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

[LeoThomson]

They are in many jurisdictions.

I can understand why, but if they are clean enough burning, I don't object to them.

Ground source isn't practical for many. Solar panels are ok. They just need to get the cost down even further...

With new buildings, you will find that they are probably cost effective. The cost of the land would reduce because the the extra initial cost of installing the solar and/or ground source heat pump. (For you Americans it might be easier to understand when you consider the reverse, subsidies result in land being more expensive.) Of course I am oversimplifying things, but I encourage you to have a look at it if you are interested in the economics. It might even help to reduce anger levels when politicians put forward seemingly stupid ideas (as they do)

Or as discussed earlier, Solar siding and roofing (They already kinda have) so that instead of siding, your Solar siding is the siding which helps to reduce some of the cost.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

 

[LeoThomson]

Untreated coal exhaust is nasty.

It sure is.

 

[svetz]

Newsome cuts back on Climate Spending​

In order to help eliminate California's $31.5 billion deficit, the governor pruned money from various sources, including $6 billion tagged for climate projects ref:

Those cuts included taking away more than $1 billion in clean energy funding, more than $1 billion from the state’s zero-emission vehicle incentive programs, and $2 billion from clean transportation like transit, walking and biking funds.

Youth Court Cases​

Kids are tired of incompetent grown-ups screwing things up, they want a safer world and are fighting for it:

Navahine F. v. Hawaiʻi Department of Transportation​

the “Plaintiffs are minors. Article XI, Section 1 [of the Hawaiʻi Constitution] is ‘For the benefit of present and future generations.’ Plaintiffs allege nothing less than that they stand to inherit a world with severe climate change and the resulting damage to our natural resources.” ref

Juliana v. United States​

Their complaint asserts that, through the government's affirmative actions that cause climate change, it has violated the youngest generation’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as failed to protect essential public trust resources. On March 15, 2023, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken denied 18 Republican attorneys’ general request to intervene as defendants in Juliana v. United States. The 21 youth plaintiffs continue to await a ruling on their Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint where a favorable ruling would put the youth plaintiffs back on the path to trial.

It's also not just in the U.S., here are a few examples:

• Children of Austria v. Austria
• Indonesian Youths and others v. Indonesia
• Soubeste and Others v. Austria and 11 Other States
• Clara Leonel Ramos and Bruno de Almeida de Lima vs. State of São Paulo
• Environmental Justice Australia (EJA) v. Australia
• Plan B Earth and Others v. Prime Minister
• Pandey v. India

The courts are a really smart idea. The Executive and Legislative branches can be made up of deniers or believers who act in accordance with their beliefs regardless of how crazy they are. But the courts have to listen to the arguments and decide the case, not on their beliefs, but upon the law. As climate change is real and easily proven seems like those cases just need to balance "best interest of the people" from "current" to "future".

 

[MurphyGuy]

The courts are a really smart idea. The Executive and Legislative branches can be made up of deniers or believers who act in accordance with their beliefs regardless of how crazy they are. But the courts have to listen to the arguments and decide the case, not on their beliefs, but upon the law. As climate change is real and easily proven seems like those cases just need to balance "best interest of the people" from "current" to "future".

That's a load of BS.

Maybe one day we'll switch to using an AI to remove the obviously biased human nature in the courts, but for now, that's a load of horse crap.

Courts (judges) decide things based on their ideological beliefs all the time.. in fact, it is the rule not the exception. And part of the problem with our society is that we like to pretend it doesn't happen, even though it almost universally happens in every court case.

 

[aenyc]

The Club Of Rome: How Climate Hysteria Is Being Used To Create Global Governance - Alt-Market.us

By Brandon Smith In the early 1970s the US and much of the western world was shifting into a stagflationary...

alt-market.us

By making humanity’s very existence the great threat, the globalists intended to unify the public around the idea of keeping themselves in check. That is to say, the public would have to sacrifice their freedoms and submit to control in the belief that the human species is too dangerous to be allowed liberty.

The globalists want two specific outcomes most of all – They want the end of national sovereignty and the end of private property through socially incentivised of minimalism. The exact same objectives the Club Of Rome outlined in the 1970s are the driving policies of the UN and the World Economic Forum today. The “sharing economy” concept that Klaus Schwab and the WEF often proudly promotes was not thought up by them, it was thought up by the Club Of Rome 50 years ago.

United Nations and associated globalist round table groups were hard at work developing a scheme to convince the population to embrace global centralization of power. Their goals were rather direct.

They wanted:

• A rationale for governmental control of human population numbers.
• The power to limit industry.
• The power to control energy production and dictate energy sources.
• The power to control or limit food production and agriculture.
• The ability to micromanage individuals lives in the name of some later defined “greater good.”
• A socialized society in which the individual right to property is abandoned.
• A one-world economic system which they would manage.
• A one-world currency system.
• A one-world government managing a handful of separate regions.

 

[Checkthisout]

That's a load of BS.

Maybe one day we'll switch to using an AI to remove the obviously biased human nature in the courts, but for now, that's a load of horse crap.

Courts (judges) decide things based on their ideological beliefs all the time.. in fact, it is the rule not the exception. And part of the problem with our society is that we like to pretend it doesn't happen, even though it almost universally happens in every court case.

That's the reason we have judges and juries.

To have people who make decisions that have contact with reality.

Sonia Sotomayor is a perfect example of a judge who shouldn't be there. She's completely out of touch with reality.

 

[LeoThomson]

Maybe one day we'll switch to using an AI to remove the obviously biased human nature in the courts, but for now, that's a load of horse crap.

AI is trained on available data, biases will slip in until AI learns to think for itself and able to perform it's own experiments.

 

[Checkthisout]

If you think C02 is a pollutant, then by the same standard so is oxygen and nitrogen.

 

[LeoThomson]

If you think C02 is a pollutant, then by the same standard so is oxygen and nitrogen.

Why is that?

 

[svetz]

Interesting bill in New York legislation, if passed other states and countries might start doing the same thing. If it will hold up in court is another issue. Seem to me the onus isn't on the seller of a poison, but rather the buyer when they know it's poison. I can see citizens going after governments as government exists for the benefit of the citizens, but not governments for someone selling them what they wanted.

The Climate Change Superfund Act​

If passed, this legislation would shift some of the responsibility from taxpayers and onto the producers by requiring the largest greenhouse gas emitters to pay $3 billion annually for the next 25 years for the state’s climate change impacts, such as upgrades to drain the floodwaters from the city. That’s less than 2% of the 2022 profits of Saudi Aramco — the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter. The concept pulls from already-established federal and state Superfund programs, which make producers of land and water pollution pay for cleanups.

Another CO2 reduction idea​

Climate Anxiety​

“Anxiety stems from not being able to control or do anything,”... “And, for the most part, we can’t do anything.”

... in the medical journal The Lancet surveyed 10,000 people between the ages of 16 and 25 in 10 countries and found that 84% of them are at least moderately worried about climate change. Fifty-nine percent were “very or extremely worried,”...

That's a load of BS. [that judges are any less ignorant/corrupt than politians]

I see it as a numbers and logic issue. Congressmen are not required to listen to arguments or examine evidence, many times they have to "take the deal" to either stay in office or get what they want accomplished.

In the courts, the judge needs to listen to at least listen to the evidence, so there's at least a chance of being swayed. They also don't have to make deals to get convict this guy to get that guy to go free. Finally, there should be some impartiality in how judges are selected for cases.

 

[MurphyGuy]

I see it as a numbers and logic issue. Congressmen are required to listen to arguments or examine evidence,

I'm not qualified to challenge that statement with any real merit, but that said, it's a new one on me, and based on my (almost) 60 years, I don't think they are required to listen to arguments or examine evidence. The key word being "required". I'm not aware of any laws requiring congress reps to listen to anyone.

many times they have to "take the deal" to either stay in office or get what they want accomplished.

In the courts, the judge needs to listen to at least listen to the evidence, so there's at least a chance of being swayed. They also don't have to make deals to get convict this guy to get that guy to go free. Finally, there should be some impartiality in how judges are selected for cases.

I do believe judges must listen under law, however, their political ideologies will almost always have the final word. In fact, this is such a well known fact that it is common knowledge that the involved party lawyers often go "judge shopping" when filing their cases.

One of the problems with our legal system in the USA is that the laws are ridiculously convoluted and complex. Compounding that problem is the fact that people who can't afford a lawyer will get a different level of legal representation than those who can afford a lawyer. This problem is most commonly evident in our criminal justice system, but it is also a big issue in civil cases.

 

[Checkthisout]

Interesting bill in New York legislation, if passed other states and countries might start doing the same thing. If it will hold up in court is another issue. Seem to me the onus isn't on the seller of a poison, but rather the buyer when they know it's poison. I can see citizens going after governments as government exists for the benefit of the citizens, but not governments for someone selling them what they wanted.

Another CO2 reduction idea​

Climate Anxiety​

I see it as a numbers and logic issue. Congressmen are required to listen to arguments or examine evidence, many times they have to "take the deal" to either stay in office or get what they want accomplished.

In the courts, the judge needs to listen to at least listen to the evidence, so there's at least a chance of being swayed. They also don't have to make deals to get convict this guy to get that guy to go free. Finally, there should be some impartiality in how judges are selected for cases.

The end user is the polluter, not the oil company.

Horrible shakedown legislation.

 

[svetz]

I'm not qualified to challenge that statement ...

Typo, left the word "not" out... sorry about that. Fixed now. Thanks for letting me know!

Horrible shakedown legislation.

It depends. The suit seems to be based on disinformation that was put out while the company knew it was lying. So it seems legitimate, but that'll be up to the courts (and the appeals). There are successful precedents with tobacco cases that I'm sure the lawyers will cite.

Starting in the 1970s, scientists working for Exxon made "remarkably accurate projections of just how much burning fossil fuels would warm the planet." Yet for years, "the oil giant publicly cast doubt on climate science, and cautioned against any drastic move away from burning fossil fuels, the main driver of climate change." Instead of investing in solutions to the crisis they created, Big Oil funded climate denial. ref

Big oil is heavily invested in projects like CDR and even while conducting a smear campaign on the climate science, simultaneously admit their products when burned contribute to global warming and have since the mid 2000's. Their defense may well be "only idiots don't believe in climate change, and we're not responsible for their idiocy."

 

[Checkthisout]

Typo, left the word "not" out... sorry about that. Fixed now. Thanks for letting me know!


It depends. The suit seems to be based on disinformation that was put out while the company knew it was lying. So it seems legitimate, but that'll be up to the courts (and the appeals). There are successful precedents with tobacco cases that I'm sure the lawyers will cite.


Big oil is heavily invested in projects like CDR and even while conducting a smear campaign on the climate science, simultaneously admit their products when burned contribute to global warming and have since the mid 2000's. Their defense may well be "only idiots don't believe in climate change, and we're not responsible for their idiocy."

So then anyone who burned fossil fuels knowing they contribute to climate change should be sued for the damage they have caused to the climate.

Just track down anyone who has vocally said so on the internet and then using that date, sue them for any C02 output they engaged in.

 

[aenyc]

When actual data doesnt fit your narrative, just make stuff up right?

The Data Shows Sea Levels Have Been Falling For Over 100 Years in Scandinavia. But the IPCC Decides They’re Rising – The Daily Sceptic

The data shows that see levels have been falling in Scandinavia for over 100 years. Yet the IPCC has somehow managed to conjure up a model showing it rising. The Daily Sceptic's Chris Morrison investigates.

dailysceptic.org

"
For over 100 years the North European cities of Oslo, Stockholm and Helsinki have been steadily rising from the sea with no suggestion from observed evidence that local sea levels will not continue to drop by a few millimetres a year. That is until 2020, when the IPCC’s new AR6 Sea Level Projection Tool suddenly promoted substantial sea level rises all round. The discovery appears to baffle Ole Humlum, Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography at the University of Oslo. It seems that this tool was not produced to test the validity of a scientific idea. It was instead an attempt to “alarm the user”, he said.

Alarm it has. Since this Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer model was first made publicly available in 2020, there has been a rush of unchecked ‘flood’ stories in the mainstream media. The Daily Sceptic has reported on the activities of a US-based green agitprop operation called Climate Central that is backed by billionaire Foundations and uses the IPCC data to promote custom-made flood catastrophe stories in local media. Recently the Mirror reported that much of London could be gone within 80 years, while large area along the Humber and the Midlands could also disappear beneath the waves. Local politicians such as London mayor Sadiq Khan pick up on these fantastical stories and use them to justify harsh ‘climate’ polices, including an assault on private transport."

 

[aenyc]

So then anyone who burned fossil fuels knowing they contribute to climate change should be sued for the damage they have caused to the climate.

Just track down anyone who has vocally said so on the internet and then using that date, sue them for any C02 output they engaged in.

This is exactly why they want CBDCs. "Carbon Credits" will become de facto "currency" with everyone being allocated a fixed amount. Exceed that, and your CDBC will be "cancelled" until next time.
This ofcourse will not apply to the parasite class who will still be flying private jets and megayachts and living next to the ocean (because they know that the entire climate narrative is fake).

 

[svetz]

Global heating will push billions outside ‘human climate niche’​

World is on track for 2.7C and ‘phenomenal’ human suffering, scientists warn​

Excerpts from an article regarding a recently released research, that 2.7C is predicted for 2090:

Global heating will drive billions of people out of the “climate niche” in which humanity has flourished for millennia...

The world is on track for 2.7C of heating with current action plans and this would mean 2 billion people experiencing average annual temperatures above 29C by 2030, a level at which very few communities have lived in the past.

Up to 1 billion people could choose to migrate to cooler places, the scientists said, although those areas remaining within the climate niche would still experience more frequent heatwaves and droughts.

... urgent action to lower carbon emissions and keep global temperature rise to 1.5C would cut the number of people pushed outside the climate niche by 80%, to 400 million...

 

[svetz]

Insurance & Climate​

Insurance is meant to be a safety net, a low-cost option to keep expensive things safe from rare occurrences. But what happens when it's the new normal instead of a rare occurrence?

As climate-driven extreme weather gets more common, insurance companies nationwide raise prices, or cancel policies altogether, leaving homeowners in the lurch. Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana, Colorado, Oregon and California have all seen insurers fold, cancel policies or leave the state after repeated floods, hurricanes and wildfires. ref

This affects most Floridians like myself. We've seen insurance companies go under, insurers needed a fed bailout or they threatened to leave the state, and the "government" insurance (Flood insurance here is through the feds, wind insurance is through the state).

As there's no competition and it's state-sponsored the premiums are high. Many people can't afford it so just assume the risk, but then end up in trouble after a disaster and look to the government for help.

We don't really worry about it. When it floods the water just rises, no real motion to it so figure the foundation/house will be good, and the yearly premiums cost more than it replacing/fixing the downstairs stuff. Of course, we try to mainly be impervious (e.g., plastic shelving, elevated items). We don't have car bags, but I do have stands that elevate them 20".

Should Floridians just abandon the state and move to Colorado? Do we need a replacement for insurance or different types of insurance? Better building codes that are more suitable for the Environment and climate change? What do you think?

Best & Worst locations​

Thinking of moving to somewhere safer/cheaper than Florida?
According to this, Denver's a good spot (Just moved from there a few years back ; -).
Where are the worst places to live? That same article lists near where I live. In fact, of the top 5 four aren't far from here. Oh well.

 

[aenyc]

Another Climate Alarmism bs dispelled

Wrong, WEF, Climate Change Is Not Threatening Lizards, Wine, Coffee or Air Turbulence

The evidence suggests that the WEF is ignoring facts in pursuit of an agenda, because hard data fails to confirm any of the WEF’s “unexpected side-effects of climate change

wattsupwiththat.com

Interesting how WEF is always involved, these parasites just cant help themselves.

 

[svetz]

Amptricity​

They're taking pre-orders for their solid-state battery (datasheet), 25-year warranty, 11k cycles, a low operational temp of -40C, weighs 265 lbs, and supposedly they have small-scale units for commercial testing. The price includes recycling costs at the end of life. $$$ seem to be running around $1.67/Wh and could well be a scam (pay now, get it in a few years). They're out of Miami.

Sounds like solid-state batteries are getting closer.

If the unit's weight is primarily battery, then the energy density is ~100 Wh/kg; in comparison Enphase's IQ3 LFP total power/weight is 60.

 

[MurphyGuy]

Amptricity​

They're taking pre-orders for their solid-state battery (datasheet), 25-year warranty, 11k cycles, a low operational temp of -40C, weighs 265 lbs, and supposedly they have small-scale units for commercial testing. The price includes recycling costs at the end of life. $$$ seem to be running around $1.67/Wh and could well be a scam (pay now, get it in a few years). They're out of Miami.

Sounds like solid-state batteries are getting closer.

If the unit's weight is primarily battery, then the energy density is ~100 Wh/kg; in comparison Enphase's IQ3 LFP total power/weight is 60.

Complete and total scam. Please do your googling..

 

[svetz]

Complete and total scam. Please do your googling..

Reference Link required, or it's just your opinion ; -) ... not that I disagree as it does look like a scam.

 

[aenyc]

Excellent take on "the science"

 

[MurphyGuy]

Reference Link required, or it's just your opinion ; -) ... not that I disagree as it does look like a scam.

Go to the website, click "Contact Us", then google the address and the owners name.

 

[svetz]

Go to the website, click "Contact Us", then google the address and the owners name.

Not seeing it as concrete proof. A poorly designed/incomplete website doesn't mean much. If anything, I'd expect scammers to give it more attention.

When searching I do find numerous articles in reputable magazines and interviews. Easy enough to find the leadership:

Damir Perge is the CEO, Jana Arnold is the Co-Founder.
Liang Cheng Co-Founder & President, ASEAN
Christian Kutscher Co-Founder & President, Europe
Bert Groenewegen Co-Founder & Chief Financial Officer
Jana Arnold Co-Founder & Chief Marketing Officer
Ron Patterson Co-Founder & Chief Sales Officer