Alternative Clean Energy Implementation & What They Don't Tell Us .

[T master]

 

 

[T master]

Surprise you put a video on here that tells truths about the direction of energy consumption & the truth of how likely it is that the implementation can be completed the way that the gov't agenda is attempting to make us all think it can be or wants it to be and crickets !

 

Where are all the brainiacs with all their rebuttal to back up the direction the politicians are taking our country & how much more likely the green energy thing is so great compared to fossil fuels ? 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

32 minutes ago, T master said:

Surprise you put a video on here that tells truths about the direction of energy consumption & the truth of how likely it is that the implementation can be completed the way that the gov't agenda is attempting to make us all think it can be or wants it to be and crickets !

 

Where are all the brainiacs with all their rebuttal to back up the direction the politicians are taking our country & how much more likely the green energy thing is so great compared to fossil fuels ? 

 

 

Thanks for sharing.  I’m no brainiac, but I’ve long thought climate science is much more about redistribution models and much less about Mother Earth.   I also think the science of climate religion is making some very powerful people some major coin.  
 

I do know that nothing is Biden’s fault.  That needs to be said here.  

[All_Pro_Bills]

13 hours ago, T master said:

Surprise you put a video on here that tells truths about the direction of energy consumption & the truth of how likely it is that the implementation can be completed the way that the gov't agenda is attempting to make us all think it can be or wants it to be and crickets !

 

Where are all the brainiacs with all their rebuttal to back up the direction the politicians are taking our country & how much more likely the green energy thing is so great compared to fossil fuels ? 

 

 

I've got nothing against the idea of trying to clean up the environment or anything in particular against renewable energy.  But I do insist on reality.  And physics and math, and an acknowledgement of the available resources and limitations of the physical world.  My contention has always been the resources simply don't exist in the right place, at the right amount, at the right cost to produce the amount of renewable devices like solar panels to replace all the energy output produced by oil and gas at a cost that can be paid that allows civilization to progress. 

 

Its illogical to stake the exist of our civilization on the ability of them to produce the necessary energy output at cost and scale and reliably.  It always a topic environmentalists and climate activists and renewable energy advocates avoid.  Their argument is based on magical thinking.  I think they know it.  And given I believe most of them are very smart people it concerns me they're engaging in massive and collective deception which might lead to questioning their actual motives. 

 

If you look at the evolution of human development and civilization you'll find that over time new, more efficient and cheaper energy sources have replaced the previously dominant source of energy.  This supported what is characterized as progress.  Given better and more efficient sources and availability of energy even the poorest American lives a comparably better life than somebody living before the oil age.  Renewables just don't meet that criteria when compared to oil and gas.  They are both more costly and less efficient.  Its a step in the wrong direction.  So you either need to downsize civilization and energy use.   

 

Its a given we need to look for a replace for oil and gas as they're finite resources that are being depleted over time while the cheapest and easiest to produce sources are mostly used up.  But solar and wind aren't the answer.  

 

 

[ALF]

New Tesla factories losing billions of dollars, Musk says

Elon Musk says Tesla's new factories in Germany and the US are "losing billions of dollars" due to battery shortages and supply disruptions in China.

 

The multi-billionaire also called the plants in Berlin and Austin, Texas "gigantic money furnaces".

Covid-19 lockdowns in China this year, including in Shanghai where Tesla has a huge factory, have made it increasingly difficult for manufacturers to operate.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61905276

 

Depending on China for vehicle batteries , computer chips , solar panels , windmills and everything else , bad idea. If the U.S. can't build it at least use a ally.

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 6/22/2022 at 7:25 PM, T master said:

Surprise you put a video on here that tells truths about the direction of energy consumption & the truth of how likely it is that the implementation can be completed the way that the gov't agenda is attempting to make us all think it can be or wants it to be and crickets !

 

Where are all the brainiacs with all their rebuttal to back up the direction the politicians are taking our country & how much more likely the green energy thing is so great compared to fossil fuels ? 

 

If you are a naturally skeptical person and not a right-wing partisan, then you should have as much skepticism for this video clip as you do for any of the left’s arguments. Note that Prager University is a non-academic conservative organization. Mark Mills is a fellow of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. Both are funded by the fossil fuel industry.

 

While I’m not doubting the numbers presented in the video, he is obviously framing a narrative by highlighting only flaws with renewables and not mentioning any benefits, any of the latest research progress made with renewable materials, or any flaws from other energy sources. His remark about a 1000+% mining demand increase, for example, is blatantly misleading because no one is arguing that our global energy infrastructure needs to be fully converted into wind and solar.

 

I won’t speak to global renewable energy-based solutions not buttressed by nuclear, but I have seen a series of energy studies for the nuclear-based ones. Conclusion: both the net Joules (available supply minus energy demand) and the net carbon emissions can add to zero! If my memory is correct, they used renewable material technology specs from ~2010, inflation-adjusted cost expectations into the future, a service demand of 10 billion people (a commonly used global population estimate by 2050), simple carbon sequestration efforts (reforestation, namely), and assumptions that all major countries were cooperative (including China, India, U.S., and the South American lithium triangle…yes, these were technical papers and not political ones…but it’s okay because international trade coercion will be a powerful motivating tool in the years ahead!). Some fossil fuel usage was expected to remain, of course, which is the only realistic expectation for the future. Interestingly enough, carbon sequestration was shown to be a very significant variable in all of this.

 

On 6/22/2022 at 8:01 PM, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Thanks for sharing.  I’m no brainiac, but I’ve long thought climate science is much more about redistribution models and much less about Mother Earth.   I also think the science of climate religion is making some very powerful people some major coin.  
 

I do know that nothing is Biden’s fault.  That needs to be said here.  

 

Seriously, Leh-nerd?! One well-earned thumbs down emoji reaction for you.

 

I feel like a broken record around this forum…please reply with a published/peer-reviewed post-July 1988 scientific research paper that either challenges the observed warming of the planet altogether or explains it with any mechanism other than atmospheric carbon dioxide ppm. If climate science is the “religion” that you intimate, then you should have little trouble providing me with this simple request.

 

Furthermore, I want to know more about these “redistribution models” you have in your mind. Do you not think that wealth is already being redistributed from workers to capitalists? Capitalists that include fossil fuel industry magnates (incidentally, many of which will eventually comprise the same magnates benefiting from the renewable energy transition as their own respective business models evolve)? Your thoughts on the various Federal Reserve/Congress bailouts during the Great Recession (circa late 2008-early 2009) and COVID Era (circa March-April 2020)? Was this wealth redistribution righteous?

 

No, you know what? I’m instead going with a vomiting emoji reaction. You brought this on yourself.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

11 hours ago, Delete_Account said:

 

Seriously, Leh-nerd?! One well-earned thumbs down emoji reaction for you.

 

I feel like a broken record around this forum…please reply with a published/peer-reviewed post-July 1988 scientific research paper that either challenges the observed warming of the planet altogether or explains it with any mechanism other than atmospheric carbon dioxide ppm. If climate science is the “religion” that you intimate, then you should have little trouble providing me with this simple request.

Well, no, not completely serious, Kay.  I thought the whimsical "I'm no brainiac..." set the table quite nicely for that which followed.  It  was most definitely not a deep dive into climate pre/post 1988, the somewhat contradictory history of climate science, scientific consensus, climate bullying, climate shaming, climate submission or anything much beyond what I wrote.  Clean air rocks, I think. 

 

On the other hand, we can spend some time here.  All I can offer is what I can offer though, so consider yourself forewarned.  I'm no brainiac, after all.

 

I reject your request, and to be clear--I reject it completely and unequivocally. I won't promise to look into it.  I won't suggest that while now isn't a good time, perhaps I'll get around to it later.  I won't pretend to listen, pretend to consider, nod in agreement, drop in a well-placed "Huh, I had't thought of that..." all while zoning out on this admittedly important subject while actually contemplating whether or not Josh Allen and the fellas can deliver a SB to our fair city this year, and if he did, what outfit I would wear to the Super Bowl celebration that followed.  Now that you've leaned into me a bit, I swear by all that is good and holy I'll be wearing a leather jacket with real muskrat fur lining, a shirt made by union busters who broke a picket line in Detroit, pants made from endangered seals, and I'll be munching on a veal parmigiana sub and will likely discard most of it after a few bites just because I can.  Promise to look for me, bring @muppy along and I'll buy you ladies a Vizzy (I am in no way implying you want/need a Vizzy from me, or are unable to purchase said Vizzy on your own accord, or that I think that I know what you should drink because of some longstanding cultural patriarchy and my admittedly stuck-in-my-ways-way.  Sometimes, an offer to Vizzy is just an offer to  Vizzy.). 

 

In addition, I am generally averse to bending the knee to anyone in this regard.  I don't want to, and to use an overused analogy, I don't work for you.  If I did, rest assured I'd be filing a complaint with HR post facto, alleging hostile work place, cyberbullying, age discrimination and objectification of self.  I'm not a present to be opened at your liberal office holiday party, Kay. 

 

On a scale of 1-100, 1 being there are no problems whatsoever, and 100 being Kitchener, Ontario completely underwater in 2028, I'm probably at a 60.  Part of the challenge for me can be found in your response to @T master and his link to Prager U.  You know like 6000 words, and string them together nicely, but basically your response boils down to "Don't trust him, trust me. I am The One.".  

 

What I can tell you is I don't trust without considering agenda and/or the modeling of behavior by those preaching loudest.  The truth is, I don't see much, if any, clean lifestyle modeling from those in leadership telling me the shyte is 'bout to hit the fan.  I hear lots of talk about the end of the world, Kay, and how more money is needed to fight the good fight...but then I hear things like carbon offset tax schemes, which to me ---and I'm no brainiac, Kay, we know this---is not really about not polluting the planet.  I'm told Bill Gates has a state of the art home made exclusively of regenerationable materials, but then I read it's 60,000 sf and wonder--"No gender-neutral indigenous Snapping Turtles were displaced when he sprung for the extra 40,000 sf for some elbow room?".  I hear Barrack Obama talking about a legit world crisis tipping point, then read he spends time on a yacht in the South of France discussing climate with such notable scientologists as Bruce Springsteen and Oprah.   The Davos bangfest.  Honestly Kay, I might move to a 70 on the climate scale if one of these m&*^%#$-f7^%$s suggested a Zoom conference every now and again. 

 

Then I read about 'climate justice', the toothless tiger of the Kyoto Accord, inherent flaws in the modeling for the future, and I'm skeptical, Kay.  Not about the planet warming, not about the ebbs and flows of climate, just the whole how we solve it/what we must do side of things. 

 

As for my commentary about climate religion, what I can tell you is that I listen to the messaging and it has a religious fervor to it.  3 years to save the planet.   5 years to save the planet.  We're killing the planet.  The planet is dying.  Climate justice.  It sounds spiritual to me.

 

Oh, that I live in an area created during the Wisconsin Glaciation Episode 17,000-11,000 years ago factors into the way I look at the climate and the world, too.  

 

You never told me if you thought plants/veggies suffer in some way when harvested for consumption.  I do wonder, don't you? 

 

 

11 hours ago, Delete_Account said:

 

Furthermore, I want to know more about these “redistribution models” you have in your mind. Do you not think that wealth is already being redistributed from workers to capitalists? Capitalists that include fossil fuel industry magnates (incidentally, many of which will eventually comprise the same magnates benefiting from the renewable energy transition as their own respective business models evolve)? Your thoughts on the various Federal Reserve/Congress bailouts during the Great Recession (circa late 2008-early 2009) and COVID Era (circa March-April 2020)? Was this wealth redistribution righteous?

You raise a fair point, but appear to be suggesting I hold views that I do not.   I did not suggest, for example, that climate tax schemes are the only redistributive model in the country today.  There are many examples of that sort of thing---income tax, capital gains tax, social security, medicaid, school/property tax, estate/inheritance tax.  You pointed out two in your example, let me Delete Kay this up for you as you have---if you believe in the redistributive model associated with climate justice, does that mean you agree with every other scheme out there?  For example, Kay, the Federal Reserve/Congress bailouts during the Great Recession (circa late 2008-early 2009) and COVID Era (circa March-April 2020)?  Was that redistribution righteous?

 

As for my perspective on 2008-09, I think mistakes were made with those bailouts and TARP in general.  While every situation was unique, government handouts to companies that failed to watch their bottom line should not have occurred.  I wasn't enamored with the Obama bailout of GM, for example, though people I know and love benefited from it.  I thought TARP as it applies to a company like AIG was a mistake as well.  In fact, when I consider the core business of a company like AIG---balancing risk/reward for a living---and the completely reckless investment philosophy that lead to its collapse, the organization should have been allowed to die on the vine as an example to others that might follow in the same path. 

 

COVID was a different animal altogether.  When the government intervenes to shut down business operations on a timeline that continuously morphed in duration, under threat of law for non-compliance, the government has an obligation to intervene.  Besides, the benefit extended beyond the employer and directly on to the worker.  

 

These are the simple thoughts of an admittedly simple man sitting in a town in Upstate NY.  What we know is that government chose winners and losers, as it typically does.   I'd bet if we share that Vizzy, we find some things we have in common, and on subjects like these, the only difference between you and I is we are ok with different models for different reasons. 

11 hours ago, Delete_Account said:

 

No, you know what? I’m instead going with a vomiting emoji reaction. You brought this on yourself.

You keep ya damn vomiting emoji out ya damn mouth!   Apologies for the vulgarity. 

 

[T master]

On 6/23/2022 at 9:01 AM, ALF said:

New Tesla factories losing billions of dollars, Musk says

Elon Musk says Tesla's new factories in Germany and the US are "losing billions of dollars" due to battery shortages and supply disruptions in China.

 

The multi-billionaire also called the plants in Berlin and Austin, Texas "gigantic money furnaces".

Covid-19 lockdowns in China this year, including in Shanghai where Tesla has a huge factory, have made it increasingly difficult for manufacturers to operate.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61905276

 

Depending on China for vehicle batteries , computer chips , solar panels , windmills and everything else , bad idea. If the U.S. can't build it at least use a ally.

 

It all or most should be brought back here & made on American soil then China wouldn't have the grip they do on the US but the greed far out weighs producing our own stuff in our own country & we wonder why there is a supply shortage or disruption ...

[T master]

14 hours ago, Delete_Account said:

 

If you are a naturally skeptical person and not a right-wing partisan, then you should have as much skepticism for this video clip as you do for any of the left’s arguments. Note that Prager University is a non-academic conservative organization. Mark Mills is a fellow of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. Both are funded by the fossil fuel industry.

 

While I’m not doubting the numbers presented in the video, he is obviously framing a narrative by highlighting only flaws with renewables and not mentioning any benefits, any of the latest research progress made with renewable materials, or any flaws from other energy sources. His remark about a 1000+% mining demand increase, for example, is blatantly misleading because no one is arguing that our global energy infrastructure needs to be fully converted into wind and solar.

 

I won’t speak to global renewable energy-based solutions not buttressed by nuclear, but I have seen a series of energy studies for the nuclear-based ones. Conclusion: both the net Joules (available supply minus energy demand) and the net carbon emissions can add to zero! If my memory is correct, they used renewable material technology specs from ~2010, inflation-adjusted cost expectations into the future, a service demand of 10 billion people (a commonly used global population estimate by 2050), simple carbon sequestration efforts (reforestation, namely), and assumptions that all major countries were cooperative (including China, India, U.S., and the South American lithium triangle…yes, these were technical papers and not political ones…but it’s okay because international trade coercion will be a powerful motivating tool in the years ahead!). Some fossil fuel usage was expected to remain, of course, which is the only realistic expectation for the future. Interestingly enough, carbon sequestration was shown to be a very significant variable in all of this.

 

 

Seriously, Leh-nerd?! One well-earned thumbs down emoji reaction for you.

 

I feel like a broken record around this forum…please reply with a published/peer-reviewed post-July 1988 scientific research paper that either challenges the observed warming of the planet altogether or explains it with any mechanism other than atmospheric carbon dioxide ppm. If climate science is the “religion” that you intimate, then you should have little trouble providing me with this simple request.

 

Furthermore, I want to know more about these “redistribution models” you have in your mind. Do you not think that wealth is already being redistributed from workers to capitalists? Capitalists that include fossil fuel industry magnates (incidentally, many of which will eventually comprise the same magnates benefiting from the renewable energy transition as their own respective business models evolve)? Your thoughts on the various Federal Reserve/Congress bailouts during the Great Recession (circa late 2008-early 2009) and COVID Era (circa March-April 2020)? Was this wealth redistribution righteous?

 

No, you know what? I’m instead going with a vomiting emoji reaction. You brought this on yourself.

 

But why does it always have to be the US being the good guy our country has already done a ton to reduce our carbon out put and the blame is always on the fossil fuels never on the cutting of millions of acres of trees that helps to keep the carbon in the atmosphere because that is what trees take in .

 

They never stop producing more roads which hold heat or stop building houses which the asphalt roofs old heat for longer periods of time increasing the atmospheric temperature , & even on laughed (including me) at AOC when she said something about cows farting but in reality have you ever driven across I-40 in Texas past the 1000's of acres of cattle crapping on the ground laying & walking in their own crap which puts out methane gas .

 

They never tell the beef industry to stop or slow down the production of cows then there is the fact that they don't dare say a word to china or India about stopping their pollution because they will flat out tell them to piss up a rope but its always the US that has to make a difference for every one else & pay the bulk of the cash to fix it weather it's the gov't giving to who or what ever science tests or the American people paying higher taxes or prices for the new technology .

 

I'm just tired of the US always being the one lets spread this stuff around & have those polluting th most do their fare share it's total BS that we carry the biggest burden all the time ...

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-is-sacking-staff-who-recently-started-withdrawing-job-offers-2022-6

 

[LeGOATski]

7 minutes ago, \GoBillsInDallas/ said:

https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-is-sacking-staff-who-recently-started-withdrawing-job-offers-2022-6

 

Sucks to be low on the totem pole

[T master]

On 6/26/2022 at 8:23 AM, LeGOATski said:

Sucks to be low on the totem pole

 

Sometimes businessmen can see what's coming around the corner better than those implementing the change & that's why they are more apt to stay on top while others flounder & go under .

 

Most of those calling of the change & implementing those changes are not businessmen just career politicians & for the most part don't have a clue whats good for the business or the economy & what's not so good but we the people will be the ones paying for it in the long run ! 

 

just like those in this article that will be or are being laid off ...

[Precision]

A lot of companies in clean energy play with the numbers so the general public is fooled into thinking the technology is better than it is.  

 

Remember the old LED light bulb commercial "Replace your incandescent bulbs with LED's and you won't need to change them until your young child is in college..." 

Anyone do this?  How long did they last?  Not 15 years huh.  I changed over my whole house, was replacing some after 3 years!

 

Look up the advertised range of an electric car.  Look harder and find the range if you live in a cold climate.  

 

How long have we been on the cusp of a nuclear fusion breakthrough?  I toured the University of Rochester Omega laser (trying to achieve nuclear fusion) in the 80's.  They were really close back then, nearly 40 years ago.  I imagine 40 years from now they'll still be really close!

 

I'm an electrical engineer and a coworker (electrical engineer) of mine put in solar over 10 years ago.  State of the art system with panels on masts that tracked the sun.  He is a smart guy, knew all the details.  Expected a payback in under 15 years.  By his projections now he thinks his payback will be closer to 20 years.  Lots of issues such as:  solar panels didn't put out advertised peak power, number of sunny days/year was less than expected, microinverters burned up (lots of them), tracking motor froze up.  He also gets the luxury of hosing the panels off every few weekends.  He would be way ahead if he had put his money in the market.

[All_Pro_Bills]

16 minutes ago, Precision said:

A lot of companies in clean energy play with the numbers so the general public is fooled into thinking the technology is better than it is.  

 

Remember the old LED light bulb commercial "Replace your incandescent bulbs with LED's and you won't need to change them until your young child is in college..." 

Anyone do this?  How long did they last?  Not 15 years huh.  I changed over my whole house, was replacing some after 3 years!

 

Look up the advertised range of an electric car.  Look harder and find the range if you live in a cold climate.  

 

How long have we been on the cusp of a nuclear fusion breakthrough?  I toured the University of Rochester Omega laser (trying to achieve nuclear fusion) in the 80's.  They were really close back then, nearly 40 years ago.  I imagine 40 years from now they'll still be really close!

 

I'm an electrical engineer and a coworker (electrical engineer) of mine put in solar over 10 years ago.  State of the art system with panels on masts that tracked the sun.  He is a smart guy, knew all the details.  Expected a payback in under 15 years.  By his projections now he thinks his payback will be closer to 20 years.  Lots of issues such as:  solar panels didn't put out advertised peak power, number of sunny days/year was less than expected, microinverters burned up (lots of them), tracking motor froze up.  He also gets the luxury of hosing the panels off every few weekends.  He would be way ahead if he had put his money in the market.

Well said.  I don't have an EE degree but I'm good at basic math.  I just don't see how to make the numbers work with Solar and Wind when you scale it up to supporting entire population centers, States, and the country.  And eventually the world.  All while supporting current population levels and forecasted growth numbers into the future.  It seems inconceivable.

I think much of the "green" energy initiatives are based more on magical thinking than they are on science and engineering.  I think they ignore the low yield, unreliable nature of the technologies that depends on the weather.   The sun shining and the wind blowing.  And the variation in those actions of nature both geographically and seasonally.  I wonder where all the materials that need to be mined, produced, transformed into components, assemblies and parts, and then deployed coming from and how they're going to be manufactured and produced without oil and gas as energy inputs into the manufacturing process?  I also think counting on some unpredictable and future technologies to "save us" is a terrible plan from the perspective of risk management and assessment.  Putting all your eggs in one basket.  A basket that has yet to be woven.

I recall a study from the 1980's NASA performed on a project called Solar Power Satellite System (SPSS).  The plan was to deploy miles long and wide solar arrays in space (something like 24 solar collectors) in orbit around the Earth that would supply uninterruptable power beamed down to the surface.  Estimates of resources, time, cost, manufacturing and materials and labor and facilities, lift requirements, construction in space, personnel needed, collection and power distribution.  The Reagan administration killed the study.  I can't imagine how much it would cost today.  Trillions I suspect.  If it wasn't cancelled 40 years ago some of it might be operational today and we'd be facing a different set of circumstances.  

[BillStime]

On 6/22/2022 at 7:25 PM, T master said:

Surprise you put a video on here that tells truths about the direction of energy consumption & the truth of how likely it is that the implementation can be completed the way that the gov't agenda is attempting to make us all think it can be or wants it to be and crickets !

 

Where are all the brainiacs with all their rebuttal to back up the direction the politicians are taking our country & how much more likely the green energy thing is so great compared to fossil fuels ? 

 

 

Surprise you?

 

[Warcodered]

On 6/22/2022 at 9:39 AM, T master said:

 

 

If I stick a "U" on the end of my name will my opinions automatically have more credibility, or do I have to actually legally change it or something?

Edited June 29, 2022 by Warcodered

[DrW]

14 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Well said.  I don't have an EE degree but I'm good at basic math.  I just don't see how to make the numbers work with Solar and Wind when you scale it up to supporting entire population centers, States, and the country.  And eventually the world.  All while supporting current population levels and forecasted growth numbers into the future.  It seems inconceivable.

 

 

I agree that it is difficult to imagine to cover all the World's energy needs with renewables (well, at some point when we run out of fossil fuels and nuclear fission material, we might have to). But that does not mean that renewables cannot be a large part of our energy sources. In Germany, since 2018 more than 40% of the electricity has been provided by wind and solar. 

 

https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/topics/climate-energy/renewable-energies/renewable-energies-in-figures

 

To fully appreciate that, you have to consider that Germany has a much higher population density than the US (twice the number of people living in California in a country smaller than Montana), meaning less space for wind and solar farms, and is much more northern than the US, meaning less sunshine. And when I grew up in Germany, we never had steady strong winds as we have here in the West Texas desert.

Edited June 30, 2022 by DrW

[Precision]

Just now, All_Pro_Bills said:

Well said.  I don't have an EE degree but I'm good at basic math.  I just don't see how to make the numbers work with Solar and Wind when you scale it up to supporting entire population centers, States, and the country.  And eventually the world.  All while supporting current population levels and forecasted growth numbers into the future.  It seems inconceivable.

I think much of the "green" energy initiatives are based more on magical thinking than they are on science and engineering.  I think they ignore the low yield, unreliable nature of the technologies that depends on the weather.   The sun shining and the wind blowing.  And the variation in those actions of nature both geographically and seasonally.  I wonder where all the materials that need to be mined, produced, transformed into components, assemblies and parts, and then deployed coming from and how they're going to be manufactured and produced without oil and gas as energy inputs into the manufacturing process?  I also think counting on some unpredictable and future technologies to "save us" is a terrible plan from the perspective of risk management and assessment.  Putting all your eggs in one basket.  A basket that has yet to be woven.

I recall a study from the 1980's NASA performed on a project called Solar Power Satellite System (SPSS).  The plan was to deploy miles long and wide solar arrays in space (something like 24 solar collectors) in orbit around the Earth that would supply uninterruptable power beamed down to the surface.  Estimates of resources, time, cost, manufacturing and materials and labor and facilities, lift requirements, construction in space, personnel needed, collection and power distribution.  The Reagan administration killed the study.  I can't imagine how much it would cost today.  Trillions I suspect.  If it wasn't cancelled 40 years ago some of it might be operational today and we'd be facing a different set of circumstances.  

Glad that you see through the smoke and mirrors.  It's unfortunate that smart people feel like they can't have an opinion because they aren't trained in the subject matter.  It's the whole "follow the science" shaming that attempts to quiet valid questions to science problems. 

 

There are a few green technologies that I feel have a solid future.  I will be installing a ground source heat pump within the next few years as it is mature technology (thermodynamics) based on refrigeration and A/C.  Fuel cells are expensive, and I don't see that changing soon.  Fusion is still just a dream.  Wind and solar I am meh on until the efficiencies (solar) improve more.  Not a fan of the wind turbines, I've seen them up close numerous times in Cohocton and Howard.  My parents live in Canisteo, NY and they'll be host to 117 beautiful wind turbines in the near future:  https://canisteowind.invenergy.com/ 

Lucky them!

 

Never heard about the SPSS.  I can imagine how interesting it would have been if there was a software bug with the satellites.  Suddenly the beamed power goes off course and people are running around like ants under a magnifying glass (I know all you sick people did that as a kid).....Ha ha ha!      

[T master]

17 hours ago, BillStime said:

Surprise you?

 

 

No surprise here that's for sure !

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 6/24/2022 at 12:30 PM, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.............................................................

 

Oh wow…you just don’t know when to quit, do you, dear Leh-nerd?! I mainly logged in to PPP tonight to catch up on all the patriarchal Roe v. Wade hot takes. But thanks for “manspreading” your opinion on climate science, too. Is there any leftover bandwidth in this thread for Lil’ Miss Commie Kay? Do I have your male permission to share my rebuttal now? Would that be okay with you? After my response, then I suppose you can “mansplain” middle school Earth science back to me while I bake desserts, read Kendall Jenner gossip*, menstruate, and do other stereotypical female activities in the background that denote my gender-based inferiority to you.

 

Per usual Commie Kay readership experience, I shall summarize my points in numerical form:

 

1. Climate Change: I nearly threw my laptop across the room when I read this comment: “Don’t trust him, trust me. I am The One.” Is this honestly how you would summarize my environmental (or any) opinions?! The Commie Kay modus operandi has always been to simply provide informational guidance, with the expectation that my dear readers will do additional research on their own and not just take me on my word. My advice here is to seek the wisdom of those whose livelihoods depend on having real, accurate, verifiable, and falsifiable climate change data. That is partly why I trust NASA-funded Columbia U. scientist types over Prager U. “scientist” types (the other part being that they…you know…just happen to make more logical arguments backed by a more sound understanding of the scientific method). But you, my ever so obstinate PPP friend, have stated that you have no interest in further inquiry…hence why you remain stuck on your ridiculous ~60% MMGW confidence level and not at a more reasonable 95+%. UGH.

 

2. Hypocrisies: Yes, there are charlatans and dishonest actors among the broad left-wing environmentalism movement. Please feel free to call them out! But their unfortunate existence isn’t a justification for climate justice inaction (or reverse action).

 

3. Solution Difficulties: Yeah, I get it. Addressing climate change is extremely hard. Why do you want to give up when you face adversity? When the going gets tough, the tough get going. You appear to not be tough, Leh-nerd. You appear to be weak. You are a weak GIRLY man, Leh-nerd. A giant, weak, pathetic, pu$$y of a warrior for Mother Earth. Put on a cute dress and tuck your tool of oppression (i.e. your pen!s) between your legs and restock your Playtex tampon supply and go legally change your TBD username to something phonetically similar like “Eleanor,” Leh-nerd, because you are a weak little B!TCH getting Chris Rock face-slapped by the Will Smith pimp that is anthropogenic global warming. Disgusting.

 

4. Redistributive Models: As a social democrat, I am technically an ideological descendant of Karl Marx (hence my clever username, “COMRADE Kay Adams”). I am therefore not averse to the concept of wealth redistribution. Capitalists must necessarily exploit labor in order to turn a profit, so the naked laws of labor supply and labor demand are inherently unable to allocate monetary worth fairly. Simple extreme example: Jeff Bezos’ efforts have earned him the sum worth equivalent to the GDP of a small country, while his diligent warehouse workers subsist around the poverty line. Generally speaking, I can be okay with any redistributive model that has consensus favorability among data-driven macroeconomists. I was fine with certain aspects of the bailouts from the Great Recession and the COVID-19 Pandemic, but I would have also bailed out the working class in places and not predominantly bailed out the CEO’s and the professional/managerial investor class. I am okay with government choosing winners and losers in the energy industry if it can be shown that the winners are improving society and if negative externalities are taxed.

 

5. Plants’ Pain: No, I do not wonder if plants experience pain because they do not have central nervous systems to process their sensory information. I learned about this back in high school freshman biology class while I studiously took notes in the front of the class. Did you? Apparently not. Apparently the only biology you were learning freshman year were the birds and the bees from any random FLOOZY in a skirt. Or perhaps you skipped to chemistry, i.e. getting high off of DOOBIES? Or perhaps you skipped to physics, i.e. studying the fluid mechanics of BEER funnels? Certainly not Earth science, based on your current performance in this THREAD…LEH-NERD.

 

6. BONUS DISCUSSION WITH COMMIE KAY: West Virginia v. EPA: Today, the Supreme Court severely limited the EPA’s power to regulate state-by-state environmental pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions (the ruling affects the powers of every other federal agency, too). In practice, this will render consistent and sufficient regulation of emissions standards nearly impossible. So much for meeting the moment and taking climate change seriously, eh Leh-ny? I know the industrial oligarchs are loving this judicial decision, but what say you and your originalist/states’ rights/Civil War cosplay buddies?? Surely you’re skeptical enough to realize that this had little to do with “properly” delineating legislative and executive powers and everything to do with delivering for GOP corporate donors, aren’t you??

 

P.S. Note that I’m only giving your post 1 eyeroll emoji reaction because Two Bills Drive isn’t letting me give you more, nor do they offer a more fitting clown face emoji or steaming pile of sh!t emoji. Keep digging the response hole for your TBD posting grave, Leh-nerd, as I bury you under the entire offered array of TBD negative emoji reactions. On deck: sad face emoji and angry face emoji.

 

P.S.P.S. Yes, I will accept your Vizzy at the next Bills tailgate! Thank you so much!

 

*- Commie Kay Fun Fact: My abs are almost as rock solid as Kendall’s now. My secret? Oh you guessed it, Leh-nerd! VEGAN DIET. 100% whole-foods, plant-based**. I also jog ~15 miles a week and do Bikram yoga once a week, but vegan diet FTW!

 

**-Commie Kay Bonus Dietary Tip: Avoid cooking with vegetable oils!

 

On 6/24/2022 at 1:25 PM, T master said:

But why does it always have to be the US being the good guy our country has already done a ton to reduce our carbon out put and the blame is always on the fossil fuels never on the cutting of millions of acres of trees that helps to keep the carbon in the atmosphere because that is what trees take in .

 

They never stop producing more roads which hold heat or stop building houses which the asphalt roofs old heat for longer periods of time increasing the atmospheric temperature , & even on laughed (including me) at AOC when she said something about cows farting but in reality have you ever driven across I-40 in Texas past the 1000's of acres of cattle crapping on the ground laying & walking in their own crap which puts out methane gas .

 

They never tell the beef industry to stop or slow down the production of cows then there is the fact that they don't dare say a word to china or India about stopping their pollution because they will flat out tell them to piss up a rope but its always the US that has to make a difference for every one else & pay the bulk of the cash to fix it weather it's the gov't giving to who or what ever science tests or the American people paying higher taxes or prices for the new technology .

 

I'm just tired of the US always being the one lets spread this stuff around & have those polluting th most do their fare share it's total BS that we carry the biggest burden all the time ...

 

You appear to be all over the place in your angry rant. My far-left progressive environmentalist comrades are 100% with you on deforestation, urban/suburban sprawl, and meat/dairy industry complaints. We want to hold the rest of the world accountable with their fossil fuel consumption, too, but we acknowledge that the United States is the country over which we have the most control (FYI: we are the second biggest greenhouse gas emitters by a wide margin). And what’s the alternative?? Two moral wrongs don’t make a moral right!

 

If we want to curb China’s fossil fuel usage, the key is multilateral trade deal leverage. Also, what ever happened to the United States wanting to be #1 in things?? I’d love to see our country take the lead on the world stage in the rapidly emerging renewable energy market. It is to our great economic advantage to do so. At the very least, let’s not fall too far behind Europe.