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

[svetz]

It had nothing to do with green house gas emissions.

The plumes are considered aerosols which the GHG models take into account. If you look at the original data, NASA also says "may have impacted". They put the caveat in because correlation isn't causation and it's a tiny sample set; it might have just been a hot day. It would be interesting to see the p-value in the original paper.

The snippet I posted shows that these were ACTUAL temperature increases, they weren't modeled increases ....

Sorry Bob, I know you're looking for smoking gun and a grassy knoll... but it ain't there and we're both quoting the same article... you just need to read a bit farther down to find what I quoted. While it's easy to assume they got the temperature from the measurement from reading the first part, from the snippet I posted, it's very clear they got the temperature from the theoretical models rather and could not make actual confirming observations.

I don't know what else to say .... ignore the elephant in the room if you want.

I don't what else to say either Bob, no where in the articles does it say they measured those temperatures. It does clearly say that the temperature was generated from two different models. Make up stuff if you like, but expect to get called out on it esp. when you can see for yourself.

 

[svetz]

... What if we actually achieved our goal of having these levels of emissions over a long period of time?...

I addressed that in the initial reply, guess you missed it. The pollution has a rather short half-life. So it would be out of the atmosphere rather quickly and once gone provides no benefits, that is there's no accumulation. So, you're stuck with the rise forever afterward.

 

[MurphyGuy]

Apparently you don't understand satire.

Did you actually read the science daily article I posted? I don't think Russia grounded flights during 911.

I did not read it until just now.. Didn't need to read it because the article says almost exactly what I expected it to say.

I do not find it surprising one bit. When Pinatubo blew, it lowered temperatures across the planet BECAUSE of the aerosols, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that removing aerosols will raise the temperature.

What does any of that have to do with global warming or GHG emissions?

Regular exercise is good for your heart and is well known to cause weight loss.. But when you first start an exercise routine, older folks can have heart attacks, and pretty much everyone undergoes an initial weight gain instead of the expected weight loss.

Short term affects due to radical changes, while interesting, have no affect on predicted long term outcomes. This applies to most things from global warming to stock investments, to manufacturing and exercise.

 

[Bob B]

The plumes are considered aerosols which the GHG models take into account. If you look at the original data, NASA also says "may have impacted". They put the caveat in because correlation isn't causation and it's a tiny sample set; it might have just been a hot day. It would be interesting to see the p-value in the original paper.


Sorry Bob, I know you're looking for smoking gun and a grassy knoll... but it ain't there and we're both quoting the same article... you just need to read a bit farther down to find what I quoted. While it's easy to assume they got the temperature from the measurement from reading the first part, from the snippet I posted, it's very clear they got the temperature from the theoretical models rather and could not make actual observations.


I don't what else to say either Bob, no where in the articles does it say they measured those temperatures. It does clearly say that the temperature was generated from two different models. Make up stuff if you like, but expect to get called out on it esp. when you can see for yourself.

In reality, it wouldn't matter if the temperatures were actual measurements .... or modeled. The result would still be the same .... sustained reductions in GHG at the level of the pandemic reduction would result in VERY rapid rises in global temperatures .... so why would we have that as our goal?

 

[Bob B]

In reality, it wouldn't matter if the temperatures were actual measurements .... or modeled. The result would still be the same .... sustained reductions in GHG at the level of the pandemic reduction would result in VERY rapid rises in global temperatures .... so why would we have that as our goal?

Another thing that doesn't make sense here .... if, as you say, those were modeled temperature increases, but you are saying those increases never actually happened ... isn't the model wrong.

 

[svetz]

In reality, it wouldn't matter if the temperatures were actual measurements .... or modeled. The result would still be the same .... sustained reductions in GHG at the level of the pandemic reduction would result in VERY rapid rises in global temperatures

That true Bob! Well, not rapid as it's a 30-to-40 year plan depending on the country, I suspect it would be a linear effect.

.... so why would we have that as our goal?

Because of the flip side, if we don't eliminate/reduce GHG emissions those same models show the temperature continues to rise. If anything, the original paper is probably a plea to start reducing emissions faster so the bump isn't as devastating.

Personally, I don't worry about it because A) I'm pretty sure the reporter picked the 0.7 as it was the max possible because it sounds bad and so attracts more clicks (reporting on extreme edge-case is how stories like Florida will be underwater by 2020 get started), B) there's a 30-year phase out so it won't happen all at once, C) we already have the tech to create high-altitude aerosols, D) a lot of smart people are working hard to try and make the transition as painless as possible both economically and socially. All the answers aren't there, it's a work in progress.

But, if you're still a denier/skeptic that doesn't believe in the climate models then I'd point out it's illogical to use them to suggest climate change is a hoax.

.... if, as you say, those were modeled temperature increases, but you are saying those increases never actually happened ... isn't the model wrong.

That's a great observation Bob!

It's one of the reasons I'm pretty sure the 0.7 is misreported or the extreme edge case. Given how extraordinarily accurate the models have been I don't think they're wrong overall. But it's like when someone complains about a hot day and attributes it to climate warming. The weather is a fickle thing, it could have just been a dip in the jetstream that day so the change wasn't large enough to measure. Think of it like your solar, you'll be more accurate in predicting your yearly average than next week's value.

 

[svetz]

In reviewing anything I typically first by looking at the expertise of the source. So, in reviewing the Simon P. Michaux paper the first thing I learned is his degree is in mining engineering. As the report is to address the mining challenges around phasing out fossil fuels it’s a good fit.

From my prior review of the video the biggest issue I had was around the source data. He hadn’t blindly followed what was in the industry, he guestimated them with back-of-the-envelope calculations. Had he come up close to the accepted industry numbers that would have been fine, but he didn’t. That doesn’t mean he’s wrong – it means the discrepancies need to be explained. So, that’s why I’ve been eager to dig into his paper, are the mineral issues worse than most think as he does?

From the video I had a few basic questions:

• How did he calculate an additional 37.6PWH?
• Why 4 weeks of storage?
• Mineral replacement of cars
• H2 is cheap to get into, but sucks for storage and round-trip efficiency…why use it over more favorable combinations?
• What’s with the rare earth metals in solar panels?
• Why use historical mining rates for future predictions?

Except for the last, none of these items fall into his area of expertise, so it’s possible there are bad assumptions. Not in my area of expertise either, so take this all with a grain of salt. Michaux has said that his paper isn’t the end-all-be-all, rather it is proof that a more detailed and in-depth study is warranted.

How did he calculate an additional 37.6PWh?
Currently, the world uses 22.8 PWh in electricity and the EPA says that’s 25% and transportation is 29%, so 22.8 / .25 * .29 = 26.4 PWh.

For my back-of-the-envelope calculation, I’d take the amount of fuel currently consumed by vehicles as it’s a well-known non-controversial number. It should be less than the EPA number by about 15% as it wouldn’t account for planes, trains, or ships; so we’ll add that back on at the end. It also won't include EVs, but I don't think there are so many it would be significant.

There’s ~94MB/d in 2021 for gasoline and 2.9MB/d for diesel. A gallon of gasoline has 114,100 BTUs (33.44 kWh). Gasoline ICE ranges between 11–27 % and diesel ICE ranges from 25% to 37%. Using the highest efficiencies should give us the maximum amount of power. So, 94x42x33.44x.27x365 + 2.9x42x33x.37x365 = 13,010,681+ 542,820 = 13.6 PWh. EV’s have about a 77% efficiency, so that would be 18 PWh, and add in the 15% consumed by planes, trains, and ships and we get 18 / 0.85 = 21 PWh. So, not very far off from the EPA number, but still far enough away to make me wonder why the EPA number is that high.

From the paper, Simon estimated how many cars/trucks there are in the world and used the average annual mileage. The analysis is painstakingly 100s of pages. I understand why he went that way, he needs the number of vehicles to calculate the minerals/mining to replace with an EV fleet. But while his data sources are probably the best possible sources for actual number of vehicles, they are very low quality for calculating power requirements, at best 30% (which just happens to put them into range of the EPA numbers).

At this point, I’m convinced that the base number from his calculations are egregiously high, and that will ripple downstream to the quantity of minerals needed.

Why 4 weeks of Storage?
Most of the plans I’ve seen calculate around a day or less of storage is needed. The reason in those calculations are primarily economical, that is it is cheaper to overbuild renewables and share power to locations where renewables aren’t producing via an interstate grid.

On page 183 of his report, He cites a Steinke et al in a 2012 Grid vs. storage in a 100 % renewable Europe for the EU calling for 2 days storage plus 10% at 100% renewable, a book from 2015 Droste-Franke, chap 6 Electrochemical energy storage for renewable sources and grid balancing that calls for 4 weeks, and a 2020 book Palmer, Energy storage and civilization: a systems approach proposing 7 weeks. To resolve this mystery, we’ll have to look more into it. There are a myriad of other papers showing much shorter timeframes, my guess is he was trying to be conservative and picked a number between them. It’s going to need more exploration, perhaps I’ll start with the NREL report.

Mineral Calculations
A criticism was that he cherry-picked high-end EVs, in looking at the data I believe this is unfounded. It’s that he used existing data and pretty much all the existing EVs made are high-end. EVs for the rest of us are something manufacturers have only recently started to address. I couldn’t find the underlying assumptions for the mineral breakdowns in the report. For solar panels, I suspect he looked up all the materials used in the last decades as his baseline. Unfortunately, that’s exactly wrong as solar panels became cheaper over time as more exotic materials were removed from them. A modern roof-top solar panel is primarily Aluminum, Copper, Silicon, Silver, and Zinc with no exotics. Yes, specialty panels like CIGs are still manufactured with some exotic materials, but they're not what you'd put in a solar farm. Not in the paper, but from the video, his analysis is a 100% replacement for vehicles ignoring the recycling of ICE vehicles, which if included would greatly decrease the mineral needs.

Why H2?
High-density fuels are needed for planes and are preferable for long-distance transportation. He walks through the different biofuels and hydrogen was the only one left standing. Personally, I think his H2 analysis is a poster child for why the hydrogen economy isn’t as bright as hoped. In section 21 he rules out biofuels as being limited by quantity but believes there would be enough for aviation. On page 448, he has an interesting bit about biofuel from algae. I’ve got a softspot for algae as you could theoretically grow enough algae to power all transportation. The problem is it’s all wet, literally, and drying it to where it can be processed is so energy intensive it’s not currently worth it and he came to the same conclusion. The tech has promise though and a breakthrough there could be a game changer.

Why use historical mining rates?
Mining is his area of expertise, and I didn’t see anything about the rates in the paper like there was in the video. But I don’t see it, sure it’s not as easy saying if x is one guy with a shovel to get 5x in the same time you need 5 guys with shovels. But using historical mining rates seems even more wrong as mining is an endeavor that is based on supply/demand. That is historically we don't mine more as there's no need to mine more. I feel like I’m totally missing something here…any thoughts?

 

[svetz]

Found a graphic showing the timeline for mining which I think explains where Michaux is coming from regarding the time to mine:

​

Looks like an 11-year lag from funding exploration to output. So, that's why the "reserves" are important - they're what we can mine today, the exploration is what we can mine a decade from now.

With government help (oxymoron?) they can and probably will shorten the cycle by providing startup capital, tax incentives, subsidies like oil, or pay for it with carbon-taxes. However they do it, expect there to be irregularities that make the news cycles and give lots of people things to scream about - it's the American way. ; -)

Even so, doesn't look gloomy to me as exploration never stopped. For example, Michaux redlined copper as a critical resource as exploration hadn't looked good in his report since the graph he had stoped showing zero in 2015 (the source hadn't recieved the data). But, if you use the later data from the same source you see we're discovering about 20 megatonnes per year like clockwork:

If that stays constant, then over the next 20 years (leaving off a decade since it takes a decade to go from discovery to output), that's another 400,000 megatons, but even with the current reserves of 890 megatonnes, that still falls short of Michaux's predictions.

Should we worry? Nah. First off, I found something else of interest in his data. For every 1000 deposits found, only 1 or 2 become mines because the deposit is too small or inconvenient to mine economically, they're not even part of the reserves. So, as prices go up, those deposits are just sitting there waiting to be mined. Even if we don't run out of copper...will it bankrupt us? Nah, we'd just switch to aluminum as we did before.

Should you invest in Copper, Nickel, or Lithium? Probably not. While they will probably be in demand over the next few decades the prices may not go up. For example, as mining for lithium increases, the prices are expected to fall. There's also competing technology such as sodium for batteries, aluminum replacing copper, or synthetic wire 70% more conductive than copper that might change the situation entirely.

 

[42OhmsPA]

Watchable at 1.25x, pay close attention at 1.5x.

Quite relevant to this thread. Apologies if it was already shared.

 

[svetz]

Quite relevant to this thread. Apologies if it was already shared.

No worries, but yes, it was first linked in #653 and you're right it's on target with a very hopeful message.
Has anyone seen the white paper he talks about in the beginning showing the details of how they came up with their numbers?

 

[svetz]

The IIASA has released a report on The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal, it's not pretty. In a nutshell, it's that we've screwed around for too long not doing anything so it's no longer just a matter of eliminating fossil fuels anymore, we'll need some form of active carbon capture.

The science is clear. No matter which IPCC pathway humanity will follow, holding the global average temperature increase below 1.5°C will require removing increasing amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.

...carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and the sustainable management of global carbon cycles will have become the major focus of climate action worldwide...

...However, CDR will not fall from heaven like manna. It will require active and urgent public policies....

I can tell you already that's not going to happen. In the U.S., 20% of Republicans don't believe climate change is a problem. The next grouping believes it is a problem, but not an urgent problem.

The study says to stay under 2C, within the next 80 years we have to remove somewhere between 450Gt to 1,100 Gt.

I've not been a fan of CDR as unlike eliminating fossil fuels (which overall reduce costs), adding CDR does cost money.

Don't freak out. A lot of people see one of the CDR techniques (direct air capture) to be nothing more than a ploy by the oil companies to create profitable new businesses based on their IP that replaces revenue from their old business lines. So, it'll get a lot of scrutiny, there will be much gnashing of teeth, and deniers will use the arguments to claim the science isn't settled (which they'd be right, just not in the way they mean). ; -)

 

[svetz]

My wife just said, "It would be ironic if the deniers, who are scared of wasting money on a hoax, ended up costing everyone 10x what it would have cost had we just taken care of it earlier."

So, earlier this morning I had the algae information up for biofuels. While it is not currently economical as a fuel (about $6 to $20/gallon depending on who you talk to) or foodsource, what would it cost to use algae for carbon capture rather than direct air?

It's 2.7 tons/acre per day and if the water's warm enough it can grow year-round. Adding iron and it'll not only grow faster but sink to the ocean floor and be sequestered. If you add LED night lighting it grows even more.

A terrestrial algae farm runs about $32k/acre startup, but after that it's primarily water purification, repair, and pumping.

So, 1,100 Gt / 80 years x 1e6 tons/Gt ÷ 2.7 tons/acre/d x 1yr/365d = 14,000 acres (22 sq miles), or with a 20-year life-cycle of about $22 million a year assuming you can't find something useful to do with the algae. Keep that number in mind when you see the direct-air yearly costs.

Currently, direct air capture is $250 to $600 per ton, but they think they can get it to $50/ton. So at $50/ton, that's a yearly cost of 1,100 Gt / 80 years x 1e6 tons/Gt x $50/ton = $687,500,000 per year. Don't raise your hand if you see the politicians siding with the oil companies for direct air capture, if you do that you won't be able to write them!

But wait! More on algae! If you grow algae in the ocean you don't have land costs and you don't need to pump/purify water.

NASA's 2010 Omega System (Offshore Membrane Enclosures for Growing Algae) was designed for ocean deployment and they predict it would be cash flow positive because they were feeding the algae with a city's wastewater (e.g., reduced wastewater treatment). Although I'm dubious as to my knowledge they've only been built/tested in tanks. It was one of the earliest studies of its time, and there are follow-ups, but mostly around creating biofuels that are expensive to dry. But just using it as carbon capture seems to make a lot of sense.

The OMEGA system consists of individual modules that are closed photo-bioreactors filled with domestic wastewater, floating offshore—just beneath the sea surface. Unlike PBRs on land, which have problems with heat and energy use, OMEGA modules transfer heat to the surrounding seawater, while mixing and circulating the algae is done using wave energy. The OMEGA system also uses buoyancy, gravity, and osmosis. Air and water filled bladders in the OMEGA structure provide buoyancy and structural integrity

OMEGA provides biofuels, as well as food, fertilizer, and other useful products, while processing wastewater released into the environment and removing carbon dioxide from the air

The worst thing I can think of with them is the "bags" might look like jellyfish to turtles (we already have a problem with that with plastics in the water). If the entire system is netted or the bags are digestible (e.g., break down in stomach acid) and non-toxic it probably wouldn't be an issue. But, what do you all think?

 

[MurphyGuy]

So, earlier this morning I had the algae information up for biofuels. While it is not currently economical as a fuel (about $6 to $20/gallon depending on who you talk to) or foodsource, what would it cost to use algae for carbon capture rather than direct air?

Algae makes for a great biofuel and burns with a blue flame.

Let me tell you a story..
A few years after we moved into our current home, we had a garden.. a good sized one, about 140ft long x 70ft wide. I met a lady who owned a horse boarding farm and she agreed to give me whatever manure I wanted.. most of it was composted just from being in a big pile, but there was some green stuff in there too.
So anyhow, I put about 20,000 lbs down in the garden.. two full trailer loads, then rototilled it into the soil and planted. A month later, just as spring was breaking into summer, we got a whopping 7 inches of rain in just 2 days.
One of the.. lets call it features, of my property is that there's a sort of swale between my garden and my home, and that swale leads to a 16 inch pipe running under my driveway and into my neighbors property, which then runs into their pond. (are you putting things together yet? LOL)

Yup, all that horse crap became saturated with water and flowed into neighbors pond.. We had hardcore sunshine and 85 degree days for the next week. His (normally very beautiful) pond ended up with a sold 4 inch thick blanket of algae from shore to shore.. And man was that stuff thick like a layer of foam. A small enough person with snow shoes might have even been able to walk across it.

I saved some.. dried it out on a tarp, then turned it into a powder.

Let me tell you, if I had saved about 1000 gallons of that stuff, it could have heated my home all winter long if I had somehow compressed it into logs and fed the fire place with it. It burns smokeless with a clear blue hot flame and no smell at all.

Few experiments have ever impressed me as much as my algae one did.

 

[42OhmsPA]

The IIASA has released a report on The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal, it's not pretty. In a nutshell, it's that we've screwed around for too long not doing anything so it's no longer just a matter of eliminating fossil fuels anymore, we'll need some form of active carbon capture.

I watched a documentary on WVIA (yea that evil free OTA TV) a couple years back there was a segment on carbon capture, it was fascinating. The method I thought made the most sense was capturing it with air scrubbers and pumping it right back into the ground. It wasn't very economical at the time but I'm sure things had changed. Imagine in a few years when lithium mining is flourishing in the US and all those idle oil fields are employing a workforce to scrub carbon....

 

[42OhmsPA]

Let me tell you, if I had saved about 1000 gallons of that stuff, it could have heated my home all winter long if I had somehow compressed it into logs and fed the fire place with it. It burns smokeless with a clear blue hot flame and no smell at all.

Few experiments have ever impressed me as much as my algae one did.

Commercial Wood Pellet Manufacturing Equipment for Sale

Wood pellet has gained its popularity as one of the mostly used renewable fuel sources in recent years; as a result, wood pellet manufacturing has become a sunrise industry, which means it is promising and profitable. Now in many countries,

www.gemco-energy.com

 

[MurphyGuy]

Commercial Wood Pellet Manufacturing Equipment for Sale

Wood pellet has gained its popularity as one of the mostly used renewable fuel sources in recent years; as a result, wood pellet manufacturing has become a sunrise industry, which means it is promising and profitable. Now in many countries,

www.gemco-energy.com

I have a 30 ton log splitter I would probably use to make logs. I use that log splitter for all kinds of things that have nothing to do with firewood.
I made a fixture to straighten t-posts and another fixture for pressing bearings in and out. People always seem to bend t-posts when they pull them out of the ground to sell them.. I can straighten one post every 20 seconds with almost no effort.

I even used that log splitter to straight forklift forks when they get bent.

I would imagine that the ideal size for Algae would be a pellet/log about the size of a couple D sized batteries. A single D battery worth of that stuff could probably boil a medium sized pot of water..

 

[42OhmsPA]

I have a 30 ton log splitter I would probably use to make logs. I use that log splitter for all kinds of things that have nothing to do with firewood.
I made a fixture to straighten t-posts and another fixture for pressing bearings in and out. People always seem to bend t-posts when they pull them out of the ground to sell them.. I can straighten one post every 20 seconds with almost no effort.

I even used that log splitter to straight forklift forks when they get bent.

I would imagine that the ideal size for Algae would be a pellet/log about the size of a couple D sized batteries. A single D battery worth of that stuff could probably boil a medium sized pot of water..

Agreed, hydraulics are great.
I have a diy'd splitter I bought of Craigslist, the original owner used a D6 ripper tooth, a D9 cylinder (I might have that backwards), and a stout I beam... It's a beast. I still kick myself for selling the PTO pump when I converted it over to a 2 stage pump to run off an old cub cadet (couldn't use the bucket on the tractor much when the splitter was connected).
Thanks for the great ideas for other purposes I didn't think of. Mine worked great to break the bead of an ATV wheel when everything else failed, obviously didn't care about the tire...

You could easily fab up a piece of heavy walled tube steel on the ram end and a hopper on the splitter end. Fill the hopper with the powder, run the ram into the hopper to press the plug. Wait how would you get the plug out. ? Didn't think that through enough.

 

[svetz]

...Let me tell you a story...

Really makes me wonder about what happened downstream when Hercules cleaned the stables...

 

[MurphyGuy]

You could easily fab up a piece of heavy walled tube steel on the ram end and a hopper on the splitter end. Fill the hopper with the powder, run the ram into the hopper to press the plug. Wait how would you get the plug out. ? Didn't think that through enough.

Getting the plug out would be easy, you'd just use the same device to push it out the back after pulling a plug plate at the bottom.. or along those lines.
The problem here isn't production, its mass production without spending your every waking moment doing it.

I'm an electrical engineer who spent his entire 30 year career inventing and building unique manufacturing processes in the automobile industry.. I'm sure I could figure out a mass production procedure, but a log splitter wouldn't cycle nearly fast enough. Not entirely sure I would even need hydraulic levels of pressure. If I remember correctly, the cell walls of algae are more like a tree than they are an animal, with the oil inside the cell wall.. Simply warming the stuff up and applying a bit of mechanical pressure might be enough to achieve the adhesion to make a solid log.

More experimentation would be needed..

I was just freaked out by how well the stuff burned.. I'm talking rocket fuel quality if you added oxygen. If had the knowledge I do know, I might have told my neighbor to just let that floating mat dry out, then lit the whole damn thing on fire on a nice clear night.. that would have been cool.

 

[42OhmsPA]

I'm an electrical engineer who spent his entire 30 year career inventing and building unique manufacturing processes in the automobile industry..

Interesting, I'm in the automotive manufacturing industry, mainly interior floor systems. It's mind boggling the amount of testing and requirements that go into a simple floor mat...
Sounds like you implemented lots of good Kaizens ?

 

[aenyc]

I love Svetz recaps, so its only fair that the counter argument is also presented

Here is a recap:

If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste?​

Not so green: Renewable energy’s land use problem​

California Blackouts Have Begun. Thank ‘Green Energy’ | National Review​

The Environmental Impact of Lithium Batteries​

"Green" Energy Is a Scam. It Isn't MEANT to Work.​

Why California’s Climate Policies Are Causing Electricity Blackouts​

Electricity Shortage Warnings Grow Across U.S.​

Explained: Why Is Electricity So Expensive In Norway Right Now?​

Technocracy: The Operating System For The New International Rules-Based Order​

The last link should be required reading for anyone who is paying attention.

 

[aenyc]

The dreaded con trails omg hahaha conspiracy conspiracy

Contrails, shmontrails.
What you need to do is research using its Proper name:

Stratospheric Aerosole Injection.

Brave Search

Search the web privately…

search.brave.com

And
Solar Radiation Management.

Go ahead and look those terms up. I am sure this stuff is all safe and effective.

Solar geoengineering by injecting aluminum oxide aerosol into the lower stratosphere is a serious threat to global mental health

www.bmj.com

Controversial spraying method aims to curb global warming

Planes spraying tiny sulphate particulates into the lower stratosphere could help shield Earth from just enough sunlight to help keep temperatures low

www.cbsnews.com

Magic Words

The Magic Words – #SolutionsWatch | The Corbett Report

www.corbettreport.com

 

[MurphyGuy]

I love Svetz recaps, so its only fair that the counter argument is also presented

Here is a recap:

If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste?​

Not so green: Renewable energy’s land use problem​

California Blackouts Have Begun. Thank ‘Green Energy’ | National Review​

The Environmental Impact of Lithium Batteries​

"Green" Energy Is a Scam. It Isn't MEANT to Work.​

Why California’s Climate Policies Are Causing Electricity Blackouts​

Electricity Shortage Warnings Grow Across U.S.​

Explained: Why Is Electricity So Expensive In Norway Right Now?​

Technocracy: The Operating System For The New International Rules-Based Order​

The last link should be required reading for anyone who is paying attention.

HERE'S A RECAP OF YOUR RECAP
WE ALREADY BUSTED ALL YOUR BS LINKS AS MISINFORMATION

 

[MurphyGuy]

Interesting, I'm in the automotive manufacturing industry, mainly interior floor systems. It's mind boggling the amount of testing and requirements that go into a simple floor mat...
Sounds like you implemented lots of good Kaizens ?

There is a lot of testing, but most of it is horse crap.. not all, but most. So much of the "quality" controls are rubber stamped that they're not even worth the ink on the stamp.

We had a salt spray cabinet.. the coated parts had to meet certain salt spray testing standards. We bought the cabinet for $24,000, I think we used it twice. The first time was to test it out to see how it worked on our finished parts, the 2nd time was when the Vice Pres of North American operations for GM came to visit.. we decided to get it running to put on a show.

If a company has a reasonably good level of confidence that a part will meet quality standards, and if the quality testing is going to cost them time or money, you can bet the rubber stamp is being used.

Most of what I did was focused on fixing repeated manufacturing problems or designing and building equipment to process parts. I was involved with designing and building process ovens, water purification systems, heavy metal waste treatment, air handling units, pollution controls, and a lot of post-stamping operations. Did a lot of work with coatings, adhesives, prototype work, and designed a bunch of automation and power distribution stuff. A great deal of it was low level work.. I wasn't launching robots to other planets or working on rail guns or anything like that.

Some of the automation I worked on was cutting edge.. but that was cutting edge for the 1990's.. pretty basic stuff by today's standards.

For example.. one of the coating lines was having a quality issue.. the workers were missing defects on the coating.. Eight months and several people replaced on the job and it was still happening. So they call me in.. I worked the production line for a few days, then ordered the shop lights in that area to be changed to a different kind of bulb with a higher frequency light, which shifted more blue... problem disappeared.

Eight full months of problems.. even the manufacturer of the coating was called in.. "How many engineers does it take to change a light bulb?"

LOL

 

[D71]

Contrails, shmontrails.
What you need to do is research using its Proper name:

Stratospheric Aerosole Injection.

Brave Search

Search the web privately…

search.brave.com

And
Solar Radiation Management.

Go ahead and look those terms up. I am sure this stuff is all safe and effective.

Solar geoengineering by injecting aluminum oxide aerosol into the lower stratosphere is a serious threat to global mental health

www.bmj.com

Controversial spraying method aims to curb global warming

Planes spraying tiny sulphate particulates into the lower stratosphere could help shield Earth from just enough sunlight to help keep temperatures low

www.cbsnews.com

Magic Words

The Magic Words – #SolutionsWatch | The Corbett Report

www.corbettreport.com

I was making fun of the Murphy post “contrails”

I don't know why that would sound like a conspiracy to you, but if it does, perhaps you should seek mental health services.

Here's a picture of a normal day. Those lines are contrails.

The crap Bill Gates wants to do with dusting will kill solar panel generation. Probably kill us too.