diy solar

diy solar

Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?

Elon already made them mad:….they did samething to Ford to show him who really in charge. He shut his news paper down and went after his work force. Twitter was an upset. So history repeats. Cookie cutters must never get dull. Or they are just to lazy come up new ways to control and manipulate ppl like Musk. 🤡

IMG_6389.jpeg

 
Not seeing that.
I know that you can not see it, but it is happening regardless. The 'Climate Crisis' induced by CO2 is based an appeal to authority, plain and simple. Trust the experts, right?
Well, two things...first keep in mind those promoting disbelief also have motives. Secondly, most of that funding is what the government throws to keep universities running, not like they have to cry wolf to get funding. They'd just ask for a new collider or something.
We all have motives to some degree. I do not believe in unbiased humans. I have a motive, it is that I care about the fate of humanity. I have a survival instinct. I make no money from Oil. I could likely make money selling climate change fear though.

Universities fund what they deem to be beneficial in some sense. They don't fund research that embarrasses them and destroy whole areas of study within the institution.

They can build another collider, I wonder which death based diety they will dance in support of outside that hypothetical collider?

Or maybe they could spend money on bio research labs.
Or maybe they could study how to remotely disable and control automobiles,
or test for the best frequency to use in TVs to induce trance-like states in primates,
or studying the effects of untreated Syphilis in poor unaware victims.
Or they could pipe diesel exhaust into a room to test just exactly how bad fine particulate matter is for a human being at 40X the accepted dangerous level.

There are so many ways to spend our money doing evil it is unbeliveable.

If you can't test it and are unsure, then the you also can't disprove it. So why so passionate about it? Why believe only one side of it?
Because the side that wants me to believe it also benefits from it, and they want most of us dead.

Because they are civilizational arsonists who desire to 'build back better' with largely inferior systems that will line the pockets of those who seek control for the sake of power.
Because I won't eat bugs.
Because I want humanity to be free.

You shall be known by the company you keep.
Those who insist that the climate is in crisis also told us;

2 weeks to stop the spread...masks reduce risk of transmission of an aerosolized virus...the 'Vaccine' is safe and effective...two men can have a baby...math is racist and so on.

'Trust the Science' and 'I am the Science' became, 'take the shot or you can't work,or shop, or live.'

Those who want me to believe in climate catastrophe want the population reduced to 500 million. They want us to eat bugs while they fly around in private jets to armored hideouts.

The establishment want us under control and they can't do that if we have a means to be energy independent.

Just Stop Oil just used a couple of duped elderly ladies to attempt at breaking the glass protecting the Magna Carta. What a perfect example. Two well meaning old ladies attempting to destroy the document which essentially declared humanity's value and cemented the philosophy for Western Civilization, all because they believe that their is a threat that isn't there.



Again, I'm not seeing facts to back this up other than "I haven't personally tested and therefore disbelief any graph you post as it could be cherry-picked data even it's the last 20 years or 10 million years and it therefore my conclusion is it is false".
Yes knowledge by authority. I don't have to trust the narrative, and I don't.
Does that not also apply to those bamboozling others into believing there's doubt about the actual science?

If you go to homedepot, is the price difference between a new heat pump and natural-gas new furnace really that different? They look like they're about twice the cost per BTU. But for some, despite the natural gas costing them more, that can be a big difference.

Possibly that's why the government did the tax incentive for them. Depends on where you live, but a lot of states have rebates too. So doesn't look like much difference capitol-wise.
Apparently they have to disincentivize the sale of gas units.
Destroying vast swaths of land, like we did in Montana with with strip-mining lignite? Or pretty much anything we've ever done to fuel modern society? Remember the Deepwater Horizon oil spill? History is littered with abuses. Can we do better? Pretty sure we can.
Yes, those things are bad, we don't have to accept those things. The Deepwater Horizon was a story of Corporate greed and incompetence, had they been following standard protocol they would have had no issue. These sorts of issues are aslo possible in other extraction efforts, but I would argue that the US is better equipped to do these things aafely than some poor country that is working to keep their Chinese creditors happy.
But what does less harm over all? Lithium batteries are highly recyclable, so like aluminum, at some point we'll dig less out of the ground just to top-off as we've already got most of what we need. You're never going to be able to say that about fossil fuels unless you start extracting it from air and making green-fuel.

Just focusing on the sins of one and ignoring the worst sins of the other is not good land stewardship. Sounds like you should be for this.
I'm not ignoring anything, only doubting that anthropogenic CO2 is a threat
As I recall, Lithium is "mined" from clay deposits and is somewhat toxic. So, wouldn't removing it from surface deposits actually be making the area less toxic? ; -)


LFP doesn't use cobalt and won't suffer thermal run-away. A lot of the new ESS tech doesn't use anything rare (e.g., sodium batteries).
Sounds like quite the utopia.
LCOEs show Solar & Wind with ESS are currently at parity with the lowest form of hydrocarbon fuels (natural gas) and ESS prices are still falling.
Hell no. We should just add a carbon tax to remove the CO2 emitted by the ICE vehicle to correct the problem it causes. That gives consumers freedom of choice and let economics take it course.
You do understand that even if CO2 were a threat ICE vehicles don't contribute enough to worry about right?
Always has, always will. They don't need to make up a climate change boogie man to accomplish that
Yes but the magnitude of tyranny can be increased greatly when there is a good boogie man, plus since one can't find the boogie man anybody who doubts will be a 'denier.'
 
Last edited:
My electric cost $1477 a year should I spend thousands to cut that out? That is about $123 a month. I’m running heat pump with electric emergency.

The UL inverter just by itself cost more

Is Green deal worth it? I have to be 100% code compliant. I still have tto pay electric company minimum of $42 or so for membership every month No matter what pump into grid which they rob me if try. I have to buy and install my own transformer to send power back into grid. Hahahaha Green deal is right shit ton money out of my bank …

How much is your average electric bill?

I'm at 10 cents a kwh.

Solar at the home is for kicks only if I were to ever indulge. And frankly just silly given our latitude.

It's a necessity at the cabin due to closest power being 1.5 miles away.


I spent more on the small cabin system which still needs a backup gen than I spend for 3 years worth of electricity at home in a fully electric house.
 
Mine is purely emergency back up in summer. Which is weird because lot of ppl have heat pumps now. Tiny bit more use in summer to cool.

I just don’t see ppl dropping big coin for solar at current prices. Most in remote and way out with tiny homes maybe. The local electric holds ppl hostage then the bastards brag how all their facilities use solar panels to power them Damn.

Can’t cut them loose or county try condemn home. It is a racket and they have other requirements such as $42 a month fee…no matter what. New green deal is not friendly but about control and expensive. A power transformer requirement is a shit ton of money.

Racket by con men.

A generator is always a MUST have. They are friggin noisy as draw back and thirsty…..

Notice in other post SUPPOSEDLY Climate Environmentalist - mental ppl are attacking Elon Musk doing their Green Shit. Damn
 
CO2 is required for plant life, CO2 is not a 'carbon emission' to be feared, it is a building block of life on the planet. While supplementing CO2 into greenhouses witlikewise hout other considerations will likely do little, it is just one thing that one does to increase yields. Fans in greenhouses are used to control humidity, temperture, and to clear out Oxygen rich air while replacing it with less oxygen dense air.

We can't add sunlight to plants in the greenhouse but can use artificial light. We can use fertilizers that are organic without much issue. And yes water requirements will increase as plants become larger and more productive.

Another thing to consider is the generational evolution of said plants on the long term. If the plants in a greenhouse are kept at high CO2 levels for many generations, their offspring will adapt by increasing the number of stomata that utilize CO2 for photosynthesis.
Calling CO2 plant food is simply irrelevant to the problem global warming due to massive amounts of greenhouse gases we pump into the atmosphere, as no one is arguing to remove CO2 from the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels. So what is the purpose of describing CO2 as plant food, if not an attempt to obfuscate the issue at hand? It is like arguing that water is necessary for plant growth whenever a toddler drowns.
 
Freedom does come with responsibility, and we exercise that responsibility every time we successfully pilot an automobile in a safe manner.

What I mean here is that if our local government puts solar on a building, it is just offsetting hydroelectric power from the grid. The turbines at the dam are making power, and really don't need any boost in the middle of the day when the sun is shining. At our latitude the time that we need electricity is when we don't have it. Our heaters do not run when solar is at its best potential.

I am against the Idea of governments taking our money to put solar on a government building only to have it feed into a grid, giving them a credit for power when it is actually needed. The building will still need to be heated at night and that will come from the grid anyway, so it is really just a way to save money for a given organization, at the cost to taxpayers or ratepayers. I could be wrong but I do not think that most government building installs are anything but grid tied and useless when the grid is down.

Now if a government has an off grid building in the tropics, it should by all means be powered by solar. All daytime consumption would be covered and there would be very little need for power overnight.

It may make sense, but usually government isn't very good at making the most economical decision, and left to it's own devices government will come up with ways to benefit itself and justify it's existence. The US has a lot of 'use it or lose it funding" which also invites massive waste.
Sadly people are not always responsible, even with all the regulation, the US, with about 100 deaths a day, is rated as the sixth highest motor-vehicle deaths per 100 million vehicle miles compared to other countries, according to the US national safety council web site. What do you think would happen if you abolish government regulations? Personally, I would like you to try to end government regulation, it would be interesting to see how an advanced society like the US improved or declined when all regulations were ended. (Just don't ask me to participate as I have seen first hand how people elsewhere in the world act when there is little to no government regulations)

When the government building uses electricity from solar on the building it doesn't have to buy it elsewhere, if they can sell the excess good for them. I have no problem with that, I even encourage that as it saves tax money, that money can be returned in lowering taxes, used for paying of the debt, or on something else, I will leave that up to the voters. As for the dams, I hear your lakes are drying up, with lake mead down nearly 50 meters, even if they weren't those lakes function as huge batteries that can easily be turned up and down to meet peak demand.

I still fail to see a logical argument why you would want to prevent government from using clean and cheap electricity.
 
Calling CO2 plant food is simply irrelevant to the problem global warming due to massive amounts of greenhouse gases we pump into the atmosphere, as no one is arguing to remove CO2 from the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels. So what is the purpose of describing CO2 as plant food, if not an attempt to obfuscate the issue at hand? It is like arguing that water is necessary for plant growth whenever a toddler drowns.
CO2 has been proven to be necessary for photosynthesis.
CO2 has not been proven to cause climate catastrophe.
 
I know that you can not see it, but it is happening regardless. The 'Climate Crisis' induced by CO2 is based an appeal to authority, plain and simple.
Trust the experts, right?
Nope. Look into the data and come to your own conclusions. The science says the climate crisis is real. Your statement about
appeal to authority" doesn't even make sense to me, but if you have a reference/link to your data I'd look at it.

...They don't fund research that embarrasses them and destroy whole areas of study within the institution.
Can government's or parties be embarrassed regardless of the research results or truth? The research into climate change shows it's an urgent crisis and that governments are doing so little seems like it ought to be embarrassing?

Because I won't eat bugs.
Because I want humanity to be free.
Those are technically what's called a fool's choice. E.g., To fight climate change I must eat bugs. It's just a propaganda technique to sway people to an argument. It's already been shown in prior posts that's people don't have to eat bugs to reduce climate change. In fact, none of the current plans put forth by any government I know of have their population eating bugs as a solution.

I don't have to trust the narrative, and I don't.
Agree 100%. But if your only reason is because "it's a government conspiracy" and "I haven't confirmed the science for myself", then you have no solid proof that it is a hoax either.

I'm not ignoring anything, only doubting that anthropogenic CO2 is a threat
And yet there are numerous compelling scientific theories that closely match observed data and all other reasonable explanations don't account for the changes. We know it's caused by man from several techniques, but the one people most point to is the carbon isotopes in the air. See
How we know Climate Change is Man-Made

You do understand that even if CO2 were a threat ICE vehicles don't
contribute enough to worry about right?
Every little bit of reduction helps.

One gallon of gasoline produces 20 pounds of CO2. It's estimated
we burn 376 million gallons per day. The half-life of CO2 is over a
century, what you burn today builds up and stays around for a long time.

Transportation accounts for 28% of the GHGs as shown to the right.
Passenger cars account for 41% of that 28%.

(images are links to sources)


...CO2 has not been proven to cause climate catastrophe....
Interesting choice of catastrophe as opposed to climate change or global warming. It's an interesting tactic to try and break the linkage between them. But what is that linkage?

CO2 (and other GHGs) have been linked to global warming. Global warming causes climate change. Climate change historically has caused crisis.
That you choose to ignore the science around global warming doesn't make your statement correct. But, there is a much higher degree of uncertainty in the IPCC reports as to the levels of the catastrophes that might occur based on climate change.

Fortunately, we don't have to rely on future predictions when the government watchdogs keep track of how much is spent of various activities. For example, the increase costs from weather events bares a startling similarity to the increase in Global warming. I'd say the $600 billion and devastation from last year counted as catastrophe:

1980-2023-billion-dollar-disaster-time-series.png

The climate changing does indeed cost us all quite a bit.
 
Last edited:
Sadly people are not always responsible, even with all the regulation, the US, with about 100 deaths a day, is rated as the sixth highest motor-vehicle deaths per 100 million vehicle miles compared to other countries, according to the US national safety council web site. What do you think would happen if you abolish government regulations? Personally, I would like you to try to end government regulation, it would be interesting to see how an advanced society like the US improved or declined when all regulations were ended. (Just don't ask me to participate as I have seen first hand how people elsewhere in the world act when there is little to no government regulations)
Probably wouldn't end well. We don't have to have NO government to have less government. Of course each responsible individual should be self governing, we must have a civilization to maintain humanity
When the government building uses electricity from solar on the building it doesn't have to buy it elsewhere, if they can sell the excess good for them. I have no problem with that, I even encourage that as it saves tax money, that money can be returned in lowering taxes, used for paying of the debt, or on something else, I will leave that up to the voters. As for the dams, I hear your lakes are drying up, with lake mead down nearly 50 meters, even if they weren't those lakes function as huge batteries that can easily be turned up and down to meet peak demand.

I still fail to see a logical argument why you would want to prevent government from using clean and cheap electricity.

if it were actually cheaper, as I said before. I am doubtful that these sorts of projects would be the first government run interference into the private sector that weren't corrupt? The concept may be possible in many situations, but it can not be given a green light across the board.
 
CO2 has been proven to be necessary for photosynthesis.
CO2 has not been proven to cause climate catastrophe.
My observation was about the use of the term plant food, we are not discussing plant food, we are discussing man made global warming and what we can do about it, not gardening...

As for the level of prove you need, I am puzzled. Call me foolish, but when 98% of the structural engineers tell me that the railway bridge I am heading towards won't hold the train that I am in with the rest of humanity, I don't stay on that train and ask the driver to accelerate. Nor am I going to wait for the level of prove that the naysayers require, (the train going over the bridge and it collapsing) I would pull the emergency brake.

We don't even have to pull the emergency brake, solar and wind are already cheaper than fossil fuels, all we need to do is implement those alternative energy sources, the worst that can happen is that our cities are cleaner and quieter. The breakthrough Svetz was asking about is already here.
 
Migration from climate change
Opinion: Interesting study of a microcosm. Not to unexpected, people won't move...until they have to. New to me was the length of time it takes for a community to relocate. There's been a few weather related disasters with deaths in the news and people are angry at the government. Is it really the government's fault if you elect leaders that won't do anything it? I suppose it's a bit like the fossil fuel companies, I don't want them to be blamed for us consuming fossil fuels, but I do want them blamed for their PR campaign to deceive the public and delay change.

Trump seeks $1 billion from oil CEOs, vows to limit EVs
Opinion: You just can't make this stuff up. A candidate telling companies his vote is for sale. Does that make him an honest politician?

The Climate-Changed Child: A Children's Climate Risk Index Supplement
One billion children at ‘extremely high risk’ of the impacts of the climate crisis
Opinion: I don't generally post links like this, but given how worried people are about children's health from things like cobalt mining, thought maybe they might need to become aware of the other side of the coin.

Poll Shows Climate Change Dwarfed by Economy, Inflation in Voters' Minds
Opinion: Climate change affects the economy and therefore inflation. Oh well.

Environmental Changes Are Fueling Human, Animal and Plant Diseases, Study Finds

Oil Companies Expand Offshore Drilling, Pointing to Energy Needs

MILES OF ICE COLLAPSING INTO THE SEA
Opinion: Old, but cool
 
Probably wouldn't end well. We don't have to have NO government to have less government. Of course each responsible individual should be self governing, we must have a civilization to maintain humanity

if it were actually cheaper, as I said before. I am doubtful that these sorts of projects would be the first government run interference into the private sector that weren't corrupt? The concept may be possible in many situations, but it can not be given a green light across the board.
Corruption is a separate issue, I can't stand it myself either, regardless of the political ideology the pundits might espouse.

As Svetz pointed out, Lazard asserted that solar, even with battery backup is already cheaper. Since then solar battery collapsed, it doesn't take a dgree in econics to understand that the energy mix will change regardless of political ideals and it would be short-sighted to forbid government from implementing those savings.
 
Nope. Look into the data and come to your own conclusions. The science says the climate crisis is real. Your statement about
appeal to authority" doesn't even make sense to me, but if you have a reference/link to your data I'd look at it.


Can government's or parties be embarrassed regardless of the research results or truth? The research into climate change shows it's an urgent crisis and that governments are doing so little seems like it ought to be embarrassing?
Are they embarrassed about the behavior that I have mentioned previously? The parts that aren't addressed here?
Those are technically what's called a fool's choice. E.g., To fight climate change I must eat bugs. It's just a propaganda technique to sway people to an argument. It's already been shown in prior posts that's people don't have to eat bugs to reduce climate change. In fact, none of the current plans put forth by any government I know of have their population eating bugs as a solution.
Har dee har har! Fools choice! That thar is mee.
I don't need to eat bugs. The World Economic Forum sure likes to promote it. Bugs are in food now.
I am thankful that I am not being fooled into believing that these narratives aren't being promoted by those who would benefit

Agree 100%. But if your only reason is because "it's a government conspiracy" and "I haven't confirmed the science for myself", then you have no solid proof that it is a hoax either.
I laid out many reasons beyond the recognition of conspiracy.

I am not making the claim that would warrant me to disprove said claim.

Huckster: "If you don't wear a mint green top hat during every new moon you will be cursed life" "Only one thousand dollars for you peace of mind, good sir!"

Passerby: "I don't believe that, I don't need that hat!"

Huckster: "You must prove that you will not be cursed!"

Passerby: "Ok, I will continue on my way without your hat, and I will prove that there is no curse."

Huckster: "Are you some sort of denier? That is fine, the government is going to mandate the mint green top hat as mandatory, weather you like it or not!

And yet there are numerous compelling scientific theories that closely match observed data and all other reasonable explanations don't account for the changes. We know it's caused by man from several techniques, but the one people most point to is the carbon isotopes in the air. See
How we know Climate Change is Man-Made


Every little bit of reduction helps.

One gallon of gasoline produces 20 pounds of CO2. It's estimated
we burn 376 million gallons per day. The half-life of CO2 is over a
century, what you burn today builds up and stays around for a long time.

Transportation accounts for 28% of the GHGs as shown to the right.
Passenger cars account for 41% of that 28%.

(images are links to sources)



Interesting choice of catastrophe as opposed to climate change or global warming. It's an interesting tactic to try and break the linkage between them. But what is that linkage?
No tactic. It is also interesting that you didn't include the other failed narratives such as cool down, sea level rise, I guess because the version that we have settled on is the asinine "Climate Change." Climate changes, nobody denies that.

You are claiming that there is a need to make changes for the sake of that changing climate. The burden of proof is not on my position, but on yours.
CO2 (and other GHGs) have been linked to global warming. Global warming causes climate change. Climate change historically has caused crisis.
That you choose to ignore the science around global warming doesn't make your statement correct. But, there is a much higher degree of uncertainty in the IPCC reports as to the levels of the catastrophes that might occur based on climate change.

Fortunately, we don't have to rely on future predictions when the government watchdogs keep track of how much is spent of various activities. For example, the increase costs from weather events bares a startling similarity to the increase in Global warming. I'd say the $600 billion and devastation from last year counted as catastrophe:

1980-2023-billion-dollar-disaster-time-series.png

The climate changing does indeed cost us all quite a bit.
If there are more things in the path of a storm and those things cost more every year to acquire and produce, would it not be reasonable to assume that much of the rising cost here can be attributed to that fact?
 
Last edited:
Corruption is a separate issue, I can't stand it myself either, regardless of the political ideology the pundits might espouse.
Agreed.
As Svetz pointed out, Lazard asserted that solar, even with battery backup is already cheaper. Since then solar battery collapsed, it doesn't take a dgree in econics to understand that the energy mix will change regardless of political ideals and it would be short-sighted to forbid government from implementing those savings.
ONLY If it makes actual sense beyond financial shell games. If it is economically viable then why wouldn't the power companies already have more renewable energy sources on line, without being incentivized?
 

Bidenomics At Work: Ford Slashing Battery Orders As Losses Per EV Approach $100,000​

(And the only reason Tesla is "profitable" is their carbon credits scam. They are actually losing money for every EV they sell if you remove carbon credits which ofcourse is complete shell game)

Ford is cutting battery orders in yet another sign that the EV market, despite a constant tailwind from the U.S. taxpayer, is starting to slow.

The company is cutting the orders to curb electric-vehicle losses as it scales back its EV strategy in a slowing plug-in market, according to insiders who spoke to Bloomberg.

Ford CEO Jim Farley has said the company's EV unit “is the main drag on the whole company right now" and CAT said its “cooperation with Ford is moving forward as normal”.

The company responded by saying it wouldn't comment on relationships with suppliers.

Bloomberg notes that with plummeting EV prices and weakening demand, Ford's losses per electric vehicle exceeded $100,000 in the first quarter, doubling last year's deficit.

Bloomberg Intelligence estimates that Ford's projected EV unit losses this year will nearly offset profits from its Ford Blue division, which produces traditional internal combustion engine vehicles like the Bronco SUV and gas-electric hybrids such as the Maverick truck.

BI analysts said of the results: “That raises questions about the prudence of investing heavily in EVs.”

Ford's order reductions highlight industry challenges as U.S. automakers face weaker-than-expected EV demand and battery makers in South Korea, China, and beyond struggle with unsold inventory.

This has affected prices for key metals like lithium, cobalt, and nickel, leading to multiyear lows and stalling new projects. Ford has reduced EV production costs but had to cut prices to stay competitive with Tesla.

Ford CFO John Lawler said in April: “We’ve seen prices coming down quite dramatically and that’s why we haven’t been able to keep up from a cost reduction standpoint.”

He continued: “But we’re targeting to take out as much cost this year as we can on Model e and all in the spirit of driving toward that contribution margin positive.”

He concluded: “Model e has to stand on its own. It needs to be profitable and it has to provide a return on the capital we’re investing.”

Thus, its no surprise to us (or to our readers, we're sure) why, exactly Ford is cutting back on its EV investments.

Recall we noted from the Epoch Times just days ago that on April 24, Ford reported it lost $132,000 for each of its 10,000 electric vehicles sold in the first quarter of 2024, according to CNN. The sales were down 20 percent from the first quarter of 2023 and would “drag down earnings for the company overall.”

The losses include “hundreds of millions being spent on research and development of the next generation of EVs for Ford. Those investments are years away from paying off.” Ford is the only major carmaker breaking out EV numbers by themselves. But other marques likely suffer similar losses.
 

World’s Largest Floating Solar Farm Wrecked By A Storm Just Before Launch​



h/t Dr. Willie Soon; Who could have predicted acres of fragile floating structures would be vulnerable to bad weather?


Madhya Pradesh: Summer Storm Damages World’s Largest Floating Solar Plant at Omkareshwar Dam (Watch Video)
Indore: A summer storm on Tuesday damaged a floating solar plant at Madhya Pradesh’s Omkareshwar dam. The floating solar plant, situated in the backwater of the dam, is the biggest of its kind in the world. A joint venture between Madhya Pradesh Govt and National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC), the project was nearly completed and ready for its launch. A part of the project became operational last week.
The project near the village of Kelwa Khurd, aimed at generating 100 MW of electricity, with additional capacities of 88MW at Indawadi and 90 MW at Ekhand village. However, on Tuesday, summer storms with the speed of 50kmph hit the project and threw the solar panels all around the place. No employee was fortunately injured.

Read more: https://www.lokmattimes.com/nationa...ar-plant-at-omkareshwar-dam-watch-video-a514/
A video of the disaster;

AL GORE please pick up the red emergency phone.

Storm destroys the world's largest floating Solar Panel Farm.

What Valedictorian engineer signed off on this stupidity.pic.twitter.com/zRBOREibGi
— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) May 5, 2024
Anyone who has ever owned a boat, particular a large boat which gets left in the water, knows what a harsh environment the sea can be. Some kind of failure was inevitable. If it hadn’t been a storm, there are plenty of other things which could have gone wrong.

Greens keep telling us we can expect more frequent and extreme superstorms – so what is the point of building vulnerable floating structures?

Plastics tend to disintegrate under tropical sunlight, especially when in contact with water or water spray. Ultraviolet from the sun drives exotic chemical reactions, which leads to chemical breakdown.

Metal sitting in water is difficult to manage, even stainless steel is not immune to corrosion. All metal structures in contact with water need to be protected with sacrificial anodes or comparable protective measures. Electricity and metal are an especially bad combination, any electrical fault which causes a current to run through metal in contact with water can cause corrosion to occur thousands of times faster than normal.

Let us hope developers and politicians take the hint, and stop throwing our money at inherently flawed ideas like floating solar arrays.
 
Migration from climate change
Opinion: Interesting study of a microcosm. Not to unexpected, people won't move...until they have to. New to me was the length of time it takes for a community to relocate. There's been a few weather related disasters with deaths in the news and people are angry at the government. Is it really the government's fault if you elect leaders that won't do anything it? I suppose it's a bit like the fossil fuel companies, I don't want them to be blamed for us consuming fossil fuels, but I do want them blamed for their PR campaign to deceive the public and delay change.

Trump seeks $1 billion from oil CEOs, vows to limit EVs
Opinion: You just can't make this stuff up. A candidate telling companies his vote is for sale. Does that make him an honest politician?
No, he has no shame. He is however more honest than most. 50% truth is better than 10% any day. Although some people like to go along with the tyranny put fourth by the Trump, but would oppose the Biden for attempting the same tyrannies. Hmm.
The Climate-Changed Child: A Children's Climate Risk Index Supplement
One billion children at ‘extremely high risk’ of the impacts of the climate crisis
Opinion: I don't generally post links like this, but given how worried people are about children's health from things like cobalt mining, thought maybe they might need to become aware of the other side of the coin.
Their plight is not due to humans releasing CO2.
Poll Shows Climate Change Dwarfed by Economy, Inflation in Voters' Minds
Opinion: Climate change affects the economy and therefore inflation. Oh well.
If there is no economy then there can be no way to implement these green energy plans, or any other for that matter.

'Local man says that he is more afraid of Man-eating Grizzly Bears than he is of a changing climate... tune in at 11 to see the interview with this climate denier"

Interviewer: Sir how could you be so insensitive as to deny that the climate is changing?

Local man: I thought you wanted to know about the Bears roaming the neighborhood? Of course the climate is changing.

Interviewer: You told our reporter on the phone that you weren't concerned about climate change?

Local man: of course Im not, I called about the bears, I sent you the videos, I am concerned that more people will be mauled and eaten, these bears have a taste for blood.

Interviewer: In a time of such great climate crisis how can you be so concerned about bears?

Local man: Because they kill and eat people!?

Interviewer: I didn't come down here to discuss some silly little problem that you have with your neighbors being terrorized by Grizzly Bears.

Well there you have it folks, this denier just can't care about the most important issue in or time... the changing climate. Back to you.

Changing to and from daylight saving time causes increases in heart attacks and strokes every year. It seems logical that there are also a million other things going on that cause disease, especially considering that many diseases that were once rare are now much more common.
Yes indeed, energy needs, needs that can only be be met with abundant and readily available stores of energy.
You have to admire the beauty of such a magnificent change of the seasons, or is it ages?
 
Agreed.

ONLY If it makes actual sense beyond financial shell games. If it is economically viable then why wouldn't the power companies already have more renewable energy sources on line, without being incentivized?
It takes too long to debate how companies are run, the short version is that their only purpose is to make as much money for the shareholders as possible. While a successful economy is the basis for a functioning democracy there is a case to be made to restrict businesses from doing things that harm people.

For a US example on how the environment or public health is often times not considered have a look at the 2015 gold king mine waste water spill, the US tax payer ended up paying for the clean up while the owners, who abandoned the mines, walked away with the profits. There is a whole debate on who's fault it actually was. I have a simple guideline, the polluter pays, regardless if it is toxic waste from abandoned coal mines, carbon dioxide, or anything else. And yes, those cost will be included in the price of the gold and fossil fuels and if they are no longer profitable, those businesses will fail as they should in a free market economy.

There are times where government can step in as well, you can do that through tariffs, subsidies, regulation, funding research and a whole bunch of other things. But how can we expect politicians make effective choices unless they follow the evidence? The way we elect them is often more a tribal thing that every politician does, even Trump messed with the "free market". In a logical consideration of the pro's and con's of those choices. Add to that the funding that is done by industry that helps politicians get elected, advertising, even stupid claims like "clean coal" on the news media to stop them from being critical of the coal industry and you end up with the mess you are in. Leading the way can be an effective way for government to encourage research and development while getting a benefit of clean energy.

The simple idea is let the free market do the things it's good at, increasing efficiency and driving down cost, while the government prevents them doing stupid things like polluting the environment or not cutting quality control for air planes, killing each other and even regulate the truck you so love.

It is not evil for the left to want a clean environment, it is not evil for the nationalist to put tariffs on solar imports in an attempt to boost local production. If you are going to have a look at what is the best mix of policies that helps the people, don't tell government that they are not allowed to save money by putting solar on government buildings. It can be argued that it actually helps you and I because more private funding will be invested in making solar panels for our own homes. Although China seems to have taken the lead and are expanding this lead every month while people like yourself are denying that global warming is happening and governments should not act.
 
2015 gold king mine waste water spill
Ummmm it was the EPA who released this wave of water into the Animas. The mine was abandoned in the 1920s .. all those guys are dead and gone.... cant squeeze blood from a dead turnip.
The flippin government causes all sorts of problems here. It was the US government that started the fire that burnt neighborhoods down to the ground in Los Alamos in 2000... and several times after this in other places around here. Morons they are... wait till its spring with 2% humidity and forcast winds of 30 to 50mph and then say light her up boys!
It was the gov that took mine tailings from the Tuerto mine and spread them on the road next to the Pecos river and when spring runoff came it washed heavy metals into the river and then say Dont eat the fish.. theyre full of heavy metals..! Duh!
The very ones YOU expect to help are the ones making the problem exponentially worse.
We dont have a climate change problem.. we have a common sense problem.
My rant

while the government prevents them doing stupid things like polluting the environment or
See above.
 
Ummmm it was the EPA who released this wave of water into the Animas. The mine was abandoned in the 1920s .. all those guys are dead and gone.... cant squeeze blood from a dead turnip.
The flippin government causes all sorts of problems here. It was the US government that started the fire that burnt neighborhoods down to the ground in Los Alamos in 2000... and several times after this in other places around here. Morons they are... wait till its spring with 2% humidity and forcast winds of 30 to 50mph and then say light her up boys!
It was the gov that took mine tailings from the Tuerto mine and spread them on the road next to the Pecos river and when spring runoff came it washed heavy metals into the river and then say Dont eat the fish.. theyre full of heavy metals..! Duh!
The very ones YOU expect to help are the ones making the problem exponentially worse.
We dont have a climate change problem.. we have a common sense problem.
My rant


See above.
Gold mining in the hills around Gold King was the primary income and economy for the region until 1991, when the last mine closed near Silverton. The Gold King Mine was abandoned in 1923. Prior to the spill, the Upper Animas water basin had already become devoid of fish, because of the adverse environmental impacts of regional mines such as Gold King, when contaminants entered the water system. Other plant and animal species were also adversely affected in the watershed before the Gold King Mine breach.

In the 1990s, sections of the Animas had been nominated by the EPA as a Superfund site for clean-up of pollutants from the Gold King Mine and other mining operations along the river. Lack of community support prevented its listing. Under the law, the EPA had authority to do only minor work to abate environmental impacts of the mine. Locals had feared that classifying this as a Superfund site would reduce tourism in the area, which was the largest remaining source of income for the region since the closure of the metal mines.

At the time of the accident, the EPA was working with a private contractor at the Gold King Mine to stem the leaking mine water going into Cement Creek. Water was accumulating behind a plug at the mine's entrance. They planned to add pipes that would allow the slow release and treatment of that water before it backed up enough to blow out. Unknown to the crew, the mine tunnel behind the plug was already full of pressurized water. It burst through the plug soon after excavation began.

Not that any of that matters, the mines were abandoned by the owners and the government should not have been left to clean up their mess, right?
 
Last edited:
IMO there is a reason this topic has close to 300 pages, it may be because unlike most
big issues we face "we the people" can play a part in this one, even the most hardiest
sceptic has a roll to play, I would be surprised if you looked on any other forum and
found a basement/chit chat zone with a 300 page Climate Change topic.

each watt of solar we point at the sky is watts the big power supplier's don't need to
generate when enough of us in the world stop sucking on our mother's tits(grid) we
could at least remove coal as fuel option(that would be a big step in the right direction).

when I was a kid each family on our block had a coal bin in the basement, they are all
gone here in the usa now, step in the right direction.

 
Last edited:
IMO there is a reason this topic has close to 300 pages, it may be because unlike most
big issues we face "we the people" can play a part in this one, even the most hardiest
sceptic has a roll to play, I would be surprised if you looked on any other forum and
found a basement/chit chat zone with a 300 page Climate Change topic.

each watt of solar we point at the sky is watts the big power supplier's don't need to
generate when enough of us in the world stop sucking on our mother's tits(grid) we
could at least remove coal as fuel option(that would be a big step in the right direction).

when I was a kid each family on our block had a coal bin in the basement, they are all
gone here in the usa now, step in the right direction.

At the 14:00 mark he starts laying it out. At mark 20:00 he says the truth. Svetz type will have a problem with that video.
 
D71, the video points out the challenges we face, some may see them as roadblocks or
even deal-breakers I see them as opportunities for our young.Capture491.PNG
 
Last edited:
It is not evil for the left to want a clean environment

Here in lies the problem and the hypocricy.

Where are the "greens" attacking all of the REAL problems? Like actual problems that are ruining the planet?

Geoengineering, Chemical Pollution (Especially associated with the whole "EV" push and anything battery), Gain Of Function Research (Which is only needed if you are creating bioweapons), Genetic Engineering that is ruining our natural biome?

All of the usual pundits are completely silent on this, but they are stuck up on "caboon" because they have been brainwashed by those in real power.

All you need to know. The entire "green movement" does not care about the planet. Not even a little.

And then they tell you China is in the lead? This is laughable. China's number one source of electricity is COAL! COAL! (And China is tripling down on it) The idiots claiming china is leading in "cleaning up the Earth" need to have their heads examined! China is one of the most polluted places in the world. No wonder there is a joke about China growing plastic tomatoes next, LOL.

Stop gaslighting already, the lies spewed by the "left" and "greens" are so outrageous, noone believes it anymore. Amazing how shameless they are in the lying!
 
Ice-age analysis suggests worst-case global warming is less likely
Climate change-driven insurance crisis threatens new US states
The Cooling Dilemma Amid Climate Change

Dhaka launches first-ever Climate Action Plan
Opinion: Carbon Neutral by 2050!

I laid out many reasons beyond the recognition of conspiracy.
You sure that was in this thread? I don't recollect any actual scientific proof. You did talk about how propane is fuel dense and you don't like the aesthetics of solar panels, but that's not any sort of proof that climate change is a hoax.

... It is also interesting that you didn't include the other failed narratives such as cool down, sea level rise...
What specifically do you want to know?

...Climate changes, nobody denies that...
Sure they do. There's a little of everything out there.

You are claiming that there is a need to make changes for the sake of that changing climate. The burden of proof is not on my position, but on yours.
That's silly. I've provided links to references to back up my thoughts as to why I believe it is real. You haven't provided any evidence to backup why you think it's fake. You've also said you only believe what you yourself can test/validate, yet you are very sure in your belief that it is a hoax without validation.
Their plight [child starvation] is not due to humans releasing CO2.
History shows us that even natural climate changes cause draught and famine. GHGs are increasing the global temperature, which does change climate.
...we have a common sense problem....
(y)

[Have you ever seen a lithium mine?]
Powerful speaker... but ... I wanted to rebut the bit about lithium mining as it's a single side of the coin directed at lithium as if it is much worse than other types of mining:
So, where does lithium come from? It comes from the Earth, of course, but it doesn't require strip mining or blowing the tops off mountains like other resources do.... most often, lithium is found in briny underground ponds. The liquid is pumped out and left to dry in the sun. ref
The ponds shown in the video are where they're left to dry via sunshine, it's very different from a strip mine or other very destructive mining techniques. Similarly, he talks about the quantity of batteries over the years, but doesn't talk about the recycle capability meaning mining will go down over time. On the turbine blades, those are blades from decades ago and the new ones are designed to be recyclable. Even the old ones can be recycled, but it's cheaper to throw them into a landfill unfortunately. It's not a perfect world, but we can keep chipping away the problems. But don't worry, pretty sure we'll create new ones.

I definitely liked the quote that faith removes doubts and science requires doubt. Is it ironic that doubters of science are the ones that have the most faith their beliefs are correct.

 
Last edited:
IMO there is a reason this topic has close to 300 pages, it may be because unlike most
big issues we face "we the people" can play a part in this one, even the most hardiest
sceptic has a roll to play, I would be surprised if you looked on any other forum and
found a basement/chit chat zone with a 300 page Climate Change topic.

each watt of solar we point at the sky is watts the big power supplier's don't need to
generate when enough of us in the world stop sucking on our mother's tits(grid) we
could at least remove coal as fuel option(that would be a big step in the right direction).

when I was a kid each family on our block had a coal bin in the basement, they are all
gone here in the usa now, step in the right direction.

D71, the video points out the challenges we face, some may see them as roadblocks or
even deal-breakers I see them as opportunities for our young.



One of the biggest post on here in record time.

IMG_6293.jpeg

Best of the best
IMG_6296.jpeg


Reduced Charred mess above it. Imagine trying to go to a new planet and tame it. Mars … everyone knows Mars is not livable from science and neither is the moon… look at temperature extremes of moon. Joke We can’t tame this planet much less a new place which is more uninviting.

. We are however over populating here at a record rate. Well not the USA and Western World but rest of broke ass ppl with nothing else to do are humping. Give them internet access porn guess what? Even More humping. Give them food and they double their population and double down on population 2x production last 30 years. Hmmmmmm not working out for home team now we are being invaded. Taken over. So in the end we helped to rush our own demise. Right now if ppl look we are no longer Modern Romans ruling. Just like ancient rome we have been taken over and are ourselves in free fall. We tried to raise the Rest of World up but it wasn’t doable. Instead we lowered ourselves.

When you breed retards with smart ppl you end up with lower over all. Then it ends in like movie “idiocracy.” Notice the woman on youtube for a commercial that talks about stuck poop?

Best plans of mice and men. There are natural orders for a reason It is Nature defining. Your video talks about mud huts in Africa getting a light. It will still be mud huts. It is how they have most always lived by nature. 19th century.

Build yourself a mud hut and move in. Get a sex partner and just hump. Don’t worry about shit…. Except stepping in it.

Detroit was fed upon by the democrats and life blood sucked out of it with exploding crime and poverty left.

How it really looks
IMG_6423.jpeg


How they project it after the decline from decent wealth to poverty.
They should have tried clean up the waters with cgi. Photoshopped it more. Notice the sun shining? 🤡

IMG_6424.jpeg

330,000.000 ppl can not sustain with the methods we have bbeen pushed into. Who pushed us into this? They are still lying and stealing more every day. Build a mud hut and screw all day. They will eventually leave you alone to live or die . No matter what they will be in charge…of. 8 billion ppl.
 

Future Sodium Ion Batteries Could Be Ten Times Cheaper for Energy Storage

The first generation sodium ion are a bit cheaper than LFP but the volumes will not be worldchanging. However, the second generation sodium ion could reach $40 per kWh. Iron LFP batteries could get to $50/kWh with really high volume and efficiency at the cell level.

US discussed 'overcapacity' in Chinese solar manufacturing, coal in climate talks

First eVTOL completes 3rd stage FAA Certification process
e77286b2-ae59-416b-9fb4-40b0dc46c7cf_Joby-Flight-36.jpg


Opinion: It's not "too much", not until they have enough storage so they can eventually be 100% 24x7. Plus it's around equinox with good weather.
 
Last edited:
:oops: I never seen them dots connected before.

I hope that line is gaslighting

What you dont know about gain of function research?
Educate yourself







 

Your Tax Dollars At Work: In Two Years, $7.5 Billion Has Produced Just 7 EV Charging Stations​


When people gripe about paying taxes and the government being a poor the absolute worst possible capital allocation, this is what they are talking about: $7.5 billion in investments for electric vehicles has - in two years - produced just 7 charging stations across four states.

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, signed by Biden in November 2021, allocated $7.5 billion for EV charging, the Washington Post writes. Of this amount, $5 billion went to states as "formula funding" for the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program to establish a network of fast chargers along major highways.

Today, there's seven chargers with a total of just 38 parking spots. And, come on: when the Post is calling it out, you know the results have been horrible.


The Post added that with the Biden administration's new emissions rules requiring more electric and hybrid vehicles, the slow pace of charging infrastructure development could hinder the transition to electric cars. Twelve additional states have awarded contracts for charging station construction, while 17 states have yet to issue proposals.

Alexander Laska, deputy director for transportation and innovation at the center-left think tank Third Way, told The Post: “I think a lot of people who are watching this are getting concerned about the timeline.”



The slow rollout of new EV chargers is partly due to higher standards compared to previous fast chargers. The U.S. has nearly 10,000 fast charging stations, including over 2,000 reliable Tesla Superchargers, but non-Tesla chargers often suffer from poor performance.

New Biden administration rules require chargers to be 97% operational, offer 150kW power, and be within one mile of highways. These standards are crucial but slow down progress due to complex rules, permitting challenges, and power demands. The NEVI program aims to boost fast charging capacity by 50% to reduce "range anxiety," but states must first build the chargers.

Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) and Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) wrote to the Biden Administration last month: “We have significant concerns that under your efforts American taxpayer dollars are being woefully mismanaged.”

“State transportation agencies are the recipients of the money. Nearly all of them had no experience deploying electric vehicle charging stations before this law was enacted,”
Nick Nigro, founder of Atlas Public Policy added.

The Federal Highway Administration responded: “We are building a national EV charging network from scratch, and we want to get it right. After developing program guidance and partnering with states to guide implementation plans, we are hitting our stride as states move quickly to bring NEVI stations online.”
 
Ice-age analysis suggests worst-case global warming is less likely
Climate change-driven insurance crisis threatens new US states
The Cooling Dilemma Amid Climate Change

Dhaka launches first-ever Climate Action Plan
Opinion: Carbon Neutral by 2050!


You sure that was in this thread? I don't recollect any actual scientific proof. You did talk about how propane is fuel dense and you don't like the aesthetics of solar panels, but that's not any sort of proof that climate change is a hoax.
What specifically do you want to know?


Sure they do. There's a little of everything out there.


That's silly. I've provided links to references to back up my thoughts as to why I believe it is real. You haven't provided any evidence to backup why you think it's fake. You've also said you only believe what you yourself can test/validate, yet you are very sure in your belief that it is a hoax without validation.

History shows us that even natural climate changes cause draught and famine. GHGs are increasing the global temperature, which does change climate.

(y)


Powerful speaker... but ... I wanted to rebut the bit about lithium mining as it's a single side of the coin directed at lithium as if it is much worse than other types of mining:

The ponds shown in the video are where they're left to dry via sunshine, it's very different from a strip mine or other very destructive mining techniques. Similarly, he talks about the quantity of batteries over the years, but doesn't talk about the recycle capability meaning mining will go down over time. On the turbine blades, those are blades from decades ago and the new ones are designed to be recyclable. Even the old ones can be recycled, but it's cheaper to throw them into a landfill unfortunately. It's not a perfect world, but we can keep chipping away the problems. But don't worry, pretty sure we'll create new ones.

I definitely liked the quote that faith removes doubts and science requires doubt. Is it ironic that doubters of science are the ones that have the most faith their beliefs are correct.

 
If we want to reduce CO2 ..... we better stop ignoring the elephant in the room.



1715557690716.png






 
Last edited:
There are natural orders for a reason It is Nature defining.
D71, I got to believe Darwin's idea of natural selection did not include brain size
his was strongest(biggest club for humans) but, humans have been circumventing
nature for a long long time, humans have even found a way to destroy nature on a whim
Capture487.PNG

and it's also true we have circumvented natural selection by strength by giving everyone the
power of our federal government, nature never envisioned public schools or even the local police.

not sure 100000yr old information is much use today, if your talking about sea turtles or jack rabbits maybe
but not humans.

but the video was entertaining, just not factual.

in the real world the smartest among us could come from the most dysfunctional family or be born with
a silver spoon(mud huts or gold toilets) .
 
Last edited:

The H Stands For Hype​


The Sun is mainly made of hydrogen. But there is nothing new under the Sun, and that includes hydrogen.

That Old Testament reference — “what has been will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun” — is appropriate here because the hype about hydrogen seems nearly as old as the Bible itself.

On June 10, 1975, during the 94th Congress, the House of Representatives held the first of two “investigative hearings on the subject of hydrogen — its production, utilization, and potential effects on our energy economy of the future.” The hearing was chaired by Mike McCormack, a Democrat from Washington state, who claimed hydrogen “has the potential of playing the same kind of role in our energy system as electricity does today.

In 1996, the Chicago Sun-Times declared “The first steps toward what proponents call the hydrogen economy are being taken.” In 2003, Jeremy Rifkin, an “economic and social theorist,” published The Hydrogen Economy: The Creation of the Worldwide Energy Web and the Redistribution of Power on Earth. In that book,Rifkin claimed that “Globalization represents the end stage of the fossil-fuel era.” Turning “toward hydrogen is a promissory note for a safer world,” he averred.




President George W. Bush bought the hydrogen hype. In his 2003 State of the Union Address, he said, “With a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles” to taking hydrogen-fueled automobiles “from laboratory to showroom so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free.” A few months after that speech, his administration announced a collaborative effort with the European Union for the “development of a hydrogen economy,” including the technologies “needed for mass production of safe and affordable hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles.” The White House claimed in a 2003 press release that the effort would “improve America’s energy security by significantly reducing the need for imported oil.”

The history of the hype matters because we live in ahistorical times. Or, as author Jeff Minick explained in 2022, we are plagued by “presentism.” Presentism, Minick wrote, “is the reason so many young people can name the Kardashians but can’t tell you the importance of Abraham Lincoln or why we fought in World War II.”

Presentism helps explain why, on April 30, the New York Times published a piece headlined, “Hydrogen Offers Germany a Chance to Take a Lead in Green Energy,” which ignores the long history of hydrogen’s failure to live up to the forecasts. But blaming presentism can’t account for the vapidity of the article, which hinges on this nut graf:

The concept of hydrogen as a renewable energy source has been around for years, but only within the past decade has the idea of its potential to replace fossil fuels to power heavy industry taken off, leading to increased investment and advances in the technology. (Emphasis added.)
The idea of hydrogen may (or may not) be taking off, but hydrogen is not a “source” of energy, it’s an energy carrier. Calling hydrogen an energy “source” is like calling Stormy Daniels an “actress.”

Hydrogen is abundant in the universe. But it’s not a source of energy. Instead, like electricity and gasoline, it must be manufactured. The most common ways are by splitting water through electrolysis, or via steam-methane reforming, which uses high-pressure steam to produce hydrogen from methane.

There are other forehead-slapping statements in the Times article written by Stanley Reed and Melissa Eddy, who traveled to the German city of Duisburg to visit a factory that makes electrolyzers. “If adopted widely,” they wrote, “the devices could help clean up heavy industry such as steel-making, in Germany and elsewhere.” Well, yes, if “adopted widely.” But despite decades of frothy predictions from Rifkin and others, electrolyzers haven’t been adopted widely because making and using hydrogen on a large scale is — as my friend, Steve Brick, puts it — “a thermodynamic obscenity.”
 
Back
Top