Re: OT: Fast cars (was Re: More UTF-8 woes - UTF-8 to "\uN" RTF)

68 views
Skip to first unread message

George Neuner

unread,
Nov 30, 2017, 10:41:59 PM11/30/17
to
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:34:34 -0500, Rod Pemberton
<EmailN...@nospicedham.voenflacbe.cpm> wrote:

> ...
>batteries explode and burn violently causing damage to roadways and
>surrounding infrastructure,

Solid electrolyte Li batteries _may_ solve that eventually. Several
groups are working on them.

Or liquid flow batteries. There is some promising work being done
with sulfur supension electrolytes. Less energy density than Li, but
very cheap (~1$/KWh), and weight suitable for use in large vehicles:
trucks, trains, etc.


>batteries are more expensive than the fuel
>they replace and are heavier to lug around which wastes more energy,
>and they only shift pollution from the automotive industry to the power
>production industry, as the same amount of energy is required to move
>the same amount of weight.

Or the charging penalty: depending on chemistry, ~40% of the energy
needed to charge a battery is expended as heat.

Until 100% of electricity is generated without carbon emissions, the
idea that batteries are reducing carbon pollution is just wishful
thinking.


>This doesn't take into account the immense
>amount of destruction that mining for the rare earth minerals which are
>used in energy dense batteries is causing to the environment.

Yup! Most batteries are incredibly dirty technology. There are a few
exceptions in the liquid flow category - e.g., one design is
(basically) just sand and salt - but the energy density isn't there
and so these "clean" batteries are very large and realistically can
only be used for infrastructure.


>On the other hand, numerous established car manufacturers have easily
>and quickly produced EVs of various quality and price points that are
>competitive with ICEs, unlike Tesla's which are only competitive with
>luxury vehicles, so far. Apparently, the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt are
>both supposedly selling well.

But the Chevy *Volt* is more practical - particularly if it's your
only vehicle. Good luck traveling cross-country in a Leaf or Bolt,
stopping for 2-5 hours to charge every 100 miles ... if you even can
find a charging station. That might work in some parts of Europe, but
most of the states in the US are too big to drive across using only
batteries.

For those who have never driven in the US - or those whose driving has
been limited to the East or West coasts - it is not uncommon in many
places to see road signs that say "Next Service __ Miles" where __ may
be from 100 to 400. There are immense areas of the country where
batteries are (at best) extremely impractical.

I have always maintained that battery technology was not up to the
challenge of widespread EV use. I follow battery technology, but I've
seen nothing so far that changes my mind.

YMMV, but I think that - until battery technology catches up and
generating capacity is carbon free - it makes more sense to build EVs
like the Volt that are based on the example of diesel-electric
locomotives. It is the wildly variable power requirements that make
most vehicle ICEs inefficient. An engine run at only a small number
of speeds - e.g., hi or lo - can be made very clean, lightweight, and
very fuel efficient.

George

Terje Mathisen

unread,
Dec 1, 2017, 2:26:25 AM12/1/17
to
Oh, where do I start? :-)

Rod, your first misconception is the easiest one: You assume that it is
actually OK to burn petrochecmicals, while everyone should know that
they are far more useful as raw materials for anything from food
production to all kinds of plastics.

Secondly, the energy efficiency of an ICE car is at the very best 1/3 of
what you get from an EV, so it is NOT a case of needing the same anergy
anyway. In fact, even if you use the dirtiest possible electricity
source, i.e. a coal power plant, you get almost twice the energy output
from you get get from an ICE, and if you look at global energy
production, we are quickly moving towards renewable energy for nearly
all new installation. Norway is of course 100% hydro-electric anyway. :-)

Thirdly, most people don't know that when you refine oil to produce
diesel or gasoline, you actually need quite a bit of electrical energy
as input: In fact you need so much that it is 50% of the energy an EV
would need to drive the same distance that an ICE car can drive using
the resulting fuel!

Finally, your offroad objection is of course a red herring since
effectively zero % of worldwide car travel is offroad.

Terje
PS. Your comments re EV instant torque etc are of course spot on. :-)

Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 07:30:29 +0100
> Terje Mathisen <terje.m...@nospicedham.tmsw.no> wrote:
>
>> This is getting seriously OT, but any electrical engineer has to
>> drive a Tesla instead.
>
> (redirected any replies to alt.lang.asm)
>
> Why?
>
> My 100Hp (75Kw) ICE and 60Hp (45Kw) ICE do just fine in terms of
> acceleration, i.e., more than sufficient for daily driving. They are
> both sufficient at transportation. I.e., an EV is still a vehicle,
> just like an ICE is a vehicle. There is no fundamental advantage to an
> EV over an ICE.
>
> If you had said you don't need to change oil, or need coolant, or
> change spark plugs, etc, as a reason to drive an EV, that would've made
> some sense. Or, if you had said, the torque acceleration is
> fantastic, ... Or, if you had said, to support reduction of the usage
> of carbon emitting fossil fuels, ... And, the elimination of engine
> weight and the transmission somewhat offsets the additional weight of
> batteries.
>
> In fact, there are many disadvantages to EVs, e.g., can't take off-road
> since there is no easy way to re-charge remotely, they take forever to
> recharge, some states tax them with an extra upfront charge to
> compensate for the lost tax revenue from reduced fuel sales, the
> batteries explode and burn violently causing damage to roadways and
> surrounding infrastructure, batteries are more expensive than the fuel
> they replace and are heavier to lug around which wastes more energy,
> and they only shift pollution from the automotive industry to the power
> production industry, as the same amount of energy is required to move
> the same amount of weight. This doesn't take into account the immense
> amount of destruction that mining for the rare earth minerals which are
> used in energy dense batteries is causing to the environment.
>
> On the other hand, numerous established car manufacturers have easily
> and quickly produced EVs of various quality and price points that are
> competitive with ICEs, unlike Tesla's which are only competitive with
> luxury vehicles, so far. Apparently, the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt are
> both supposedly selling well.
>
> IMO, Elon Musk made a critical error with Tesla. His other companies
> have advantages: transforming and innovative technologies. They also
> have minimal or no competition. That isn't true of Tesla which is
> competing against 35 or more automotive companies, some of which are
> government subsidized, e.g., China and Germany. Currently, Tesla has
> little to no sales volume and excessively high costs of production.
>
>> Here in Norway a Tesla costs between 1/3 and 1/2 of any comparable
>> ICE car.
>>
>
> Why is that? Is that due to government taxation?
>
> Tesla's cost 10 times or more of a typical ICE car here (U.S.).
>
> While most U.S. states offer tax credit for EVs, certain EVs are only
> sold in certain states, e.g., California and Utah.
>
>
> Rod Pemberton
>


--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

Bernhard Schornak

unread,
Dec 1, 2017, 4:36:09 AM12/1/17
to
Rod Pemberton wrote:


> On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 08:04:03 +0100
> Bernhard Schornak <scho...@nospicedham.web.de> wrote:
>
>> Besides that - electric drive is the future, of course.
>
> (redirected any replies to alt.lang.asm)
>
> As someone from an EE background, I agree that they're the future.
> However, ICEs have a long, long future ahead. EVs need developed
> infrastructure, i.e., roadways and highways, and an electric grid too.
> Many places in the world are too poor to have these, and may not have
> them for centuries. Liquid fuel is easy to transport. Of course,
> adoption in the developed world will be accelerated due to governmental
> policies.


The missing infrastructure is the only argument against a faster
switch to 'electrified' vehicles (including trucks). Another way
was replacing fuel with CNG or hydrogen as 'upgrade' of currrent
combustion engine technologies as intermediate step.


Have a nice weekend!

Bernhard Schornak

Kerr-Mudd,John

unread,
Dec 1, 2017, 5:04:25 AM12/1/17
to
George Neuner <gneu...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:3sf12d1rql0bv6tvp...@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:34:34 -0500, Rod Pemberton
> <EmailN...@nospicedham.voenflacbe.cpm> wrote:
[]
>
> For those who have never driven in the US - or those whose driving has
> been limited to the East or West coasts - it is not uncommon in many
> places to see road signs that say "Next Service __ Miles" where __ may
> be from 100 to 400. There are immense areas of the country where
> batteries are (at best) extremely impractical.

That's not the (initial) target; it's about reduced emissions in towns,
so a 50 mile commute is doable with an electric car. It does raise the
question for society at large if there couldn't be more efficient ways of
working.

> I have always maintained that battery technology was not up to the
> challenge of widespread EV use. I follow battery technology, but I've
> seen nothing so far that changes my mind.

Of course. Nothing is practical until the R&D is good enough.

asetof...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 2, 2017, 4:08:06 AM12/2/17
to
It is easy the recycle of batteries of litio?
Can be a problem if heavy metal goes in water or in food

Rod Pemberton

unread,
Dec 2, 2017, 7:29:06 PM12/2/17
to
In my opinion, using hydrogen as a fuel source is really a bad idea.
The problem is that most of the hydrogen will be produced by splitting
water (H2O) using electrolysis. We have to produce electricity by some
other energy source, e.g., coal or diesel or nuclear. Most of this
electricity will be from hydro-carbons which contribute to green
house gases. Then, the hydrogen is fed into a fuel cell to be "burned"
to provide electricity and recovered as water. However, hydrogen is
extremely difficult to store as it seeps through materials. What this
means is that less than 100% will be recovered. Over time, this
lossage compounds. Firstly, we are left with less water. Secondly,
the light hydrogen either escapes the atmosphere into space, or
saturates it. If it saturates the atmosphere, we could literally burn
a hole in the ozone. You may recall what happens when you combine
"inert" chloro-fluoro-hydrocarbons and highly energetic particles from
the sun.


Rod Pemberton
--
North Korea is the proof that Soviet Russia and Communist China were
wrong.

Rod Pemberton

unread,
Dec 2, 2017, 7:29:47 PM12/2/17
to
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 08:26:23 +0100
Terje Mathisen <terje.m...@tmsw.no> wrote:

> Rod, your first misconception is the easiest one: You assume that it
> is actually OK to burn petrochecmicals,

No, I don't assume it's OK to burn fossil fuels. Combustion emits
carbon and green house gases. Combustible fuels are the problem. We
need an energy source that doesn't use combustion.

What I know that if you don't burn hydrocarbons as petrochemicals in
your ICE, that the electrical power plant will most likely burn
hydrocarbons as coal, natural gas, or diesel to provide electricity
for your EV. Only a very small percentage of worldwide power production
comes from nuclear power, wind, solar, and hydroelectric. In other
words, EVs just shift the green house grass emission problem, i.e.,
pollution, from the automotive industry to the power industry, as I
stated previously.

> while everyone should know that they are far more useful as raw
> materials for anything from food production to all kinds of plastics.

Everyone should know that plastics are polluting the oceans and harming
food stocks. Everyone should know that chemicals from plastics seep
into our food supply. Most of these are chemicals which mimic
the effect of female hormones like estrogen. This causes problems for
life everywhere.

> Secondly, the energy efficiency of an ICE car is at the very best 1/3
> of what you get from an EV, so it is NOT a case of needing the same
> anergy anyway.

The energy efficiency of a power plant which produces the electricity
is not that much better than that of a modern ICE. They're nearly
identical in terms of efficiency.

However, the EV is heavier due to the batteries, even though they have
some weight reduction due to the elimination of the engine and
transmission. And, as George Neuner noted, plenty of electrical energy
is wasted as heat during discharging and recharging of batteries. In
fact, a well designed EV wastes plenty of power in the battery heating
and cooling system needed to keep batteries at the correct temperature
for optimal discharge.

> In fact, even if you use the dirtiest possible
> electricity source, i.e. a coal power plant, you get almost twice the
> energy output from you get get from an ICE,

AIUI, that's not true, and it ignores the other negative issues of
using EVs.

> and if you look at global energy production, we are quickly moving
> towards renewable energy for nearly all new installation. Norway is
> of course 100% hydro-electric anyway. :-)

The worldwide shift from polluting energy to renewable clean energy is
insignificant. It won't solve our energy needs.

The expected future demands for electrical power over next few decades
will require nearly 100% conversion of all electrical power plants in
the world to nuclear power to meet the demand and eliminate green
house gas emissions. Such a radical transition simply won't happen in
time. And, most countries in the world will not use nuclear or won't
build new nuclear capacity to eliminate green house gas emissions.
This means the world is reliant upon solar, wind, and hydro-electric to
produce sufficient power. This is an impossibility.

So, what are the valid solutions to the future immense worldwide demand
electrical power? IMO, they are nuclear fission, which the world
doesn't want due to nuclear waste. Nuclear fusion which the world
doesn't have, and which also destroys water to provide hydrogen as
fuel. Capture of solar energy in space which could supply the Earth
with an abundance or power. The Earth only captures a small percentage
of the energy emitted by the sun. Think Dyson sphere, but not so
extreme as to block all light.

> Thirdly, most people don't know that when you refine oil to produce
> diesel or gasoline, you actually need quite a bit of electrical
> energy as input:

Electrical or heat? Distillation of fossil fuels requires plenty of
heat ...

> Finally, your offroad objection is of course a red herring since
> effectively zero % of worldwide car travel is offroad.

While the majority of traffic is on-road in the U.S., there is still
plenty of off-road driving in the U.S. and millions of miles of dirt
roads. Dirt roads, and even many paved roads, can go hundreds of miles
without fueling stations. Rural areas are frequently lacking
electrification too.

I'd suspect that many other countries and continents, e.g., Africa,
India, Brazil, much of China and Russia, suffer from the same issues of
off-roads, dirt roads, or other non-paved roads, and no electricity.

> PS. Your comments re EV instant torque etc are of course spot on. :-)

The same is true of steam.

Kerr-Mudd,John

unread,
Dec 3, 2017, 8:54:56 AM12/3/17
to
Rod Pemberton <EmailN...@voenflacbe.cpm> wrote in news:ovvgge$rkj$2
@gioia.aioe.org:

> On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 10:36:03 +0100
> Bernhard Schornak <scho...@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> > On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 08:04:03 +0100
>> > Bernhard Schornak <scho...@nospicedham.web.de> wrote:
>
>> >> Besides that - electric drive is the future, of course.
>> >
>> > (redirected any replies to alt.lang.asm)
>> >
>> > As someone from an EE background, I agree that they're the future.
>> > However, ICEs have a long, long future ahead. EVs need developed
>> > infrastructure, i.e., roadways and highways, and an electric grid
>> > too. Many places in the world are too poor to have these, and may
>> > not have them for centuries. Liquid fuel is easy to transport. Of
>> > course, adoption in the developed world will be accelerated due to
>> > governmental policies.
>>
>> The missing infrastructure is the only argument against a faster
>> switch to 'electrified' vehicles (including trucks). Another way
>> was replacing fuel with CNG or hydrogen as 'upgrade' of currrent
>> combustion engine technologies as intermediate step.
>>
>
> In my opinion, using hydrogen as a fuel source is really a bad idea.

+1. It's an idea invented/promoted by the current ICE lobby; i.e.
continue with standard cars; they focussd too narrowly on the one issue
of exhaust emmissions, and went to the "simplest" answer: change to a
"clean" (at point of use) fuel.

Bernhard Schornak

unread,
Dec 5, 2017, 5:32:13 PM12/5/17
to
Rod Pemberton wrote:


> On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 10:36:03 +0100
> Bernhard Schornak <scho...@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 08:04:03 +0100
>>> Bernhard Schornak <scho...@nospicedham.web.de> wrote:
>
>>>> Besides that - electric drive is the future, of course.
>>>
>>> (redirected any replies to alt.lang.asm)
>>>
>>> As someone from an EE background, I agree that they're the future.
>>> However, ICEs have a long, long future ahead. EVs need developed
>>> infrastructure, i.e., roadways and highways, and an electric grid
>>> too. Many places in the world are too poor to have these, and may
>>> not have them for centuries. Liquid fuel is easy to transport. Of
>>> course, adoption in the developed world will be accelerated due to
>>> governmental policies.
>>
>> The missing infrastructure is the only argument against a faster
>> switch to 'electrified' vehicles (including trucks). Another way
>> was replacing fuel with CNG or hydrogen as 'upgrade' of currrent
>> combustion engine technologies as intermediate step.
>>
>
> In my opinion, using hydrogen as a fuel source is really a bad idea.
> The problem is that most of the hydrogen will be produced by splitting
> water (H2O) using electrolysis. We have to produce electricity by some
> other energy source, e.g., coal or diesel or nuclear.


I do not know the numbers for the USA, but Germany generates about
30 percent of its electrical power with wind / solar power plants.
Wind generators produce power as long as wind blows, regardless of
the real power consumption, so the surplus power in times of lower
demand could be used to produce hydrogen 'for free'.

Of course it was a bad idea to burn fuel to save burning of fuel.


> Most of this
> electricity will be from hydro-carbons which contribute to green
> house gases. Then, the hydrogen is fed into a fuel cell to be "burned"
> to provide electricity and recovered as water. However, hydrogen is
> extremely difficult to store as it seeps through materials. What this
> means is that less than 100% will be recovered. Over time, this
> lossage compounds. Firstly, we are left with less water. Secondly,
> the light hydrogen either escapes the atmosphere into space, or
> saturates it. If it saturates the atmosphere, we could literally burn
> a hole in the ozone. You may recall what happens when you combine
> "inert" chloro-fluoro-hydrocarbons and highly energetic particles from
> the sun.


There is sufficient water on this planet. With melting polar ice,
there will be even more. For the remaining 'worst case scenarios'
you paint: I doubt they might happen. Hydrogen is a reactive gas,
so it very unlikely it could 'escape' earth's gravitation, 'cause
it did react with other matter before that could happen (which is
very unlikely, because it had to be accellerated to a speed above
9.81 m/s² to leave the orbit).


Greetings from Augsburg

Bernhard Schornak

Bernhard Schornak

unread,
Dec 5, 2017, 5:32:22 PM12/5/17
to
asetof...@gmail.com wrote:


> It is easy the recycle of batteries of litio?


Dunno... ;)


> Can be a problem if heavy metal goes in water or in food


Depends on the water solubility of the metal?

Rod Pemberton

unread,
Dec 5, 2017, 6:37:56 PM12/5/17
to
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 23:32:11 +0100
This is how hydrogen escapes our atmosphere:

Atmospheric escape
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape

"The curious case of Earth's leaking atmosphere"
https://phys.org/news/2016-07-curious-case-earth-leaking-atmosphere.html

Bernhard Schornak

unread,
Dec 6, 2017, 3:17:43 AM12/6/17
to
Okay. 5 * 10E15 tonnes / 90 tonnes per day = 55555555555555,55 days
or 152,207,001,522 years until the entire athmosphere will be gone.
If I remember correctly, our sun will transform to a white dwarf in
less than 7,700,000,000 years, so we might have other problems than
a minor loss of hydrogen in cosmic scales.

Another component is completely missing in this calculation - Earth
constantly catches cosmic matter in exchange, including hydrogen...
(AFAIK, our entire athmosphere is an import from outer space.)

Nevertheless: Thank you for the links - one never stops to learn!

Rod Pemberton

unread,
Dec 7, 2017, 4:06:59 AM12/7/17
to
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 23:32:11 +0100
Bernhard Schornak <scho...@web.de> wrote:

> I do not know the numbers for the USA, but Germany generates about
> 30 percent of its electrical power with wind / solar power plants.

Are you sure it's up to 30% now? ...

Germany's 2015 electricity sources are coal 41.9%, nuclear 14.1%, wind
13.5%, natural gas 9.1%, biomass 6.8%, solar 5.9%, hydro-electric 3.9%,
other 3.1% (from link). I.e., about 19% for wind / solar in Germany as
of 2015.

https://cleantechnica.com/2016/09/21/germany-generates-electricity/

Below is a bit.ly shortened link to a Washington Post newspaper article
(www.washingpost.com). It has a map of how energy is generated in the
U.S., a graph showing power generated by different energy sources, and
sources of energy by state. The last one is interactive, i.e., you can
select coal or natural gas, etc.

U.S.A.'s usage of coal (30%) has been reduced (from 50%). Natural gas
(34%) has been increased (from about 18%) and is replacing coal.
Nuclear (20%) is in third place. That's 84%. The other energy sources
are less than 10% each. It's hard to tell from the graph, but wind /
hydro-electricity might be about 16% in the U.S. There are 24 times as
many hydro-electric plants in the U.S. as nuclear, but nuclear generates
three times as much power. Wind is similar. Solar is insignificant.

"Mapping how the United States generates electricity", Washington Post
http://wapo.st/2ACqcbS

The EIA.org says the US generates 4.1 trillion KWh of electricity
(4,100 TWh). Germany is somewhere around 545 billion KWh of
electricity (545 TWh).

I.e., the U.S. generates 7.5 times as much electricity as Germany. For
reference, our population is about 4.0 times as large.

"Electricity in the United States", EIA.org
http://bit.ly/2siHgSr

Robert Prins

unread,
Dec 7, 2017, 4:41:55 AM12/7/17
to
On 2017-12-07 09:08, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 23:32:11 +0100
> Bernhard Schornak <scho...@web.de> wrote:
>
>> I do not know the numbers for the USA, but Germany generates about
>> 30 percent of its electrical power with wind / solar power plants.
>
> Are you sure it's up to 30% now? ...

IIRC, there was at least one day last year (or maybe even this year), when
Germany generated more power using wind / solar plants than they actually
required. Portugal has done the same at least once, and Denmark does it very
regularly!

Robert
--
Robert AH Prins
robert(a)prino(d)org

James Van Buskirk

unread,
Dec 7, 2017, 4:25:13 PM12/7/17
to
"Bernhard Schornak" wrote in message news:p08936$rnb$2...@dont-email.me...
Any atmosphere is thermodynamically unstable. To see empirical
evidence on our planet, just say something. Are you talking like
a duck? No? That shows that most of the He-4 that has been
produced from decay of U-238, Th-232, and U-235 has escaped
whereas the more massive Ar-40 produced by decay of K-40 is
still mostly around at about 1% of atmospheric volume.

Not to mention that there are archaea and perhaps bacteria that
can recycle hydrogen.

Rod Pemberton

unread,
Dec 8, 2017, 2:35:12 AM12/8/17
to
That's great, but how do you store it in bulk for later use?

I know about pumped-storage hydro-electricity, flywheel energy storage
(FES), super-conducting magnetic energy storage (SMES), thermal energy
storage, compressed air energy storage (CAES), battery storage power
plant, and others. All of these have issues, e.g., cost, location,
temperature etc, which makes them unsuitable as a generic solution.

Bernhard Schornak

unread,
Dec 8, 2017, 9:43:50 AM12/8/17
to
There's an ongoing political debate about renewable energy sources
here in Germany, and one of the most used numbers were those 30 %.
Digging a little bit deeper, these 30 percent are the goal Germany
*should* reach until the end of 2020 to fulfill its promise of the
Paris Agreement. (Obviously, I had this goal in mind while writing
my last reply.)

Why is solar energy 'insignificant'? A lot of US states are closer
to the equator than Bavaria or Baden-Württemberg, our southernmost
federal states in Germany:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavaria_Solarpark

Regarding your comparison between US and German energy production:
Looking at your numbers, US citicens consume about twice (7.5 / 4)
as much electrical energy than German citicens. I don't think this
is a ratio the USA should/could be proud of... ;)

Robert Prins

unread,
Dec 8, 2017, 1:54:06 PM12/8/17
to
On 2017-12-08 07:36, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 10:43:18 +0000
> Robert Prins <rob...@prino.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-12-07 09:08, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 23:32:11 +0100
>>> Bernhard Schornak <scho...@web.de> wrote:
>
>>>> I do not know the numbers for the USA, but Germany generates about
>>>> 30 percent of its electrical power with wind / solar power
>>>> plants.
>>>
>>> Are you sure it's up to 30% now? ...
>>
>> IIRC, there was at least one day last year (or maybe even this year),
>> when Germany generated more power using wind / solar plants than they
>> actually required. Portugal has done the same at least once, and
>> Denmark does it very regularly!
>>
>
> That's great, but how do you store it in bulk for later use?

They sell it to neighbouring countries, so that they can also, presumably, also
reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.

And it would be a lot more useful if the likes of Bezos, Gates etc would spend
more money on the development of storage of renewables.

Rod Pemberton

unread,
Dec 9, 2017, 5:53:02 AM12/9/17
to
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 15:43:44 +0100
Bernhard Schornak <scho...@web.de> wrote:

> Why is solar energy 'insignificant'?

I meant it's not a major source of power generation here. I didn't
mean it's insignificant as an option. Obviously, the sun is one of the
primary sources of the planet's energy, along with nuclear reactions in
the Earth's core.

Solar power plants seem to be attracted to deserts, e.g., Nevada. The
problem here is that there are many protected animals and plants. Wind
and solar both kill birds and other flying or crawling creatures. E.g.,
the protected bald eagle is being killed by wind farms.

I'm not sure about business use of solar. I know one airport has a
large bank of solar panels. I've also seen roadway signs in certain
states that are solar powered. The big use of solar seems to be yard
lights.

Home owners in states with plenty of sunshine have implemented solar,
usually with government installation subsidies, e.g., California,
Hawaii, Arizona, etc. These states usually buy the excess solar power
from homeowners. The electrical grids can't accept the excess power
from large numbers of customers with solar panels during the summer.
This is because the base-load power plants, i.e., coal, natural gas,
output can't be adjusted quickly for demand. They must continue to
produce power in a fixed quantity. So, the excess solar can't be
placed onto the grid. This affects Hawaii and California. Hawaii has
problems with the electrical grid being overloaded. California
restricted the amount of solar panels a home owner could install for
this reason. I.e., you're forced by law to have less solar capacity
than you need in California.

Much of the U.S. doesn't get full sun throughout the year. I.e.,
sufficient solar panels for 100% solar power in the fall and spring is
deemed to be too costly in states without subsidies, as you need about
three times as many panels for spring and fall, as during the summer
months. Installing enough solar panels for 100% power in the fall and
spring, means that you generate excess power during the summer. In the
states without the subsidies, you can't connect to the power grid and
sell the excess power. Once your batteries are charged, you must
"burn" off the excess power, i.e., as waste heat, during the summer
months. In the states with subsidies, you're restricted to installing
only enough solar panels for about 50% power in the fall and spring.
So, you only have 100% power in the summer and never generate excess
power.

> Regarding your comparison between US and German energy production:
> Looking at your numbers, US citicens consume about twice (7.5 / 4)
> as much electrical energy than German citicens. I don't think this
> is a ratio the USA should/could be proud of... ;)
>

I'm not sure if it's people or industry or a mixture. Certain things
consume large amounts of electricity, e.g., aluminum smelting,
electric subways, air conditioning, auto-motive welding,
electroplating, ... Shifting our buses, automobiles, trucks, trains,
and planes to EVs will increase electricity usage dramatically. This
ratio will become even greater.


Rod Pemberton
--
The only hope for Jerusalem is for it to be shared by all the
faithful. It must stand as it's own territory separate from Christain,
Muslim, and Jewish lands.

Kerr-Mudd,John

unread,
Dec 10, 2017, 5:06:47 AM12/10/17
to
Rod Pemberton <EmailN...@voenflacbe.cpm> wrote in news:p0gfab$8pn$1
@gioia.aioe.org:

> On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 15:43:44 +0100
> Bernhard Schornak <scho...@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Why is solar energy 'insignificant'?
>
> I meant it's not a major source of power generation here. I didn't
> mean it's insignificant as an option. Obviously, the sun is one of the
> primary sources of the planet's energy, along with nuclear reactions in
> the Earth's core.
>
> Solar power plants seem to be attracted to deserts, e.g., Nevada. The
> problem here is that there are many protected animals and plants. Wind
> and solar both kill birds and other flying or crawling creatures.
E.g.,
> the protected bald eagle is being killed by wind farms.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/31/donald-
trump/trump-exaggerates-wind-turbine-eagle-deaths/

Bernhard Schornak

unread,
Dec 16, 2017, 1:52:55 AM12/16/17
to
Without the EU, European countries would waste more electrical energy
than they actually do. There are strict rules (enforced by laws!) all
(people and industry) have to obey. This started with the prohibition
of conventional light bulbs with the rise of LED technologies, or the
introduction of efficiency classes, so customers have a choice to buy
more efficient devices rather than to purchase cheaper, but much less
efficient enrgy wasters. In the end, the price per KW/h - 0.2655 Euro
in Augsburg (normal tariff) dictates the power saving behaviour... ;)

EU law: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32008R1275&from=DE
DE law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Renewable_Energy_Sources_Act

For the EU, there are dozens of additional laws. They can be found on
the Eur-Lex site (first link).

Phil Carmody

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 9:30:03 AM12/18/17
to
Bernhard Schornak <scho...@web.de> writes:
> Without the EU, European countries would waste more electrical energy
> than they actually do. There are strict rules (enforced by laws!) all
> (people and industry) have to obey. This started with the prohibition
> of conventional light bulbs with the rise of LED technologies, or the
> introduction of efficiency classes, so customers have a choice to buy
> more efficient devices rather than to purchase cheaper, but much less
> efficient enrgy wasters. In the end, the price per KW/h - 0.2655 Euro
> in Augsburg (normal tariff) dictates the power saving behaviour... ;)

Thank $DEITY that heat globes (which alas aren't perfectly efficient,
as they glow) will still remain available.

Phil
--
In order for there to be rights, there must be wrongs - if you want to
get rid of wrongs, which great leaders do, you *must* get rid of rights.

Bernhard Schornak

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 10:41:14 AM12/18/17
to
Phil Carmody wrote:


> Bernhard Schornak <scho...@web.de> writes:
>> Without the EU, European countries would waste more electrical energy
>> than they actually do. There are strict rules (enforced by laws!) all
>> (people and industry) have to obey. This started with the prohibition
>> of conventional light bulbs with the rise of LED technologies, or the
>> introduction of efficiency classes, so customers have a choice to buy
>> more efficient devices rather than to purchase cheaper, but much less
>> efficient enrgy wasters. In the end, the price per KW/h - 0.2655 Euro
>> in Augsburg (normal tariff) dictates the power saving behaviour... ;)
>
> Thank $DEITY that heat globes (which alas aren't perfectly efficient,
> as they glow) will still remain available.


According to Mr. Trump, global warming is a Chinese invention to
bring the USA down. (A smiley was not appropriate in conjunction
with anything regarding Mr. Trump...)

BTW: Your sig suggests dictatorships with strong leaders are the
best thing to achieve?

wolfgang kern

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 6:04:03 PM12/18/17
to
Phil Carmody (former known as Fat Phil) wrote:

good to see you are still with us :)

>> Without the EU, European countries would waste more electrical energy
>> than they actually do. There are strict rules (enforced by laws!) all
>> (people and industry) have to obey. This started with the prohibition
>> of conventional light bulbs with the rise of LED technologies, or the
>> introduction of efficiency classes, so customers have a choice to buy
>> more efficient devices rather than to purchase cheaper, but much less
>> efficient enrgy wasters. In the end, the price per KW/h - 0.2655 Euro
>> in Augsburg (normal tariff) dictates the power saving behaviour... ;)

> Thank $DEITY that heat globes (which alas aren't perfectly efficient,
> as they glow) will still remain available.

yes, there is much more power available than humans would ever need.

> Phil
> --
> In order for there to be rights, there must be wrongs - if you want to
> get rid of wrongs, which great leaders do, you *must* get rid of rights.

nothing wrong on this one, and if I think about it ...
whenever we feel treated wrong we better get rid of our leaders.
__
wolfgang

Rod Pemberton

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 9:14:28 PM12/18/17
to
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:41:11 +0100
Bernhard Schornak <scho...@web.de> wrote:

> According to Mr. Trump, global warming is a Chinese invention to
> bring the USA down.

Coal is one of the most abundant fuel source on the planet, especially
if you exclude hydrogen trapped in water molecules. Coal is capable of
powering the planet for centuries, much like the sun, when or if the
emissions issue of burning coal can be solved. While I doubt that clean
coal combustion will be developed any time soon, entering into financial
agreements which tax the U.S. - a major coal polluter - for green house
gas emissions, but which completely exempt China - an even greater coal
polluter - would clearly be unwise financially. I.e., the U.S. would
be paying China to burn coal. Banning the combustion of coal would be
premature given that researchers are working on clean coal technology.

While the world is upset with President Trump's decision to back out of
the Paris accord, I believe it to be the correct choice, given that
China was not held to the same standards. Clearly, it was a mistake
for the U.S. to halt building of nuclear power plants in the past at
the request of environmentalists, as that forced the U.S. to burn more
coal. Now, environmentalists want the U.S. to ban coal as well. Until
there is a form of energy production on Earth which is of sufficient
magnitude to power the world without pollution, environmentalists will
complain about whatever is in use.

Alex

unread,
Dec 19, 2017, 4:28:47 AM12/19/17
to
Shorter version; there's a bad boy over there doing it, so we're going
to shit on our doorstep too.


--
Alex

Bernhard Schornak

unread,
Dec 19, 2017, 8:15:41 AM12/19/17
to
Rod Pemberton wrote:


> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:41:11 +0100
> Bernhard Schornak <scho...@web.de> wrote:
>
>> According to Mr. Trump, global warming is a Chinese invention to
>> bring the USA down.
>
> Coal is one of the most abundant fuel source on the planet, especially
> if you exclude hydrogen trapped in water molecules. Coal is capable of
> powering the planet for centuries, much like the sun, when or if the
> emissions issue of burning coal can be solved. While I doubt that clean
> coal combustion will be developed any time soon, entering into financial
> agreements which tax the U.S. - a major coal polluter - for green house
> gas emissions, but which completely exempt China - an even greater coal
> polluter - would clearly be unwise financially. I.e., the U.S. would
> be paying China to burn coal. Banning the combustion of coal would be
> premature given that researchers are working on clean coal technology.
>
> While the world is upset with President Trump's decision to back out of
> the Paris accord, I believe it to be the correct choice, given that
> China was not held to the same standards. Clearly, it was a mistake
> for the U.S. to halt building of nuclear power plants in the past at
> the request of environmentalists, as that forced the U.S. to burn more
> coal. Now, environmentalists want the U.S. to ban coal as well. Until
> there is a form of energy production on Earth which is of sufficient
> magnitude to power the world without pollution, environmentalists will
> complain about whatever is in use.


There's a similar discussion over here: Because industries make
huge profits with coal and some thousand jobs are menaced, they
start(ed) campaigns to 'save our future power supply' - even if
coal is not the main source of electrical power, and the annual
contingent of fossile sources is decreasing since decades (40.3
percent in 2012).

One more important aspect was the count of casualties caused by
air pollution emitted by burning of fossile material - everyone
praying we have to burn fossile sources should also admit these
profits / earnings cost deaths of thousands of people per year.
So the true story is:

"Thousands of people have to die to help us earn money with the
pollution of Earth's athmosphere!"

I wouldn't call myself 'environmentalist'. I love to drive fast
cars and trucks, I burn coal because it is cheaper than heating
my room with electrical energy - surely not a typical behaviour
for environment fanatics on crusade... ;)

Regarding the current President of the USA: He managed to smash
the international reputation of the USA in less than one year -
let's have a look if he can top it in his second year.

Rod Pemberton

unread,
Dec 20, 2017, 4:30:10 AM12/20/17
to
> Shorter version; there's a bad boy over there doing it, so we're
> going to shit on our doorstep too.
>

I don't think that's a fair representation of my comments.

The real question is why the E.U. and European states, especially
France and Germany, think they can legislate for the U.S.? The E.U. is
constantly attempting to change U.S. laws and strip away the lawful
rights of our citizens via treaties and international agreements.
The E.U. constantly attempting to punish and fine U.S. corporations in
areas where it has no legal authority. If anything, the U.S. should be
forcing the E.U. and Europe to adapt to and adopt our laws. So far,
the U.S. has been especially gracious with the rest of the world, but
we're constantly being kicked in the teeth for it. Why our government
let's the E.U. get away with this, I'll never know. We should stop
funding NATO financial obligations of other countries. We should stop
funding foreign aid too. Our citizens die for the safety of others in
the world. Our citizens pay to protect and develop other countries.
Our corporate wealth gets confiscated by the E.U. and Russia. We pay
the Chinese to produce goods for us and lifted them out of poverty.
They turn around and stab the U.S. in the back through expansion
military force and anti-US government policies. The E.U. runs
roughshod over our legal system. It's time for the E.U. to pay it's
fair share. It's time the artificial barriers to the Chinese market are
removed. It's time the Chinese currency moves freely. It's well past
time for Russian and Chinese military aggression to be wholly
suppressed. I don't believe the ends justify the means, but if we
nuked North Korea, toppled Iran, and decapitated Russia, the I do
believe that the world would become a far better place, in relatively
short order. Centuries of world peace would likely follow, as the
governments of these regimes are the prime instigators of problems for
the world.

Kerr-Mudd,John

unread,
Dec 20, 2017, 5:42:14 AM12/20/17
to
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:31:41 GMT, Rod Pemberton
<EmailN...@voenflacbe.cpm> wrote:
[]
> removed. It's time the Chinese currency moves freely. It's well past
> time for Russian and Chinese military aggression to be wholly
> suppressed. I don't believe the ends justify the means, but if we
> nuked North Korea, toppled Iran, and decapitated Russia, the I do
> believe that the world would become a far better place, in relatively
> short order. Centuries of world peace would likely follow, as the
> governments of these regimes are the prime instigators of problems for
> the world.

Stage 1: world peace by removing communism from Vietnam
2 ditto Korea
3 Bring peace and democracy to:
Afghanistan
Iraq
try Iraq again
OK the US overwhelmed Noriaga (sp?) and caused enough shit in Nicaragua,
Chile and the Carribean
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Heat:_Conspiracy,
_Murder_and_the_Cold_War_in_the_Caribbean

to oppress any local movements.


for further irony try this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKfaKdFsFds

Herbert Kleebauer

unread,
Dec 20, 2017, 7:08:05 AM12/20/17
to
Brain wash?

I hope you get your wall not only on the border to Mexico but on all
your borders. And the most important thing is, that nothing can cross
the border from inside to outside, then maybe the rest of the world
can live in peace. US have never gave up slavery. The slaves don't
live in the US anymore, but anybody outside can be treated like
the good old black slaves imported from Africa. The US claim the
right to kill any person they want outside the US without any
international judicial proceedings, to steel all resources they need
from all countries which can't strike back and to destroy the
natural environment which is the livelihood for our planet.



Kerr-Mudd,John

unread,
Dec 20, 2017, 8:46:00 AM12/20/17
to
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:08:03 GMT, Herbert Kleebauer <kl...@unibwm.de> wrote:

> On 20.12.2017 10:31, Rod Pemberton wrote:
[]
>> governments of these regimes are the prime instigators of problems for
>> the world.
>
> Brain wash?
>
> I hope you get your wall not only on the border to Mexico but on all
[]

I think Rod's given up asm and is now into trolling. (see clf)

asetof...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 20, 2017, 8:51:14 AM12/20/17
to
The First not right thing: EU want resolve problem of all the world without first resolve problem of Europe...

NATO has to close all. Each state resolve their own problem in independent way.

The state has resolved them right and ok will have advantages (how it has to be) instead of now organizations supranational advantage the states create problems, and strike the states resolve problems.

asetof...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 20, 2017, 9:04:46 AM12/20/17
to
Each state resolve their own problem in independent way.

The state has resolved them right and ok will have advantages (how it has to be)

And the sys goes towards competition on solution of local (and so global problem)

Instead of now with globalization where problems are not confined to states and are irresolvable (at last I think so) so the sys goes from good to wrong...
So walls (duty) are **very good**

Bernhard Schornak

unread,
Dec 20, 2017, 11:33:30 AM12/20/17
to
Rod Pemberton wrote:


> The real question is why the E.U. and European states, especially
> France and Germany, think they can legislate for the U.S.?


Do they? I doubt anyone over here is interested in that.
Neither the European people nor the European peoples nor
the leaders of the Europen states nor the European poli-
ticians in command are interested in telling the US what
to do. Nevertheless, we - like the USA - have interests,
and we're willing to veto things we consider as wrong or
things violating European or a single state's laws.


> The E.U. is
> constantly attempting to change U.S. laws and strip away the lawful
> rights of our citizens via treaties and international agreements.


Where, whom and which rights? Do you mismatch the EU and
Turkey?


> The E.U. constantly attempting to punish and fine U.S. corporations in
> areas where it has no legal authority.


That is: Outside the EU. Corporations with EU settlings,
e.g. Amazon and Apple, must obey the laws of the country
where their settlings are - you cannot *force* US law on
foreign territory. (European companies with settlings in
other countries can't claim to only obey their home law,
either.)


> If anything, the U.S. should be
> forcing the E.U. and Europe to adapt to and adopt our laws.


Do you demand a war against the EU to force your laws on
us? How democratic is such an attempt and how many lives
would it cost?


> So far,
> the U.S. has been especially gracious with the rest of the world, but
> we're constantly being kicked in the teeth for it.


Gracious with nuclear weapons, Napalm, Agent Orange, the
destabilisation of the entire Near East and North Africa
by toppling their dictators andf leaving a vacuum for Al
Kaida and IS, conducting torture facilities like Guanta-
namo, et cetera?


> Why our government
> let's the E.U. get away with this, I'll never know.


Because all former governments fulfilled the duties they
signed in multilateral contracts. Which is not practised
any longer by the current president (who is busy to make
his property 'great again' as long as he is in power and
able to do something for those poor rich people starving
from too high taxes).


> We should stop
> funding NATO financial obligations of other countries. We should stop
> funding foreign aid too.


Yes. The damned humanism stays between foreign resources
and profit.


> Our citizens die for the safety of others in the world.


Do they? Or do they just die to protect international US
interests and profit US corporations can make with cheap
foreign resources? (Which applies to the EU, as well...)


> Our citizens pay to protect and develop other countries.


Do they? What do they get back for it? Isn't the overall
ratio "we take *much* more than we get"?


> Our corporate wealth gets confiscated by the E.U. and Russia.


I'm sure the wealth of the Russian mafia who financed D.
Trump's buildings was not stolen from US companies...


> We pay the Chinese to produce goods for us and lifted them
> out of poverty.


...and got products so cheap *no* American company could
compete with the price.


> They turn around and stab the U.S. in the back through
> expansion military force and anti-US government policies.


Come on - that was in December 1941...


> The E.U. runs roughshod over our legal system.


Where?


> It's time for the E.U. to pay it's fair share. It's time
> the artificial barriers to the Chinese market are removed.
> It's time the Chinese currency moves freely.


You'd better wish this never happens - China easily will
bring the *entire* US economy down just by selling their
Dollar bonds.


> It's well past time for Russian and Chinese military aggression
> to be wholly suppressed. I don't believe the ends justify the
> means, but if we nuked North Korea, toppled Iran, and decapitated
> Russia, the I do believe that the world would become a far better
> place, in relatively short order. Centuries of world peace would
> likely follow, as the governments of these regimes are the prime
> instigators of problems for the world.


If you did that, all people around the globe would start
to hate not just the USA as state, but also those people
who agreed with such unethical wrongdoing.

Reading your reply - either you were in the mood to post
a satirical essay, or you should consider to rethink the
thoughts you published...

(I neither hate people living in the US nor do I attempt
to rule them. This should be valid for all huumans popu-
lating our planet. We can solve problems with force, but
as humans we also can start to talk and find compromises
suiting the interests of all people, regardless of where
they were born. None of us could opt for the place where
s/he was born, so we should not devalue others for their
origin, colour of their skin, religion or attitude. Only
a persons deeds count!)

asetof...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 23, 2017, 2:05:30 PM12/23/17
to
Marry Christmas and one Happy new year

Kerr-Mudd,John

unread,
Dec 24, 2017, 5:59:08 AM12/24/17
to
On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 19:05:28 GMT, asetof...@gmail.com wrote:

> Marry Christmas and one Happy new year
>

Show your code!
(error in transmission at byte 1)

Bernhard Schornak

unread,
Dec 24, 2017, 7:06:52 AM12/24/17
to
asetof...@gmail.com wrote:


> Marry Christmas and one Happy new year


Enjoy the 'reborn' Sun (like all civilisations around the planet
did since ancient astronomers started to watch and record Mother
Earth's endless loop around our life spending star).


Merry holidays and a happy new year to allน!

Bernhard Schornak


[น] Including Peter and Rick ;)

asetof...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 25, 2017, 3:47:46 AM12/25/17
to
Merry Christmas and one Happy new year

Kerr-Mudd,John

unread,
Dec 25, 2017, 6:42:17 AM12/25/17
to
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 08:47:44 GMT, asetof...@gmail.com wrote:

> Merry Christmas and one Happy new year
>

That's more Merry! If Capitalising I'd also do "New Year".

Kerr-Mudd,John

unread,
Feb 7, 2021, 4:00:22 PMFeb 7
to
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:15:37 GMT, Bernhard Schornak <scho...@web.de>
wrote:
How did he do?


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

Rod Pemberton

unread,
Feb 7, 2021, 8:29:11 PMFeb 7
to
Even though you're a persistent Usenet troll from the U.K., and even
though you responded to Bernard here, it seems as if your comment was
directed at me. Was it? Maybe, you can learn something or gain some
insights into the U.S. by reading my response below. I'm sure it's
radically different from what you were taught to believe by biased
media in the U.K. and E.U., and even leftist media in the U.S.


Trump still has a narrow chance for a second term, as nearly 74 million
people voted for him the second time. That's the second highest vote
for any U.S. President, except Joe Biden who had roughly 81 million
people vote for him. That's enough to virtually guarantee Trump a win
against anyone else, should he be able to maintain his momentum while
being out of office over the next four years. Biden also said he's not
running for a second term, which is probably a lie.

Trump's ability to easily insult people, allowed him to quickly
determine where people stood on critical issues. This politically
incorrect behavior is not something which politically correct people
understand, such as other politicians. Unfortunately, this also made
many people angry with Trump. Anarchists, liberals, progressives, and
socialists were consistently upset with Trump. Of course, there is a
larger abundance of such people in the E.U. on a percentage basis, than
in the U.S., which is more well-balanced between liberal and
conservative thought. The stench of liberal group think in Europe
doesn't exist here.

So, despite the fact that Trump was hated by half our country, which
was mostly an extreme negative emotional reaction to Hillary Clinton
losing, I have no problem stating that Donald Trump was the greatest
President of my entire lifetime (but I admit that I only remember as
far back as Jimmy Carter ...). No other Presidents have accomplished as
much of what they claimed to do. No other Presidents have done the
things they promised. By comparison, all other Presidents - both
Republican and Democrat - qualify as milquetoasts.

So, let's look at some of Trump's accomplishments, from the perspective
of many millions of Americans, of course:

a) Trump selected three respectable conservative justices for U.S.
Supreme Court, ensuring that legislation-from-the-bench, an illegal
activity which resulted in the Roe v. Wade decision, is unlikely to
occur anytime in the near future.

b) Trump reduced illegal border crossing by over 50% after erecting 453
miles of new primary border wall with Mexico, according to Customs and
Border Protection. (Biden halted further border wall for 60 day review.)

c) Trump established a new framework for peace in the middle east with
Israel and other Arabic countries, which was signed by Bahrain, United
Arab Emirates, and Sudan. This is called the Abraham Accords.

d) Trump rebuilt our ailing military, reduced U.S. presence in
conflicts abroad, and fixed problems with the Department of Veterans
Affairs.

e) Trump halted imminent and persistent threats of nuclear attacks by
both North Korea and Iran, through diplomacy and rescinding of a
nuclear agreement.

f) Trump removed the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, which was an
underhanded method of the United Nations, that granted foreign nations
the illegal authority to tax the U.S. via carbon emission credits. The
Paris Agreement does little to nothing to reduce actual carbon
emissions, nor would it reduce global warming. It's toothless and
ineffective except to engage in income theft and wealth redistribution
via indirect taxation.

g) Trump renegotiated NAFTA which resulted in unfair (and
uncorrectable) trade imbalances with Mexico and Canada. The result was
the USMCA, which helps to protect American automotive jobs, opens up
competitive free-trade markets in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico such as
dairy, encourages unions in Mexico to help reduce endemic poverty,
increases and coordinates intellectual property protections for
innovative companies, and provides a mechanism to resolve disputes
which eliminated numerous costly tariffs due to unresolved issues with
NAFTA.

h) Trump terminated our relationship with the WHO because it covered up
the COVID-19 pandemic on behalf of China.

i) Trump criticized NATO because other members weren't paying their
fair share, as it seems that they had lost interest in the group and
fulfilling their duties.

j) Trump restarted the Keystone pipeline which is needed for U.S.
energy independence. (Obama, Biden halted for environmental reasons.)
The next Republican president will likely restart it ...

etc


By comparison, Barack Obama's legacy is and will be much like that of
the pharaoh Akhenaten, who was chiseled from the walls ...

--
Microsoft:"You can't fix it."
Linux:"You can't compile it."

Bernhard Schornak

unread,
Feb 7, 2021, 9:42:56 PMFeb 7
to
He delivered a persistent performance, didn't he? ;)

wolfgang kern

unread,
Feb 8, 2021, 4:40:40 AMFeb 8
to
On 08.02.2021 03:42, Bernhard Schornak wrote:

[Mr.Trump ...]

> He delivered a persistent performance, didn't he? ;)

and after his lawyers fled he have to resign twice yet :)
__
wolfgang

Kerr-Mudd,John

unread,
Feb 8, 2021, 7:33:51 AMFeb 8
to
On Mon, 08 Feb 2021 01:30:12 GMT, Rod Pemberton
<nomai...@trgzxcqvbe.cpm> wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 21:00:20 -0000 (UTC)
> "Kerr-Mudd,John" <nots...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:15:37 GMT, Bernhard Schornak <scho...@web.de>
>> wrote:
>> > Rod Pemberton wrote:
[something he felt I was challenging]
>> >
>> > Regarding the current President of the USA: He managed to smash
>> > the international reputation of the USA in less than one year -
>> > let's have a look if he can top it in his second year.
>> >
>>
>> How did he do?
>>
>
> Even though you're a persistent Usenet troll from the U.K., and even

Well I'm a persistent poster who indeed is in the UK, so 2 out of 3 ain't
bad. I recently "trolled" by posting an assembler program (gasp!), but I
got little interest:
Message-ID: <XnsACB6996EE7...@144.76.35.252>



> though you responded to Bernard here, it seems as if your comment was
> directed at me. Was it? Maybe, you can learn something or gain some

No, Mr Sensitive. I was looking at some old posts and idly wondered if
people's views had changed with time. Sorry.

> insights into the U.S. by reading my response below. I'm sure it's
> radically different from what you were taught to believe by biased
> media in the U.K. and E.U., and even leftist media in the U.S.
[crazy rightist US view on what is 'leftist' snipped].

Darn it, I can see this is just more flame-bait.

Bernhard Schornak

unread,
Feb 8, 2021, 11:02:50 AMFeb 8
to
Yep. As compensation, the fiscal authorities are after him... ;)


Pfüat'Di!

Bernhard

Rod Pemberton

unread,
Feb 10, 2021, 2:38:21 AMFeb 10
to
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 12:33:49 -0000 (UTC)
"Kerr-Mudd,John" <nots...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> [crazy rightist US view on what is 'leftist' snipped].

I'm not rightist. Try again.

Kerr-Mudd,John

unread,
Feb 10, 2021, 10:23:49 AMFeb 10
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 07:39:19 GMT, Rod Pemberton
<nomai...@trgzxcqvbe.cpm> wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 12:33:49 -0000 (UTC)
> "Kerr-Mudd,John" <nots...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> [crazy rightist US view on what is 'leftist' snipped].
>
> I'm not rightist. Try again.
>

Depends where you stand;
*I'm* a moderate, *you are* an extremist, *he is* a complete loon.

But enough talk of C; let's get some asm going here;

256 byte tetris anyone?

Rod Pemberton

unread,
Feb 10, 2021, 4:34:09 PMFeb 10
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 15:23:48 -0000 (UTC)
"Kerr-Mudd,John" <nots...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 07:39:19 GMT, Rod Pemberton
> <nomai...@trgzxcqvbe.cpm> wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 12:33:49 -0000 (UTC)
> > "Kerr-Mudd,John" <nots...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> >> [crazy rightist US view on what is 'leftist' snipped].
> >
> > I'm not rightist. Try again.
> >
>
> Depends where you stand;
> *I'm* a moderate, *you are* an extremist, *he is* a complete loon.

Yes, it does "depend upon where you stand".

FYI, *I'm* a moderate, at least, by American standards.

We - U.S. citizens - outnumber all of you in the U.K. by 263 million or
thereabouts ... We also rival the E.U. in terms of population (330 vs.
447). Our economy exceeds that of the E.U. and U.K. combined by a few
trillion. So, our viewpoints really shouldn't be dismissed so readily
by someone in the U.K. or E.U., as was done by your political leaders
and citizens during Trump's presidency. The immense disrespect shown to
the our country, the U.S. president, and the people who elected him,
won't be forgotten any time soon. For every action, there is an equal
and opposite reaction. In the future, the winds will blow in a
different direction.

Why or how am I a moderate? I have an equal mix of U.S. leftist and
rightist political beliefs, which are further to the right than U.K.
and E.U. My entire life, leftists were to the left of me and
conservatives were to the right of me, until Hillary Clinton lost.
Then, leftists went ape shit, triggered from the loss of their
emotional investment, and headed far off to the left, and starting
calling everyone -ist and -ic, e.g., homophobic, racist, misogynist
etc. Technically, I'm a libertarian according to political scientists,
but in the U.S. people confuse that with the Libertarian Party, a
political party with similar but different viewpoints, and in the U.K.
they seem to confuse that with the radical leftist ideology of anarchy,
e.g., libertarian anarchism.

> But enough talk of C;

?

> let's get some asm going here;
>
> 256 byte tetris anyone?
>

No.

Why would you want this coded in assembly instead of a "portable"
high-level language like C? Seems pointless. Even Brainfuck would be
a better choice:

https://esolangs.org/wiki/Brainfuck

--
Biden is just as one-sided and divisive as Trump. Bad President!
No unity for you. Come back 4 years!

Kerr-Mudd,John

unread,
Feb 11, 2021, 2:43:14 PMFeb 11
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 21:35:10 GMT, Rod Pemberton
<nomai...@trgzxcqvbe.cpm> wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 15:23:48 -0000 (UTC)
> "Kerr-Mudd,John" <nots...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 07:39:19 GMT, Rod Pemberton
>> <nomai...@trgzxcqvbe.cpm> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 12:33:49 -0000 (UTC)
>> > "Kerr-Mudd,John" <nots...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> >> [crazy rightist US view on what is 'leftist' snipped].
>> >
>> > I'm not rightist. Try again.
>> >
>>
>> Depends where you stand;
>> *I'm* a moderate, *you are* an extremist, *he is* a complete loon.
>
> Yes, it does "depend upon where you stand".
>
> FYI, *I'm* a moderate, at least, by American standards.
>
> We - U.S. citizens - outnumber all of you in the U.K. by 263 million or
> thereabouts ... We also rival the E.U. in terms of population (330 vs.
> 447). Our economy exceeds that of the E.U. and U.K. combined by a few
> trillion. So, our viewpoints really shouldn't be dismissed so readily

Ah might=right; watch out for China.

> by someone in the U.K. or E.U., as was done by your political leaders
> and citizens during Trump's presidency. The immense disrespect shown
to
> the our country, the U.S. president, and the people who elected him,
> won't be forgotten any time soon. For every action, there is an equal
> and opposite reaction. In the future, the winds will blow in a
> different direction.

Trump was/is certifiable; why people were desperate enough to want a
"leader" with his lack of grasp of reality was incredible. That they
*still* couldn't wouldn't see that 4 years later shows some form of mass
psychosis.
You (US) have a big repair job ahead. People there seem to just want
"the good old days" back, without putting any effort in.
[]

No asm then.

Enough from me about the US's problems.

Rod Pemberton

unread,
Feb 12, 2021, 2:36:04 AMFeb 12
to
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 19:43:12 -0000 (UTC)
"Kerr-Mudd,John" <nots...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 21:35:10 GMT, Rod Pemberton
> <nomai...@trgzxcqvbe.cpm> wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 15:23:48 -0000 (UTC)
> > "Kerr-Mudd,John" <nots...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 07:39:19 GMT, Rod Pemberton
> >> <nomai...@trgzxcqvbe.cpm> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 12:33:49 -0000 (UTC)
> >> > "Kerr-Mudd,John" <nots...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> >> >> [crazy rightist US view on what is 'leftist' snipped].
> >> >
> >> > I'm not rightist. Try again.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Depends where you stand;
> >> *I'm* a moderate, *you are* an extremist, *he is* a complete loon.
> >
> > Yes, it does "depend upon where you stand".
> >
> > FYI, *I'm* a moderate, at least, by American standards.
> >
> > We - U.S. citizens - outnumber all of you in the U.K. by 263
> > million or thereabouts ... We also rival the E.U. in terms of
> > population (330 vs. 447). Our economy exceeds that of the E.U. and
> > U.K. combined by a few trillion. So, our viewpoints really
> > shouldn't be dismissed so readily
>
> Ah might=right; watch out for China.

China will implode. Nothing for us to do. Their policies, beliefs,
and practices are simply unsustainable. E.g., population peak and
crash about 2050 due to their one-child policy, their economy has
been fueled by debt since year 2007, China's currency manipulation of
the yuan is causing capital flight, their large trade imbalances with
other countries, their aggression in South China sea, their extreme
environmental damage due to rapid economic growth harming agriculture,
and their strong economy driving China away from communism, socialism,
and authoritarianism towards democracy and freedom, etc.

> > by someone in the U.K. or E.U., as was done by your political
> > leaders and citizens during Trump's presidency. The immense
> > disrespect shown
> to
> > the our country, the U.S. president, and the people who elected him,
> > won't be forgotten any time soon. For every action, there is an
> > equal and opposite reaction. In the future, the winds will blow in
> > a different direction.
>
> Trump was/is certifiable; why people were desperate enough to want a
> "leader" with his lack of grasp of reality was incredible. That they
> *still* couldn't wouldn't see that 4 years later shows some form of
> mass psychosis.

Well, that's typical liberal bullshit. Isn't it?

Personal opinions.
Baseless claims.
No specifics.
No explanation.

I.e., I don't understand why you claim, without justification or
explanation of any sort, "certifiably [insane]", "desperate people",
"lack of grasp of reality", "mass psychosis", etc.

> mass psychosis.

As I stated previously, U.S. liberals were always to the left of me, and
U.S. conservatives were always to the right of me. I'm still in
the middle, conservatives are still to the right, and liberals are
nowhere to be found, so it was liberals went off the deep end. I.e.,
"mass psychosis" is the reaction by liberals, progressives, Democrats
and anyone who disliked Trump. Trump was very literal and simplistic in
what he said, which is one reason why 78 million people voted for him,
i.e., they saw him as truthful, not dishonest like politicians, nor
dishonest like urban liberals. Unfortunately, he was too simplistic,
terse, which resulted in ambiguity. The liberal media, liberals and
progressives pounced this ambiguity to read into or between the lines
to concoct negative connotations, like racism. E.g., Donald Trump
didn't know who David Duke was - unmentioned by the media for over 25
years now - so liberals incorrectly perceived that as Trump "not
denouncing racism". E.g., media reported that mainly drug traffickers
and MS-13 gang members were the immigrants crossing our southern
border, but when Trump states this, and mentions some good people cross
too, liberals and media call it "racism" (Mexicans are an ethnicity)
against innocent Mexican immigrants, families, children.

> Trump was/is certifiable;

In what way? (i.e., without specifics that's a baseless claim)

> lack of grasp of reality

In what way? (i.e., without specifics that's a baseless claim)



My guess is you really don't understand America, nor Americans, nor the
actual issues, as they're viewed by Americans, that happened during
recent elections.

> why people were desperate enough to want a "leader"

Donald Trump was only known by most Americans to be a successful
businessman and a reality television star. All the other negative press
about him was only known to New Yorkers (and non-Americans apparently).
He was viewed as a political outsider, who would clean up the perceived
corruption in Washington DC, and negotiate good deals. Donald Trump
used the **exact** same tactics to become elected that Bill Clinton
used, i.e., appeal to men, appeal to the heartland, appeal to union and
blue-collar workers, embrace the populist issues. No one ever
criticized Bill Clinton for that. Hillary chose not to do that, which
is likely a factor in why she lost. Maybe, if she had done just a
little bit of that, and she hadn't lost votes by offending coal miners
and unions in the process (more on that below), maybe she'd have won as
the election vote was close. Unfortunately, Hillary didn't have much
of a political message, after Obama's "success," other than "More of
the same everybody." That message fell flat for people who wanted
change.

As for Hillary Clinton,

a) Young people were only familiar with Hillary Clinton's more recent
work on women's rights, perhaps the Benghazi attack or her email
scandal, and the fact that she'd be the first female U.S. President.

b) Older people were familiar with all of Hillary Clinton's scandals.
Hillary Clinton was a walking scandal machine with over 22 documented
scandals, where everyone around her was either arrested or died
mysteriously soon thereafter. Many people view Hillary Clinton as a
perpetual liar, as she is very easy to read when she lies, which she
does incessantly. American Christians notice this because they are
very truthful due to their Christian values. Hillary Clinton expressed
extreme anti-Russian aggression too. Many older Americans didn't want
Hillary Clinton to have the nuclear codes - which was her complaint
about Trump - because of her perceived anger towards Russia. Hillary
Clinton lost the support of many people in the mid-west just prior to
the election after she said the Democrats would put coal miners
out-of-work in favor of green energy. This affected the jobs of many
blue-collar workers, union members in steel and auto-work, and
descendants of coal miners. Coal miners are the reason that labor
unions exist in the U.S. The many millions of descendants of coal
miners occupy the mid-west, which were the states that flipped for
Trump as well as some surrounding states. Now, why do you think they
flipped? Did your U.K. media write anything about unions and coal
miners as a factor in Hillary Clinton's loss? No, they didn't ...
Ours hasn't either, neither the left or the right, as I read numerous
sources from both sides.

> You (US) have a big repair job ahead.

Yes, we do. Biden is not just ripping out all the things the liberals
perceive to be "racist," but is also attempting to rip out all the good
things Trump did for this country, that no other president even
attempted, nor will ever achieve again. How can you achieve something
when there is nothing left for you to achieve? ... Claim your
predecessor was a nincompoop. Destroy something. Destroy
everything. Start over. Now, Biden can claim to achieve something ...
My father calls this, "Flipping the table over, so you can take credit
for righting it." You can re-read my list that you snipped for some of
those things that Trump accomplished.

> People there seem to just want "the good old days" back, without
> putting any effort in.

Many of the people who voted for Trump were the exact same people who
voted for Barack Obama. If people "wanted the good old days back", none
of them would've voted for Obama. Everyone knew he was a radical
leftist or at least a liberal. So, I don't know what that means.
There was a large overlap of the voters, especially of white voters,
who voted for Obama since African-Americans (blacks) never voted white
prior to Joe Biden. Isn't that racist? In both elections of Obama and
Trump, large swaths of the U.S. population were neglected by prior U.S.
Presidents. Blacks (African-Americans) were ignored by U.S. Presidents
(prior to Biden) by both parties, and so blacks voted for Obama, for
obvious racial reasons, along with many whites. A significant
percentage of the white population and regions of the U.S. was ignored
by Obama for eight years, so white union members, conservatives,
Christians, rural whites, and white men voted for Trump. Also, those
who disliked Hillary Clinton because of her numerous scandals, and
her perception as a perpetual liar, voted for Trump too.

> No asm then.

Asm in a pandemic? ... I'm sure that people are just not in the mood.

So, I guess you get to talk to Skybuck, since it seems there are only
three of us here at the moment.

All programming Usenet groups I'm subscribed to are way down on volume.

So, why not politics for a while? U.K. politics anyone?

Didn't the U.K. back itself into a corner on this Brexit issue?
(James Harris and I had some conversations on Brexit on various groups.)

--

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages