'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

[nashhorn]

Read that Porsche is raising prices on all models in 2024. The reason given: EV’s are killing profits.

 

[Run Pincher]

25% is a hell of a drop in a market that's new and should be growing exponentially. Maybe all the people that think EV's are so great already bought?

I do know I love the sound of my pistons firing at full throttle and my motorcycle screaming at 11,000 rpm is like a drug.
Ford posts April sales gain as F-Series comes roaring back (detroitnews.com)

 

[Horn6721]

Love the comment
New Ford slogan
F- found
O- on
R- road
D- discharged

 

[mchammer]

Westinghouse unveils small modular nuclear reactor

 

[Horn6721]

Too bad they aren't ready for use. We here in Texas are in trouble this summer.

 

[nashhorn]

Naturally they are already operating in China, or the precursor is.

 

[mchammer]

 

[Mr. Deez]

You mean putting a thermometer right next to a massive runway of asphalt and blowing hot jet exhaust on it all day might inflate the temperature? Who woulda thought? That would be like putting your home thermostat right above your stove.

 

[Monahorns]

Most of the recent heat increases are due to surface changes occurring next to the thermometers. Woods turned into parking lots. Grass turned into concrete. Etc. Take that away and increase is very small.

 

[mchammer]

The conclusions of this speech are blindingly obvious to everyone except the climate ideologues and grifters.

Fed's Waller Drops Bombshell: 'Climate Change Risks Not Material To US' | ZeroHedge

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

The conclusions of this speech are blindingly obvious to everyone except the climate ideologues and grifters.

Fed's Waller Drops Bombshell: 'Climate Change Risks Not Material To US' | ZeroHedge

That headline is not actually what he said. he said that CC risks are not so extreme or unique TO THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM that they warrant unique measures. He did say CC is real.

Obviously that is a dagger to extreme CC zealots but it is also a reality check for those of you who want to routinely say it is not a thing at all.

CC is akin to a slow oil leak in your car. There will be telltale signs (oil puddle, smoke in the engine compartment, etc) but your car will be ok for a while But eventually you'll have to pay the piper if you continue to ignore it and do nothing to address it. And when the engine fails, the cost to cure will be much higher and not having a car will come with its own set of trickle down breakdowns in your daily systems and activities.

 

[Monahorns]

^^^^^
Not true. There is only a sliver of infrared radiation left that can be absorbed by CO2 and turned into heat. We are already seeing big increases in CO2 with minimal at best effect on temperature. Soon that will go to 0. Plus there multiple positive effects of CO2 in the atmosphere and burning fossil fuels for energy. There is no slow leak and eventual calamity. Believing that is just as bad as being Greta Thunberg.

 

[mchammer]

That headline is not actually what he said. he said that CC risks are not so extreme or unique TO THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM that they warrant unique measures. He did say CC is real.

Obviously that is a dagger to extreme CC zealots but it is also a reality check for those of you who want to routinely say it is not a thing at all.

CC is akin to a slow oil leak in your car. There will be telltale signs (oil puddle, smoke in the engine compartment, etc) but your car will be ok for a while But eventually you'll have to pay the piper if you continue to ignore it and do nothing to address it. And when the engine fails, the cost to cure will be much higher and not having a car will come with its own set of trickle down breakdowns in your daily systems and activities.

The better analogy is buying a new car that is better equipped to handle the weather. And the best way to purchase that car is to invest wisely in natural gas, nuclear etc so that it spins off returns that you can use to buy a more equipped car.

 

[mchammer]

That headline is not actually what he said. he said that CC risks are not so extreme or unique TO THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM that they warrant unique measures. He did say CC is real.

Obviously that is a dagger to extreme CC zealots but it is also a reality check for those of you who want to routinely say it is not a thing at all.

CC is akin to a slow oil leak in your car. There will be telltale signs (oil puddle, smoke in the engine compartment, etc) but your car will be ok for a while But eventually you'll have to pay the piper if you continue to ignore it and do nothing to address it. And when the engine fails, the cost to cure will be much higher and not having a car will come with its own set of trickle down breakdowns in your daily systems and activities.

Spot the global warming in the graph below:

 

[nashhorn]

The ignored point is the infinitesimal % of CO2 in the atmosphere. This a 1000% industrial increase is of zero practical effect.

 

[mchammer]

There is apparently no one in Hawaii to call this nuts. Article cites predicted 6” sea level rise by 2030 when the historical trend would suggest 0.4”.

Marine biologists near end of 5-year study on health of Hanauma Bay

 

[mchammer]

 

[Monahorns]

Yep. In both instances the government is causing more deaths than nature at this point. The official term is democide. Texas energy policy killed hundreds of people during the winter 2021 black outs.

 

[mchammer]

Offshore wind turbines as large as 15 MW each.

 

[Monahorns]

I don't think that will work in the real world. Waste of time and money when we should be building more coal and gas generators.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Waste of time and money when we should be building more NUCLEAR generators.

FIFY

 

[Mr. Deez]

I don't have a problem with wind power where they're actually a viable option. Like I've mentioned, those turbines on Terceira Island in the Azores (where I used to live) spun violently almost 24/7. I'm sure they produced significant electricity. However, most turbines I've seen were in rural or desert areas of Texas, California, or Germany and sat idle or moving slowly most of the time. I fail to see how those do much for the environment, and they're a colossal eyesore.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Not a fan of vigilantism, but if the cops won't enforce the laws and create order, I'm not sure what choice people have.

 

[Monahorns]

FIFY

Not either or but all 3.

 

[Monahorns]

I don't have a problem with wind power where they're actually a viable option. Like I've mentioned, those turbines on Terceira Island in the Azores (where I used to live) spun violently almost 24/7. I'm sure they produced significant electricity. However, most turbines I've seen were in rural or desert areas of Texas, California, or Germany and sat idle or moving slowly most of the time. I fail to see how those do much for the environment, and they're a colossal eyesore.

The problem is wind energy is never viable by itself. You always have to build redundancy because of the intermittent nature of the supply. Even when the rotors are spinning, sometimes no electricity is coming out. There is range of speeds that generate energy, above and below don't. Plus when wind turbines are at full capacity that doesn't mean that demand is at full capacity. Much of that energy is wasted. Then in down times you have to completely substitute their output with fossil fuels (or nuclear). They are a waste of time and money.

 

[mchammer]

The problem is wind energy is never viable by itself. You always have to build redundancy because of the intermittent nature of the supply. Even when the rotors are spinning, sometimes no electricity is coming out. There is range of speeds that generate energy, above and below don't. Plus when wind turbines are at full capacity that doesn't mean that demand is at full capacity. Much of that energy is wasted. Then in down times you have to completely substitute their output with fossil fuels (or nuclear). They are a waste of time and money.

Redundancy and spare capacity is good business for engineers like me. The trouble like everything else is that politicians don’t want to pay the full cost to what they are advocating, thus you get the worst of both worlds instead of the best of both worlds.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The problem is wind energy is never viable by itself. You always have to build redundancy because of the intermittent nature of the supply. Even when the rotors are spinning, sometimes no electricity is coming out. There is range of speeds that generate energy, above and below don't. Plus when wind turbines are at full capacity that doesn't mean that demand is at full capacity. Much of that energy is wasted. Then in down times you have to completely substitute their output with fossil fuels (or nuclear). They are a waste of time and money.

You're right. It isn't viable by itself. Even on Terceira Island, the majority (about 60 percent) of the island's power comes from fossil fuels. So the wind turbines give 40 percent, right? Wrong. The overwhelming majority of the renewable energy comes from a geothermal plant that opened up in 2017. So even in a place where conditions are as excellent for wind, it does very little.

 

[Monahorns]

Redundancy and spare capacity is good for engineers like me. The trouble like everything else is that politicians don’t want to pay the full cost to what they are advocating, thus you get the worst of both worlds instead of the best of both worlds.

Dude. I'm an engineer that works in the electrical industry. This isn't the kind of redundancy an engineer wants. The kind of redundancy we all want is 2 of the same thing in order to provide reliability of a system. Wind and solar are monkey wrenches thrown into the system which ha reliability because they aren't deployable. When one goes out you can't bring the other one on.

The investments in wind and solar cost so much money, because they are so expensive, that producers couldn't afford to weatherize FF generators and keep them running efficiently. Wind and solar are anchors every they are added for which FF has to be pick up the slack when they inevitably fail. When they fail people usually die.

 

[Monahorns]

You're right. It isn't viable by itself. Even on Terceira Island, the majority (about 60 percent) of the island's power comes from fossil fuels. So the wind turbines give 40 percent, right? Wrong. The overwhelming majority of the renewable energy comes from a geothermal plant that opened up in 2017. So even in a place where conditions are as excellent for wind, it does very little.

Deez, environmentalists hate geothermal too, which is a great source of energy for those who can get it. It is deployable.

 

[mchammer]

Dude. I'm an engineer that works in the electrical industry. This isn't the kind of redundancy an engineer wants. The kind of redundancy we all want is 2 of the same thing in order to provide reliability of a system. Wind and solar are monkey wrenches thrown into the system which ha reliability because they aren't deployable. When one goes out you can't bring the other one on.

The investments in wind and solar cost so much money, because they are so expensive, that producers couldn't afford to weatherize FF generators and keep them running efficiently. Wind and solar are anchors every they are added for which FF has to be pick up the slack when they inevitably fail. When they fail people usually die.

Dude - I strictly speaking of job security and redundancy of effort.