OT: Electric cars actually burn fossil fuels

[Commander Kinsey]

I can't believe this. In a forum, I cannot convince someone of this very simple logic:

Any addition to the power load is going to add fossil fuel consumption, as we already use all the wind and solar that can be generated. Imagine the electric cars we currently have went away, what would change in electricity generation? They'd have to generate less. They'd switch off some fossil fuel power stations, they certainly wouldn't turn off the cheaper to run solar and wind! Therefore the electric cars we currently have are burning fossil fuels!

[Brian]

Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

> environmentalists were at the back of the queue for brains as far as I
> can see. Which will be a self limiting problem in the long term.
>

They are simply useful idiots being used by people determined to wreck our
economy.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 11:23:17 +0100, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 10:50:44 +0100, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>

> environmentalists were at the back of the queue for brains as far as I
> can see. Which will be a self limiting problem in the long term.

If they want to make everything green, the first thing they should have done is invest in huge amounts of renewables, THEN add more load to the grid with cars once they have that in place.

Anyway at current prices, there's no way I'm coughing up my money to go electric, those cars cost a fortune.

[Commander Kinsey]

It's already wrecked, at this rate we'll be using exercise bicycles to generate electricity.

[Jack Harry Teesdale]

As a matter of conjecture, that is only true for EV's charged in the
daytime.

EV's charged overnight are less likely to cause fossil fuels to be
burned due to the lower demand at that time of day and more likely to be
supplied within the nuclear base load generation, for now at least.

[Commander Kinsey]

The nuclear generation is always active. I looked at the UK national grid meters in the middle of the night, and saw a fair amount of gas being used. Take away the EVs, that gas would be switched off. The demand is surprisingly even, comparing winter/summer and day/night and weekday/weekend. https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

[T]

That is why their other name is "Coal Powered Rolling
Fire Bombs"

[Paul]

On 6/19/2022 5:50 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> I can't believe this.  In a forum, I cannot convince someone of this very simple logic:
>
> Any addition to the power load is going to add fossil fuel consumption, as we already use all the wind and solar that can be generated.  Imagine the electric cars we currently have went away, what would change in electricity generation? They'd have to generate less. They'd switch off some fossil fuel power stations, they certainly wouldn't turn off the cheaper to run solar and wind! Therefore the electric cars we currently have are burning fossil fuels!

I know logic is not your strong suit, but the deal is,
not everything in life is "synchronized for your delight".

Technical developments occur independently of one another.

Some areas of our society are backward, and can't keep up (power gen).
We have to improve there.

BEVs mean nothing to me, because I cannot afford one.

But that does not mean I don't think they are essential
to the future.

*******

A disturbing trend here, is our ICE fleet is "going backwards".
The government stopped enforcing pollution controls. Nobody
checks the emissions of cars.

When I drive a bicycle on the street now, I can *smell the petrol*.
That's not supposed to happen. The invention of the three-way
catalytic converter and stoichiometric combustion was
supposed to stop that. All that is supposed to come out of
a warmed-up car, is CO2 and H2O. The CO, the NOx, the VOC,
is supposed to drop to close to zero.

With no one to enforce these rules any more here (tards in
the wheelhouse, so to speak), people just do whatever the
fuck they feel like. Cut off the cat, put in a straight pipe.
No one to enforce noise ordinances. Back when there were
yearly inspections, a tech could put the car on a hoist
and spot a missing cat.

And then we look at the pathetic lines painted on the road.

If we can smell petrol at street level, that means we're
violating our VOC rules. Then, on the other hand, local
government sez "we can't use good paint on the street
lines because of these VOC rules". Well, if the street
is to smell of petrol all the time, why the fuck can't
we have oil based paints again ? Come on, let your
hair down and paint us some lines.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/road-line-paint-ottawa-1.4783641
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-s-fading-road-markings-causing-concerns-1.1212091

*******

The invention of the BEV, means you *cannot cheat*.
You cannot cut the catalytic converter off and insert
a straight pipe. You cannot insert an electronic box to
fool the pollution control system. Because the vehicle at
street level, does not have petrol on board.

That is worth something.

Smog in Mumbai
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQk24IAX4AEPE4v?format=jpg&name=900x900

Smog in Beijing
https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/beijing-smog-1.jpg

Smog in Los Angeles (1975)
https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*Y2Ev0QaEDbZeRIFPi7Qy3A.jpeg

Smog in London
https://static.standard.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2012/03/16/12/London%20smog.gif?width=1024&auto=webp&quality=50&crop=968%3A645%2Csmart

Were you ever a jogger or runner ? [I was]

Have you ever experiences the after affects
of running in smog ?

Wouldn't it be nice to breathe relatively clean air ?

Now, fix the power system. It's either going to happen
by evolution or revolution, but... it'll happen.

This is our pipe-cleaner project (test out SMR and see what
project cost and delivery are like). I doubt this is a realistic
plan, but at least it isn't a coal plant. Part of the fun
will be seeing what the cost overruns are like. Our last hydro
project here, was 70% over budget (making a visible bulge in
the area residents monthly power bill to pay it off).

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/smr-nuclear-power-provinces-canada-1.6399928

"Four provincial governments..."
"SMRs generate between 200 and 300 megawatts"

Total output is peanuts. But you have to start somewhere.

Paul

[Frank]

On 6/19/2022 6:23 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 10:50:44 +0100, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>

> environmentalists were at the back of the queue for brains as far as I
> can see. Which will be a self limiting problem in the long term.

The huge mistake is letting politicians make technical decisions.

[The Natural Philosopher]

The huge mistake is in letting politicians make decisions. *We* should
make the decisions, the politicians should implement them.

--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 12:20:49 +0100, Paul <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 6/19/2022 5:50 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> I can't believe this. In a forum, I cannot convince someone of this very simple logic:
>>
>> Any addition to the power load is going to add fossil fuel consumption, as we already use all the wind and solar that can be generated. Imagine the electric cars we currently have went away, what would change in electricity generation? They'd have to generate less. They'd switch off some fossil fuel power stations, they certainly wouldn't turn off the cheaper to run solar and wind! Therefore the electric cars we currently have are burning fossil fuels!
>
> I know logic is not your strong suit, but the deal is,
> not everything in life is "synchronized for your delight".
>
> Technical developments occur independently of one another.
>
> Some areas of our society are backward, and can't keep up (power gen).
> We have to improve there.
>
> BEVs mean nothing to me, because I cannot afford one.
>
> But that does not mean I don't think they are essential
> to the future.

The future yes, but it's pointless making them a decade before we're using renewable energy.

> *******
>
> A disturbing trend here, is our ICE

That used to mean in car entertainment in a classified ad.

> fleet is "going backwards".
> The government stopped enforcing pollution controls. Nobody
> checks the emissions of cars.

Since you said petrol in the next line, I'm going to assume you're British. Er.... we have MOTs.

> When I drive a bicycle on the street now, I can *smell the petrol*.
> That's not supposed to happen. The invention of the three-way
> catalytic converter and stoichiometric combustion was
> supposed to stop that. All that is supposed to come out of
> a warmed-up car, is CO2 and H2O. The CO, the NOx, the VOC,
> is supposed to drop to close to zero.

No, it just reduces them. Whatever gave you the idea catalytic convertors were perfect? In fact when they engine is cold they're meant to make it worse.

> With no one to enforce these rules any more here (tards in
> the wheelhouse, so to speak), people just do whatever the
> fuck they feel like. Cut off the cat, put in a straight pipe.
> No one to enforce noise ordinances.

I was stopped recently for a tiny hole in my exhaust.

> Back when there were
> yearly inspections, a tech could put the car on a hoist
> and spot a missing cat.

Clearly you're not British, there is an annual MOT in the UK.

This MAY change to two years, but why shouldn't it?

> And then we look at the pathetic lines painted on the road.

Too many lines, especially those stupid cycle lanes. And round here to "prevent" people from going round a medium sized roundabout two at a time.

> If we can smell petrol at street level, that means we're
> violating our VOC rules. Then, on the other hand, local
> government sez "we can't use good paint on the street
> lines because of these VOC rules". Well, if the street
> is to smell of petrol all the time, why the fuck can't
> we have oil based paints again ? Come on, let your
> hair down and paint us some lines.

Petrol isn't harmful to inhale.

> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/road-line-paint-ottawa-1.4783641
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-s-fading-road-markings-causing-concerns-1.1212091
>
> *******
>
> The invention of the BEV, means you *cannot cheat*.
> You cannot cut the catalytic converter off and insert
> a straight pipe. You cannot insert an electronic box to
> fool the pollution control system. Because the vehicle at
> street level, does not have petrol on board.
>
> That is worth something.
>
> Smog in Mumbai
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQk24IAX4AEPE4v?format=jpg&name=900x900
>
> Smog in Beijing
> https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/beijing-smog-1.jpg
>
> Smog in Los Angeles (1975)
> https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*Y2Ev0QaEDbZeRIFPi7Qy3A.jpeg
>
> Smog in London
> https://static.standard.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2012/03/16/12/London%20smog.gif?width=1024&auto=webp&quality=50&crop=968%3A645%2Csmart
>
> Were you ever a jogger or runner ? [I was]
>
> Have you ever experiences the after affects
> of running in smog ?

I run in the countryside because I'm not a moron. I wouldn't run along hard pavements even if there were no cars.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 12:44:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 19/06/2022 12:25, Frank wrote:
>> On 6/19/2022 6:23 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 10:50:44 +0100, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>
>>>> I can't believe this. In a forum, I cannot convince someone of this
>>>> very simple logic:
>>>>
>>>> Any addition to the power load is going to add fossil fuel consumption,
>>>> as we already use all the wind and solar that can be generated. Imagine
>>>> the electric cars we currently have went away, what would change in
>>>> electricity generation? They'd have to generate less. They'd switch off
>>>> some fossil fuel power stations, they certainly wouldn't turn off the
>>>> cheaper to run solar and wind! Therefore the electric cars we currently
>>>> have are burning fossil fuels!
>>>
>>> environmentalists were at the back of the queue for brains as far as I
>>> can see. Which will be a self limiting problem in the long term.
>>
>> The huge mistake is letting politicians make technical decisions.
>
> The huge mistake is in letting politicians make decisions. *We* should
> make the decisions, the politicians should implement them.

Indeed, in this century it would be easy for us to vote on every single matter.

[Richard]

On 19/06/2022 12:20, Paul wrote:
> On 6/19/2022 5:50 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> I can't believe this.  In a forum, I cannot convince someone of this
>> very simple logic:
>>
>> Any addition to the power load is going to add fossil fuel
>> consumption, as we already use all the wind and solar that can be
>> generated.  Imagine the electric cars we currently have went away,
>> what would change in electricity generation? They'd have to generate
>> less. They'd switch off some fossil fuel power stations, they
>> certainly wouldn't turn off the cheaper to run solar and wind!
>> Therefore the electric cars we currently have are burning fossil fuels!
>
> I know logic is not your strong suit, but the deal is,
> not everything in life is "synchronized for your delight".
>
> Technical developments occur independently of one another.
>
> Some areas of our society are backward, and can't keep up (power gen).
> We have to improve there.
>
> BEVs mean nothing to me, because I cannot afford one.
>
> But that does not mean I don't think they are essential
> to the future.
>
> *******
>
> A disturbing trend here, is our ICE fleet is "going backwards".
> The government stopped enforcing pollution controls. Nobody
> checks the emissions of cars.

In the UK they do.

>
> When I drive a bicycle on the street now, I can *smell the petrol*.
> That's not supposed to happen. The invention of the three-way
> catalytic converter and stoichiometric combustion was
> supposed to stop that. All that is supposed to come out of
> a warmed-up car, is CO2 and H2O. The CO, the NOx, the VOC,
> is supposed to drop to close to zero.

That's the benefit of living in America.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 6/19/2022 7:44 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 19/06/2022 12:25, Frank wrote:
>> On 6/19/2022 6:23 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 10:50:44 +0100, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>
>>>> I can't believe this.  In a forum, I cannot convince someone of this
>>>> very simple logic:
>>>>
>>>> Any addition to the power load is going to add fossil fuel consumption,
>>>> as we already use all the wind and solar that can be generated.
>>>> Imagine
>>>> the electric cars we currently have went away, what would change in
>>>> electricity generation? They'd have to generate less. They'd switch off
>>>> some fossil fuel power stations, they certainly wouldn't turn off the
>>>> cheaper to run solar and wind! Therefore the electric cars we currently
>>>> have are burning fossil fuels!
>>>
>>> environmentalists were at the back of the queue for brains as far as I
>>> can see. Which will be a self limiting problem in the long term.
>>
>> The huge mistake is letting politicians make technical decisions.
>
> The huge mistake is in letting politicians make decisions. *We* should
> make the decisions, the politicians should implement them.
>

Who is "we"? There are a lot of idiots making dumb decisions. Just
look at the idiots "we"vote into congress. Technical issues are not
something to go to popular vote, lets get experts with some real knowledge.

[The Natural Philosopher]

That of course is what leads to massive corruption. Far fewer people to
buy to get what you want.

In the end it all boils down to whom you trust. Politician, expert or
common sense.

Common sense tells you its not getting warmer, and renewable energy
simply trebles your electricity bill.


--
It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Mark Twain

[Ed Pawlowski]

Common sense show it is getting warmer and renewable energy can reduce
your electric bill. Just look at the ice being lost every year at the
poles.

I buy a fix amount of my electric as solar generated. In the winter
with less sun I lose about $3 a month. In sunny months like now, I gain
$10 a month.

[Peeler]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 10:50:44 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (aka "Commander Kinsey",
"James Wilkinson", "Steven Wanker","Bruce Farquar", "Fred Johnson, etc.),
the pathological resident idiot and attention whore of all the uk ngs,
blathered again:

<FLUSH the subnormal sociopathic trolling attention whore's latest
attention-baiting sick bullshit unread again>

--
damdu...@yahoo.co.uk about Birdbrain Macaw's (now "Commander Kinsey" LOL)
trolling:
"He is a well known attention seeking troll and every reply you
make feeds him.
Starts many threads most of which die quick as on the UK groups anyone
with sense Kill filed him ages ago which is why he now cross posts to
the US groups for a new audience.
This thread was unusual in that it derived and continued without him
to a large extent and his silly questioning is an attempt to get
noticed again."
MID: <be195d5jh0hktj054...@4ax.com>

--
ItsJoanNotJoann addressing Birdbrain Macaw's (now "Commander Kinsey" LOL):
"You're an annoying troll and I'm done with you and your
stupidity."
MID: <e39a6a7f-9677-4e78...@googlegroups.com>

--
AndyW addressing Birdbrain:
"Troll or idiot?...
You have been presented with a viewpoint with information, reasoning,
historical cases, citations and references to back it up and wilfully
ignore all going back to your idea which has no supporting information."
MID: <KaToA.263621$g93.2...@fx10.am4>

--
Phil Lee adressing Birdbrain Macaw:
"You are too stupid to be wasting oxygen."
MID: <uv2u4clurscpat3g2...@4ax.com>

--
Phil Lee describing Birdbrain Macaw:
"I've never seen such misplaced pride in being a fucking moronic motorist."
MID: <j7fb6ct83igfd1g99...@4ax.com>

--
Tony944 addressing Birdbrain Macaw:
"I seen and heard many people but you are on top of list being first class
ass hole jerk. ...You fit under unconditional Idiot and should be put in
mental institution.
MID: <VLCdnYC5HK1Z4S3F...@giganews.com>

--
Pelican to Birdbrain Macaw:
"Ok. I'm persuaded . You are an idiot."
MID: <obru31$nao$3...@dont-email.me>

--
DerbyDad03 addressing Birdbrain Macaw (now "Commander Kinsey" LOL):
"Frigging Idiot. Get the hell out of my thread."
MID: <4d907253-b3b9-40d4...@googlegroups.com>

--
Kerr Mudd-John about Birdbrain Macaw (now "Commander Kinsey LOL):
"It's like arguing with a demented frog."
MID: <op.yy3c0...@dell3100.workgroup>

--
Mr Pounder Esquire about Birdbrain Macaw (now "Commander Kinsey" LOL):
"the piss poor delivery boy with no hot running water, 11 cats and
several parrots living in his hovel."
MID: <odqtgc$iug$1...@dont-email.me>

--
Rob Morley about Birdbrain:
"He's a perennial idiot"
MID: <20170519215057.56a1f1d4@Mars>

--
JoeyDee to Birdbrain
"I apologize for thinking you were a jerk. You're just someone with an IQ
lower than your age, and I accept that as a reason for your comments."
MID: <0001HW.1EE2D20300...@news.eternal-september.org>

--
Sam Plusnet about Birdbrain (now "Commander Kinsey" LOL):
"He's just desperate to be noticed. Any attention will do, no matter how
negative it may be."
MID: <rOmdndd_O7u8iK7E...@brightview.co.uk>

--
thekma...@gmail.com asking Birdbrain:
"What, were you dropped on your head as a child?"
MID: <58ddfad5-d9a5-4031...@googlegroups.com>

--
Christie addressing endlessly driveling Birdbrain Macaw (now "Commander
Kinsey" LOL):
"What are you resurrecting that old post of mine for? It's from last
month some time. You're like a dog who's just dug up an old bone they
hid in the garden until they were ready to have another go at it."
MID: <59d8b0db...@news.eternal-september.org>

--
Mr Pounder's fitting description of Birdbrain Macaw:
"You are a well known fool, a tosser, a pillock, a stupid unemployable
sponging failure who will always live alone and will die alone. You will not
be missed."
MID: <orree6$on2$1...@dont-email.me>

--
Richard to pathetic wanker Hucker:
"You haven't bred?
Only useful thing you've done in your pathetic existence."
MID: <orvctf$l5m$1...@gioia.aioe.org>

--
cl...@snyder.on.ca about Birdbrain (now "Commander Kinsey" LOL):
""not the sharpest knife in the drawer"'s parents sure made a serious
mistake having him born alive -- A total waste of oxygen, food, space,
and bandwidth."
MID: <s5e9uclqpnabteheh...@4ax.com>

--
Mr Pounder exposing sociopathic Birdbrain:
"You will always be a lonely sociopath living in a shithole with no hot
running water with loads of stinking cats and a few parrots."
MID: <os5m1i$8m1$1...@dont-email.me>

--
francis about Birdbrain (now "Commander Kinsey" LOL):
"He seems to have a reputation as someone of limited intelligence"
MID: <cf06cdd9-8bb8-469c...@googlegroups.com>

--
Peter Moylan about Birdbrain (now "Commander Kinsey" LOL):
"If people like JWS didn't exist, we would have to find some other way to
explain the concept of "invincible ignorance"."
MID: <otofc8$tbg$2...@dont-email.me>

--
Lewis about nym-shifting Birdbrain:
"Typical narcissist troll, thinks his shit is so grand he has the right to
try to force it on everyone
MID: <slrnq16c27....@jaka.local>

[Peeler]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 10:23:17 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk, another mentally
deficient troll-feeding senile idiot, blathered:

> environmentalists were at the back of the queue for brains as far as I
> can see. Which will be a self limiting problem in the long term.

And troll-feeding senile ASSHOLE no. 1 came hopping along to feed the
trolling wanker and attention whore again! <BG>

[Peeler]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 11:48:16 +0100, Jack Harry Teesdale, yet another brain
damaged, troll-feeding senile ASSHOLE, blathered:

> As a matter of conjecture, that is only true for EV's charged in the
> daytime.

As a matter of conjecture, you are just another mentally deficient
troll-feeding senile asshole, senile twit!

[Peeler]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 04:13:49 -0700, T(wat), the idiotic trolling and
troll-feeding senile asshole, babbled again:

> That is why their other name is "Coal Powered Rolling
> Fire Bombs"

And that is why YOU are a miserable troll-feeding senile TWAT, T(wat)! <BG>

[Peeler]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 07:20:49 -0400, Paul, yet another troll-feeding senile
twit, babbled:

> I know logic is not your strong suit, but the deal is,
> not everything in life is "synchronized for your delight".

HIS delight is that he gets you senile assholes to feed him, every single
time he wants to be fed by one of you senile assholes!

[trader_4]

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 5:50:54 AM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> I can't believe this. In a forum, I cannot convince someone of this very simple logic:
>
> Any addition to the power load is going to add fossil fuel consumption, as we already use all the wind and solar that can be generated. Imagine the electric cars we currently have went away, what would change in electricity generation? They'd have to generate less. They'd switch off some fossil fuel power stations, they certainly wouldn't turn off the cheaper to run solar and wind! Therefore the electric cars we currently have are burning fossil fuels!

This is obvious BS. You completely ignored nuclear power. We could generate all the electricity we
need from nuclear, we just need to do it. The problem is that the same folks that are telling us the world
is going to end soon from CO2 don't want nuclear, they claim it's not safe, bad for the environment.
Which makes no sense, because if climate change is going to doom the planet, then clearly nuclear
should be an acceptable alternative, one that could significantly reduce our CO2 in the short term.

[Commander Kinsey]

It's a tremendous benefit, not to have to waste money on your car every year when it's still running just fine.

[Commander Kinsey]

I agree we should be using nuclear, but that doesn't make what I said bullshit. Until there is clean power available, making electric cars is just burning more fossil fuels.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 14:13:34 +0100, trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

I agree we should be using nuclear, but that doesn't make what I said bullshit. Until there is clean power available, making electric cars is just burning more fossil fuels.

Posted again since trader4 doesn't know how to operate a newsreader and deleted uk.d-i-y. Moron.

[Commander Kinsey]

Biassed bribed experts? No thanks. I'd rather have the idiot next door voting than some clown in parliament.

Anyway, we're all free to consult experts.

[Commander Kinsey]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_versus_less
"this rule does not correctly describe the most common usage of today or the past and in fact arose as an incorrect generalization of a personal preference expressed by a grammarian in 1770"

> people to buy to get what you want.
>

> In the end it all boils down to who you trust. Politician, expert or

> common sense.
>
> Common sense tells you its not getting warmer, and renewable energy
> simply trebles your electricity bill.

They claim renewable is 5p/kWh. Funny how that is not what I'm paying.

[John Doe]

Off topic troll...

--
"Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Path: not-for-mail
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes
> Newsgroups: alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y
> Subject: OT: Electric cars actually burn fossil fuels
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> From: "Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com>
> Message-ID: <op.1nz8a...@ryzen.home>
> User-Agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32)
> X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 220619-2, 19/6/2022), Outbound message
> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
> Lines: 3
> X-Complaints-To: abuse(at)newshosting.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2022 09:50:46 UTC
> Organization: Newshosting.com - Highest quality at a great price! www.newshosting.com
> Bytes: 1212
> Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2022 10:50:44 +0100
> X-Received-Bytes: 1335

[Commander Kinsey]

I have senses, I can tell the temperature when I go outside. It's the same as it always has been.

> and renewable energy can reduce your electric bill.

It most certainly does not, I used to be able to choose green energy form my supplier, it cost more. They had green, standard, and nuclear. I chose nuclear as it was the cheapest.

> Just look at the ice being lost every year at the poles.

I don't live there, I don't care.

> I buy a fix amount of my electric as solar generated. In the winter
> with less sun I lose about $3 a month. In sunny months like now, I gain
> $10 a month.

Wow, you must be really rich.

[Peeler]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 06:13:34 -0700 (PDT), tardo_4, the notorious,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blathered again:


> This is obvious BS.

No, tardo_4, it's another troll set out by the attention-starved Scottish
wanker and sociopath for all the troll-feeding senile assholes on ahr! <BG>

[Edward Hernandez]

In message-id <t6nt3e$7bp$3...@dont-email.me>
(http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=165357273000) posted Thu, 26 May 2022
12:50:54 -0000 (UTC) John Doe stated:

> Always Wrong, the utterly foulmouthed group idiot, adding absolutely
> NOTHING but insults to this thread, as usual...

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe's post ratio to
USENET (**) has been 61.9% of its posts contributing "nothing except
insults" to USENET.

** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe has posted at
least 1945 articles to USENET. Of which 173 have been pure insults and
1031 have been John Doe "troll format" postings.

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4...@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1...@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has continued to post incorrectly
formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
Sun, 19 Jun 2022 13:29:59 GMT in message-id
<rxFrK.346221$%OV1....@usenetxs.com>).

NOBODY likes the John Doe troll's contentless spam.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that Troll Doe does not even follow
the rules it uses to troll other posters.

B2/HrjSqQMrw

[Frank]

He is just parroting what his liberal leaders tell him.

[Frank]

The same crowd that wants to eliminate fossil fuels does not want
nuclear and work just as hard to keep it out.

[Brian Gaff]

That is one view, certainly. That is why we need to get rid of non
renewable. The problem is that the market for Electric cars has built up
fast, but the ability to generate from renewable takes time and of course is
not available all the time, meaning we need a back up.
Yesterday I watched a programme about electric aircraft that used hydrogen
fuel cells for cruise, but batteries at take off. So how are they making
this hydrogen, I said to the TV, but nobody told me. Its a quite energy
intensive job at the moment of course, so until its not, I fear they are
never going to be able to use fuel cells, never mind the problem of their
inefficiency, producing heat as a by product of converting hydrogen into
water and electricity, but using oxygen from the air of course.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:op.1nz8a...@ryzen.home...

[Peeler]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 15:57:08 +0100, Brainless & Daft, the notorious,
troll-feeding senile idiot, blathered again:

> That is one view, certainly.

Yes, YOU were still missing on the long list of troll-feeding senile
assholes in this thread, you miserable disgusting troll-feeding senile
cretin! Where have you been so long? You are usually among the first to feed
the clinically insane trolling attention whore. <G>

[Peeler]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 10:26:45 -0400, REAL dumb Frankie Boi blathered again:

> He is just parroting what his liberal leaders tell him.

Says the senile Trumptard to the trolling attention whore who has the
"brain" of a parrot! Fucking stupid senile assholes in this poor newsgroup.
<BG>

[Peeler]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 10:29:22 -0400, REAL dumb Frankie Boi blathered again:

> The same crowd that wants to eliminate fossil fuels does not want
> nuclear and work just as hard to keep it out.

What's this shit now about, REAL dumb senile Frankie Boi? Simply babbling
away in your senile manner, you troll-feeding senile shithead?

[T]

https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2021/10/918/516/hypocrisy-exposed-.jpg

[rbowman]

On 06/19/2022 05:59 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 12:44:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 19/06/2022 12:25, Frank wrote:

>>> On 6/19/2022 6:23 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:

>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 10:50:44 +0100, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I can't believe this. In a forum, I cannot convince someone of this
>>>>> very simple logic:
>>>>>
>>>>> Any addition to the power load is going to add fossil fuel
>>>>> consumption,
>>>>> as we already use all the wind and solar that can be generated.
>>>>> Imagine
>>>>> the electric cars we currently have went away, what would change in
>>>>> electricity generation? They'd have to generate less. They'd switch
>>>>> off
>>>>> some fossil fuel power stations, they certainly wouldn't turn off the
>>>>> cheaper to run solar and wind! Therefore the electric cars we
>>>>> currently
>>>>> have are burning fossil fuels!
>>>>

>>>> environmentalists were at the back of the queue for brains as far as I
>>>> can see. Which will be a self limiting problem in the long term.
>>>
>>> The huge mistake is letting politicians make technical decisions.
>>
>> The huge mistake is in letting politicians make decisions. *We* should
>> make the decisions, the politicians should implement them.
>

> Indeed, in this century it would be easy for us to vote on every single
> matter.

Are you sure you want that? In this country 81 million people allegedly
voted for a senile politician who was incompetent on the best day of his
career.

[rbowman]

On 06/19/2022 06:48 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> On 6/19/2022 7:44 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 19/06/2022 12:25, Frank wrote:
>>> On 6/19/2022 6:23 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 10:50:44 +0100, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I can't believe this. In a forum, I cannot convince someone of this
>>>>> very simple logic:
>>>>>
>>>>> Any addition to the power load is going to add fossil fuel
>>>>> consumption,
>>>>> as we already use all the wind and solar that can be generated.
>>>>> Imagine
>>>>> the electric cars we currently have went away, what would change in
>>>>> electricity generation? They'd have to generate less. They'd switch
>>>>> off
>>>>> some fossil fuel power stations, they certainly wouldn't turn off the
>>>>> cheaper to run solar and wind! Therefore the electric cars we
>>>>> currently
>>>>> have are burning fossil fuels!
>>>>
>>>> environmentalists were at the back of the queue for brains as far as I
>>>> can see. Which will be a self limiting problem in the long term.
>>>
>>> The huge mistake is letting politicians make technical decisions.
>>
>> The huge mistake is in letting politicians make decisions. *We* should
>> make the decisions, the politicians should implement them.
>>
>

> Who is "we"? There are a lot of idiots making dumb decisions. Just
> look at the idiots "we"vote into congress. Technical issues are not
> something to go to popular vote, lets get experts with some real knowledge.

That has its problems also.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/theeconomists.htm

400 Ph.D economists, including Yellen, and none of them saw inflation as
the outcome of pouring money into the economy?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Ice is being gained at the south pole

> I buy a fix amount of my electric as solar generated.  In the winter
> with less sun I lose about $3 a month.  In sunny months like now, I gain
> $10 a month.

Numpty


--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

[The Natural Philosopher]

No one had any better choice.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 19/06/2022 15:57, Brian Gaff wrote:
> That is one view, certainly. That is why we need to get rid of non
> renewable. The problem is that the market for Electric cars has built up
> fast, but the ability to generate from renewable takes time and of course is
> not available all the time, meaning we need a back up.

Deluded.

> Yesterday I watched a programme

So you aren't really blind after all.

about electric aircraft that used hydrogen
> fuel cells for cruise, but batteries at take off. So how are they making
> this hydrogen, I said to the TV, but nobody told me. Its a quite energy
> intensive job at the moment of course, so until its not, I fear they are
> never going to be able to use fuel cells, never mind the problem of their
> inefficiency, producing heat as a by product of converting hydrogen into
> water and electricity, but using oxygen from the air of course.
> Brian
>


--

[rbowman]

On 06/19/2022 07:01 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 6/19/2022 8:53 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 19/06/2022 13:48, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

>>> On 6/19/2022 7:44 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 19/06/2022 12:25, Frank wrote:
>>>>> On 6/19/2022 6:23 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 10:50:44 +0100, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't believe this. In a forum, I cannot convince someone of this
>>>>>>> very simple logic:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any addition to the power load is going to add fossil fuel
>>>>>>> consumption,
>>>>>>> as we already use all the wind and solar that can be generated.
>>>>>>> Imagine
>>>>>>> the electric cars we currently have went away, what would change in
>>>>>>> electricity generation? They'd have to generate less. They'd
>>>>>>> switch off
>>>>>>> some fossil fuel power stations, they certainly wouldn't turn off
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> cheaper to run solar and wind! Therefore the electric cars we
>>>>>>> currently
>>>>>>> have are burning fossil fuels!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> environmentalists were at the back of the queue for brains as far
>>>>>> as I
>>>>>> can see. Which will be a self limiting problem in the long term.
>>>>>
>>>>> The huge mistake is letting politicians make technical decisions.
>>>>
>>>> The huge mistake is in letting politicians make decisions. *We*
>>>> should make the decisions, the politicians should implement them.
>>>>
>>>

>>> Who is "we"? There are a lot of idiots making dumb decisions. Just
>>> look at the idiots "we"vote into congress. Technical issues are not
>>> something to go to popular vote, lets get experts with some real
>>> knowledge.
>>
>> That of course is what leads to massive corruption. Far fewer people
>> to buy to get what you want.
>>
>> In the end it all boils down to whom you trust. Politician, expert or
>> common sense.
>>
>> Common sense tells you its not getting warmer, and renewable energy
>> simply trebles your electricity bill.
>>
>>
> Common sense show it is getting warmer and renewable energy can reduce
> your electric bill. Just look at the ice being lost every year at the
> poles.
>

> I buy a fix amount of my electric as solar generated. In the winter
> with less sun I lose about $3 a month. In sunny months like now, I gain
> $10 a month.

You live in Florida down around N28.5, right?

https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Florida/annual-days-of-sunshine.php

[Peeler]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 10:16:08 -0600, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

> Are you sure you want that?

Yep, he sure wants you to CONTINUE sucking him off passionately, you
abnormal troll cock sucking old whore!

--
More typical idiotic senile gossip by lowbrowwoman:
"It's been years since I've been in a fast food burger joint but I used
to like Wendy's because they had a salad bar and baked potatoes."
MID: <ivdi4g...@mid.individual.net>

[Peeler]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 10:35:35 -0600, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,

troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

> You live in Florida down around N28.5, right?

You happy that your Scottish wanker is back for you to suck him off again,
you devoted cocksucking old whore? <G>

[Peeler]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 10:25:03 -0600, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,

troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

> That has its problems also.

Your one big problem is your big mouth, senile cocksucker!

--
Gossiping "lowbrowwoman" about herself:
"Usenet is my blog... I don't give a damn if anyone ever reads my posts
but they are useful in marshaling [sic] my thoughts."
MID: <iteioi...@mid.individual.net>

[rbowman]

On 06/19/2022 08:57 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
> That is one view, certainly. That is why we need to get rid of non
> renewable. The problem is that the market for Electric cars has built up
> fast, but the ability to generate from renewable takes time and of course is
> not available all the time, meaning we need a back up.
> Yesterday I watched a programme about electric aircraft that used hydrogen
> fuel cells for cruise, but batteries at take off. So how are they making
> this hydrogen, I said to the TV, but nobody told me. Its a quite energy
> intensive job at the moment of course, so until its not, I fear they are
> never going to be able to use fuel cells, never mind the problem of their
> inefficiency, producing heat as a by product of converting hydrogen into
> water and electricity, but using oxygen from the air of course.
> Brian
>

https://www.zeroavia.com/

In my field we call it vaporware... The schematic shows the hydrogen
being produced by electrolysis, compressed, and stored in tanks on the
aircraft.

The first problem is green hydrogen production is currently expensive.
Green hydrogen accounts for about 1% of production. The rest is made by
steam reforming of natural gas, a fossil fuel.

Then the hydrogen must be compressed to around 10,000 psi. Carbon fiber
technology has made the tanks more efficient but it's still around a ten
to one ratio; i.e. a tank capable of holding 1 lb of hydrogen weighs 10
lbs. That's a problem for terrestrial vehicles let alone aircraft.

Then there is the need for rare metals as catalysts both for the
electrolysis and in the fuel cells.

Sure, it's all possible but I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

[Frank]

The brainless electing the brainless.

[Frank]

No matter the employer, and I have seen it with PhD scientists, people
tend to give the boss the answer he wants. I gave the story of the
state climatologist that said, when Mother Nature comes, you have to get
out of her way, being fired by the state Democrat governor.

[John Doe]

Eddie, the Astraweb nym-shifting stalker is flagging off-topic posts
with its forgery of my ID, then replies to its own forgery. Strange but true.

Eddie has never posted anything NORMAL except when it got a spanking...

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.electronics.repair/c/MesPLcGU4BE

See also...
John Doe <always.look message.header> (Astraweb, Aioe.org)
Peter Weiner <dtgamer99 gmail.com>
Edward H. <dtgamer99 gmail.com>
Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99 gmail.com>

--
John Doe <alway...@message.header> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx14.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: John Doe <alway...@message.header>
> Newsgroups: alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y,free.spam

> Subject: OT: Electric cars actually burn fossil fuels

> Followup-To: alt.test.group
> References: <op.1nz8a...@ryzen.home>
> Injection-Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2022 09:29:58 -0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="aefae07b417003b570527823e77a9930"; logging-data="29200"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18QBXYPJWay5G0R7zD10mjY5gUD5xOvt6I="
> User-Agent: Xnews/2006.08.05
> Lines: 28
> Message-ID: <rxFrK.346221$%OV1....@usenetxs.com>
> X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2022 13:29:59 UTC
> Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2022 13:29:59 GMT
> X-Received-Bytes: 2270
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org alt.home.repair:927269 uk.d-i-y:1190015 free.spam:19197

[Edward Hernandez]

In message-id <t6nt3e$7bp$3...@dont-email.me>
(http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=165357273000) posted Thu, 26 May 2022

12:50:54 -0000 (UTC) John Dope stated:

> Always Wrong, the utterly foulmouthed group idiot, adding absolutely
> NOTHING but insults to this thread, as usual...

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Dope's post ratio
to USENET (**) has been 62.0% of its posts contributing "nothing except
insults" to USENET.

** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Dope has posted at
least 1964 articles to USENET. Of which 173 have been pure insults and
1044 have been John Dope "troll format" postings.

The John Dope troll stated the following in message-id

<sdhn7c$pkp$4...@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Dope troll stated the following in message-id

<sg3kr7$qt5$1...@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Dope troll has continued to post incorrectly

formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on

Sun, 19 Jun 2022 17:41:25 -0000 (UTC) in message-id
<t8nn45$5j9$1...@dont-email.me>).

NOBODY likes the John Doe troll's contentless spam.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups

readers who happen by to point out that John Dope does not even follow

the rules it uses to troll other posters.

h/ffTBaqHepm

[Peeler]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 11:17:06 -0600, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,

troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

> In my field we call it vaporware.

In and outside my field they call you a gossiping washerwoman, senile
bigmouth!

--
Yet more of the very interesting senile blather by lowbrowwoman:
"My family loaded me into a '51 Chevy and drove from NY to Seattle and
back in '52. I'm alive. The Chevy had a painted steel dashboard with two
little hand prints worn down to the primer because I liked to stand up
and lean on it to see where we were going."
MID: <j2kuc1...@mid.individual.net>

[Bob F]

On 6/19/2022 4:20 AM, Paul wrote:

> On 6/19/2022 5:50 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> I can't believe this.  In a forum, I cannot convince someone of this
>> very simple logic:
>>
>> Any addition to the power load is going to add fossil fuel
>> consumption, as we already use all the wind and solar that can be
>> generated.  Imagine the electric cars we currently have went away,
>> what would change in electricity generation? They'd have to generate
>> less. They'd switch off some fossil fuel power stations, they
>> certainly wouldn't turn off the cheaper to run solar and wind!
>> Therefore the electric cars we currently have are burning fossil fuels!
>

> I know logic is not your strong suit, but the deal is,
> not everything in life is "synchronized for your delight".
>

Myth #1: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars
because of the power plant emissions.

FACT: Electric vehicles typically have a smaller carbon footprint
than gasoline cars, even when accounting for the electricity used for
charging.


Electric vehicles (EVs) have no tailpipe emissions. Generating the
electricity used to charge EVs, however, may create carbon pollution.
The amount varies widely based on how local power is generated, e.g.,
using coal or natural gas, which emit carbon pollution, versus renewable
resources like wind or solar, which do not. Even accounting for these
electricity emissions, research shows that an EV is typically
responsible for lower levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) than an average
new gasoline car. To the extent that more renewable energy sources like
wind and solar are used to generate electricity, the total GHGs
associated with EVs could be even lower. (In 2020, renewables became the
second-most prevalent U.S. electricity source.1 ) Learn more about
electricity production in your area by visiting EPA’s Power Profiler
interactive web page. By simply inputting your zip code, you can find
the energy mix in your region.

[Frank]

What you and others neglect are all the extra resources needed to make
the cars not to mention the windmills and solar panels.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Read the whole story
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/greenland-antarctica-are-gaining-ice-inland-losing-melting-overall

[Ed Pawlowski]

27.49 to be specific.
Florida Power and Light is installing a large batter pack too.

https://www.fpl.com/energy-my-way/battery-storage.html

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2021/12/16/florida-power-and-lights-409-mw-manatee-energy-storage-center-is-complete/

[Ed Pawlowski]

What you and others neglect is the studies that showed the facts from
cradle to grave EVs use less.

[%]

On 2022-06-19 5:48 a.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 6/19/2022 7:44 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 19/06/2022 12:25, Frank wrote:
>>> On 6/19/2022 6:23 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:

>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 10:50:44 +0100, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I can't believe this.  In a forum, I cannot convince someone of this
>>>>> very simple logic:
>>>>>
>>>>> Any addition to the power load is going to add fossil fuel
>>>>> consumption,
>>>>> as we already use all the wind and solar that can be generated.
>>>>> Imagine
>>>>> the electric cars we currently have went away, what would change in
>>>>> electricity generation? They'd have to generate less. They'd switch
>>>>> off
>>>>> some fossil fuel power stations, they certainly wouldn't turn off the
>>>>> cheaper to run solar and wind! Therefore the electric cars we
>>>>> currently
>>>>> have are burning fossil fuels!
>>>>

>>>> environmentalists were at the back of the queue for brains as far as I
>>>> can see. Which will be a self limiting problem in the long term.
>>>
>>> The huge mistake is letting politicians make technical decisions.
>>
>> The huge mistake is in letting politicians make decisions. *We* should
>> make the decisions, the politicians should implement them.
>>
>
> Who is "we"?  There are a lot of idiots making dumb decisions.  Just
> look at the idiots "we"vote into congress.  Technical issues are not
> something to go to popular vote, lets get experts with some real knowledge.

oh yea , where you going to get those

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 20/06/2022 03:46, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> What you and others neglect is the studies that showed the facts from
> cradle to grave EVs use less.

What you and others neglect is the studies that showed that really it
all makes bugger all difference to the climate.

Who benefits from electric cars and high fuel prices? Rich people
--
“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established
authorities are wrong.”

― Voltaire, The Age of Louis XIV

[The Natural Philosopher]

You do realise that battery packs are there to stabilise the grid
against frequency fluctuations and have absolutely zero impact on loss
of generating capacity at night or on calm days.

If you look at the fine print at best there is a total of 2GWh of
storage there.

About 45 minutes hours of a nuclear power stations output
Dinorwig has 9.1 GWh

It can be a power station for about 3 hours during the evening peak.

Its all hand wavy virtue signalling shit for ArtStudents™ who Cant Do Sums


--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason
they are poor.

Peter Thompson

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 19/06/2022 18:31, Frank wrote:
>> 400 Ph.D economists, including Yellen, and none of them saw inflation
>> as the outcome of pouring money into the economy?
>>
>
> No matter the employer, and I have seen it with PhD scientists, people
> tend to give the boss the answer he wants.  I gave the story of the
> state climatologist that said, when Mother Nature comes, you have to get
> out of her way, being fired by the state Democrat governor.

As my BIL - a PhD Geologist once remarked when I asked why he didn't
trumpet his findings on paleological climate change (which completely
contradicted the modern narrative) ...

"I am a public sector worker, I am employed by the government".


--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 19/06/2022 18:17, rbowman wrote:
>
> https://www.zeroavia.com/
>
> In my field we call it vaporware... The schematic shows the hydrogen
> being produced by electrolysis, compressed, and stored in tanks on the
> aircraft.
>
> The first problem is green hydrogen production is currently expensive.
> Green hydrogen accounts for about 1% of production. The rest is made by
> steam reforming of natural gas, a fossil fuel.
>
> Then the hydrogen must be compressed to around 10,000 psi. Carbon fiber
> technology has made the tanks more efficient but it's still around a ten
> to one ratio; i.e. a tank capable of holding 1 lb of hydrogen weighs 10
> lbs. That's a problem for terrestrial vehicles let alone aircraft.
>
> Then there is the need for rare metals as catalysts both for the
> electrolysis and in the fuel cells.
>
> Sure, it's all possible but I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

Steam powered aircraft are possible too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw6NFmcnW-8

As are man powered helicopters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syJq10EQkog

I am sure all it takes is a few million of public money to make them
ubiquitous
Or perhaps the European Court of Human Rights could repeal the laws of
physics on the grounds that they are simply unfair.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZfJywXiRyw

--
WOKE is an acronym... Without Originality, Knowledge or Education.

[Fredxx]

On 19/06/2022 11:33, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 11:23:17 +0100, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com>

> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 10:50:44 +0100, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>
>>> I can't believe this.  In a forum, I cannot convince someone of this
>>> very simple logic:
>>>
>>> Any addition to the power load is going to add fossil fuel consumption,
>>> as we already use all the wind and solar that can be generated.  Imagine
>>> the electric cars we currently have went away, what would change in
>>> electricity generation? They'd have to generate less. They'd switch off
>>> some fossil fuel power stations, they certainly wouldn't turn off the
>>> cheaper to run solar and wind! Therefore the electric cars we currently
>>> have are burning fossil fuels!
>>
>> environmentalists were at the back of the queue for brains as far as I
>> can see. Which will be a self limiting problem in the long term.
>

> If they want to make everything green, the first thing they should have
> done is invest in huge amounts of renewables,

No, they should have advocated investment in nuclear. We could have
become not only self-sufficient in power but also zero'd the burning of
carbon for energy.

[The Nomad]

^ this!

--
Dhblah sidled closer. This was not hard. Dhblah sidled everywhere. *Crabs*
thought he walked sideways.
(Small Gods)
Mon 10520 Sep 10:05:01 BST 1993
10:05:01 up 6 days, 22:01, 8 users, load average: 0.30, 0.51, 0.64

[The Natural Philosopher]

Precisely. The fact that the greens refuse to balance the very tiny real
risks of nuclear with the alleged existential threat of CO2 induced
climate change immediately shows you that whatever is now behind the
green movement, its not concern for carbon emissions.

It looks far more like a profiteering excuse to gain state monopolies on
energy.

Or a way to destroy Western civilisation.




--
“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy

[Frank]

as are most meteorologists.

[Frank]

On 6/20/2022 4:06 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 20/06/2022 03:46, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> What you and others neglect is the studies that showed the facts from
>> cradle to grave EVs use less.
> What you and others neglect is the studies that showed that really it
> all makes bugger all difference to the climate.
>
> Who benefits from electric cars and high fuel prices? Rich people

Our comments on scientists giving their employers what they want went by
them.

Car companies too are in favor of EV's as they can make more money from
them.

[Paul]

Battery packs also allow them to swing power imported from other power
companies.

For example, if there's a problem supporting the 8AM peak in the
morning, and the solar array at that hour is not producing, they
can import power the night before and charge up the battery as
desired, for the amount of consumption between 8AM and 9AM.

The battery pack, rather than being a ten day store, is an
arbitrage vehicle for reducing the bill to consumers. That
was one of the results from the Australian (tiny) one. It
makes a difference to spot pricing and strategies for such.

And the battery is roughly sized for a 24-hour operating cycle.
So they could collect the array power during the day, and
play it back at night. It's a "non-cheating" solar implementation,
not something you see very often. So rather than being an
Art Student implementation, that's a "minimum table stakes"
implementation that does not depend on other grid elements
to "hold it up".

If you had the money, that's how you'd build every last one
of them. Then you can saturate the grid with them if you want
(which nobody wants, because of the ten day problem).

As a kid, the longest period of cloudy weather I've experienced
was 30 days. It rained every fucking day for a month. The
whole family was depressed. Not at all pleasant. I doubt a
power system will ever be prepared with storage for that.

What they've done is a lot better than just building a
giant solar farm, and expecting phase angles on base load
equipment to "deal with it". The generator has different
capabilities on leading and lagging, and in one direction
there's only about 5 degrees of phase angle before the
generator starts to overheat. They cannot correct every
grid sin, using the generators. With the battery pack,
they can absorb all the output if they want, into the battery.
Until the battery is full of course. There's an assumption
when you own a setup like that, that you have good weather
prediction and load prediction capabilities. You have to be
able to accurately plan 24 hours in advance, for a 24 hour
system (only capable of managing power for the current day).

If you had that much storage for every Art Student power
source, you'd be laughing. It would almost work. Almost.
The guy running the system wouldn't have nearly as much
hair loss as they do now.

Paul

[Peeler]

On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 10:04:40 +0100, Fredxx, the notorious, troll-feeding,
senile smartass, smartassed yet again:

> No, they should have advocated investment in nuclear.

No, you should have just shut your stupid senile gob, you idiotic and
ridiculous troll-feeding senile smartass! <G>

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 15:29:22 +0100, Frank <"frank "@frank.net> wrote:

> On 6/19/2022 9:26 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 14:13:34 +0100, trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>>
>>> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 5:50:54 AM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>> I can't believe this. In a forum, I cannot convince someone of this
>>>> very simple logic:
>>>>
>>>> Any addition to the power load is going to add fossil fuel
>>>> consumption, as we already use all the wind and solar that can be
>>>> generated. Imagine the electric cars we currently have went away,
>>>> what would change in electricity generation? They'd have to generate
>>>> less. They'd switch off some fossil fuel power stations, they
>>>> certainly wouldn't turn off the cheaper to run solar and wind!
>>>> Therefore the electric cars we currently have are burning fossil fuels!
>>>

>>> This is obvious BS. You completely ignored nuclear power. We could
>>> generate all the electricity we
>>> need from nuclear, we just need to do it. The problem is that the
>>> same folks that are telling us the world
>>> is going to end soon from CO2 don't want nuclear, they claim it's not
>>> safe, bad for the environment.
>>> Which makes no sense, because if climate change is going to doom the
>>> planet, then clearly nuclear
>>> should be an acceptable alternative, one that could significantly
>>> reduce our CO2 in the short term.
>>
>> I agree we should be using nuclear, but that doesn't make what I said
>> bullshit. Until there is clean power available, making electric cars is
>> just burning more fossil fuels.
>
> The same crowd that wants to eliminate fossil fuels does not want
> nuclear and work just as hard to keep it out.

But it's zero of that magic carbon stuff they seem to hate.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 17:16:08 +0100, rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote:

> On 06/19/2022 05:59 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 12:44:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

>> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/06/2022 12:25, Frank wrote:

>>>> On 6/19/2022 6:23 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:

>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 10:50:44 +0100, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't believe this. In a forum, I cannot convince someone of this
>>>>>> very simple logic:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any addition to the power load is going to add fossil fuel
>>>>>> consumption,
>>>>>> as we already use all the wind and solar that can be generated.
>>>>>> Imagine
>>>>>> the electric cars we currently have went away, what would change in
>>>>>> electricity generation? They'd have to generate less. They'd switch
>>>>>> off
>>>>>> some fossil fuel power stations, they certainly wouldn't turn off the
>>>>>> cheaper to run solar and wind! Therefore the electric cars we
>>>>>> currently
>>>>>> have are burning fossil fuels!
>>>>>

>>>>> environmentalists were at the back of the queue for brains as far as I
>>>>> can see. Which will be a self limiting problem in the long term.
>>>>
>>>> The huge mistake is letting politicians make technical decisions.
>>>
>>> The huge mistake is in letting politicians make decisions. *We* should
>>> make the decisions, the politicians should implement them.
>>

>> Indeed, in this century it would be easy for us to vote on every single
>> matter.
>
> Are you sure you want that? In this country 81 million people allegedly
> voted for a senile politician who was incompetent on the best day of his
> career.

It's better to make a decision on each thing rather than pick the closest person to your ideals. Sure, there's a lot of stupid people about, but at least this way people would have a say in everything. Even if there were 50 parties to choose from there would never be one that agrees with you on every point.

[Paul]

On 6/20/2022 4:06 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 20/06/2022 03:46, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> What you and others neglect is the studies that showed the facts from cradle to grave EVs use less.
> What you and others neglect is the studies that showed that really it all makes bugger all difference to the climate.
>
> Who benefits from electric cars and high fuel prices? Rich people

You don't have to use a car for everything.

You could commute with an e-bike, and not even pedal.

But nobody is going to do that.

You don't have to haul 8000 pounds of automobile around,
just to go to work. An e-bike could be a lot less
consumptive.

This one for example, the pedals are arranged so they're almost
impossible to use. The pedals makes the vehicle "compliant"
with some rule or rules. But it's really just an electric
dirt bike (without the dirt bike noise). Range in eco mode
of 120km. Likely a lot less in practice. 50km/hr. 2kw (peak)
motor, doesn't say what max continuous power is. Whereas
"legal" e-bikes are 250 watts.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/06/the-super73-r-series-e-bike-is-expensive-heavy-and-extremely-fun/

And if you want seriously disturbed, there's stuff like this.

https://luxe.digital/lifestyle/cars/best-electric-motorcycles/

Price: $38,888
Engine power: 12 kW – 16 Hp
Top speed: 350 km/h – 218 mph <===
Acceleration: 0-100 km/h – 0-60 mph 2.2 sec <===
Range: 260 km – 160 miles
Website: www.lightningmotorcycle.com

The pricing of the dirt bike one, tells you there's no
reason for the others to be that highly priced. The Harley
on that page, isn't all that good.

I think the same may be true of BEVs. There's no
particular reason their price has to "exactly match"
an ICE vehicle. There must be some differences in
material cost.

Paul

[rbowman]

I'd go so far to say the majority of the people are not capable of
critical thought. Majorities win.

[Bob F]

On 6/20/2022 1:06 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 20/06/2022 03:46, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> What you and others neglect is the studies that showed the facts from
>> cradle to grave EVs use less.
> What you and others neglect is the studies that showed that really it
> all makes bugger all difference to the climate.

Only to those who deny the real studies.

[Peeler]

On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 07:41:43 -0600, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,

troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

> I'd go so far to

You went so far as to suck off the unwashed Scottish wanker, every time he
wants to be sucked off by you, you typical Yankee bigmouth and braggart!

--
More typical idiotic senile gossip by lowbrowwoman:
"It's been years since I've been in a fast food burger joint but I used
to like Wendy's because they had a salad bar and baked potatoes."
MID: <ivdi4g...@mid.individual.net>

[The Natural Philosopher]

No only to those who *read* the real studies.


--
"First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your
oppressors."
- George Orwell

[Paul]

On 6/20/2022 12:47 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 20/06/2022 16:00, Bob F wrote:
>> On 6/20/2022 1:06 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 20/06/2022 03:46, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> What you and others neglect is the studies that showed the facts from cradle to grave EVs use less.
>>> What you and others neglect is the studies that showed that really it all makes bugger all difference to the climate.
>>
>> Only to those who deny the real studies.
>>
> No only to those who *read* the real studies.

Well, at least please do not be using OLD studies.

The battery factory at Tesla, has a new process for making
cells that no longer needs ovens to bake the materials. A
fuel consuming step has been removed. (That's why Tesla bought
Maxwell, to get the patent.) There are also solid
state batteries on the horizon, which don't use the electrolyte
the current design uses, but it remains to be seen where
such cells can be used. There still needs to be reliability
and lifecycle testing of those. Not just accelerated testing.

https://thedriven.io/2021/07/22/tesla-sells-maxwell-technologies-but-keeps-dry-cell-tech/

I'm hoping that some day, the declining price of lithium cells
will be passed on to consumers.

Paul

[Rod Speed]

On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 22:36:09 +1000, Commander Kinsey <C...@nospam.com>

But hardly any of the voters are interested in voting on every
single issue.

> Sure, there's a lot of stupid people about, but at least this way people
> would have a say in everything.

No, because hardly any of the voters are interested in voting on every
single issue.

> Even if there were 50 parties to choose from there would never be one
> that agrees with you on every point.

And hardly any of the voters even have an opinion on most
issues that don't affect them personally.

And it would never work with taxes because most would
vote that what they use shouldn't be taxed.

[Peeler]

On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 05:26:09 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the two subnormal sociopathic cretins' endless absolutely idiotic
blather>

--
Typical retarded "conversation" between the Scottish wanker and the senile
Ozzietard:

Birdbrain: "Horse shit doesn't stink."

Senile Rodent: "It does if you roll in it."

Birdbrain: "I've never worked out why, I assumed it was maybe meateaters
that made stinky shit, but then why does vegetarian human shit stink? Is it
just the fact that we're capable of digesting meat?"

Senile Rodent: "Nope, some cow shit stinks too."

Message-ID: <fv5f1t...@mid.individual.net>

[Commander Kinsey]

Read my lips, I don't care. I wasn't stupid enough to buy a house right on sea level.

[Commander Kinsey]

Since we can buy and sell electricity to other countries, presumably it's always windy somewhere. Or we need a lot of pumped storage dams, or batteries (although those are very expensive).


On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 15:57:08 +0100, Brian Gaff <brian...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That is one view, certainly. That is why we need to get rid of non
> renewable. The problem is that the market for Electric cars has built up
> fast, but the ability to generate from renewable takes time and of course is
> not available all the time, meaning we need a back up.
> Yesterday I watched a programme about electric aircraft that used hydrogen
> fuel cells for cruise, but batteries at take off. So how are they making
> this hydrogen, I said to the TV, but nobody told me. Its a quite energy
> intensive job at the moment of course, so until its not, I fear they are
> never going to be able to use fuel cells, never mind the problem of their
> inefficiency, producing heat as a by product of converting hydrogen into
> water and electricity, but using oxygen from the air of course.
> Brian

[Commander Kinsey]

On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 10:04:40 +0100, Fredxx <fre...@spam.uk> wrote:

Indeed, although if we were 100% nuclear, how would they adjust for load throughout the day? I don't think you can switch those on and off quickly.

[Commander Kinsey]

Voting should require an IQ test.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 03:46:05 +0100, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.xxx> wrote:

> On 6/19/2022 7:34 PM, Frank wrote:
>> On 6/19/2022 6:59 PM, Bob F wrote:
>>> On 6/19/2022 4:20 AM, Paul wrote:

>>>> On 6/19/2022 5:50 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>> I can't believe this. In a forum, I cannot convince someone of this
>>>>> very simple logic:
>>>>>
>>>>> Any addition to the power load is going to add fossil fuel
>>>>> consumption, as we already use all the wind and solar that can be
>>>>> generated. Imagine the electric cars we currently have went away,
>>>>> what would change in electricity generation? They'd have to generate
>>>>> less. They'd switch off some fossil fuel power stations, they
>>>>> certainly wouldn't turn off the cheaper to run solar and wind!
>>>>> Therefore the electric cars we currently have are burning fossil fuels!
>>>>

>>>> I know logic is not your strong suit, but the deal is,
>>>> not everything in life is "synchronized for your delight".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Myth #1: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline
>>> cars because of the power plant emissions.
>>>
>>> FACT: Electric vehicles typically have a smaller carbon footprint
>>> than gasoline cars, even when accounting for the electricity used for
>>> charging.
>>>
>>>
>>> Electric vehicles (EVs) have no tailpipe emissions. Generating
>>> the electricity used to charge EVs, however, may create carbon
>>> pollution. The amount varies widely based on how local power is
>>> generated, e.g., using coal or natural gas, which emit carbon
>>> pollution, versus renewable resources like wind or solar, which do
>>> not. Even accounting for these electricity emissions, research shows
>>> that an EV is typically responsible for lower levels of greenhouse
>>> gases (GHGs) than an average new gasoline car. To the extent that more
>>> renewable energy sources like wind and solar are used to generate
>>> electricity, the total GHGs associated with EVs could be even lower.
>>> (In 2020, renewables became the second-most prevalent U.S. electricity
>>> source.1 ) Learn more about electricity production in your area by
>>> visiting EPA’s Power Profiler interactive web page. By simply
>>> inputting your zip code, you can find the energy mix in your region.
>>
>> What you and others neglect are all the extra resources needed to make
>> the cars not to mention the windmills and solar panels.

>
> What you and others neglect is the studies that showed the facts from
> cradle to grave EVs use less.

Carbon maybe. Lithium though....

[trader_4]

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 10:29:30 AM UTC-4, Frank wrote:
> On 6/19/2022 9:26 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 14:13:34 +0100, trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >

> >> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 5:50:54 AM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> >>> I can't believe this. In a forum, I cannot convince someone of this
> >>> very simple logic:
> >>>
> >>> Any addition to the power load is going to add fossil fuel
> >>> consumption, as we already use all the wind and solar that can be
> >>> generated. Imagine the electric cars we currently have went away,
> >>> what would change in electricity generation? They'd have to generate
> >>> less. They'd switch off some fossil fuel power stations, they
> >>> certainly wouldn't turn off the cheaper to run solar and wind!
> >>> Therefore the electric cars we currently have are burning fossil fuels!
> >>

> >> This is obvious BS. You completely ignored nuclear power. We could
> >> generate all the electricity we
> >> need from nuclear, we just need to do it. The problem is that the
> >> same folks that are telling us the world
> >> is going to end soon from CO2 don't want nuclear, they claim it's not
> >> safe, bad for the environment.
> >> Which makes no sense, because if climate change is going to doom the
> >> planet, then clearly nuclear
> >> should be an acceptable alternative, one that could significantly
> >> reduce our CO2 in the short term.
> >
> > I agree we should be using nuclear, but that doesn't make what I said
> > bullshit. Until there is clean power available, making electric cars is
> > just burning more fossil fuels.
> The same crowd that wants to eliminate fossil fuels does not want
> nuclear and work just as hard to keep it out.

I see the libs in Germany are now firing up coal plants because Russia
is cutting off their natural gas. So much stupidity there. Getting in
bed with Russia, becoming heavily reliant on Russia for energy, while
ignoring Putin's increasing aggression until it was too late. Closing down
all their nuclear plants which were zero CO2 emission. And now instead
of restarting nuclear and building more, they are restarting coal. But
at least they recognized that they have an immediate crisis that needs to
be addressed and took action. Biden is still stuck on doing nothing,
claiming our terrible crisis as just an unfortunate event in the process
of moving away from fossil fuels and no interest in doing anything.
That last part is not quite true. I see he's now going to get the oil industry
leaders to DC to ask what's going on, why they can't supply enough
gasoline. I've been saying here all along that needed to be done.
It took Biden and his team how many months to even come up with that?

[rbowman]

On 06/21/2022 07:17 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> Indeed, although if we were 100% nuclear, how would they adjust for load
> throughout the day? I don't think you can switch those on and off quickly.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-ways-nuclear-more-flexible-you-might-think

There are challenges; do they outweigh those presented by
solar/thermal/wind ?

[rbowman]

While that would help eliminate the ones sitting on the stoop with a can
of Colt 45 some of the most destructive people in the world are quite
intelligent.

[trader_4]

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 6:59:21 PM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
> On 6/19/2022 4:20 AM, Paul wrote:

> > On 6/19/2022 5:50 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> >> I can't believe this. In a forum, I cannot convince someone of this
> >> very simple logic:
> >>
> >> Any addition to the power load is going to add fossil fuel
> >> consumption, as we already use all the wind and solar that can be
> >> generated. Imagine the electric cars we currently have went away,
> >> what would change in electricity generation? They'd have to generate
> >> less. They'd switch off some fossil fuel power stations, they
> >> certainly wouldn't turn off the cheaper to run solar and wind!
> >> Therefore the electric cars we currently have are burning fossil fuels!
> >

> > I know logic is not your strong suit, but the deal is,
> > not everything in life is "synchronized for your delight".
> >
>
> Myth #1: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars
> because of the power plant emissions.
>
> FACT: Electric vehicles typically have a smaller carbon footprint
> than gasoline cars, even when accounting for the electricity used for
> charging.
>
>
> Electric vehicles (EVs) have no tailpipe emissions. Generating the
> electricity used to charge EVs, however, may create carbon pollution.

Change that to does create carbon pollution if you look at the US as
a whole. Do you know of anyplace where the charging power is only
generated from a non-CO2 source? There might be some exceptions,
but it's insignificant in the big picture.

> The amount varies widely based on how local power is generated, e.g.,
> using coal or natural gas, which emit carbon pollution, versus renewable
> resources like wind or solar, which do not.

Show us where there is any place in the US that relies only on renewables.

Even accounting for these
> electricity emissions, research shows that an EV is typically
> responsible for lower levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) than an average
> new gasoline car.

I'd love to see the numbers and actual analysis to back that up.
If it's lower I'll bet it's not lower by much. Electricity has to be generated,
sent over long transmission lines to the charger before it gets into the
car. Electrics would have the advantage of regenerative braking.

To the extent that more renewable energy sources like
> wind and solar are used to generate electricity, the total GHGs
> associated with EVs could be even lower.

If wishes were fishes.. Despite all the aggressive subsidization, today
wind is just 9% and solar only 3%. If you want lots of non-CO2 energy
we could have it quickly, just build nuclear power plants. But of course
the same bunch that tell us the world is going to end in a couple of
decades from climate change, won't allow that.

(In 2020, renewables became the
> second-most prevalent U.S. electricity source.

If that is true, it's only because they included hydro, the vast majority
of which has been installed for half a century or more. And there aren't
many places left where more can be built, especially given the environmentalists.

1 ) Learn more about
> electricity production in your area by visiting EPA’s Power Profiler
> interactive web page. By simply inputting your zip code, you can find
> the energy mix in your region.

I tried it. For NJ:

Hydro 1.2%
Wind 1.1%
Solar 0.7%
Biomass 1.6%

Pretty sad, especially given all the billions poured into solar by the
federal govt and the lib NJ state that promoted it and subsidized it
over the past two decades.

The one surprise there is biomass is larger than any of the others.
We have power generation facility at the local dump, I guess it works.
We could still be getting non-CO2 from one of our nukes, 650MW
facility, but the environmentalists and libs forced it to shut down.
That one nuke probably produced more power than all the above
renewables combined.

[trader_4]

You have cites for that one?

[trader_4]

"Located in Parrish, Florida, this 409-MW by 900-megawatt-hour (MWh) battery storage system is the size of 30 football fields "

Or we could build a nuclear power plant that actually produces 1 GW, available
24/7 as demand dictates. The above battery system could not even do that for
an hour and it requires a massive solar array or similar to generate the power
it stores.

[Peeler]

On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 07:42:52 -0600, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,

troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

> https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-ways-nuclear-more-flexible-you-might-think
>
> There are challenges; do they outweigh those presented by
> solar/thermal/wind ?

You just CAN'T let go of the unwashed Scottish wanker's unwashed cock, can
you, lowbrowwoman, you typical toothless Yankee bigmouth and braggart? LOL

--
Yet more of the very interesting senile blather by lowbrowwoman:
"My family loaded me into a '51 Chevy and drove from NY to Seattle and
back in '52. I'm alive. The Chevy had a painted steel dashboard with two
little hand prints worn down to the primer because I liked to stand up
and lean on it to see where we were going."
MID: <j2kuc1...@mid.individual.net>

[Peeler]

On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 07:47:29 -0600, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,

troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

> While that would help

What would help this thread and this group would be if you finally removed
your toothless gob from the unwashed Scottish wanker's cock, lowbrowwoman!

--
More of the senile gossip's absolutely idiotic senile blather:
"I stopped for breakfast at a diner in Virginia when the state didn't do
DST. I remarked on the time difference and the crusty old waitress said
'We keep God's time in Virginia.'

I also lived in Ft. Wayne for a while."

MID: <t0tjfa$6r5$1...@dont-email.me>

[Frank]

Around here, the same politicians that are telling us the seas are
rising are allowing construction closer to the water.

[Peeler]

On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 10:24:24 -0400, REAL dumb Frankie Boi blathered again:

> Around here, the same politicians that are telling us the seas are
> rising are allowing construction closer to the water.

MORE off topic SHIT by the troll and you, you troll-feeding senile asshole?

[Frank]

Would have to give a convoluted answer as it is probably not a case of
making more money but making less money in the future if they do not go
along.

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <d7aafbeb-8d58-4da0...@googlegroups.com>,
tra...@optonline.net says...

>
> Show us where there is any place in the US that relies only on renewables.
>
>
>

Politicians. We keep renewing most of them. Biden has been renewed for
most of his adult life.

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <270b5dbc-ae83-49d5...@googlegroups.com>,
tra...@optonline.net says...

>
> > Car companies too are in favor of EV's as they can make more money from
> > them.
>
> You have cites for that one?
>
>
>

I do not have any proof, but with the government giving all the
'rebates' I bet the car companies jack up the prices on most of them.
They should not cost much more than a gas car except for the batteries.

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <jhe0fi...@mid.individual.net>, bow...@montana.com
says...

>
> > Voting should require an IQ test.
>
> While that would help eliminate the ones sitting on the stoop with a can
> of Colt 45 some of the most destructive people in the world are quite
> intelligent.
>
>

I would likt to see a W2 form or a social security payment for those
over 62 to let them vote. Also ID with a picture on it. Just like the
requirements for some allegery medicine.

[SteveW]

Not only can you adjust the output of a reactor to an extent, but you
can also dump power into Hydrogen production, desalination and the like,
whenever there is too much capacity.

Charging cars at night, electric central heating, electric hot water
cylinders, can all absorb power at night, levelling out demand - France
have done that for decades, with their chaufe eau.