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

[Checkthisout]

Asking genuinely.

1) Are you guys actually scared of what will happen if we keep using fossil fuels?

2) Do you honestly think that the current battery and energy tech would allow you to maintain your current standard of living and that you will not experience a drastic decline in the quality of your life if you let government destroy fossil fuel use?

 

[MurphyGuy]

Asking genuinely.

1) Are you guys actually scared of what will happen if we keep using fossil fuels?

If we keep using them the way we are now = yes.

That's like asking "Are you guys really scared of what will happen if we keep dumping toxic chemicals into our rivers and lakes?"

2) Do you honestly think that the current battery and energy tech would allow you to maintain your current standard of living and that you will not experience a drastic decline in the quality of your life if you let government destroy fossil fuel use?

No.. the standard will change somewhat. Some things will be beneficial, some things will require we change how we do things.

Will it be a "drastic decline in the quality of life" ?? I think it will be a huge improvement.

I don't say this to offend you, I say it as a matter of scientific fact. Your reluctance to change is a function of your conservatism. Conservative brains process more information through a lobe in your brain responsible for processing fear and emotion. In fact, the effect is so extreme that it causes the fear processing center in conservative brains to become enlarged due to the higher number of neuron connections.

Here's the research:

The current tech level of our EV's are not ready to serve the needs and lifestyles of everyone.. Not yet, but we're getting there. That's the problem with a lot of "conservatives" who envision a world of electric vehicles based on our current models. And on that level, you would be absolutely correct. But everything has to start somewhere.. even the computer you are using started off as a useless, and ridiculously expensive toy.
And do you remember the first cell phones? ROFLMAO.. They could barely make phone calls, and you had to be located in the right spot.. get too close to a power line and the call dropped.. go under a bridge and the call dropped, and you could barely hear the other person on the line. And they were expensive and only the wealthy could reasonably afford such a luxury gimmick and toy. My parents had one, it would not pass muster by today's standards.. You would laugh at it.

All new tech starts somewhere.. the problem is that those who push the propaganda (mostly Koch brothers these days), will paint a picture that is entirely distorted.

Imagine no more oil changes, brakes you might only change once in the car's lifetime, the quietness of not having to listen to traffic..

Heck, I've been changing all my yard tools over to battery power and I absolutely love them. They're not ready for commercial level use yet, but they're getting there.

 

[Checkthisout]

If we keep using them the way we are now = yes.

That's like asking "Are you guys really scared of what will happen if we keep dumping toxic chemicals into our rivers and lakes?"



No.. the standard will change somewhat. Some things will be beneficial, some things will require we change how we do things.

Will it be a "drastic decline in the quality of life" ?? I think it will be a huge improvement.

I don't say this to offend you, I say it as a matter of scientific fact. Your reluctance to change is a function of your conservatism. Conservative brains process more information through a lobe in your brain responsible for processing fear and emotion. In fact, the effect is so extreme that it causes the fear processing center in conservative brains to become enlarged due to the higher number of neuron connections.

Here's the research:

The current tech level of our EV's are not ready to serve the needs and lifestyles of everyone.. Not yet, but we're getting there. That's the problem with a lot of "conservatives" who envision a world of electric vehicles based on our current models. And on that level, you would be absolutely correct. But everything has to start somewhere.. even the computer you are using started off as a useless, and ridiculously expensive toy.
And do you remember the first cell phones? ROFLMAO.. They could barely make phone calls, and you had to be located in the right spot.. get too close to a power line and the call dropped.. go under a bridge and the call dropped, and you could barely hear the other person on the line. And they were expensive and only the wealthy could reasonably afford such a luxury gimmick and toy. My parents had one, it would not pass muster by today's standards.. You would laugh at it.

All new tech starts somewhere.. the problem is that those who push the propaganda (mostly Koch brothers these days), will paint a picture that is entirely distorted.

Imagine no more oil changes, brakes you might only change once in the car's lifetime, the quietness of not having to listen to traffic..

Heck, I've been changing all my yard tools over to battery power and I absolutely love them. They're not ready for commercial level use yet, but they're getting there.

We have purchased over a $500k in Milwaukee battery stuff in the last 3 years.

We weigh that against generator/extension cord use, keeping fuel on site etc.

Do me a favor and don't assume I don't understand the benefits of battery powered stuff, especially since this is a solar website.

Did you know that if all vehicles changed over to battery and all were recharged with non-carbon producing sources that we would only reduced C02 output by 30%?

What's a guy to do with his motorhomes, fishing boats and UTVs when gas is $12.00 a gallon?

 

[MurphyGuy]

We have purchased over a $500k in Milwaukee battery stuff in the last 3 years.

We weigh that against generator/extension cord use, keeping fuel on site etc.

Do me a favor and don't assume I don't understand the benefits of battery powered stuff, especially since this is a solar website.

I wasn't assuming anything, just expounding on my own experience.

Did you know that if all vehicles changed over to battery and all were recharged with non-carbon producing sources that we would only reduced C02 output by 30%

I find that piece of information to be suspect.. to put it mildly. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask for a link to a reputable source.

I'm going to make a prediction that the information is false and is the result of data manipulation. I will also predict it came from an conservative source or one that is anti-climate.

Lastly, I would say "30%? That's fantastic!" If your stock went up 30% would you be super happy and celebrating it? If your stock went down 30%, would you call it a crash?

What if you lost 30% of your income? Or your home's value sunk by 30% ?? 30% on a global scale is a whopping big change.. If we lost 30% of our global food production there would probably be a billion dead people.

30% is a good number, but I still suspect its manipulated.. probably in the variables of comparing the battery manufacturing process to a regular car's full tank of gas or something ridiculous like that.

 

[Checkthisout]

I wasn't assuming anything, just expounding on my own experience.


I find that piece of information to be suspect.. to put it mildly. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask for a link to a reputable source.

I'm going to make a prediction that the information is false and is the result of data manipulation. I will also predict it came from an conservative source or one that is anti-climate.

Lastly, I would say "30%? That's fantastic!" If your stock went up 30% would you be super happy and celebrating it? If your stock went down 30%, would you call it a crash?

What if you lost 30% of your income? Or your home's value sunk by 30% ?? 30% on a global scale is a whopping big change.. If we lost 30% of our global food production there would probably be a billion dead people.

30% is a good number, but I still suspect its manipulated.. probably in the variables of comparing the battery manufacturing process to a regular car's full tank of gas or something ridiculous like that.

No. I don't think you realize how little carbon is emitted by vehicles/transportation, that's why I brought it up.

You keep accusing others of being misinformed but I promise my skepticism is because of taking in all the actual info.


This 28% includes air travel and trains as well. You didn't know that. I don't blame you as most people do not. In order to eliminate 28% of carbon emissions all vehicles, trains and planes would need to run 100% off renewables. Think about what that entails.

 

[D71]

We have purchased over a $500k in Milwaukee battery stuff in the last 3 years.

We weigh that against generator/extension cord use, keeping fuel on site etc.

Do me a favor and don't assume I don't understand the benefits of battery powered stuff, especially since this is a solar website.

Did you know that if all vehicles changed over to battery and all were recharged with non-carbon producing sources that we would only reduced C02 output by 30%?

What's a guy to do with his motorhomes, fishing boats and UTVs when gas is $12.00 a gallon?

If gas is $12 a gallon then diesel will traditionally be even more. Diesel is still high in my area
Most everything big or commercial comes via delivery by diesel engines

 

[MurphyGuy]

No. I don't think you realize how little carbon is emitted by vehicles/transportation, that's why I brought it up.

How little carbon? Huh? Which category produces more carbon than vehicles/transportation?????????????????????????????????????

You keep accusing others of being misinformed but I promise my skepticism is because of taking in all the actual info.

You did say "I don't think you realize how little carbon is emitted by vehicles/transportation" And yet, in your own chart, its the biggest emitter.

And as far as little.. 30% is not little.. In what world of yours is 30% little??

If one gas station sells gas for $3/gallon, and the one next to it is $3.90 a gallon, which gas station do you go to? One is only 30% higher than the other...

This 28% includes air travel and trains as well. You didn't know that. I don't blame you as most people do not. In order to eliminate 28% of carbon emissions all vehicles, trains and planes would need to run 100% off renewables. Think about what that entails.

View attachment 156562

YOU SAID:
Did you know that if all vehicles changed over to battery and all were recharged with non-carbon producing sources that we would only reduced C02 output by 30%?

Your question was phrased in a way that I interpreted to be restricted to cars.. Not global emissions.

Your phrased it in such a way that I suspect was intentionally designed for a reader to misinterpret the question. All you had to include was "that we would only reduce global Co2 output by 30%"

Of course, saying we'd only reduce global emissions by 30% is also ridiculous because it implies that such 30% drop is insignificant.. a 30% drop is huge!

30% is a fantastic start..

 

[Checkthisout]

It's also worth noting that of that 28% contributed by transportation that only 58% of that passenger cars and light trucks.

In other words non-commercial pickup trucks/vans/cars account for 16% of U.S carbon emissions.

If everyone who drives a passenger car changes to a Tesla and makes sure it's charged back up via renewable, you're only looking at a carbon reduction of maybe 8-10%.

The numbers get even worse when you consider the C02 produced via manufacturer of most of our good in China is not included in the data I posted in #2132.

 

[Checkthisout]

How little carbon? Huh? Which category produces more carbon than vehicles/transportation?????????????????????????????????????



You did say "I don't think you realize how little carbon is emitted by vehicles/transportation" And yet, in your own chart, its the biggest emitter.

And as far as little.. 30% is not little.. In what world of yours is 30% little??

If one gas station sells gas for $3/gallon, and the one next to it is $3.90 a gallon, which gas station do you go to? One is only 30% higher than the other...





YOU SAID:
Did you know that if all vehicles changed over to battery and all were recharged with non-carbon producing sources that we would only reduced C02 output by 30%?

Your question was phrased in a way that I interpreted to be restricted to cars.. Not global emissions.

Your phrased it in such a way that I suspect was intentionally designed for a reader to misinterpret the question. All you had to include was "that we would only reduce global Co2 output by 30%"

Of course, saying we'd only reduce global emissions by 30% is also ridiculous because it implies that such 30% drop is insignificant.. a 30% drop is huge!

30% is a fantastic start..

28%

First you called my 28% number propaganda which means you never looked at the numbers yourself.

You then left yourself an emotional out by saying even if my numbers weren't propaganda that "30% would be a great start".

Come on Murphy. You're failing to research and understand the basics here which means you have no idea what it would take to reduced that 30% and have no idea if that would even help with the hypothetical crisis that carbon emissions present.

?

 

[MurphyGuy]

28%

First you called my 28% number propaganda which means you never looked at the numbers yourself.

You then left yourself an emotional out by saying even if my numbers weren't propaganda that "30% would be a great start".

Come on Murphy. You're failing to research and understand the basics here which means you have no idea what it would take to reduced that 30% and have no idea if that would even help with the hypothetical crisis that carbon emissions present.

?

Because the consideration was focused on vehicles only.. cars only really in my mind.. and those numbers absolutely made no sense under those considerations.

You asked a trick question.. anyone can ask a trick question..

 

[MurphyGuy]

It's also worth noting that of that 28% contributed by transportation that only 58% of that passenger cars and light trucks.

In other words non-commercial pickup trucks/vans/cars account for 16% of U.S carbon emissions.

If everyone who drives a passenger car changes to a Tesla and makes sure it's charged back up via renewable, you're only looking at a carbon reduction of maybe 8-10%.

The numbers get even worse when you consider the C02 produced via manufacturer of most of our good in China is not included in the data I posted in #2132.

Where you expecting the change to electric passenger vehicles to be the solution to all our CO2 emissions?

 

[D71]

The ppl in charge of this shit show want you walking and dependent.

can you imagine the movie mad max plot if all the vehicle had been ev. Hahaha

 

[Checkthisout]

Because the consideration was focused on vehicles only.. cars only really in my mind.. and those numbers absolutely made no sense under those considerations.

You asked a trick question.. anyone can ask a trick question..

Oh so you thought passenger cars alone accounted for more than 30%.

Again I don't blame you. Most people are entirely clueless as to how little the transport sector contributes to C02 emissions.

 

[MurphyGuy]

Oh so you thought passenger cars alone accounted for more than 30%.

Again I don't blame you. Most people are entirely clues as to how little the transport sector contributes to C02 emissions.

Please stop with the nonsense...

You asked a question that was intentionally designed to be misinterpreted. Just own it..

 

[Checkthisout]

Please stop with the nonsense...

You asked a question that was intentionally designed to be misinterpreted. Just own it..

No.

Like everyone else, you thought transport was wayyyyyyyyy more, especially cars and never looked up how little it actually is.

It's what I expected and the mistaken assumption all liberals have.

 

[MurphyGuy]

No.

Like everyone else, you thought transport was wayyyyyyyyy more, especially cars and never looked up how little it actually is.

It's what I expected and the mistaken assumption all liberals have.

Where did I imply or say I thought transport was way more?

If you're going to put words in my mouth or tell me what I think, I'll do the same to you, and you won't like it anymore than I do.

I have always thought global emissions were divided into approximate thirds. 30% transport, 30% industry, 30% human living, and 10% miscellaneous crap.

Transport is stuff that moves us around
Industry is steel, concrete and manufacturing
Human living is homes, food, and other consumer activities that don't include driving.

I suppose I could look up the ever changing numbers and break them down into sub categories, but I don't waste my time with nit picky stuff like that.. Comprehension is FAR more important than specific data in almost all discussions. Even in the world of physics, which is entirely dominated by math, comprehension is more important.

So again, instead of taking the dishonorable and unethical route and trying to put words into my mouth or tell me what I think, you should either quote me where I said such a thing, or retract and apologize.. I'll give you a chance because I think you're a more honorable person than the two knucklhead idiots here... and I think maybe you just made a mistake and confused me with someone else or something.

 

[D71]

There it surfaces …… don’t tell Murphy what, when, where and how to think….. nor insult him back. Never stopped him from doing that to everyone else in an initial post or not. If you really start to get him ……. will say “can’t discuss that not enough education or whatever” but remember he means you. Not him. Murphy is just trying put you back in his mental pictured “jack in box“ where he does the winding and we pop out.
Murphy has an interesting but crazy mental conditioner. No doubt he came home from 1st grade elementary school bragging to his mom “that had biggest pecker at school”….. his mom states, “he is the tranny teacher reading story time to children while wearing a dress.“

 

[D71]

Pollution from - back to china….. items like plastic trash bags made in china are shipped here when it would be more effective to have made them here.

Post in thread 'Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?'
https://diysolarforum.com/threads/c...ith-a-battery-break-through.25299/post-758961

since the chinese ships goes back mostly empty with unfair trading it is wide scale pollution both ways with more pollution then our private owned vehicles.. Sound fair - sound good?

 

[aenyc]

On July 3rd we had the hottest day worldwide in recorded history. Ever. That record lasted until July 4th, when it was broken again. And THAT record stood until July 5th, when it was tied. Which lasted until yesterday - another new record.

You have to go through some amazing mental permutations to decide that that is a "hoax."

Are you serious? You are watching too much lamestream media.

Even NOAA "Runs Away" From 'Hottest Day Ever' Claim After Media Hysteria | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Last week the global warming industry and its corporate media cheerleaders made a concerted effort to declare July 3-4 the hottest days on Earth ever. Media outlets like ABC, The New York Times, Axios, and Bloomberg each cited the University of Maine's Climate Reanalyzer computer model, which has since been questioned.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) told AP News, "Although NOAA cannot validate the methodology or conclusion of the University of Maine analysis, we recognize that we are in a warm period due to climate change."

In response to NOAA throwing cold water on the model's unverifiable findings, environmental attorney Steve Milloy tweeted:

"NOAA runs away from 'hottest day' claim."

NOAA runs away from 'hottest day' claim.https://t.co/BQv0VpuE5r pic.twitter.com/IaeOIGj5xE
— Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) July 7, 2023

On Friday evening, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Milloy titled "Hottest Days Ever? Don't Believe It."

"One obvious problem with the updated narrative is that there are no satellite data from 125,000 years ago. Calculated estimates of current temperatures can't be fairly compared with guesses of global temperature from thousands of years ago," Milloy wrote.

Despite concerns about the model's reliability, Axios' Thursday headline read, "Earth sees three hottest days on record," while Bloomberg ran with "The World Recorded Its Hottest Days Ever This Week."

Heads of the global warming industry have spent the last three decades frantically running around the globe in private jets, prophesying how the world would imminently end because of emissions from fossil fuel engines.

 

[aenyc]

Hottest Day Evah! • Watts Up With That?

Do they think we are really so gullible?

wattsupwiththat.com

 

[aenyc]

U.N. To Seize Global ‘Emergency’ Powers With Biden’s Support

The proposal might be the biggest attempted power grab in the history of the U.N. If approved, the U.S. as we know it could cease to exist.

thefederalist.com

Once triggered, the emergency platform would give the U.N. the ability to “actively promote and drive an international response that places the principles of equity and solidarity at the centre of its work.” The U.N. would bring together the “stakeholders” of the world, including academics, governments, private sector actors, and “international financial institutions” to ensure there is a unified, global response to the crisis.

The emergency platform would also give the United Nations the power to “Ensure that all participating actors make commitments that can contribute meaningfully to the response and that they are held to account for delivery on those commitments.”

In other words, the United Nations would be given unprecedented authority over the public and private sectors of huge swaths of the world, all in the name of battling a yet unknown crisis.

 

[aenyc]

Watch what they do, not what they say.

 

[MurphyGuy]

For the record, searching for "global hottest day" returns many results of various news organizations repeating the same story and referencing "According to the NOAA"

And yet, when searching the NOAA website news and media articles, there is no such mention of it.

 

[D71]

Are you serious? You are watching too much lamestream media.

Even NOAA "Runs Away" From 'Hottest Day Ever' Claim After Media Hysteria | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Last week the global warming industry and its corporate media cheerleaders made a concerted effort to declare July 3-4 the hottest days on Earth ever. Media outlets like ABC, The New York Times, Axios, and Bloomberg each cited the University of Maine's Climate Reanalyzer computer model, which has since been questioned.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) told AP News, "Although NOAA cannot validate the methodology or conclusion of the University of Maine analysis, we recognize that we are in a warm period due to climate change."

In response to NOAA throwing cold water on the model's unverifiable findings, environmental attorney Steve Milloy tweeted:



On Friday evening, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Milloy titled "Hottest Days Ever? Don't Believe It."


Despite concerns about the model's reliability, Axios' Thursday headline read, "Earth sees three hottest days on record," while Bloomberg ran with "The World Recorded Its Hottest Days Ever This Week."

Heads of the global warming industry have spent the last three decades frantically running around the globe in private jets, prophesying how the world would imminently end because of emissions from fossil fuel engines.

Be careful that is a numbers person. Bahaha hahaha Hook line sinker types. Numbers. They still trust the Govt and Govt ran Main Stream Media. . ??????

 

[D71]

View attachment 156633

Watch what they do, not what they say.

Remember when he was mayor No more Big Gulps at 7-11. Mayors against Guns finance campaigns


Al Gore types - learned from religious preacher look at osteen