 8 year warrantees on batteries, lots of good reviews on you tube from long time owners. why are you not taking advantage of the warrantee program?


I see 4 years for their Pro line and 3 for non-Pro.

If you use it for commercial use, you only get 90 days (lol).

https://www.greenworkstools.com/pages/warranty


Apparently early battery failures are not uncommon with Greenworks, but if you pay 40% more they will soon offer a doubling of the warranty to 8 years on the more expensive "Pro" models. Check out the negative battery reviews and the responses from Greenworks and how the owner was responsible for not storing or recharging them every couple months, but never overdoing the length of time they are left in the chargers. Reminds me of the old Firestone tire warranties when they had exploding tires

https://www.greenworkstools.com/collections/batteries-charge...

mtgoat666 - 4-19-2023 at 09:11 AM

What Earth was like last time CO2 levels were so crazily high

The last time CO2 levels were as high as today, ocean waters drowned the lands where metropolises like Houston, Miami, and New York City now exist.

It’s a time called the Pliocene or mid-Pliocene, some 3 million years ago, when sea levels were around 30 feet higher (but possibly much more) and giant camels dwelled in a forested high Arctic. The Pliocene was a significantly warmer world, likely at some 5 degrees Fahrenheit (around 3 degrees Celsius) warmer than pre-Industrial temperatures of the late 1800s. Much of the Arctic, which today is largely clad in ice, had melted. Heat-trapping carbon dioxide levels, a major temperature lever, hovered around 400 parts per million, or ppm. Today, these levels are similar but relentlessly rising, at over 420 ppm.

Humanity is currently on track to warm Earth to Pliocene-like temperatures by century’s end — unless nations ambitiously slash carbon emissions in the coming decades. Sea levels, of course, won’t instantly rise by tens of feet: Miles-thick ice sheets take many centuries to thousands of years to melt. But, critically, humanity is already setting the stage for a relatively quick return to Pliocene climes, or climes at least significantly warmer than now. It’s happening fast. When CO2 naturally increases in the atmosphere, pockets of ancient air preserved in ice show this CO2 rise happens gradually, over thousands of years. But today, carbon dioxide levels are skyrocketing as humans burn long-buried fossil fuels.

"CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up 100 ppm in my lifetime," said Kathleen Benison, a geologist at West Virginia University who researches past climates. “That’s incredibly fast geologically."

"You don’t have to be a scientist to realize something totally weird is going on, and that weird thing is humans," noted Dan Lunt, a climate scientist at the University of Bristol who has researched the Pliocene.

The problematic Pliocene
Sure, it takes a long time for sea levels to catch up with Earth’s warming. But in a plethora of other ways, the planet is already reacting to about 2 F (1.1 C) of warming since the late 1800s: Wildfires are surging in the U.S., major Antarctic ice sheets have destabilized, heat waves are smashing records, storms are intensifying, and beyond.

More warming will further exacerbate these consequences of increased heat. It will get worse. But will it get Pliocene bad? That’s up to the most fickle, unpredictable factor of the climate equation: humans.

"CO2 levels are going to increase," said Lunt. "We could hit the Pliocene in terms of temperature. But it depends on how rapidly we emit [greenhouse gases]."

"CO2 levels are going to increase."

Some of the human-driven changes happening on Earth today won’t be reversed for centuries or thousands of years. In large part, that’s because civilization continues to deposit prodigious loads of carbon into the atmosphere each year, and all these heat-trapping gases won’t magically vanish from the air, even if we instantly stop adding carbon to the atmosphere. Rather, they’ll have impacts upon the planet — like gradually rising seas and acidifying oceans — for at least centuries. Already, sea levels have risen by some eight to nine inches since the late 1800s, and a conservative estimate, from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is sea levels will rise by another one to two feet by the century's end. But, this could very well be more like two or three feet, or even more depending on what Antarctica’s colossal, melting Thwaites Glacier (it’s the size of Britain) purges into the sea this century.

The Pliocene certainly can’t give us all the answers for where we’re headed. We don’t know, for example, how quickly the seas rose during this far-off period. But the Pliocene does show us how sensitive parts of Earth are to just a few degrees of warming. For instance, much of the vast Greenland ice sheet, which is two and a half times the size of Texas, melted during the warmer Pliocene. And ancient evidence of long-ago beaches, dated to the Pliocene, show where past shorelines lay: A ballpark height of 30 feet or so higher than today is ominous.

"That means the ice sheets are really sensitive to a modest amount of warming," said Rob DeConto, a professor of climatology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst who studies the response of ice sheets to a warming climate.

This doesn’t bode well for human civilization, which heavily populates the coastlines. "That’s where civilization has built much of its infrastructure," said DeConto. "We’re a species that gravitated toward the coast."



Pliocene warmth
Earth’s CO2 levels have always naturally wavered. Humans didn’t exist (and wouldn’t exist for millions of years) during the Pliocene — though our hirsute primate ancestors were already walking around Africa at the time.

So what explains the high Pliocene CO2 levels (400 ppm) without a world of fuel-guzzling cars and coal-fired power plants? The answer lies in deep time.

Long before the Pliocene, CO2 levels were extremely elevated during the age of the dinosaurs (which ended 65 million years ago), perhaps at some 2,000 to 4,000 ppm. Tremendous CO2 emissions, from incessant and extreme volcanism, heated Earth and allowed dinosaurs to roam a sultry Antarctic. But over millions of years, Earth’s natural processes (specifically the slow, grinding, but potent process of rocks absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere, dubbed "the rock thermostat") gradually reduced CO2 levels to some 400 ppm during the Pliocene. (We know this because there are indirect, though reliable, ways to gauge Earth’s CO2 levels from millions of years ago, including the chemical make-up of long-dead plankton and the evidence stored in the breathing cells, or stomata, of ancient plants.)

"We’re on our way to the Pliocene."

After the Pliocene, Earth continued to pull CO2 from the air, finally settling CO2 levels between some 200 to 280 ppm during the more recent ice ages, when mammoths, mastodons, and giant sloths dominated a cooler Earth, and humans eventually appeared. But humanity, by rapidly digging up and burning fossil fuels, has now promptly returned CO2 to Pliocene levels.

"We, in 150 years, have completely reversed everything the ‘rock thermostat’ has done in the last 3 million years," explained Brigham-Grette. "The transition from a warm Arctic to a cold one that has ice sheets took a million years. We’re jumping out of that in less than 150 years."

Indeed, the Arctic has changed dramatically in just the last 40 years. Arctic sea ice is in rapid decline. Greenland’s melting is off the charts.

Humanity, fortunately, still has the ability to stabilize Earth’s temperatures this century at levels that would avoid catastrophic impacts like more extreme storms, coral devastation, punishing heat, and beyond. But, as of now, we’re on a trajectory to the climes of 3 million years ago. (And in some respects — notably atmospheric CO2 — we’re already there.)

"We’re on our way to the Pliocene," said Brigham-Grette.




[Edited on 4-19-2023 by mtgoat666]

JDCanuck - 4-19-2023 at 11:29 AM

One simple question needs to be answered before we throw our tax money at this issue. Who has REALLY done the most to reduce our CO2 contributions: The politicians who lease private jets and fly massive numbers of miles to talk, who burn more energy personally than a small village, or the industry leaders like Elon Musk and the owners of the utilities that have drastically dropped theirs and those they sell to in past 2 decades. Lets make sure we throw money at those who have proven they will actually invest it effectively not those who continually demand more with no visible effect to date.

4x4abc - 4-19-2023 at 01:17 PM

why are you guys still arguing over something you have no influence over?
It's like sports - you are just a spectator.
Run for office it you think you can make the world a better place.

mtgoat666 - 4-19-2023 at 01:49 PM

Quote: Originally posted by 4x4abc  
why are you guys still arguing over something you have no influence over?
It's like sports - you are just a spectator.
Run for office it you think you can make the world a better place.


Not true. Everyone can help. Think global, act local.

And here is some food for thought…

It Seems Odd That We Would Just Let the World Burn
“I spent the weekend reading a book I wasn’t entirely comfortable being seen with in public. Andreas Malm’s “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” is only slightly inaptly named. You won’t find, anywhere inside, instructions on sabotaging energy infrastructure. A truer title would be “Why to Blow Up a Pipeline.” On this, Malm’s case is straightforward: Because nothing else has worked.

Decades of climate activism have gotten millions of people into the streets but they haven’t turned the tide on emissions, or even investments. Citing a 2019 study in the journal Nature, Malm observes that, measuring by capacity, 49 percent of the fossil-fuel-burning energy infrastructure now in operation was installed after 2004. Add in the expected emissions from projects in some stage of the planning process and we are most of the way toward warming the world by 2 degrees Celsius — a prospect scientists consider terrifying and most world governments have repeatedly pledged to avoid. Some hoped that the pandemic would alter the world’s course, but it hasn’t. Oil consumption is hurtling back to precrisis levels, and demand for coal, the dirtiest of the fuels, is rising.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/15/opinion/climate-change-en...

The Climate Case for Property Destruction
Andreas Malm’s “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” urges activists to turn to tougher tactics.
https://newrepublic.com/article/162247/andreas-malm-blow-up-...


And in theaters right now:





I love passionate idealism of youth!

I bet a lot of you elderly nomads originally had an ounce of idealism and once read the Monkey Wrench Gang and responded “flock yeah!”



:bounce:

[Edited on 4-20-2023 by mtgoat666]

Cliffy - 4-19-2023 at 07:26 PM

I think a case can be made that the US and EU have done more to curb emissions than the rest of the world combined.
What we/they can accomplish by going further at a tremendous cost to their countries is minuscule compared to what China, India and the other developing countries could do if they so cared.
If we (US) contribute 11% percent of the stuff and cut it to zero (not practical or possible, can't be done in 100 years) would we cut the total emissions by 11%?

If we did and just China keeps on its present course of tripling their coal fired power plants in the next couple decades that means they emit 300% more "stuff".

If they emit 26% of the total now they will emit 78% by the time they are done

What will that 11% from us look like then? After their 66 % increase?
Just their increase is 6 times what we do now!

Where will our economy be then after spending all that money for nothing?

A better gain for the buck for the world would be to get China to drop their coal plants- don't ya think? More bang for the buck? For world climate?

All that money we spend try to cut our last 11% will be totally lost in the total earth emissions being put out by China in 20 years AND the climate will be no better for it.

Its a waste of time because the rest of the world hasn't bought into it yet and can't! They need dino juice to survive. Its obvious that most of the world doesn't buy into the hysteria about the earth coming to an end. As it has done for 5 billion years- the climate will change and the inhabitants will adapt to it.

One of my questions still remains- why the change from "the next Ice Age to Climate Warming to Climate Change"? Could it be that the facts didn't support the former names?

The Chicken Littles just run around all in a dither over nothing.
The seas won't rise and the earth ain't gonna die in the next 500 years. We haven't seen any ocean rise significantly anywhere in the world.

To flagrantly spout that the earth is in dire straights and going to die in 10 years is absolutely false and a lie Just ask the spouter of record himself- Al Gore! What predictions of his have come true?

BTW he deflects his emissions from his jet by buying 'carbon credits" from a company HE owns and wants everyone else to buy them too.
Maybe a conflict of interest here? Do what I say and not what I do?
Special benefits for special people?

When he goes total carbon free I will too! Somehow I think we will both be long gone before that happens.

If you are really interested in "saving the world" go where you can do the most good for the dollar spent- China and India! A lot better return for the dollar spent. Or is the hill too steep to climb and all you're interested in is the low hanging fruit?

JDCanuck - 4-20-2023 at 07:33 AM

Where we are going: to try and put a more positive spin on this topic, this is what is being done at present on the utility power production side. This was (according to records from 2019) Canada's second largest CO2 emitter, being a coal fired thermal power producer of some note.

https://www.capitalpower.com/about-genesee/

1) conversion from coal fired boilers to high efficiency natural gas combined cycle generating units
2) capture and conversion of significant amounts of CO2 to produce carbon based nanotubes.
3)carbon capture and storage using existing converted or new purposed pipelines
4)Installation of 210 MW of battery storage

In 2023:
"Following gas conversion and repowering, physical carbon dioxide emissions at the Genesee facility will be approximately 3.4 million tonnes per year lower than 2019 emission levels."

While the power producers are charged with the CO2 emissions, this plant supplies demand to a grid that runs down the west coast supplying power to customers in California and New Mexico (4 corners New Mexico)and was greatly expanded due to the increasingly large export demand that forced brownouts in the southwestern US in the late 20th century.
Essentially, the producer gets charged while the power user gets to claim a free ride

[Edited on 4-20-2023 by JDCanuck]

caj13 - 4-20-2023 at 08:52 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  

If we did and just China keeps on its present course of tripling their coal fired power plants in the next couple decades that means they emit 300% more "stuff".

You got a citation for this fact Cliffy?

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  

Where will our economy be then after spending all that money for nothing?

turns out cliffy - clean energy is a moneymaker - for the companies producing that power, for the companies providing the manufacture and technology for it, and for the consumers who are paying less - in a previous post you made an old long agao disproven claim that renewables cost more when you take into account subsidies., turns out thats completely false - and if you spent as much time "researching" on google as you claim - you would already know how much cheaper wind, solar is that oil / coal. But maybe you OAN and minus $787Mill Fox websites don't count as Research eh!

As for your ranting about china - look it up - do more of your spectacular internet research - turns out china is reducing their CO2 outputs and moving to renewables as well -

damn thats inconvenient when you can't blame the other guy for farting - isn't it!

surabi - 4-20-2023 at 10:15 AM

Quote: Originally posted by caj13  
Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  

If we did and just China keeps on its present course of tripling their coal fired power plants in the next couple decades that means they emit 300% more "stuff".

You got a citation for this fact Cliffy?

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  

Where will our economy be then after spending all that money for nothing?

turns out cliffy - clean energy is a moneymaker - for the companies producing that power, for the companies providing the manufacture and technology for it, and for the consumers who are paying less - in a previous post you made an old long agao disproven claim that renewables cost more when you take into account subsidies., turns out thats completely false - and if you spent as much time "researching" on google as you claim - you would already know how much cheaper wind, solar is that oil / coal. But maybe you OAN and minus $787Mill Fox websites don't count as Research eh!

As for your ranting about china - look it up - do more of your spectacular internet research - turns out china is reducing their CO2 outputs and moving to renewables as well -

damn thats inconvenient when you can't blame the other guy for farting - isn't it!


What, you mean ignoring facts that don't jive with one's preconceived notions isn't okay? :lol:

They haven't got the bugs out yet.....

AKgringo - 4-21-2023 at 10:03 AM

Recent footage of brand new Ford F-150s; https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/previously-unrelea...


caj13 - 4-21-2023 at 11:05 AM

JZ says:

You do realize there are 5 min montages of every main stream media person and dozens of high level Lib politicians falsely claiming 2016 was a "stolen election" or "illegitimate election"? No?

Nope - didn't happen. some b-tching and whining about timing of comey release - but thats it - compared to 3 years of daily whining - get some evidence - for once have facts to back up your claims - then you may gain a bit of legitamcy - because right now your a bunch of 6 year olds insistin g Santa Claus is real!
JZ says:
Or 3-4 min montages of dozens of people like Kamala and Clinton claiming Dominican voting machines could be hacked.

got any evidence for that claim? any footage of them saying that? or better yet any evidence trrhat they were hacked. B ecause Mikey PPillow biter would like that info - it would save him 5 million bucks! I appreciate he put his money where his mouth is - even if hes now renigging on his promise!

Your right, I don't watch enough of fox - I got tired of them claiming they were a news organization - turns out - $787 million says c- nope - your just a bunch of spin doctors making up lies and propaganda -

JZ says: Climate Change is real. But it is being used as part of a grift to enrich politicians with money and power.

and once again - for at least the 4th time I'll ask you to provide sources for that information - what politicians - when and how - because I have provided you tons of links to articles and research on the economic gains provided by green industries,

and JZ pontificates: and for some reason - you have never responded to those! Again, if you stopped listening to the media and lying politicians you'd see the truth. Your choice if you want to be the pawn in their caper.

Uh JZ - you and I both know science and fact are what I listen to and believe in - I'm sorry if the science doesn't agree with your political agenda - but you know what? Science don't care what you think - it says - here's the facts, here's the data, here's the an analysis - here's the conclusions - you got a problem with that, show me your data, show me where the science is wrong. and so far - nothing - noltta but a bunch of whiners spouting right wing conspiracies they dream up so they don't have to face reality!




caj13 - 4-21-2023 at 11:11 AM

Quote: Originally posted by AKgringo  
Recent footage of brand new Ford F-150s; https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/previously-unrelea...



Car fires happen every day Gringo - most are not electric! so we shouldn't be using IC engined cars because occasionally they burst into flames. so its back to the Conestoga wagons? oh wait - they burned too - usually by flaming arrows from Indians if my childhood westerns are based in fact - so we are left at using only Bicycles - but we cant do that - they are completely green - oh no!

caj13 - 4-21-2023 at 11:14 AM

Quote: Originally posted by tomieharder  
The last Ice Age peaked 22,000 years ago. The Earth has been continually warming for the last 22,000 years. 22,000 years ago, upstate New York was under an ice sheet 1 mile thick.

So here is the question for the goat all the other geniuses here:

If the Earth has been warming for the past 22,000 years, what caused it to warm the first 21,780 years before the Industrial Revolution?

And what caused the reason for the warming to change only 220 years ago?

[Edited on 4-16-2023 by tomieharder]


Its the rate - look at the graphs - look at the data, if you don't know the facts, how can you be a valid participant in the discussion?

caj13 - 4-21-2023 at 11:22 AM

JZ

Was this also science?

[/rquote]

No JZ It wasn't science - turns out it is a fake magazine cover some MAGA climate deniers fabricated up because they had n o science or fact to back their denier claims.

a 30 second google search would of told you that - instead you chose to post this complete and utter BS because you wanted to believe in it.

Facts and science JZ - not Political posturing and inventing BS

caj13 - 4-21-2023 at 09:06 PM

Quote: Originally posted by JZ  
Quote: Originally posted by caj13  


Eco brand stuff sold at Costco is Greenworks. - they have 8 year warrantees on batteries, lots of good reviews on you tube from long time owners. why are you not taking advantage of the warrantee program?


I see 4 years for their Pro line and 3 for non-Pro.


https://www.greenworkstools.com/pages/warranty

if you go into Costco and look at the Box - it says right on the box costco members get double the life of the battery warranty. Look it up - i just confirmed that today at my local costco. uh so - I guess that makes youiwrong? again? doesn't that ever get old for you?

JZ - 4-21-2023 at 11:42 PM

Quote: Originally posted by caj13  
Quote: Originally posted by JZ  
Quote: Originally posted by caj13  


Eco brand stuff sold at Costco is Greenworks. - they have 8 year warrantees on batteries, lots of good reviews on you tube from long time owners. why are you not taking advantage of the warrantee program?


I see 4 years for their Pro line and 3 for non-Pro.


https://www.greenworkstools.com/pages/warranty

if you go into Costco and look at the Box - it says right on the box costco members get double the life of the battery warranty. Look it up - i just confirmed that today at my local costco. uh so - I guess that makes youiwrong? again? doesn't that ever get old for you?


Are you drunk or high tonight?

I just asked a question based on what their website says. Never said it wasn't a longer warranty.

Post the link to the longer warranty when you sober up.

willardguy - 4-22-2023 at 12:17 AM

Quote: Originally posted by JZ  
Quote: Originally posted by caj13  
Quote: Originally posted by JZ  
Quote: Originally posted by caj13  


Eco brand stuff sold at Costco is Greenworks. - they have 8 year warrantees on batteries, lots of good reviews on you tube from long time owners. why are you not taking advantage of the warrantee program?


I see 4 years for their Pro line and 3 for non-Pro.


https://www.greenworkstools.com/pages/warranty

if you go into Costco and look at the Box - it says right on the box costco members get double the life of the battery warranty. Look it up - i just confirmed that today at my local costco. uh so - I guess that makes youiwrong? again? doesn't that ever get old for you?


Are you drunk or high tonight?

I just asked a question based on what their website says. Never said it wasn't a longer warranty.

Post the link to the longer warranty when you sober up.



game over....I don't know how anyone could mount a counter offensive after that vicious take down! :lol: you go Poco!

mtgoat666 - 4-22-2023 at 01:44 PM

Happy Earth Day!
Eid Mubarak!


Earth Day: How to talk to old people about climate change
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65339214

As Eid and Earth Day coincide, young Muslims are driving the modern climate movement
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/eid-earth-day-coi...

:bounce:



RFClark - 4-25-2023 at 10:05 AM

The Yale weather experts are stumped because the weather isn’t following their models! (I’m shocked!) The takeaway is perhaps the real weather may yet start following their models as you, I and it should. (?)

This is really important to the west coast of Mexico because of hurricanes.

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/04/a-mystery-in-the-...

JDCanuck - 4-25-2023 at 10:25 AM

Interesting article, thanks RFC. It also seems to bear some new info on why the west coast of North America has seen falling rather than rising water oceanside levels in recent decades along with the very cold wet winters we have been experiencing last couple years.


[Edited on 4-25-2023 by JDCanuck]

soulpatch - 4-25-2023 at 08:40 PM

That's an excellent article

David K - 4-26-2023 at 09:50 AM

The ice age fear in the 70s was so real, the Soviet Union proposed placing a giant 'magnifying' device above Siberia to warm up the land!

Warming the planet is a good thing, more crops, less famine deaths, increased time to just think. The Renaissance (Leonardo Da Vinci, etc.) came about from warming period. Instead of focusing on a graph that begins during a cold period and makes today's temperatures look extreme, look at the bigger picture and see that we are far from being close to how warm these NORMAL cycles in temperature get.

The only warming you should be fearful of is the atomic blast from Chinese or Russian hyper-sonic missiles as your government is spending tons of dollars on 'climate change' (with the so-called Inflation Reduction Act) instead of America's safety from real enemies.

surabi - 4-26-2023 at 10:36 AM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  


Warming the planet is a good thing, more crops, less famine deaths, increased time to just think.


Your willful ignorance is stunning.

Is this the idiot whose ignorance you are parroting?
https://www.rawstory.com/ron-johnson-climate-deaths/

[Edited on 4-26-2023 by surabi]

RFClark - 4-26-2023 at 10:44 AM

S,

Really!

https://blog.ptvgroup.com/en/city-and-mobility/the-effects-o...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-24/lisbon-ca...

https://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/ca...



RFClark - 4-26-2023 at 11:17 AM

S,

History is always a great read and often a forecast of the future!

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2022-01-17/against-enclos...

Marx wrote at length on this subject as well.

As I have stated prior, you have almost no idea what my “politics” are!

[Edited on 4-26-2023 by RFClark]

RFClark - 4-26-2023 at 01:10 PM

JZ,

Toronto as an example. 40 years ago they had a great, reliable and safe public transportation system, as did SFO. Today not so much. LAX never had any of the above and it’s gotten even worse.

The free or borrowed money to build it never pays for it or keeps it up! Rosey Scenario never generates enough income so tax and regulate people into using it! It’s fencing the commons all over again. Change the rules to force people to follow your orders or else!

mtgoat666 - 4-26-2023 at 01:36 PM

Quote: Originally posted by RFClark  
S,

Really!

https://blog.ptvgroup.com/en/city-and-mobility/the-effects-o...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-24/lisbon-ca...

https://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/ca...




Lowering speed limits in urban areas is good way to improve livability, protect/encourage pedestrians!

Banning certain vehicles from crowded urban areas is good solution to congestion!

As ice engines get replaced by e engines, we need to switch from motor fuel taxes to mileage taxes! Road users need to pay for roads!

[Edited on 4-26-2023 by mtgoat666]

RFClark - 4-26-2023 at 01:48 PM

Goat,

A “good solution” for who? Forcing people to use crime riddled and breakdown prone public transportation is also “a good solution” for the government. “Fencing the commons” was a good solution for the government as well. “a good solution depends on whether the solution applies to you or you just enforce or watch others use it.

RFClark - 4-26-2023 at 02:20 PM

These two articles pretty much cover the state of big city public transportation today.

https://sfstandard.com/transportation/were-in-trouble-prelim...

https://sfstandard.com/transportation/end-of-the-line-bart-f...

mtgoat666 - 4-26-2023 at 03:22 PM

Half pint and clarkie:
comments on mass transit from suburanites and rural retirees are meaningless. If you ever got out of your rural bubbles, you would see that big, urban areas need and rely on mass transit. Not everyone is rural and wealthy like you!

Homelessness in usa is a lot like poverty worldwide, there are no easy solutions…

surabi - 4-26-2023 at 04:10 PM

Quote: Originally posted by JZ  





No one feels safe using public transportation because of the huge growth in crime the last 3 years in the big cities.



[Edited on 4-26-2023 by JZ]


No one? You throw out these blanket, all-encompasing statements as if they are the result of in-depth research projects you've done. And who says this is just about public transportation in big cities?

When's the last time you took public transit? Ever?

surabi - 4-26-2023 at 04:46 PM

One working solution for the homeless:
https://www.google.com/search?q=tiny+homes+for+the+homeless+...

Kudos to the folks who actually take positive action instead of just b-tching about the homeless problem.

[Edited on 4-26-2023 by surabi]

Cliffy - 4-26-2023 at 05:15 PM

Can anyone tell me how much CO2 a major city gives off minus the vehicle traffic? People, pets, A/C units. Building Heaters, dry cleaners, laundromats, machine shops, paint shops and painting in general- ETC ETC They all add to the soup in one way or another,

We always seem to have people who want to pluck the low hanging fruit.

Here's a question How did some European countries solve their homeless problem?

 Pages:  1  ..  7    9    11  ..  23