Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

I am a poor boy. An extra battery or two in my house would be cost prohibitive. Whereas a gas powered generator might be swung. There is just so much money in my budget. And I have found no solutions for electric power to my home other than nuclear or fossil fuels. And no fuel other than fossil fuels for my vehicle.

 

IMHO wind power is a waste of material.

 

Wait a while. Whilst old lead acid batteries have limited life lithium batteries have a far longer life than just for the EV. We will see increasing numbers of “second hand” ev batteries coming on the market though at the moment a lot, especially in Europe, are being snapped up by home owners in private sales this is leading to start up industries “reconditioning” batteries

 

I really wish the blade less turbines were used more

 

Again you ignore questions. Why is that?

The cheapest power is coal. Watch and learn from the Chinese Communist Party.

 

I am away from my references now. My recollection of the human prosperity hockey stick graph is that it turned sharply up with the widespread availability of electric power.

 

And China is causing incredible damage to their nation as they are destroying huge areas of their country in order to mine lithium, and leaving behind huge areas of toxic waste when they move on. Rivers killed of all fish from the toxic waste poured into them, wasteland left behind as they do no reclamation at all once the lithium in an area is extracted. Most mining experts are now saying that lithium mining is the most toxic and hazardous kind of minning there is, and almost always destroys the local area. And is as far from being "green" as one can get.

And apparently this is your idea of "good"?

 

That actually took almost a century, so that graph will only reflect however long of a period of time the chart covers.

But it unquestionably would have started to turn up in the early to mid 1800s. That is when industrialization first started, transitioning from water and wind to steam power. Electricity did not start to replace that as the power source of factories for more than a century. At the close of the 19th and start of the 20th centuries.

Remember, the first modern "Industrial Revolution" was from right before the American Revolution until the middle 1800s. Huge factories started popping up all over England and France, primarily churning out products with water power. One of those that had the greatest impact was the Roberts Loom, which completely changed the textile industry. Creating the massive demand for cotton, and making fabric available for the first time that was affordable to common people.

And by 1810 that spawned the Luddite Movement. And many in France started destroying the looms with their wooden shoes, the sabot.

And that was all still 80 years before the factories started to convert to electricity. And originally it was not even to power their machines, it was around the 1880s so they could install the new incandescent light. Which allowed many of the factories to expand to 24 hour operations. But they did not convert their equipment yet, as the early motors were nowhere near powerful enough to run in the primarily low voltage DC power of the era (and power was not commonly available for decades yet).

Heck, even at the start of the 20th century, the use of electricity for industry was rare. The first I can actually think of was ALCOA which used electrolyzing of molten bauxite ore to produce aluminum. The first large scale operation other than two test projects being built at Niagara Falls, because Westinghouse had just built one of the first large hydro plants there (originally 4 MW, growing to 75 MW by 1900). It may sound miniscule today, but that was one of the largest power plants in the world at that time.

And at about the time electricity first became available, that was also the time the first steam farm equipment became available. I would actually believe that had far more of an impact than electricity. As steam tractors and other such equipment is what turned the US from just another agriculture nation to the world's leader in agriculture production.

At roughly the same time, but not because of electricity.

 

Well, for the general population it is the cheapest electricity to create and distribute, resulting in low rates.

Sometimes I think you are considering DYI projects. In that case, buying a diesel generator for personal use might be OK - unless you're living in an urban neighborhood.

 

China is the world's third top producer behind Australia and Chile. The mining conditions in Chile are known to be horrible in several important ways - near slave labor, unconscionable treatment of the environment, for example. I haven't heard what mining lithium in Australia or China is like. There is naturally high toxicity, and if you dump it in the rivers, that would be serious. Is it harder to take care of than nuclear waste?

The USA has large deposits, and there is growing interest in mining it. I trust our mines won't have the serious problems of those in Chile and China if we ensure adequate regulation.

And, let's remember that lithium for EV batteries removes the need for burning oil in our cities and neighborhoods. More than 60% of our oil consumption is in transportation.

 

Link to Lazard's cost of energy for 2021.

 

That dies not account for the full cost of energy. I have given you the source that does but you ignore that because it refutes your faith based narrative.

 

That is not true. The evidence is Germany (where low income citizens must choose between heating their home and eating) which has a large installed wind power capacity. They are stupidly decommissioning their nuclear capacity but replacing it with lignite (low grade coal) power plants. They are not replacing nuclear with wind.

Why?? Please explain.

 

I think there's a much easier way to sort through it. And that is to recognize that there is, and has been since the founding of the country, a fair political way of deciding these issues.

Real simply, legislate. Bring both sides together and try to pass a bill. Specifically, propose, debate, and see if an amendment to the Clean Air Act can be passed to officially make CO2 an EPA regulated pollutant. All that's needed in a fair debate is 218 votes in the House and 60 in the Senate. If your case is really strong, particularly given the fact that you effectively want to alter the fundamental functioning of humanity and the world we all exist in, a fair vote is the least you can do.

Something similar has been tried before back in 2009. It was a bill called Lieberman Warner and it was proposing a "Cap and Trade" system for managing and eventually rendering CO2 emissions illegal. You can look it up. Failed miserably since the whole idea is an economic fluster cluck, but the idea of legislating has been tried.

Currently it's easy to tell who is right in this debate- simply ask who is cheating to get their way?

Who pushed a case through the Supreme Court rather than amend the Clean Air Act to get CO2 defined in law as a pollutant?

Certainly not climate skeptics.

Who is moving to make internal combustion engines illegal despite their practical technical superiority over EVs?

Certainly not climate skeptics.

Who to believe in this case is simple. Look for the corruption in order to force compliance. With the question of climate change, the corruption is all over the screaming mimi side of the debate- the climate fanatics. They've become absolutely fascist in forcing their views down our throats.

 

The US has been drastically reducing their CO2 footprint for over 2 decades now. And it is now at levels of roughly 4 decades ago.

So what, you are going to somehow legislate more reduction?

That is a perfect example of meaningless and useless feel-good acts. That really do absolutely nothing to solve the problem. But it gives those in power more power, and makes the brain dead sheeple feel happy.

But how do you "legislate" real changes that will really make a difference? Stop the huge amounts of coal that china is using. Stop the massive deforestation in Brazil and in other nations?

It seems that you are like most others. You want to force changes locally, and do absolutely nothing to resolve the actual issues you claim to be promoting.

Trying to legislate this is about as logical as trying to legislate morality, or murder. Those have been legislated, has that solved the problem?

 

They increased coal as part of an immediate replacement strategy when cutting back on nuclear.

When they saw their way through, they stopped building coal plants and began to cut back on that source as they enhanced others.

You have to look at production over time.

 

I've used well recognized analysis by government and corporate analysts. These analysts apply standards of cost measurement.

It's true that standards do not include every externality. For instance, the cost of oil does not include the health costs of burning fossil fuel in our cities and neighborhoods. And, it doesn't include the cost to the US of being subject to pricing by international markets for oil, a key element in causing our last horrendous inflation.

 

Can anyone tell us why the cost of coal is increasing in Germany?

 

You really ought to read my post again before you blow a blood vessel.

I don't buy the climate change panic for a second. And I don't think government should do anything about it. But nobody asked either you or I about it before they turned EPA loose to regulate CO2 and ruin both of our lives.

They did that by working around the legislative requirements that are purposely difficult to prevent exactly this kind of knee jerk fascist hijacking of government.

And do you know why they did that?

Because they knew nobody rational would tolerate what they wanted to do.

So the auto industry is now facing utter collapse because, in truth, few actually care about EVs. They're going to have (not maybe) produce vehicles that suck because the government geniuses said they must.

And that's how you know that climate skeptics are on the right side of the issue.

Because climate ninnies have needed to game the system to get it done their way.

 

Why didn’t they build more wind turbines? According to you the energy is free. And yet low income Germans will have to choose between eating and heating this winter.

 

Yeah, the temperatures at which humans have lived for the last 300,000 years and been practicing agriculture for the last 10,000 years are irrelevant. It is the average over all of the time that we did not exist that really matters.

 

I never said you did. But I can't understand how one things the issue can be "legislated".

 

No they don’t. They don’t include the full cost of energy. The references I have given you which you refuse to read explain why in detail. Do some homework instead of blindly following government propaganda.

Why is electrical energy so expensive in Germany?

 

Well, to be honest the most relevant is generally the last 2.5 my, when the cycles of regular ice ages started. One after another after another. And realize that is the start of an extremely cold period of our planet, with temperatures lower than any time period outside of the Cryogenian.

 

Anything can be legislated. In this case amend the Clean Air Act to specifically include CO2.

CO2 was never, in the history of the world, a pollutant until 2007. And it still shouldn't be.

But nobody asked either of us or the representatives and Senators we elected. Ever.