- Posts: 1149
- Thank you received: 4
- Forum
- Political Opinions, Commentaries on Current Issues
- THE CONVERSATION TREE
- Time To Expose The Next Humungous Skam! Global Warming!
Time To Expose The Next Humungous Skam! Global Warming! |
- Billy Shatine
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
03 Oct 2021 15:20 - 03 Oct 2021 15:22 #394023
by Billy Shatine
alethonews.com/2021/10/02/in-case-you-we...g-a-hybrid-or-an-ev/
In Case You Were Thinking Of Buying A Hybrid Or An EV
This is the elephant in the room with electric vehicles. Our residential infrastructure cannot bear the load. A home charging system for a Tesla requires 75 amp service. The average house is equipped with 100 amp service.
On our small street (approximately 25 homes), the electrical infrastructure would be unable to carry more than three houses with a single Tesla each.
Ever since the advent of electric cars, the REAL cost per mile of those things has never been discussed. All you ever heard was the mpg in terms of gasoline, with nary a mention of the cost of electricity to run it.
At a neighborhood BBQ I was talking to a neighbor, a BC Hydro Executive. I asked him how that renewable thing was doing. He laughed, then got serious.
If you really intend to adopt electric vehicles, he pointed out, you had to face certain realities. For example, a home charging system for a Tesla requires 75 amp service.
The average house is equipped with 100 amp service. On our small street (approximately 25 homes), the electrical infrastructure would be unable to carry more than three houses with a single Tesla each. For even half the homes to have electric vehicles, the system would be wildly over-loaded.
This is the elephant in the room with electric vehicles. Our residential infrastructure cannot bear the load.
So, as our genius elected officials promote this nonsense, not only are we being urged to buy these things and replace our reliable, cheap generating systems with expensive new windmills and solar cells, but we will also have to renovate our entire delivery system!
This later “investment” will not be revealed until we’re so far down this dead end road that it will be presented with an ‘OOPS…!’ and a shrug.
If you want to argue with a green person over cars that are eco-friendly, just read the following. Note: If you ARE a green person, read it anyway. It’s enlightening.
Eric test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors and he writes, “For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine.” Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on the battery. So, the range including the 9-gallon gas tank and the 16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles.
It will take you 4.5 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10 hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5 hours.
In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time) would be 20 mph.
According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery. The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned, so I looked up what I pay for electricity.
I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16 per kwh. 16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery. $18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the Volt using the battery. Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine that gets only 32 mpg. $3.19 per gallon divided by 32 Mpg = $0.10 per mile.
The gasoline powered car costs about $25,000 while the Volt costs $40,000 plus.
So the Government wants us to pay twice as much for a car, that costs more than seven times as much to run, and takes three times longer to drive across the country.
Using the industry-standard calculation volts x amps = watts, for North America we get 110v x 75 amps = 8250 watts.
cont'd in link
In Case You Were Thinking Of Buying A Hybrid Or An EV
This is the elephant in the room with electric vehicles. Our residential infrastructure cannot bear the load. A home charging system for a Tesla requires 75 amp service. The average house is equipped with 100 amp service.
On our small street (approximately 25 homes), the electrical infrastructure would be unable to carry more than three houses with a single Tesla each.
Ever since the advent of electric cars, the REAL cost per mile of those things has never been discussed. All you ever heard was the mpg in terms of gasoline, with nary a mention of the cost of electricity to run it.
At a neighborhood BBQ I was talking to a neighbor, a BC Hydro Executive. I asked him how that renewable thing was doing. He laughed, then got serious.
If you really intend to adopt electric vehicles, he pointed out, you had to face certain realities. For example, a home charging system for a Tesla requires 75 amp service.
The average house is equipped with 100 amp service. On our small street (approximately 25 homes), the electrical infrastructure would be unable to carry more than three houses with a single Tesla each. For even half the homes to have electric vehicles, the system would be wildly over-loaded.
This is the elephant in the room with electric vehicles. Our residential infrastructure cannot bear the load.
So, as our genius elected officials promote this nonsense, not only are we being urged to buy these things and replace our reliable, cheap generating systems with expensive new windmills and solar cells, but we will also have to renovate our entire delivery system!
This later “investment” will not be revealed until we’re so far down this dead end road that it will be presented with an ‘OOPS…!’ and a shrug.
If you want to argue with a green person over cars that are eco-friendly, just read the following. Note: If you ARE a green person, read it anyway. It’s enlightening.
Eric test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors and he writes, “For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine.” Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on the battery. So, the range including the 9-gallon gas tank and the 16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles.
It will take you 4.5 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10 hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5 hours.
In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time) would be 20 mph.
According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery. The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned, so I looked up what I pay for electricity.
I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16 per kwh. 16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery. $18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the Volt using the battery. Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine that gets only 32 mpg. $3.19 per gallon divided by 32 Mpg = $0.10 per mile.
The gasoline powered car costs about $25,000 while the Volt costs $40,000 plus.
So the Government wants us to pay twice as much for a car, that costs more than seven times as much to run, and takes three times longer to drive across the country.
Using the industry-standard calculation volts x amps = watts, for North America we get 110v x 75 amps = 8250 watts.
cont'd in link
Last edit: 03 Oct 2021 15:22 by Billy Shatine.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Billy Shatine
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 1149
- Thank you received: 4
03 Oct 2021 21:19 #394038
by Billy Shatine
alethonews.com/2021/10/03/a-robust-balance/
A Robust Balance! ENDING THE LIES!
Albedo is the percentage of incident light that is reflected by an object. For years, I’ve read claims that the loss of Arctic sea ice is a positive feedback. It is logical—warming leads to less ice, less ice reduces the surface albedo; reduced surface albedo means more sunlight is absorbed; more sunlight absorbed leads to increased warming. Positive feedback. What’s not to like?
For example, in 2019 the IPCC said:
Feedbacks from the loss of summer sea ice and spring snow cover on land have contributed to amplified warming in the Arctic (high confidence).
Wim Rost pointed me to an interesting 2007 NASA article about Arctic albedo which says:
Although sea ice and snow cover had noticeably declined in the Arctic from 2000 to 2004, there had been no detectable change in the albedo measured at the top of the atmosphere: the proportion of light the Arctic reflected hadn’t changed. In other words, the ice albedo feedback that most climate models predict will ultimately amplify global warming apparently hadn’t yet kicked in.
Kato quickly understood why: not only is the Arctic’s average cloud fraction on summer days large enough—on average 0.8, or 80 percent—to mask sea ice changes, but an increase in cloudiness between 2000 and 2004 further hid any impact that sea ice and snow losses might have had on the Arctic’s ability to reflect incoming light. According to the MODIS observations, cloud fraction had increased at a rate of 0.65 percent per year between 2000 and 2004. If the trend continues, it will amount to a relative increase of about 6.5 percent per decade. At least during this short time period, says Kato, increased cloudiness in the Arctic appears to have offset the expected decline in albedo from melting sea ice and snow.
Wim suggested that I take a look to see if this process, of the changes in cloud albedo counteracting the changes in surface albedo, had continued up to the present.
Fortunately, the CERES data allows us to calculate the trends in both the surface albedo and the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) albedo. First, here’s the trend in surface albedo in percent per year, on a 1° latitude by 1° longitude basis
A Robust Balance! ENDING THE LIES!
Albedo is the percentage of incident light that is reflected by an object. For years, I’ve read claims that the loss of Arctic sea ice is a positive feedback. It is logical—warming leads to less ice, less ice reduces the surface albedo; reduced surface albedo means more sunlight is absorbed; more sunlight absorbed leads to increased warming. Positive feedback. What’s not to like?
For example, in 2019 the IPCC said:
Feedbacks from the loss of summer sea ice and spring snow cover on land have contributed to amplified warming in the Arctic (high confidence).
Wim Rost pointed me to an interesting 2007 NASA article about Arctic albedo which says:
Although sea ice and snow cover had noticeably declined in the Arctic from 2000 to 2004, there had been no detectable change in the albedo measured at the top of the atmosphere: the proportion of light the Arctic reflected hadn’t changed. In other words, the ice albedo feedback that most climate models predict will ultimately amplify global warming apparently hadn’t yet kicked in.
Kato quickly understood why: not only is the Arctic’s average cloud fraction on summer days large enough—on average 0.8, or 80 percent—to mask sea ice changes, but an increase in cloudiness between 2000 and 2004 further hid any impact that sea ice and snow losses might have had on the Arctic’s ability to reflect incoming light. According to the MODIS observations, cloud fraction had increased at a rate of 0.65 percent per year between 2000 and 2004. If the trend continues, it will amount to a relative increase of about 6.5 percent per decade. At least during this short time period, says Kato, increased cloudiness in the Arctic appears to have offset the expected decline in albedo from melting sea ice and snow.
Wim suggested that I take a look to see if this process, of the changes in cloud albedo counteracting the changes in surface albedo, had continued up to the present.
Fortunately, the CERES data allows us to calculate the trends in both the surface albedo and the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) albedo. First, here’s the trend in surface albedo in percent per year, on a 1° latitude by 1° longitude basis
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Billy Shatine
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 1149
- Thank you received: 4
03 Oct 2021 21:25 #394039
by Billy Shatine
alethonews.com/2021/10/01/with-blackouts...without-electricity/
With blackouts looming, German government’s disaster preparation day promotes ‘cooking without electricity’
High demand and the transition to green power has left much of Europe at risk of blackouts. In Germany, state authorities are teaching the public to heat their homes with candles and get used to “cooking without electricity.”
State authorities in North-Rhine Westphalia will hold their first ‘Disaster Protection Day’ on Saturday, with instructors in the city of Bonn teaching citizens how to get by “in the event of a long power failure.” An advert by the federal Civil Protection Office gives a hint of what’s in store, and features an elderly woman wearing several layers of clothing, heating her apartment with candles burning under an upturned flower pot and sealing her windows with reflective foil.
With blackouts looming, German government’s disaster preparation day promotes ‘cooking without electricity’
High demand and the transition to green power has left much of Europe at risk of blackouts. In Germany, state authorities are teaching the public to heat their homes with candles and get used to “cooking without electricity.”
State authorities in North-Rhine Westphalia will hold their first ‘Disaster Protection Day’ on Saturday, with instructors in the city of Bonn teaching citizens how to get by “in the event of a long power failure.” An advert by the federal Civil Protection Office gives a hint of what’s in store, and features an elderly woman wearing several layers of clothing, heating her apartment with candles burning under an upturned flower pot and sealing her windows with reflective foil.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Billy Shatine
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 1149
- Thank you received: 4
03 Oct 2021 21:34 #394040
by Billy Shatine
Norwegian reservoirs power homes in Great Britain via 724km cable — who wins?
tallbloke.wordpress.com/2021/10/01/norwe...24km-cable-who-wins/
The suspicion has to be that Britain’s ‘excess’ wind power, if any, would sell for a low price as Norway doesn’t need it, whereas a shortage of power in Britain would allow Norway to sell for a high price, assuming availability at request time. Water can be stored but wind can’t. Some reports are calling this ‘cheap hydro’, but at £1.4 billion just for the cable system such claims appear unconvincing.
tallbloke.wordpress.com/2021/10/01/norwe...24km-cable-who-wins/
The suspicion has to be that Britain’s ‘excess’ wind power, if any, would sell for a low price as Norway doesn’t need it, whereas a shortage of power in Britain would allow Norway to sell for a high price, assuming availability at request time. Water can be stored but wind can’t. Some reports are calling this ‘cheap hydro’, but at £1.4 billion just for the cable system such claims appear unconvincing.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Billy Shatine
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 1149
- Thank you received: 4
03 Oct 2021 21:37 #394041
by Billy Shatine
notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/20...-not-climate-change/
The Forestry Commission Wales were so concerned a few years ago about wildfires in South Wales that they commissioned a study, “Wildfires in Wales: social drivers and mitigation measures”.
The problem was not “climate change”, but arson
The Forestry Commission Wales were so concerned a few years ago about wildfires in South Wales that they commissioned a study, “Wildfires in Wales: social drivers and mitigation measures”.
The problem was not “climate change”, but arson
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Billy Shatine
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 1149
- Thank you received: 4
04 Oct 2021 20:59 - 04 Oct 2021 21:02 #394089
by Billy Shatine
Here we go! They say Cold which is an anomaly in a warming world! where in the hell do they see and feel global warming?
must be up there noses /size]
South Pole posts most severe cold season on record, an anomaly in a warming world
www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/south-...-in-a-warming-world/
must be up there noses /size]
South Pole posts most severe cold season on record, an anomaly in a warming world
www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/south-...-in-a-warming-world/
Last edit: 04 Oct 2021 21:02 by Billy Shatine.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Billy Shatine
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 1149
- Thank you received: 4
05 Oct 2021 08:44 #394101
by Billy Shatine
Oh Bwoy! Man Who Supports Global Warming!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Billy Shatine
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 1149
- Thank you received: 4
09 Oct 2021 04:02 #394216
by Billy Shatine
notrickszone.com/2021/10/06/have-scienti...times-mans-addition/
CO2 and climate change – some fundamental contradictions
Politicians, scientists of all disciplines, the media and big money tell us CO2 acts as a “greenhouse gas” trapping heat inside the atmosphere and that the consequence will be a runaway global warming if we do not stop the burning of any type of fossil fuel within the next 20-30 years.
But scientists may have ignored another major factor, and it is huge.
It is claimed that earth’s “natural” pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration had been hovering at 280 parts per million (ppm) for at least several hundred thousand years. Since the start of industrialization some 200 years ago, human-driven CO2 emissions have raised that level to 413.63 ppm (as of Sep. 29, 2021 (1)). In order to avert disaster – a global temperature rise of more than 1.5 °C –, mankind should not release more than 336 additional gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
CO2 and climate change – some fundamental contradictions
Politicians, scientists of all disciplines, the media and big money tell us CO2 acts as a “greenhouse gas” trapping heat inside the atmosphere and that the consequence will be a runaway global warming if we do not stop the burning of any type of fossil fuel within the next 20-30 years.
But scientists may have ignored another major factor, and it is huge.
It is claimed that earth’s “natural” pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration had been hovering at 280 parts per million (ppm) for at least several hundred thousand years. Since the start of industrialization some 200 years ago, human-driven CO2 emissions have raised that level to 413.63 ppm (as of Sep. 29, 2021 (1)). In order to avert disaster – a global temperature rise of more than 1.5 °C –, mankind should not release more than 336 additional gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Forum
- Political Opinions, Commentaries on Current Issues
- THE CONVERSATION TREE
- Time To Expose The Next Humungous Skam! Global Warming!
Time to create page: 0.233 seconds
| ||||
Powered by The Krotek
Copyright © 2022 West Indies Cricket Fans Forum. All rights reserved.
- Menu
- Staff Login