One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
How You Can Destroy The Green New Deal With Six Little Words
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
Oct 25, 2021 07:47:05   #
American Vet
 
Solar Panels Don’t Work At Night

In fact they don’t work when it’s snowing, raining, or cloudy either. The truth is that they don’t work very much at all. But let’s focus on this idea. They do not work when it’s dark.

Generally, cars are driven mostly during the day. And electric cars are no different. However there is an extra step with those admittedly cute electric vehicles: driven in the day, charged up at night.

Live in an apartment building? Can you imagine everyone trying to charge their cars during the evening? Hundreds of people from one building.

And the suburbs are in an even worse situation. The electric grid structure for a suburban street one block long has the capacity to charge at most 5 cars at a time. But the demand will be for many times that number.

You guessed it, damage to the grid system will occur. Blackouts, here we come.

https://conservativefiringline.com/how-you-can-destroy-the-green-new-deal-with-six-little-words/

Reply
Oct 25, 2021 09:04:41   #
SGM B Loc: TEXAS but live in Alabama now
 
American Vet wrote:
Solar Panels Don’t Work At Night

In fact they don’t work when it’s snowing, raining, or cloudy either. The truth is that they don’t work very much at all. But let’s focus on this idea. They do not work when it’s dark.

Generally, cars are driven mostly during the day. And electric cars are no different. However there is an extra step with those admittedly cute electric vehicles: driven in the day, charged up at night.

Live in an apartment building? Can you imagine everyone trying to charge their cars during the evening? Hundreds of people from one building.

And the suburbs are in an even worse situation. The electric grid structure for a suburban street one block long has the capacity to charge at most 5 cars at a time. But the demand will be for many times that number.

You guessed it, damage to the grid system will occur. Blackouts, here we come.

https://conservativefiringline.com/how-you-can-destroy-the-green-new-deal-with-six-little-words/
Solar Panels Don’t Work At Night br br In fact th... (show quote)


Every time some smug leftist driving a Tesla passes my twin turbo F150 I always look at my Distance to Empty notice and wonder if said Tesla will run half that far on a full charge. By the way, my fully loaded F150 truck with the 3.5 ltr, twin turbo V6 routine gets 25mpg on the highway. With a 26 gl fuel tank, that works out to roughly 650 miles - day or night. I’m not sure of the range of a Tesla, or any other electric car, but I suspect it’s probably less than half that number.
So, that being said - I would not trade my F150 for any electric, or hybrid vehicle. Especially if I have to start making payments on the difference. 🤣🤣👍👍

Reply
Oct 25, 2021 09:12:12   #
microphor
 
SGM B wrote:
Every time some smug leftist driving a Tesla passes my twin turbo F150 I always look at my Distance to Empty notice and wonder if said Tesla will run half that far on a full charge. By the way, my fully loaded F150 truck with the 3.5 ltr, twin turbo V6 routine gets 25mpg on the highway. With a 26 gl fuel tank, that works out to roughly 650 miles - day or night. I’m not sure of the range of a Tesla, or any other electric car, but I suspect it’s probably less than half that number.
So, that being said - I would not trade my F150 for any electric, or hybrid vehicle. Especially if I have to start making payments on the difference. 🤣🤣👍👍
Every time some smug leftist driving a Tesla passe... (show quote)



Reply
 
 
Oct 25, 2021 09:30:29   #
American Vet
 
SGM B wrote:
Every time some smug leftist driving a Tesla passes my twin turbo F150 I always look at my Distance to Empty notice and wonder if said Tesla will run half that far on a full charge. By the way, my fully loaded F150 truck with the 3.5 ltr, twin turbo V6 routine gets 25mpg on the highway. With a 26 gl fuel tank, that works out to roughly 650 miles - day or night. I’m not sure of the range of a Tesla, or any other electric car, but I suspect it’s probably less than half that number.
So, that being said - I would not trade my F150 for any electric, or hybrid vehicle. Especially if I have to start making payments on the difference. 🤣🤣👍👍
Every time some smug leftist driving a Tesla passe... (show quote)


I believe the range of most electric cars is about 200-250. And that is OPTIMAL conditions.

Reply
Oct 25, 2021 09:36:48   #
Michael10
 
American Vet wrote:
Solar Panels Don’t Work At Night

In fact they don’t work when it’s snowing, raining, or cloudy either. The truth is that they don’t work very much at all. But let’s focus on this idea. They do not work when it’s dark.

Generally, cars are driven mostly during the day. And electric cars are no different. However there is an extra step with those admittedly cute electric vehicles: driven in the day, charged up at night.

Live in an apartment building? Can you imagine everyone trying to charge their cars during the evening? Hundreds of people from one building.

And the suburbs are in an even worse situation. The electric grid structure for a suburban street one block long has the capacity to charge at most 5 cars at a time. But the demand will be for many times that number.

You guessed it, damage to the grid system will occur. Blackouts, here we come.

https://conservativefiringline.com/how-you-can-destroy-the-green-new-deal-with-six-little-words/
Solar Panels Don’t Work At Night br br In fact th... (show quote)



Like it or not, fossil fuels are on the way out and different means of power will be the future. Except that or die living in the past.

Reply
Oct 25, 2021 09:47:55   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Michael10 wrote:
Like it or not, fossil fuels are on the way out and different means of power will be the future. Except that or die living in the past.


Like it or not, that is a pipe dream. The sheer amount of goods moved over the roads by big rigs is enough to show us that.

Reply
Oct 25, 2021 10:05:54   #
American Vet
 
Michael10 wrote:
Like it or not, fossil fuels are on the way out and different means of power will be the future. Except that or die living in the past.


I don't disagree. However, how we get there is the discussion.

Reply
 
 
Oct 25, 2021 10:20:38   #
Michael10
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
Like it or not, that is a pipe dream. The sheer amount of goods moved over the roads by big rigs is enough to show us that.


There's already a hydrogen pumping station in a very small town near me and there's always several big rigs there. Hydrogen by products after burning is H2O/water, this is the best answer to long haul. These problems will be worked out without a lot of problems. Continuing to support a dying industry, fossil fuels, is kinda like those who said the automobile would never replace the horse and buggy.

Reply
Oct 25, 2021 10:23:33   #
American Vet
 
Michael10 wrote:
There's already a hydrogen pumping station in a very small town near me and there's always several big rigs there. Hydrogen by products after burning is H2O/water, this is the best answer to long haul. These problems will be worked out without a lot of problems. Continuing to support a dying industry, fossil fuels is kinda like those who said the automobile would never replace the horse and buggy.


I really think that a hydrogen fuel cell engine is a much, much more viable option than electric. And this is not new technology...been around for years.

Again, the discussion is about how we get there.

Reply
Oct 25, 2021 10:23:51   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Michael10 wrote:
There's already a hydrogen pumping station in a very small town near me and there's always several big rigs there. Hydrogen by products after burning is H2O/water, this is the best answer to long haul. These problems will be worked out without a lot of problems. Continuing to support a dying industry, fossil fuels, is kinda like those who said the automobile would never replace the horse and buggy.


And who knows, in 100 yearss or so we might have the technology to make that the main source of power. But we won't for a long time.

Reply
Oct 25, 2021 10:40:50   #
Michael10
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
And who knows, in 100 yearss or so we might have the technology to make that the main source of power. But we won't for a long time.


At the rate we are going this planet won't be inhabitable in 100 years we must start trying new things now. Take the money given to the fossil fuel industry and put it into studying new forms of energy. Stop supporting a dying industry with tax dollars.

Reply
 
 
Oct 25, 2021 10:46:16   #
American Vet
 
Michael10 wrote:
At the rate we are going this planet won't be inhabitable in 100 years .


Not quite sure everyone agrees with that.

Scientists seeking funding and journalists seeking an audience agree: panic sells.

“Global cooling is going to kills us all!” “No, wait: global warming is going to kill us all!”

Here's the list - an amazing chronology of the last 120 years of scare-mongering on climate

1895 - Geologists Think theWorld May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895
1902 - “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times
1912 - Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912
1923 - “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune
1923 - “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post
1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924
1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?
1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World
1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933
1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune
1939 - “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post
1952 - “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times, August 10th, 1962
1954 - “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report
1954 - Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine
1959 - “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times
1969 - “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969
1969 – “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000″ — Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as he was talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)
1970 - “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post
1974 - Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine
1974 - “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” –Washington Post
1974 - “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger
1974 - “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times
Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age

1975 - Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975
1975 - “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine
1976 - “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report
1981 - Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times
1988 - I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote andHis superior’s objection for context
1989 -“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,Discover magazine, October 1989
1990 - “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth
1993 - “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” – U.S. News and World Report
1998 - No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998
2001 - “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001
2003 - Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration” – Jim Hansen, NASA Global Warming activist, Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?, 2003
2006 - “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006
2006 – “It is not a debate over whether the earth has been warming over the past century. The earth is always warming or cooling, at least a few tenths of a degree…” —Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT
2006 – “What we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes. It is always…warming or cooling, it’s never stable. And if it were stable, it would actually be interesting scientifically because it would be the first time for four and a half billion years.” —Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London
2006 - “Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.” –Senator James Inhofe, Monday, September 25, 2006
2007- “I gave a talk recently (on fallacies of global warming) and three members of the Canadian government, the environmental cabinet, came up afterwards and said, ‘We agree with you, but it’s not worth our jobs to say anything.’ So what’s being created is a huge industry with billions of dollars of government money and people’s jobs dependent on it.” – Dr. Tim Ball, Coast-to-Coast, Feb 6, 2007
2008 – “Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress” – Dr. John S. Theon, retired Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program atNASA, see above for Hansen quotes

Reply
Oct 25, 2021 11:48:02   #
Michael10
 
American Vet wrote:
I really think that a hydrogen fuel cell engine is a much, much more viable option than electric. And this is not new technology...been around for years.

Again, the discussion is about how we get there.


The first discussion is how to get away from fossil fuels and convince people it has to happen, that's priority before any other discussions can happen.

Reply
Oct 25, 2021 12:46:48   #
American Vet
 
Michael10 wrote:
The first discussion is how to get away from fossil fuels and convince people it has to happen, that's priority before any other discussions can happen.


I don't disagree.

How to do that is the basis of discussion.

Reply
Oct 25, 2021 15:23:02   #
RobertX8Y
 
American Vet wrote:
Solar Panels Don’t Work At Night

In fact they don’t work when it’s snowing, raining, or cloudy either. The truth is that they don’t work very much at all. But let’s focus on this idea. They do not work when it’s dark.

Generally, cars are driven mostly during the day. And electric cars are no different. However there is an extra step with those admittedly cute electric vehicles: driven in the day, charged up at night.

Live in an apartment building? Can you imagine everyone trying to charge their cars during the evening? Hundreds of people from one building.

And the suburbs are in an even worse situation. The electric grid structure for a suburban street one block long has the capacity to charge at most 5 cars at a time. But the demand will be for many times that number.

You guessed it, damage to the grid system will occur. Blackouts, here we come.

https://conservativefiringline.com/how-you-can-destroy-the-green-new-deal-with-six-little-words/
Solar Panels Don’t Work At Night br br In fact th... (show quote)


Electricity generated from solar panels is storable in batteries.

That means that the solar energy collected during the day can be stored into a battery, and the energy in the battery can be used at night.

It's actually somewhat like a flashlight that uses batteries. The energy in the batteries got put into the batteries at some time. But the flashlight works at a later time, which doesn't have to be at the same time the batteries got the energy put into them.

It's also somewhat like gasoline. The energy that's in the gasoline got there from millions of years before when the solar energy got converted into petroleum, and now millions of years later we can use that energy, even though it got stored in petroleum form at a different time. So you're able to drive your gasoline-powered car (or big truck) even at times when that petroleum is not being formed. That's if you don't run out of gasoline and petroleum, or die from smog or some climate-change-induced catastrophe first.

In our next episode, we will explain why wind energy can be used even when the wind isn't blowing. (It's basically the same idea: the energy gets stored for later use.)

Also in your post is this: "The electric grid structure for a suburban street one block long has the capacity to charge at most 5 cars at a time." Given that it came from the same article as said the "solar panels don't work at night", it might be similarly misleading. But supposing it's true, there are various options. One of them is to charge the cars somewhere else, like at the workplace or at some charging station facility designed to handle the demand. There might be a short shuttle ride from a charging facility to the office where the commuter works. Another option is to upgrade the grid. And I think cars could have solar panels on their top surfaces (storing the energy into the battery). That might become standard. Some other options involve changing city designs so that people don't have to drive so much anyway. It may not be necessary that out-of-shape couch potatoes, whose bodies desperately need physical exercise such as walking, all have to drive their individual big gasoline-powered trucks to the grocery store just to get small items every other day.

The first gasoline-powered car couldn't have been very practical (though it may have been "cute"), as there would have been a lack of roads and gasoline stations back then. With time, some new developments become practical. It's wrong to write them off just because they're not totally practical in all situations right now.

Reply
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2021 IDF International Technologies, Inc.