Bryan1 Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 22 minutes ago, silvrsvt said: The one interesting thing about this (as brought up by my Father in Law who teaches earth science at a high school and College level) is that we might have done damage already to the environment 20-30 years ago that we don't know about that irreversible, so we might be in a situation that even if we do this, we aren't going to "change" it. George Carlin on The Environment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 8 minutes ago, msm859 said: How much American blood have we spilled and gold taken from the treasury protecting oil in the Middle East? And there’s the agenda....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader 10 Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 45 minutes ago, msm859 said: Yes there is. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ “97% of climate scientists” cranking out report after report funded by the green movement. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 I take the view that yes, there is indeed global warming and that it's real and here right now but, to thoroughly demonize vehicles at the expense of all other CO2 sources is morally bankrupt. I know why they do it, it's to get the population involved at the grass roots like they're actually doing something meaningful. Shutting off Coal fired power plants and going full Nuclear, solar and wind for the next fifty years would give the planet a massive break Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rperez817 Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 On 9/19/2019 at 4:09 PM, msm859 said: Furthermore, California would have an easy answer if they lost in the courts. Add a gas guzzler/carbon tax on any cars/manufactures that do not comply with California requirements. Make the formula such that the companies that have agreed with California i.e Ford would not pay. California assemblyman Phil Ting's answer is even better. https://www.autoblog.com/2019/09/19/trump-california-waiver-vehicle-emissions-environment/ "California residents who buy or lease a zero-emission vehicle can get up to $7,000 from the state. A bill by Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting would mean people could only get that money if they buy a car from a company that has agreed to follow California’s emission standards." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msm859 Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 4 hours ago, jpd80 said: And yet the world's vehicles account for about 10% of all man made CO2 so if we electrified every vehicle tomorrow and stopped burning gasoline and diesel, it only drops CO2 levels by a tiny fraction. Then I guess we need to do more then just drive electric cars. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msm859 Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 3 hours ago, Trader 10 said: “97% of climate scientists” cranking out report after report funded by the green movement. Seriously? I forgot NASA has always been known as part. of the "green movement". What exactly would it take for you to "believe" that the majority fo scientist believe in anthropogenic climate change. And unfortunately this is not a feeling or belief issue - it is science. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 5 minutes ago, msm859 said: Then I guess we need to do more then just drive electric cars. I think they're a waste of money when there are much bigger problems to cure first. Eliminate CO2 from all electrical power generation and storage first, then use that as your source for clean and green energy , otherwise you're lying on your back and pissing all over yourself. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msm859 Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 8 hours ago, jpd80 said: I think they're a waste of money when there are much bigger problems to cure first. Eliminate CO2 from all electrical power generation and storage first, then use that as your source for clean and green energy , otherwise you're lying on your back and pissing all over yourself. Can't we do both at the same time. Solar has dropped down in price such that in any sunny place it has become a now brainer - economically - even if you don't believe in climate change. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rperez817 Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 8 hours ago, msm859 said: Seriously? I forgot NASA has always been known as part. of the "green movement". What exactly would it take for you to "believe" that the majority fo scientist believe in anthropogenic climate change. And unfortunately this is not a feeling or belief issue - it is science. Keep sharing scientific and economic info relevant to Ford and the automotive industry on these forums, as you already have msm859 sir. A lot of readers and members appreciate it. Don't worry about people who refuse to comprehend that info. Or accuse you of having an "agenda". You've done your part. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtisH Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 16 hours ago, msm859 said: Yes there is. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ No, there really isn’t. The 97% figure comes from an article by John Cook. Do some research on John Cook’s article. Several authors of the articles Cook reviewed said that he misrepresented the claims in those articles. Many of the articles he reviewed legitimately claim that man has played a large role in global warming, but the real number isn’t 97%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msm859 Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 2 hours ago, CurtisH said: No, there really isn’t. The 97% figure comes from an article by John Cook. Do some research on John Cook’s article. Several authors of the articles Cook reviewed said that he misrepresented the claims in those articles. Many of the articles he reviewed legitimately claim that man has played a large role in global warming, but the real number isn’t 97%. Let's say you are right - it is not 97%. At what number would you be concerned? 90 -80 -70 - 60 -50 .....? If 100 meteorologist were in a room and 97 of them told you (and 3 said it was okay) do not take your child outside because there is going to be a lightning strike that will probably hit your child and kill them, would you take your child out? How about if it was only 80 out of 100? 50 out of 100? 1 out of 100? The consequences of being wrong - on the do nothing side - is catastrophic. The consequences of being wrong - on the do too much side - is probably still overall positive to mankind and planet earth. Arguing the "97%" is a distraction. ANYONE who does not believe that the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community believes anthropogenic climate change is a serious threat to planet earth, is not paying attention or in denial. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 (edited) 7 hours ago, msm859 said: Can't we do both at the same time. Solar has dropped down in price such that in any sunny place it has become a now brainer - economically - even if you don't believe in climate change. Sure we can do both but the priority should be reducing CO2 from energy production. There's no point in switching everyone to electric cars if that in turn causes an increase of CO2 emissions from more coal fired plants to cover the increasing power deficit. ^^^^^^^^and that's the exact problem China faces, it's racing headlong into BEVs to fight climate change but planning a massive expansion of coal fired power plants. effective replacement of base load power stations is what's required, so those green alternatives have to be improved by using next gen liquid metal batteries that will leave today's lithium Ion batteries for dead on cost and efficiency. It sounds crazy but "waiting" with BEVs and using hybrid cars and trucks that use less fuel is actually the best solution while we get the power industry on the right track. It also gives the Automotive industry more time to select better battery technology for bigger long term gains. Edited September 21, 2019 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msm859 Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 3 hours ago, jpd80 said: Sure we can do both but the priority should be reducing CO2 from energy production. There's no point in switching everyone to electric cars if that in turn causes an increase of CO2 emissions from more coal fired plants to cover the increasing power deficit. ^^^^^^^^and that's the exact problem China faces, it's racing headlong into BEVs to fight climate change but planning a massive expansion of coal fired power plants. effective replacement of base load power stations is what's required, so those green alternatives have to be improved by using next gen liquid metal batteries that will leave today's lithium Ion batteries for dead on cost and efficiency. It sounds crazy but "waiting" with BEVs and using hybrid cars and trucks that use less fuel is actually the best solution while we get the power industry on the right track. It also gives the Automotive industry more time to select better battery technology for bigger long term gains. Well I generally agree with you. I now have 11 kW solar system on my roof. Last year my electric bill was zero so I added an upstairs laundry room with an electric dryer, a heat pump water heater (and more solar panels to bring it up to what I have). I will be putting in an induction cooktop to replace a gas stove. California has very little electricity derived form coal. By 2025 is will be zero - including imported. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snooter Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 (edited) Part of the over reach by the epa is well beyond cars, etc....a contentious problem is how they define navitagble waterways...in some cases they have passed judgement a ditch in a farmers field is a navitagble waterway even though its dry 4-6 months out of the year...nothing but a private property land grab Edited September 22, 2019 by snooter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 the path to hell is paved with good intentions...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, msm859 said: Well I generally agree with you. I now have 11 kW solar system on my roof. Last year my electric bill was zero so I added an upstairs laundry room with an electric dryer, a heat pump water heater (and more solar panels to bring it up to what I have). I will be putting in an induction cooktop to replace a gas stove. California has very little electricity derived form coal. By 2025 is will be zero - including imported. Good job, that's the first step towards a lower carbon footprint. The only problem I see with a Solar baseload strategy is the massive load put on gas turbines to cover peak load situations. Still, it's probably the only course open until battery storage technology improves and more green power is captured during the day. The answer though is going to be different for each state..... Edited September 22, 2019 by jpd80 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted September 23, 2019 Author Share Posted September 23, 2019 On 9/21/2019 at 10:52 PM, msm859 said: Well I generally agree with you. I now have 11 kW solar system on my roof. Last year my electric bill was zero so I added an upstairs laundry room with an electric dryer, a heat pump water heater (and more solar panels to bring it up to what I have). I will be putting in an induction cooktop to replace a gas stove. California has very little electricity derived form coal. By 2025 is will be zero - including imported. But thats the problem-what works in California doesn't translate well for the rest of the country-as I've pointed out several times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msm859 Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 3 hours ago, silvrsvt said: But thats the problem-what works in California doesn't translate well for the rest of the country-as I've pointed out several times. Well solar should work for at least half the country and wind all of the country. What should not work for any part of the country - or the planet- is coal. We should be offering extensive benefits to coal miners to retrain them into other jobs. There are in fact a lot of "green" jobs. Instead we have states like Wyoming that are passing laws to make it harder to stop using coal even when natural gas is cheaper. http://ieefa.org/wyoming-governor-signs-bill-to-prop-up-states-coal-plants/. Talk about being nearsighted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 In ND, we have a good chunk of wind energy, and that number keeps climbing. It has risen such that we've already shut down one coal plant I can recall. And another just across the river will be shut down in 2 years as they bring another natural gas one on line. We used to have a fair amount of coal in ND. But it got cheaper to rail in coal from Montana. So some of those coal mines are shut down. So our ND coal jobs are going away. Throw on top of that, we have a lot of wind potential. On windy days, they could shut down some plants as wind is providing an excess of energy. But a lot of ND energy is shipped to Minnesota anyway. The final variable is ND Bakken oil field. They are producing an abundance of NG up there. The wells are flairing still. Not because they are lazy. We're still behind in building new raw gas lines to pipe it to the processing plants. And those plants are constantly expanding. Once we get caught up with that, I see new NG power plants being built near those processing plants and the coal plants in the state going away. It'll be a lot cheaper than coal. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted September 23, 2019 Author Share Posted September 23, 2019 36 minutes ago, msm859 said: Well solar should work for at least half the country and wind all of the country. What should not work for any part of the country - or the planet- is coal. We should be offering extensive benefits to coal miners to retrain them into other jobs. There are in fact a lot of "green" jobs. Instead we have states like Wyoming that are passing laws to make it harder to stop using coal even when natural gas is cheaper. http://ieefa.org/wyoming-governor-signs-bill-to-prop-up-states-coal-plants/. Talk about being nearsighted. Completely missing the point-yes Cali generates alot of alternative power for electric, but other parts of the country aren't at that point yet and getting rid of natural gas is a non-starter for areas of the country that experience a "real" winter and need a real heating/AC unit and not a heat pump. Banning NG isn't going to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msm859 Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 3 hours ago, silvrsvt said: Completely missing the point-yes Cali generates alot of alternative power for electric, but other parts of the country aren't at that point yet and getting rid of natural gas is a non-starter for areas of the country that experience a "real" winter and need a real heating/AC unit and not a heat pump. Banning NG isn't going to happen. I said nothing about getting rid of natural gas. I said we need to get rid of coal - today. And it makes no sense anywhere to use coal when natural gas is cheaper and cleaner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 And then there was the global climate change theory (accepted by most scientists for decades) that was completely disproved by hard data........ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190923111247.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 The land and sea are actually taking up more CO2 than originally thought with only about half of the CO2 remaining in the air. Now if scientists were incorrect about that major detail, then it's possible that other modelling is also inaccurate or at least, worst possible case. https://climatenewsnetwork.net/earth-wins-time-as-land-and-seas-absorb-more-carbon/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msm859 Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 3 hours ago, akirby said: And then there was the global climate change theory (accepted by most scientists for decades) that was completely disproved by hard data........ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190923111247.htm Are you serious? That is your defense of climate change? Another article on that page. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181210150614.htm Everyone should be concerned. And anyone who is not should ask themselves the question; What if I am wrong? What are the consequences? I - and everyone else can live if I am wrong. Can you say the same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.