Someone else understands that the push for electrification is a move to limit energy access, not to increase energy.

[martybegan]

Bullshit. Some talking head in the media told you that tidbit that was dropped by the partisan CPSC.

That's rich. So if that is the case why is NY banning the construction of homes using natural gas? Go troll someone else with your bullshit. I've watched you troll this crap for a couple days now and all you present is garbage.

Yep, a convenient excuse to again make us accept something worse than what it is replacing.

The biggest one is the ban on gas using emergency generators. what are people in Upstate NY supposed to use?

 

[Donald H]

You can forget mass transit in West TN, and most other places that are not megalopolis hell holes for those too dumb to get out.

Mass transit if hugely unpopular because it's a slap in the face to the American way, and for that matter to the Canadian way too....

You change your lifestyle and leave mine alone.

I only wanted to introduce that which I consider to be a solution, when all other alternative energy forms have bug downsides. However, I'm sort of partially with you on nuclear. Partially on account of not knowing the details on the downside.

Reduction in energy consumption? Energy is what fuel progress and helps provide the lifestyle the rest of us enjoy, creates jobs, powers industrial expansion, jobs, basically our whole economy.

No doubt true, but I'm still of the opinion that reducing energy consumption is the most likely solution. That will also likely depend on population reduction. (already happening due to natural causes)

You need to stay on the troll farm in Moscow and suck it up.

I think that far too many threads are started for the sake of trolling, and far too few are concerned with worthwhile discussion and exchange of ideas.

 

[White 6]

Mass transit if hugely unpopular because it's a slap in the face to the American way, and for that matter to the Canadian way too....

I only wanted to introduce that which I consider to be a solution, when all other alternative energy forms have bug downsides. However, I'm sort of partially with you on nuclear. Partially on account of not knowing the details on the downside.

No doubt true, but I'm still of the opinion that reducing energy consumption is the most likely solution. That will also likely depend on population reduction. (already happening due to natural causes)

I think that far too many threads are started for the sake of trolling, and far too few are concerned with worthwhile discussion and exchange of ideas.

You can probably forget about net reduction of national energy consumption. I do not see it happening in my lifetime.

 

[Crick]

Bullshit. Some talking head in the media told you that tidbit that was dropped by the partisan CPSC.

Population Attributable Fraction of Gas Stoves and Childhood Asthma in the United States

Indoor gas stove use for cooking is associated with an increased risk of current asthma among children and is prevalent in 35% of households in the United States (US). The population-level implications of gas cooking are largely unrecognized. We quantified the population attributable fraction...

www.mdpi.com

AND

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c04707

 

[Concerned American]

Population Attributable Fraction of Gas Stoves and Childhood Asthma in the United States

Indoor gas stove use for cooking is associated with an increased risk of current asthma among children and is prevalent in 35% of households in the United States (US). The population-level implications of gas cooking are largely unrecognized. We quantified the population attributable fraction...

www.mdpi.com

AND

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c04707

Sorry, I am a little more discriminating about the sources that I choose to follow. I know it is difficult, but you should try to find more objective sources as well.

 

[Donald H]

You can probably forget about net reduction of national energy consumption. I do not see it happening in my lifetime.

Yeah, well you're wrong on that too.

CER – Canada’s Energy Future 2020 - Results

Results

www.cer-rec.gc.ca

Energy Demand​

This section focuses on end-use, or secondary energy demand, when looking at energy use by sector of the economy. It focuses on primary energy demand when looking at economy-wide energy use. End-use demand includes electricity, while the fuel used in generating electricity is accounted for in primary demand. Historical data is sourced primarily from Statistics Canada’s Report on Energy Supply and Demand in Canada. That data is supplemented with additional details from ECCC, Natural Resources Canada, and various provincial data sources.
In the near term, energy use follows macroeconomic trends and declines 5.6% in 2020, and then recovers in the next two years. Following the recovery, the Evolving Scenario projects Canadian energy use to decline until 2050. Figures R.2 and R.3 break energy use down by sector, showing declines in all sectors. The largest declines are in the industrial (including upstream oil and gas) and transportation sectors. These declines are due to factors such as improved energy efficiency, gradual electrification of the transportation sector,13 and various policies like carbon pricing. Economic growth and near-term increases in crude oil and natural gas production (discussed later in this section) provide some upward pressure on energy use. However, economic growth is slower than historical trends, and crude oil and natural gas production eventually declines. In the Reference Scenario, lack of additional climate policy action beyond current policies, higher crude oil and natural gas production, and less electrification leads to moderate demand growth in the projection, although at levels lower than recent history.
Energy use trends vary by sector, and within the sectors they vary by energy type. See Figure R.4. These trends result from several drivers, including macroeconomics, energy production trends, energy efficiency improvements, policies, technology advancements, and market developments. The transportation sector undergoes a notable shift. RPPs such as gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel have historically dominated the transportation sector, and this begins to change in the Evolving Scenario. Improved fuel economy, as well as electrification, cause transportation energy use to decline over the projection. For passenger transportation, electric vehicles grow gradually from a small share of personal vehicles to an important part of the transportation mix. Driven by falling costs, as well as steadily increasing policy support, ZEVs, including battery electric and plug-in hybrid electric, represent one out of every two passenger vehicles purchased by 2050. Electric freight, particularly light-to-mid-duty, and hydrogen-powered freight (mid-to-heavy duty), and increasingly electrified public transportation (electric bussing) grow steadily in the 2030s and 2040s.

 

[White 6]

Yeah, well you're wrong on that too.

CER – Canada’s Energy Future 2020 - Results

Results

www.cer-rec.gc.ca

Y'll go ahead. Come visit if you want to buy something.

 

[Donald H]

Ironic that the OP got it right, even though he had to turn it into a conspiracy theory by the left!

 

[Concerned American]

Yeah, well you're wrong on that too.

CER – Canada’s Energy Future 2020 - Results

Results

www.cer-rec.gc.ca

HaHaHa, let me look into my crystal ball that I've named the Evolving Energy Scenario. LMAO, try again duck.

 

[g5000]

Good article that points out the truth......the left/democrats, do not want cheap, reliable, plentiful energy, which is why they are pushing for solar, wind and for over loading our current system...........more energy means more people and more freedom, two things the left/democrats do not want....

You have to understand this truth if you want to understand why we don't have enough energy anymore.........they planned this......

The problem with Mr. Olowsky’s and Mr. Toyoda’s analysis is that they assume that for policymakers the decline in reliable power and hence the threat to mobility are seen as a pressing problem. So, too, with Secretary Trevelyan. Yet by their actions these policy makers have shown that they are at best indifferent to the problem, and even perhaps welcome it.

I simply don’t believe that the people in power care much about whether the electricity is there to keep our economy going. If they did, they wouldn’t rush headlong into the full electrification of the economy without ensuring that there is electricity to power it. If you are pushing electric cars while closing 4/5ths of your nuclear power plants, ensuring reliability is not a major concern of yours.
=======
The forced electrification of cars, in particular, reveals their intentions: if you can’t charge your vehicle, you are utterly reliant on the government-run transit systems. These systems are collapsing due to reduced use by consumers, so the easiest way to get people to use them is ban fossil fuel cars and then restrict charging of electric vehicles, as California has already done at times. And if your mobility relies on regulated transit, the government owns your mobility.


An all-electric economy is an easily controlled economy. The infrastructure is there to control your thermostats, your car charging, your cooking times (if you go electric, as they demand). We have wired our houses to be “smart,” and those smarts don’t reside in your home, but in the cloud.
-----
You are at their mercy.

Does this sound crazy? It should, because it is diabolical. But is it plausible? Of course it is. We already know that power companies can turn your thermostats up and down at will (right now people generally opt-in, but the tech is right there when the power supply runs out). We already know the Left has been at war with air conditioning. That they want “15-minute cities” without private cars.

The "electrification" of our economy is a scam

hotair.com

I'm all for nuclear power, but you seem to be oblivious to the fact the infrastructure bill was chock full of spending to increase electrical production by means other than pollutants like oil and gas and coal.

McKinsey estimates that by 2026, global renewable-electricity capacity will rise more than 80 percent from 2020 levels (to more than 5,022 gigawatts).1 Of this growth, two-thirds will come from wind and solar, an increase of 150 percent (3,404 gigawatts). By 2035, renewables will generate 60 percent of the world’s electricity.2 But even these projections might be too low. Three years ago, we looked at advances made by renewable energy and asked, “How much faster can they grow?”3 The answer is: faster than you think they can.

Renewable-energy development in a net-zero world

A new era is dawning when it comes to renewable energy growth. In this article, we explore new opportunities for wind and solar technology development.

www.mckinsey.com

Your entire argument is based on a false premise.

 

[g5000]

Renewable electricity growth is accelerating faster than ever worldwide, supporting the emergence of the new global energy economy - News - IEA

Renewable electricity growth is accelerating faster than ever worldwide, supporting the emergence of the new global energy economy - News from the International Energy Agency

www.iea.org

The growth of renewables is forecast to increase in all regions compared with the 2015-2020 period. China remains the global leader in the volume of capacity additions: it is expected to reach 1200 GW of total wind and solar capacity in 2026 – four years earlier than its current target of 2030. India is set to come top in terms of the rate of growth, doubling new installations compared with 2015-2020. Deployments in Europe and the United States are also on track to speed up significantly from the previous five years. These four markets together account for 80% of renewable capacity expansion worldwide.

 

[Crick]

Sorry, I am a little more discriminating about the sources that I choose to follow. I know it is difficult, but you should try to find more objective sources as well.

I have criticized other posters in the past for linking to studies in MDPI but that is the study to which CNN's article on the CPSC committee recommendation linked. There is nothing dubious about my second link.

 

[2aguy]

Renewable electricity growth is accelerating faster than ever worldwide, supporting the emergence of the new global energy economy - News - IEA

Renewable electricity growth is accelerating faster than ever worldwide, supporting the emergence of the new global energy economy - News from the International Energy Agency

www.iea.org

The growth of renewables is forecast to increase in all regions compared with the 2015-2020 period. China remains the global leader in the volume of capacity additions: it is expected to reach 1200 GW of total wind and solar capacity in 2026 – four years earlier than its current target of 2030. India is set to come top in terms of the rate of growth, doubling new installations compared with 2015-2020. Deployments in Europe and the United States are also on track to speed up significantly from the previous five years. These four markets together account for 80% of renewable capacity expansion worldwide.

Yeah…they are building more….and they dont work…….someone is making money but not because solar and wind actually work…

 

[Concerned American]

I have criticized other posters in the past for linking to studies in MDPI but that is the study to which CNN's article on the CPSC committee recommendation linked. There is nothing dubious about my second link.

The Commie News Network--LOLOLOLOL. Run along troll.

 

[Crick]

The Commie News Network--LOLOLOLOL. Run along troll.

When you've demonstrated that you've learned to judge reality with a little more objectivity than you currently bring to bear, I might choose to ignore you. Till then I feel obliged to correct your "mistakes".

I linked to a CNN article in my first post. It was entirely appropriate that I also link to the study they were talking about.

 

[Concerned American]

When you've demonstrated that you've learned to judge reality with a little more objectivity than you currently bring to bear, I might choose to ignore you. Till then I feel obliged to correct your "mistakes".

I linked to a CNN article in my first post. It was entirely appropriate that I also link to the study they were talking about.

NOTHING that comes out of CNN or NYT is credible. When you get dry behind the ears you might realize it, but I'm not holding out much hope. BTW, do us both a favor and hit that iggy button.

 

[Crick]

NOTHING that comes out of CNN or NYT is credible. When you get dry behind the ears you might realize it, but I'm not holding out much hope. BTW, do us both a favor and hit that iggy button.

What news sources do you believe are the most accurate and least biased (L or R)?

 

[ding]

Neither

 

[Crick]

NOTHING that comes out of CNN or NYT is credible. When you get dry behind the ears you might realize it, but I'm not holding out much hope. BTW, do us both a favor and hit that iggy button.

What news sources do you believe are the most accurate and least biased (L or R)?