Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[ALF]

A giant donut-shaped machine just proved a near-limitless clean power source is possible

 

There's no silver bullet to the climate crisis, but nuclear fusion may be the closest thing to it. In the quest for a near-limitless, zero-carbon source of reliable power, scientists have generated fusion energy before, but they have struggled for decades to sustain it for very long.

 

On Wednesday, however, scientists working in the United Kingdom announced that they more than doubled the previous record for generating and sustaining nuclear fusion, which is the same process that allows the sun and stars to shine so brightly.

 

Fusion, on the other hand, is much safer, can produce little waste and requires only small amounts of abundant, naturally-sourced fuel, including elements extracted from seawater. This makes it an attractive option as the world transitions away from the fossil fuels driving climate change.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/09/uk/nuclear-fusion-climate-energy-scn-intl/index.html

 

It might be in the future

[Chef Jim]

https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/west-megadrought-hits-worst-case-scenario-now-driest-in-at-least-1200-years?utm_source=ktla_app&utm_medium=social&utm_content=share-link
 

Quote

A few years ago, Williams studied the current drought and said it qualified as a lengthy and deep “megadrought” and that the only worse one was in the 1500s. 

 

Now if they only had electric cars and solar power in the 1500’s. 🙄

[B-Man]

 

 

CHINA WANTS TO BUY 100 MILLION METRIC TONS OF COAL FROM RUSSIA.

 

https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2022/02/19/china-wants-to-buy-100-million-metric-tons-of-coal-from-russia/

 

 

[Chef Jim]

9 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

CHINA WANTS TO BUY 100 MILLION METRIC TONS OF COAL FROM RUSSIA.

 

https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2022/02/19/china-wants-to-buy-100-million-metric-tons-of-coal-from-russia/

 

 

But me running my washer and dryer between 3pm and 9pm is the problem. 🙄

[Chef Jim]

Just saw this on FB.  When I read it to my wife she sent the Prager U (yeah yeah) video which says a lot of the same things. Not sure how accurate all this is but what I like is it lays out the “facts” and doesn’t say green energy is horrible.  Just that it’s not the panacea it’s being made out to be. Any thoughts or comments of those who know this ***** better would be appreciated.  
 

This is an excellent breakdown. 
Batteries, they do not make electricity – they store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators.  So, to say an EV is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid.
Also, since forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from coal-fired plants, it follows that forty percent of the EVs on the road are coal-powered, do you see?"
Einstein's formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.
There are two orders of batteries, rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, and lantern types. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. Please note they all contain toxic, heavy metals.
Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium. The United States uses three billion of these two battery types a year, and most are not recycled; they end up in landfills. California is the only state which requires all batteries be recycled. If you throw your small, used batteries in the trash, here is what happens to them.
All batteries are self-discharging.  That means even when not in use, they leak tiny amounts of energy. You have likely ruined a flashlight or two from an old, ruptured battery. When a battery runs down and can no longer power a toy or light, you think of it as dead; well, it is not. It continues to leak small amounts of electricity. As the chemicals inside it run out, pressure builds inside the battery's metal casing, and eventually, it cracks. The metals left inside then ooze out. The ooze in your ruined flashlight is toxic, and so is the ooze that will inevitably leak from every battery in a landfill. All batteries eventually rupture; it just takes rechargeable batteries longer to end up in the landfill.
In addition to dry cell batteries, there are also wet cell ones used in automobiles, boats, and motorcycles. The good thing about those is, ninety percent of them are recycled. Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to recycle single-use ones properly.
But that is not half of it.  For those of you excited about electric cars and a green revolution, I want you to take a closer look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share what we call environmentally destructive production costs. 
A typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds, about the size of a travel trunk.  It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells.
It should concern you that all those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth's crust for just - one - battery."
Sixty-eight percent of the world's cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls, and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?"
I'd like to leave you with these thoughts. California is building the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being 'green,' but it is not.  This construction project is creating an environmental disaster.  Let me tell you why.
The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium- diselenide, and cadmium-telluride, which also are highly toxic. Silicon dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled.
Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weighs 1688 tons (the equivalent of 23 houses) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades.
There may be a place for these technologies, but you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions.  
 "Going Green" may sound like the Utopian ideal but when you look at the hidden and embedded costs realistically with an open mind, you can see that Going Green is more destructive to the Earth's environment than meets the eye, for sure. 
 

 

 

[ALF]

Statewide Gas Ban Bill Axed From NY Budget, Sources Say

 

Environmentalists are planning to protest Thursday following news that a measure to ban gas hookups in new construction across the state starting in 2024 has been left out of the forthcoming budget deal—Gov. Kathy Hochul’s first since taking office.

The proposed legislation, the All-Electric Building Act, follows a similar law passed by the New York City Council under former Mayor Bill de Blasio in December.

 

https://citylimits.org/2022/04/06/statewide-gas-ban-bill-axed-from-ny-budget-sources-say/

 

Switch after alternatives are in place not before

[Orlando Buffalo]

3 hours ago, ALF said:

Statewide Gas Ban Bill Axed From NY Budget, Sources Say

 

Environmentalists are planning to protest Thursday following news that a measure to ban gas hookups in new construction across the state starting in 2024 has been left out of the forthcoming budget deal—Gov. Kathy Hochul’s first since taking office.

The proposed legislation, the All-Electric Building Act, follows a similar law passed by the New York City Council under former Mayor Bill de Blasio in December.

 

https://citylimits.org/2022/04/06/statewide-gas-ban-bill-axed-from-ny-budget-sources-say/

 

Switch after alternatives are in place not before

If you wait till they are similar cost truly it will be decades most likely. So you either force it or it won't come for quite some time and we are on the 4th version of "you only have 12 years" in my life.

[ALF]

2 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

If you wait till they are similar cost truly it will be decades most likely. So you either force it or it won't come for quite some time and we are on the 4th version of "you only have 12 years" in my life.

 

I agree , we can do both , force energy companies to keep us energy independent and build clean alternatives at the same time.

 

The US will have to provide incentives and upgrade the national power grid to handle a much heavier electric load that won't be easy or cheap. Fund R&D for hydrogen fuel cells and build more nuclear power plants. This will take a long time and still be very expensive. At this  point I don't think the world can do it . Covid and wars put the US and the world $trillions in debt.

Edited April 9, 2022 by ALF

[Orlando Buffalo]

9 hours ago, ALF said:

 

I agree , we can do both , force energy companies to keep us energy independent and build clean alternatives at the same time.

 

The US will have to provide incentives and upgrade the national power grid to handle a much heavier electric load that won't be easy or cheap. Fund R&D for hydrogen fuel cells and build more nuclear power plants. This will take a long time and still be very expensive. At this  point I don't think the world can do it . Covid and wars put the US and the world $trillions in debt.

Why would the government need to fund the R&D of a technology that if properly functional will make the company who designs it trillions of dollars? This is not a race where there is a novel threat (Covid) or the loser is in trouble (atom bomb). Government does no good and is likely more of a obstacle then a help.

[ALF]

2 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Why would the government need to fund the R&D of a technology that if properly functional will make the company who designs it trillions of dollars? This is not a race where there is a novel threat (Covid) or the loser is in trouble (atom bomb). Government does no good and is likely more of a obstacle then a help.

 

If hydrogen fuel cells could be made better for vehicles and the environment then lithium batteries and the need for large electric use to charge would it not be better ? Hydrogen fuel power generation instead of nuclear power ?  

[Orlando Buffalo]

12 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

If hydrogen fuel cells could be made better for vehicles and the environment then lithium batteries and the need for large electric use to charge would it not be better ? Hydrogen fuel power generation instead of nuclear power ?  

I don't personally think Hydrogen fuel cells are the big winner, at least not in the next 30 years, but that is not important. Let free enterprise do their thing, as I stated government will hinder the search through regulation and paperwork while a companies know if they win this race they will be rich beyond compare 

[Precision]

5 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

I don't personally think Hydrogen fuel cells are the big winner, at least not in the next 30 years, but that is not important. Let free enterprise do their thing, as I stated government will hinder the search through regulation and paperwork while a companies know if they win this race they will be rich beyond compare 

I agree, the best path forward is to allow business to drive rather than allow the government to get involved.

 

One of the engineers who works for me used to work for a fuel cell company.  He was employed there for 3 years and left because the government project he was on made no measurable progress.  He was frustrated by the slow pace and lack of team motivation so he left.

 

I toured the Energy Department funded LLE at U of R in the 80's.  They were on the cusp of solving fusion back then, nearly 40 years ago.  They are still on the cusp of something and probably will be for the next 40 years.  

 

The reason why wind and solar advanced so rapidly is because business saw a way to make money.  They invested heavily in technology and people.  The leaders in wind and solar will reap the reward for their investment for years.

 

Same think happened in the networking industry in the late 90's(anyone remember Cabletron, Cascade, Bay Networks, Lucent....to name a few).  Lots of idea's, startups, VC money and stock options.   Same think happened in the computer industry in the 80's(anyone remember Wang, DEC, Apollo, Cray, Data General....to name a few more).  

[SoCal Deek]

24 minutes ago, Precision said:

I agree, the best path forward is to allow business to drive rather than allow the government to get involved.

 

One of the engineers who works for me used to work for a fuel cell company.  He was employed there for 3 years and left because the government project he was on made no measurable progress.  He was frustrated by the slow pace and lack of team motivation so he left.

 

I toured the Energy Department funded LLE at U of R in the 80's.  They were on the cusp of solving fusion back then, nearly 40 years ago.  They are still on the cusp of something and probably will be for the next 40 years.  

 

The reason why wind and solar advanced so rapidly is because business saw a way to make money.  They invested heavily in technology and people.  The leaders in wind and solar will reap the reward for their investment for years.

 

Same think happened in the networking industry in the late 90's(anyone remember Cabletron, Cascade, Bay Networks, Lucent....to name a few).  Lots of idea's, startups, VC money and stock options.   Same think happened in the computer industry in the 80's(anyone remember Wang, DEC, Apollo, Cray, Data General....to name a few more).  

The alternative is the current regime’s solution…shorten the supply of fossil fuels in order to bring their price up so high they become equivalent to the inefficiency of renewables. Horribly uncreative, and yet another damaging setback to the lower and middle class. 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

                                    

 

 

 

 

\

[B-Man]

 

 

 

                                   

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

Unless you immediately destroy your SUV and turn additional funds over to the government, you will be personally responsible for ruining the planet. But not really, because no one will be there to acknowledge your heinous misstep, as Schiff has pointed out. Fortunately, history is a long-time in the making and it is constantly re-written.

 

 

 

 

 

[Big Blitz]

 

 

 

 

 

Saw these tweets over the weekend - I know what they're doing......it's a new way to brainwash and scare you subliminally that the world is on fire.  Global warming!

 

I know......more conspiracy nonsen....

.......oh...........lookie here:

 

 

 

In Pictures: Thousands head to beaches as health boss warns of ‘ferocious heat’

 

Thousands flocked to beaches amid warnings high temperatures over the next few days could result in people dying.

 

Tracy Nicholls, chief executive at the College of Paramedics, said the “ferocious heat” predicted to hit the UK could have a detrimental effect on Britons.

 

Scorching temperatures are predicted for Monday, with Peterborough expected to hit 37C and Milton Keynes, Norwich and Lincoln set to see 36C – while temperatures could rise to 40C in London on Tuesday.

 

Climate attribution scientist at the Met Office, Dr Nikos Christidis, said the 40C prediction is a result of climate change.

 

“This is serious heat that could actually, ultimately, end in people’s deaths because it is so ferocious. We’re just not set up for that sort of heat in this country.”

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/dominic-raab-southendonsea-britons-people-london-b2125116.html

 

 

Ferocious!!!!

 

 

What dupes you people are.  

[B-Man]

 

 

 

THE REAL-WORLD CONSEQUENCES OF GREEN EXTREMISM:

 

The results of shortsighted, self-defeating enviro-extremism are bad enough in rich nations. But they are even worse in the undeveloped world.

 

In Sri Lanka, which banned chemical fertilizers in a fit of adherence to global green pressure, crops collapsed and food inflation spiked to 80% in June. The result has been a public revolt, including the overthrow of the president and an occupation of his palace by disgruntled citizens.

 

The specter of starvation is now being reported from Africa, and the latest analysis from the U.N. World Food Program suggests that 670 million people, 8% of the world’s population, will face hunger by the end of the decade.

 

The World Health Organization calculates that 439,000 Africans die every year from indoor air pollution because they are forced — for cooking, lighting, and heating — to burn charcoal and cattle dung, which one researcher compared to smoking 400 cigarettes per hour in the home. The reason Africans still use these primitive methods to generate energy is that green ideologues in rich nations won’t allow them to get financing to build coal-fired power stations.

 

Extreme environmentalism is an ideology that cares little for human life, even regards it as a blight on the Earth that should be reduced. Its instinctive sympathies are against our species. It wants less economic growth, less entrepreneurial spirit, less development, less energy, less safety, less food, less comfort.

 

 

Who suffers? Those in poor nations, of course, and we in the rich nations that impose our obsessions on ourselves and on others wherever we can.

 

 

Read the whole thing.

 

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/faith-freedom-self-reliance/the-real-world-consequences-of-green-extremism

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

The runway at a Royal Air Force base has melted.