Al Gore is getting paid $2 million a month

Yet you maga fuckups believe in the Big Squeal.

Coal is clean.

The former 1-term fuckup doesn’t lie/grift/steal or led an Insurrection

Jewish space lasers

The brutal honesty of george santos

That fascism is the same as communism and socialism because hitler named his fascist rightwing party national socialist’s

Dominion voting machines are controlled by a dead guy

And on and on with base stupidity….
 
Warning the world that it is on the brink of disaster has been lucrative for Al Gore.
His wild prediction at Davos that Earth faces 'rain bombs' and 'boiling oceans' is just his latest in decades of climate alarmism.
At the same time, the former VP has been at the forefront of green technology investment that has seen his wealth balloon to an estimated $330 million.
Four years after losing to George W Bush in 2000, Gore set up Generation Investment Management with former Goldman Sachs Managing Director and close friend David W. Blood.
The mission statement of the investment firm, where Gore collects $2 million in a monthly salary, is to back companies that are making strides towards going green. The firm is worth around $36 billion.


Comment:
Al Gore is getting paid $2 million a month from the faux global warming crisis business.
Manmade Global Warming is about money and power for corrupt ruling elites.
Gore has 2 mansions and a condo that he is heating and cooling.
He flies around in private jets.
But the Global Warming Ruling Elites want you to make all of the sacrifices.
Global Warming is for SUCKERS.
View attachment 748866
I have to admit, you've got to admire these people for publicly being against income inequality and for "democratic socialism" and shouting out that the rich aren't paying their fair share, all the while being true believers in capitalism. I also love how they claim Trump supporters are suckers for being taken to benefit Trump financially while they do the very same thing themselves to the suckers who support them.
 
I have to admit, you've got to admire these people for publicly being against income inequality and for "democratic socialism" and shouting out that the rich aren't paying their fair share, all the while being true believers in capitalism. I also love how they claim Trump supporters are suckers for being taken to benefit Trump financially while they do the very same thing themselves to the suckers who support them.
socialism is a form of slavery
 
Al Gore is a fat pile of steaming shit.

785d4t.jpg
 
AGW is real and affecting our planet is very bad ways now.

I'm not a scientist, but I'm 100% certain that "very bad ways", is not a recognized metric of change.

What specific device would you use to measure "very bad ways"? I'll bet it's really expensive.

Pressure gauges_2.jpg
 
Gorbasms

From

Earth In The Balance
by Al Gore


“Eight acres worth of prime topsoil floats past Memphis every hour.” - Page 3

[1. “Eight acres worth” is baby talk. 2. Topsoil does NOT “float.” ]

“…the unrestrained burning of cheap fossil fuel has many ferocious defenders…” - Page 6

[Like liberals who have been whining about “the high cost of gasoline” for months now.]
[These notes are from 2010. The cost of gasoline has gone up fivefold or more since then]

“We were anchored…” - Page 19

[Ships sitting on sand many miles from the Aral Sea are not “anchored.” One “anchors” only in water.]

“… one China’s worth of people…” Page 30

[More baby talk from a man who liberals maintain is sophisticated and “intelligent.”]

“Relativity Theory can easily be explained with the help of a picture (of a funnel)…” - Page 48


[Says the guy who flunked out of Vanderbilt Divinity School.]

“… a blind devotion to laissez-faire economics… - ” P 75

[Elsewhere Gore waxes enthusiastic for capitalism and its triumph over communism.
Gore never examines his own “blind devotion” to environmental extremism and its impossibility, financial and political.]

New homes “strip the hillsides of vegetation that used to soak up the rain.” P 76

[So we shouldn’t build new homes? Is that it?]

Are we “entitled to do so?” (Cut down three yew trees to save a woman’s life) P 119

[No, Al, let her die.]

“… we are running out of places to put it (our garbage).” P 151

[Drive from Las Vegas to Phoenix some time, Al.]

“…one African leader recently denounced ‘garbage imperialism’.” - P 155

[Al and other liberals like to quote socialist thugs who have devastated Africa in countless ways.]

“…the worst of all forms of pollution is wasted lives!” P 162


[But abortion is just fine. No “lives” wasted there.]

“The Constitution … is still universally recognized as the world’s most forward-looking charter for self-government.” P 171

BUT: “Perhaps the most sluggish of all, after our political system, is our system of economics.” ( P 181)


[We’re great. We’re “sluggish.” Stay focused, people.]

“awesome power and efficiency of our economic system…” - P 185

[We’re great. We’re sluggish. We have “blind devotion”.]

“…the loss of 75 percent of California’s annual moisture…” - P 192

[He meant “decrease in rainfall” not “loss of moisture.”]

“…our society has allowed…crime, drug abuse, poverty, ignorance, and desperation.” - P 210

[From "awesome power and efficiency of our economic system" to "crime, drug abuse, poverty, ignorance and desperation in 25 pages.
Okay, so stop all of them, Al.]

“Today a different form of dysfunction takes the form of ravenous, insatiable consumption…” - P 273

["awesome power and efficiency" to "ravenous, insatiable consumption". Having it both ways is a Democrat tradition.
Thus does a globe-trotting rich man lecture to the rest of us far beneath him.]

“…senseless trade barriers…” - P 296

[But Bush is “exporting American jobs.” That’s bad.]

A well-worn copy of Earth in the Balance was found inside the Unabomber's rathole cabin in Wyoming when he was captured.
Ted Kaczynski tried to live a "sustainable" life while murdering people with package bombs, and necessitating the expenditure of $50,000,000 to find him before he murdered any more innocent people.
 
The wind and solar power myth has finally been exposed (msn.com)


The wind and solar power myth has finally been exposed

BRYAN LEYLAND10 May 2023


Many governments in the Western world have committed to “net zero” emissions of carbon in the near future. The US and UK both say they will deliver by 2050. It's widely believed that wind and solar power can achieve this. This belief has led the US and British governments, among others, to promote and heavily subsidise wind and solar.

These plans have a single, fatal flaw: they are reliant on the pipe-dream that there is some affordable way to store surplus electricity at scale.

In the real world a wind farm’s output often drops below 10 per cent of its rated “capacity” for days at a time. Solar power disappears completely every night and drops by 50 per cent or more during cloudy days. “Capacity” being a largely meaningless figure for a wind or solar plant, about 3000 megawatts (MW) of wind and solar capacity is needed to replace a 1000 MW conventional power station in terms of energy over time: and in fact, as we shall see, the conventional power station or something very like it will still be needed frequently once the wind and solar are online.

The governments of countries with a considerable amount of wind and solar generation have developed an expectation that they can simply continue to build more until net zero is achieved. The reality is that many of them have kept the lights on only by using existing fossil fired stations as backup for periods of low wind and sun. This brings with it a new operating regime where stations that were designed to operate continuously have to follow unpredictable fluctuations in wind and solar power. As a result operating and maintenance costs have increased and many stations have had to be shut down.

In fact it's already common to see efficient combined-cycle gas turbines replaced by open-cycle ones because they can be throttled up and down easily to back up the rapidly changing output of wind and solar farms. But open-cycle gas turbines burn about twice as much gas as combined cycle gas turbines. Switching to high-emissions machinery as part of an effort to reduce emissions is, frankly, madness!

Certain countries are helped because their power systems are supported by major inter-connectors to adjacent regions that have surplus power available. The increasingly troubled French nuclear fleet, which formerly had plenty of spare energy on tap, for a long time helped to make renewables plans look practical across Western Europe.

But this situation is not sustainable in the long term. Under net-zero plans, all nations will need to generate many times more electricity than they now can, as the large majority of our energy use today is delivered by burning fossil fuels directly. Neighbouring regions will be unable to provide the backup power needed; emissions from open cycle gas turbines (or new coal powerplants, as in the case of Germany at the moment) will become unacceptable; more existing base load stations will be forced to shut down by surges in renewables; more and more wind and solar power will have to be expensively dumped when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing.

Power prices will soar, making more or less everything more expensive, and there will be frequent blackouts.

None of this is difficult to work out. Building even more renewables capacity will not help: even ten or 100 times the nominally-necessary “capacity” could never do the job on a cold, windless evening.

Only one thing can save the day for the renewables plan. Reasonable cost, large scale energy storage, sufficient to keep the lights on for several days at a minimum, would solve the problem.

What are the options?

First we need to consider the scale of the issue. Relatively simple calculations show that that California would need over 200 megawatt-hours (MWh) of storage per installed MW of wind and solar power. Germany could probably manage with 150 MWh per MW. Perhaps this could be provided in the form of batteries?

The current cost of battery storage is about US$600,000 per MWh. For every MW of wind or solar power in California, $120 million would need to be spent on storage. In Germany it would be $90 million. Wind farms cost about $1.5 million per MW so the cost of battery storage would be astronomical: 80 times greater than the cost of the wind farm! A major additional constraint would be that such quantities of batteries are simply not available. Not enough lithium and cobalt and other rare minerals are being mined at the moment. If prices get high enough supply will expand, but prices are already ridiculously, unfeasibly high.

Some countries are gambling on hydro pumped storage. Here the idea is to use electricity to pump water uphill into a high reservoir using surplus renewables on sunny, windy days: then let it flow back down through generating turbines as in a normal hydropower plant when it’s dark and windless.

Many pumped systems have been built in China, Japan and United States but they have storage sufficient for only 6 to 10 hours operation. This is tiny compared with the several days storage that is needed to back up wind and solar power through routine sunless calm periods. Much larger lakes at the top and bottom of the scheme are needed. There are very few locations where two large lakes can be formed with one located 400-700 m above the other and separated by less than 5-10 km horizontally. Such a location must also have an adequate supply of make-up water to cope with evaporation losses from the two lakes. Another problem is that at least 25 per cent of the energy is lost while pumping and then generating.

Hydro pumped storage will seldom be a feasible option. It cannot solve the problem on a national scale even in countries like the USA which have a lot of mountains.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) for fossil fuel stations is also touted as way of avoiding the problems of wind and solar power. But this is not a technology, just a case of wishful thinking. In spite of many years of work and enormous amounts of money spent, nobody has yet devised a technology that can provide large scale, low cost CCS. Even if capture worked and didn't consume most or all the energy generated, storing the carbon dioxide is a huge problem because three tonnes of carbon dioxide are produced for every tonne of coal burned.

Hydrogen is another technology which is often suggested for energy storage: but its problems are legion. At the moment hydrogen is made using natural gas (so-called “blue” hydrogen). This, however, will have to stop in a net-zero world as the process emits large amounts of carbon: you might as well just burn the natural gas. Proper emissions-free “green” hydrogen is made from water using huge amounts of electrical energy, 60 per cent of which is lost in the process. Storing and handling the hydrogen is extremely difficult because hydrogen is a very small molecule and it leaks through almost anything. At best this means that a lot of your stored hydrogen will be gone by the time you want to use it: at worst it means devastating fires and explosions. The extremely low density of hydrogen also means that huge volumes of it would have to be stored and it would often have to be stored and handled cryogenically, creating even more losses, costs and risks.



The conclusion is simple. Barring some sort of miracle, there is no possibility that a suitable storage technology will be developed in the needed time frame. The present policies of just forcing wind and solar into the market and hoping for a miracle have been memorably and correctly likened to “jumping out of an aeroplane without a parachute and hoping that the parachute will be invented, delivered and strapped on in mid air in time to save you before you hit the ground.”

Wind and solar need to be backed up, close to 100 per cent, by some other means of power generation. If that backup is provided by open-cycle gas or worse, coal, net zero will never be achieved: nor anything very close to it.

There is one technology that can provide a cheap and reliable supply of low-emissions electricity: nuclear power. Interest in nuclear power is increasing as more and more people realise that it is safe and reliable. If regulators and the public could be persuaded that modern stations are inherently safe and that low levels of nuclear radiation are not dangerous, nuclear power could provide all the low cost, low emissions electricity the world needs for hundreds or thousands of years.

But if we had 100 per cent nuclear backup for solar and wind, we wouldn't need the wind and solar plants at all.

Wind and solar are, in fact, completely pointless.


Bryan Leyland MSc, DistFEngNZ, FIMechE, FIEE(rtd) is a power systems engineer with more than 60 years experience on projects around the world
 
The wind and solar power myth has finally been exposed (msn.com)


The wind and solar power myth has finally been exposed

BRYAN LEYLAND10 May 2023


Many governments in the Western world have committed to “net zero” emissions of carbon in the near future. The US and UK both say they will deliver by 2050. It's widely believed that wind and solar power can achieve this. This belief has led the US and British governments, among others, to promote and heavily subsidise wind and solar.

These plans have a single, fatal flaw: they are reliant on the pipe-dream that there is some affordable way to store surplus electricity at scale.

In the real world a wind farm’s output often drops below 10 per cent of its rated “capacity” for days at a time. Solar power disappears completely every night and drops by 50 per cent or more during cloudy days. “Capacity” being a largely meaningless figure for a wind or solar plant, about 3000 megawatts (MW) of wind and solar capacity is needed to replace a 1000 MW conventional power station in terms of energy over time: and in fact, as we shall see, the conventional power station or something very like it will still be needed frequently once the wind and solar are online.

The governments of countries with a considerable amount of wind and solar generation have developed an expectation that they can simply continue to build more until net zero is achieved. The reality is that many of them have kept the lights on only by using existing fossil fired stations as backup for periods of low wind and sun. This brings with it a new operating regime where stations that were designed to operate continuously have to follow unpredictable fluctuations in wind and solar power. As a result operating and maintenance costs have increased and many stations have had to be shut down.

In fact it's already common to see efficient combined-cycle gas turbines replaced by open-cycle ones because they can be throttled up and down easily to back up the rapidly changing output of wind and solar farms. But open-cycle gas turbines burn about twice as much gas as combined cycle gas turbines. Switching to high-emissions machinery as part of an effort to reduce emissions is, frankly, madness!

Certain countries are helped because their power systems are supported by major inter-connectors to adjacent regions that have surplus power available. The increasingly troubled French nuclear fleet, which formerly had plenty of spare energy on tap, for a long time helped to make renewables plans look practical across Western Europe.

But this situation is not sustainable in the long term. Under net-zero plans, all nations will need to generate many times more electricity than they now can, as the large majority of our energy use today is delivered by burning fossil fuels directly. Neighbouring regions will be unable to provide the backup power needed; emissions from open cycle gas turbines (or new coal powerplants, as in the case of Germany at the moment) will become unacceptable; more existing base load stations will be forced to shut down by surges in renewables; more and more wind and solar power will have to be expensively dumped when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing.

Power prices will soar, making more or less everything more expensive, and there will be frequent blackouts.

None of this is difficult to work out. Building even more renewables capacity will not help: even ten or 100 times the nominally-necessary “capacity” could never do the job on a cold, windless evening.

Only one thing can save the day for the renewables plan. Reasonable cost, large scale energy storage, sufficient to keep the lights on for several days at a minimum, would solve the problem.

What are the options?

First we need to consider the scale of the issue. Relatively simple calculations show that that California would need over 200 megawatt-hours (MWh) of storage per installed MW of wind and solar power. Germany could probably manage with 150 MWh per MW. Perhaps this could be provided in the form of batteries?

The current cost of battery storage is about US$600,000 per MWh. For every MW of wind or solar power in California, $120 million would need to be spent on storage. In Germany it would be $90 million. Wind farms cost about $1.5 million per MW so the cost of battery storage would be astronomical: 80 times greater than the cost of the wind farm! A major additional constraint would be that such quantities of batteries are simply not available. Not enough lithium and cobalt and other rare minerals are being mined at the moment. If prices get high enough supply will expand, but prices are already ridiculously, unfeasibly high.

Some countries are gambling on hydro pumped storage. Here the idea is to use electricity to pump water uphill into a high reservoir using surplus renewables on sunny, windy days: then let it flow back down through generating turbines as in a normal hydropower plant when it’s dark and windless.

Many pumped systems have been built in China, Japan and United States but they have storage sufficient for only 6 to 10 hours operation. This is tiny compared with the several days storage that is needed to back up wind and solar power through routine sunless calm periods. Much larger lakes at the top and bottom of the scheme are needed. There are very few locations where two large lakes can be formed with one located 400-700 m above the other and separated by less than 5-10 km horizontally. Such a location must also have an adequate supply of make-up water to cope with evaporation losses from the two lakes. Another problem is that at least 25 per cent of the energy is lost while pumping and then generating.

Hydro pumped storage will seldom be a feasible option. It cannot solve the problem on a national scale even in countries like the USA which have a lot of mountains.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) for fossil fuel stations is also touted as way of avoiding the problems of wind and solar power. But this is not a technology, just a case of wishful thinking. In spite of many years of work and enormous amounts of money spent, nobody has yet devised a technology that can provide large scale, low cost CCS. Even if capture worked and didn't consume most or all the energy generated, storing the carbon dioxide is a huge problem because three tonnes of carbon dioxide are produced for every tonne of coal burned.

Hydrogen is another technology which is often suggested for energy storage: but its problems are legion. At the moment hydrogen is made using natural gas (so-called “blue” hydrogen). This, however, will have to stop in a net-zero world as the process emits large amounts of carbon: you might as well just burn the natural gas. Proper emissions-free “green” hydrogen is made from water using huge amounts of electrical energy, 60 per cent of which is lost in the process. Storing and handling the hydrogen is extremely difficult because hydrogen is a very small molecule and it leaks through almost anything. At best this means that a lot of your stored hydrogen will be gone by the time you want to use it: at worst it means devastating fires and explosions. The extremely low density of hydrogen also means that huge volumes of it would have to be stored and it would often have to be stored and handled cryogenically, creating even more losses, costs and risks.




The conclusion is simple. Barring some sort of miracle, there is no possibility that a suitable storage technology will be developed in the needed time frame. The present policies of just forcing wind and solar into the market and hoping for a miracle have been memorably and correctly likened to “jumping out of an aeroplane without a parachute and hoping that the parachute will be invented, delivered and strapped on in mid air in time to save you before you hit the ground.”

Wind and solar need to be backed up, close to 100 per cent, by some other means of power generation. If that backup is provided by open-cycle gas or worse, coal, net zero will never be achieved: nor anything very close to it.

There is one technology that can provide a cheap and reliable supply of low-emissions electricity: nuclear power. Interest in nuclear power is increasing as more and more people realise that it is safe and reliable. If regulators and the public could be persuaded that modern stations are inherently safe and that low levels of nuclear radiation are not dangerous, nuclear power could provide all the low cost, low emissions electricity the world needs for hundreds or thousands of years.

But if we had 100 per cent nuclear backup for solar and wind, we wouldn't need the wind and solar plants at all.

Wind and solar are, in fact, completely pointless.





Bryan Leyland MSc, DistFEngNZ, FIMechE, FIEE(rtd) is a power systems engineer with more than 60 years experience on projects around the world

My magnifying glass isn't strong enough ... could you use a larger font size and maybe hit the "bold" button ... thanx from us old people ...
 
Warning the world that it is on the brink of disaster has been lucrative for Al Gore.
His wild prediction at Davos that Earth faces 'rain bombs' and 'boiling oceans' is just his latest in decades of climate alarmism.
At the same time, the former VP has been at the forefront of green technology investment that has seen his wealth balloon to an estimated $330 million.
Four years after losing to George W Bush in 2000, Gore set up Generation Investment Management with former Goldman Sachs Managing Director and close friend David W. Blood.
The mission statement of the investment firm, where Gore collects $2 million in a monthly salary, is to back companies that are making strides towards going green. The firm is worth around $36 billion.


Comment:
Al Gore is getting paid $2 million a month from the faux global warming crisis business.
Manmade Global Warming is about money and power for corrupt ruling elites.
Gore has 2 mansions and a condo that he is heating and cooling.
He flies around in private jets.
But the Global Warming Ruling Elites want you to make all of the sacrifices.
Global Warming is for SUCKERS.
View attachment 748866
Elon Musk makes more than that and you love him.
You must love Gore.
 
Warning the world that it is on the brink of disaster has been lucrative for Al Gore.
His wild prediction at Davos that Earth faces 'rain bombs' and 'boiling oceans' is just his latest in decades of climate alarmism.
At the same time, the former VP has been at the forefront of green technology investment that has seen his wealth balloon to an estimated $330 million.
Four years after losing to George W Bush in 2000, Gore set up Generation Investment Management with former Goldman Sachs Managing Director and close friend David W. Blood.
The mission statement of the investment firm, where Gore collects $2 million in a monthly salary, is to back companies that are making strides towards going green. The firm is worth around $36 billion.


Comment:
Al Gore is getting paid $2 million a month from the faux global warming crisis business.
Manmade Global Warming is about money and power for corrupt ruling elites.
Gore has 2 mansions and a condo that he is heating and cooling.
He flies around in private jets.
But the Global Warming Ruling Elites want you to make all of the sacrifices.
Global Warming is for SUCKERS.
View attachment 748866

It's just another sales job. Sales is a huge industry because... well... humans are suckers.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top