25% EV Charging Stations in San Fran Region Don’t Work

[BULLDOG]

Again... Have any of those "silly people who went to school for years" told you they could produce enough lithium batteries to replace 88 million barrels of oil per day every 7 years?

Or are you just assuming they can?

I assume that there will be plenty of viable vehicles available as soon as I need another one.

 

[ding]

I assume that there will be plenty of viable vehicles available as soon as I need another one.

Again... Have any of those "silly people who went to school for years" told you they could produce enough lithium batteries to replace 88 million barrels of oil per day every 7 years?

Or are you just assuming they can?

 

[Osiris-ODS]

Hey, at the end of the day I drove into work FREE today (and my lights at home ran for free too!). Didn't cost me a penny to drive into work. YOU had to fill up your gas tank and the price of gas is going up up up up up.

Which one of us is "winning" the economics game?

LOL.

Whine away my simpleton friend. Whine away. I'm going to enjoy my driving for free.

You didn't drive anywhere for free. You paid $50,000 if not more for your home solar system (I know people who paid upwards of $90,000). That's more than the average person driving an ICE vehicle will spend on gasoline in 30-40 years.

 

[Crick]

You didn't drive anywhere for free. You paid $50,000 if not more for your home solar system (I know people who paid upwards of $90,000). That's more than the average person driving an ICE vehicle will spend on gasoline in 30-40 years.

The solar system owner will get a good deal more than a free car charge from those panels. And there IS value to having NOT emitted greenhouse gases.

 

[JohnDB]

The solar system owner will get a good deal more than a free car charge from those panels. And there IS value to having NOT emitted greenhouse gases.

Ummmmm
Most green technologies which focus on carbon emissions that are quickly absorbed by nature....
Are highly dependent upon silicon wafers and aluminum. Both of which cause the environment to be polluted far beyond any supposed help to clean things up. Then there's the plastics and oil used to produce them. The whole "green energy" thing is a scam.

We had two years where the use of petroleum products bottomed out...and it did NOTHING to reduce global warming or slow its advance.

So...until the greening weenies start discussing aluminum and electronics I really ignore them all. Because they are just puppets of wealthy elites playing politics.

 

[BlueGin]

Yeah, that’ll be the day.
So what’s stopping you Envirowhackos?

Oh yeah. Zero intent of doing anything about it.

View attachment 642324

Hey…their green technology sucks ass…but they hired the first ever dog fetish tranny to the Biden administration so….

 

[BlueGin]

Why does everything the Dims touch immediately turn to shit?

Because they are simplistic morons that don’t live in reality.

 

[ding]

The solar system owner will get a good deal more than a free car charge from those panels. And there IS value to having NOT emitted greenhouse gases.

Why don't you have them then?

 

[Crick]

Because they are simplistic morons that don’t live in reality.

Attempting to make such unfounded and overly broad generalizations marks your comment as self-referential.

 

[BULLDOG]

Ummmmm
Most green technologies which focus on carbon emissions that are quickly absorbed by nature....
Are highly dependent upon silicon wafers and aluminum. Both of which cause the environment to be polluted far beyond any supposed help to clean things up. Then there's the plastics and oil used to produce them. The whole "green energy" thing is a scam.

We had two years where the use of petroleum products bottomed out...and it did NOTHING to reduce global warming or slow its advance.

So...until the greening weenies start discussing aluminum and electronics I really ignore them all. Because they are just puppets of wealthy elites playing politics.

You have every right to ignore the changes that are occuring. That won't slow those changes. You be you.

 

[JohnDB]

You have every right to ignore the changes that are occuring. That won't slow those changes. You be you.

I'm not ignoring the changes...

But CO² emissions lag the heating and cooling according to ice cores.

And the real culprits are aluminum and computer chips. Those gasses and chemicals stay around a while.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm not ignoring the changes...

But CO² emissions lag the heating and cooling according to ice cores.

And the real culprits are aluminum and computer chips. Those gasses and chemicals stay around a while.

I don't doubt your claims, but I don't have enough knowledge in that field to determine if they are pertinant to global climate change. I'm not one of those idiots who thinks 10 minutes with Google makes me a climate scientist, so it's a matter of credibility as to whom I believe. Should I believe the trained credentialed scientists, or should I believe some anonymous goober on the internet who has already demonstrated he will fall for countless conspericy theories? Which choice would you make?

 

[Crick]

Ummmmm
Most green technologies which focus on carbon emissions that are quickly absorbed by nature....
Are highly dependent upon silicon wafers and aluminum. Both of which cause the environment to be polluted far beyond any supposed help to clean things up. Then there's the plastics and oil used to produce them. The whole "green energy" thing is a scam.

We had two years where the use of petroleum products bottomed out...and it did NOTHING to reduce global warming or slow its advance.

So...until the greening weenies start discussing aluminum and electronics I really ignore them all. Because they are just puppets of wealthy elites playing politics.

Carbon emission are NOT quickly absorbed by nature. The shelf life of CO2 in the atmosphere is 300-1,000 years.

The amount of CO2 produced during the manufacture of solar panels and windmills is dwarfed by the amount of CO2 that would have been produced by equivalent fossil fuel tech over the lifetime of those alternative sources. Green energy is not a scam.

The use of fossil fuels was slightly curtailed by the pandemic but not to an extent that would have actually reduced the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. From Analysis: What impact will the coronavirus pandemic have on atmospheric CO2? - Carbon Brief

Our findings show that the annual average CO2 concentrations will still increase through this year, even though emissions are reducing. Across the whole year, we estimate CO2 levels will rise by 2.48 parts per million (ppm). This increase is 0.32ppm smaller than if there had been no lockdown – equivalent to 11% of the expected rise.

CO2 only inctreasing 89% as much as it would have without the pandemic is not going to produce an effect of any significance. Sorry, AGW is not refuted. The size of the problem is just difficult to grasp.

 

[ding]

Carbon emission are NOT quickly absorbed by nature.

Actually something like 50% of CO2 emissions are absorbed very quickly by the ocean and plants.

Or haven't you compared the total CO2 emissions to the change in atmospheric CO2?

 

[Crick]

Actually something like 50% of CO2 emissions are absorbed very quickly by the ocean and plants.

Or haven't you compared the total CO2 emissions to the change in atmospheric CO2?

Are you disputing the shelf life figures I gave? Then let's see some numbers and a link to a reputable source.

 

[ding]

Are you disputing the shelf life figures I gave? Then let's see some numbers and a link to a reputable source.

I'm disputing your implication that that applies to 100% of CO2 emissions.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm disputing your implication that that applies to 100% of CO2 emissions.

I am in awe of you Google experts who get a complete understanding of complex fields of study, including all the intricacies of evaluating relevant data with just 10 to 15 minutes at the internet, and a couple of specifically worded search phrases. It takes a special kind of person to do that, and gain all the credibility of those who have dedicated many years to study. You constantly demonstrate just how special you are.

 

[ding]

I am in awe of you Google experts who get a complete understanding of complex fields of study, including all the intricacies of evaluating relevant data with just 10 to 15 minutes at the internet, and a couple of specifically worded search phrases. It takes a special kind of person to do that, and gain all the credibility of those who have dedicated many years to study. You constantly demonstrate just how special you are.

How do you not know this is what I want to know. It's even discussed in the IPCC's reports.

Have you read the IPCC's reports?

 

[Crick]

I'm disputing your implication that that applies to 100% of CO2 emissions.

If you saw such an implication it was a product of your own imagination. From NASA's The Atmosphere: Getting a Handle on Carbon Dioxide – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet.

Changes to our atmosphere associated with reactive gases (gases that undergo chemical reactions) like ozone and ozone-forming chemicals like nitrous oxides, are relatively short-lived. Carbon dioxide is a different animal, however. Once it’s added to the atmosphere, it hangs around, for a long time: between 300 to 1,000 years. Thus, as humans change the atmosphere by emitting carbon dioxide, those changes will endure on the timescale of many human lives.

If you have a source that gives significantly different numbers, please provide a link.

 

[BULLDOG]

How do you not know this is what I want to know. It's even discussed in the IPCC's reports.

Have you read the IPCC's reports?

Are they on Google? Can I read all I need to read in 10 minutes?