At 80 years old, I won't be affected by the...“follow the science” crowd but my granddaughter will have a life of shortages

[DudleySmith]

lol how many have any idea of how much of that rare earth material is even available and enough to make all these batteries that would be in endless demand?

 

[DudleySmith]

It's worse than that. The elite are pushing to have everyone live on their block. You won't have anyplace to travel too.

National parks will be for the elite. You peons will have to experience them via TV.

This environmental bullshit has, as it's ultimate goal, the destruction of the middle class, and a return to a two tier world, a very small ruling elite, and a mass of serfs.

Hey no problem; all they need to do is kill off 7 billion people or so. But they have to wait until they get a bunch of robots built n stuff first. They got remote control floor sweepers already. lol

 

[candycorn]

• Jul 8, 2021 Updated Aug 15, 2022

Electric customers in Arizona and across the West could face a higher risk of blackouts and increased energy costs, after a ruling allowing California’s main grid operator to limit some electric power exports to other states, Arizona utilities and regulators say.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission recently approved a plan by the California Independent System Operator, or CAISO, to give in-state power transfers priority over some interstate power exports through its system, when demand for power is high and supplies are tight.
The plan to favor in-state power deliveries over some interstate sales was proposed in the wake of a regionwide heat wave last August that prompted CAISO to impose rolling blackouts for two days to stave off a larger system collapse.

Arizona blackout risk, costs could rise with California power-export policy

A ruling allowing California's system operator to limit power exports to other states could crimp emergency supplies, but Tucson Electric says it's prepared.

tucson.com

Thats true. We did have a black out. Then again, that was 41 years ago in Texas. HL&P called it a "rolling blackout". When/if we have one in Phoenix it will be the first time we've had one.

 

[candycorn]

Hey no problem; all they need to do is kill off 7 billion people or so. But they have to wait until they get a bunch of robots built n stuff first. They got remote control floor sweepers already. lol

I just came from a meeting of the Trilateral Commision... Mr. Big said it would only be 6 Billion.

 

[DudleySmith]

I just came from a meeting of the Trilateral Commision... Mr. Big said it would only be 6 Billion.

After you left the meeting they also said you're going to go first.

 

[candycorn]

After you left the meeting they also said you're going to go first.

Could be. They had cheesecake so I had to go. I'm a sucker for an Oreo crust.

 

[Kruska]

"Follow the science" has been used by the left to defend its Covid policies but it is applicable to this statement by Scientific American...
in their headline story from Ninety Percent of U.S. Cars Must Be Electric by 2050 to Meet Climate Goals

Ninety Percent of U.S. Cars Must Be Electric by 2050 to Meet Climate Goals​

But here are two GLARING issues that Scientific American...observed as.... "Its articles, solidly based on scholarly research, well written, and carefully edited, are accompanied by definitions of scientific terms and by illustrations."
This magazine that has been around since 1845 has certainly missed the point with this article and here is why!
1) Scientific American in stating 90% of cars must be electric by 2050... they totally forget TRUCKS!
2) But the MOST egregious error of this prestigious respected magazine is this: where will the 12,461,525,806,512 additional kWh come from if 90.0% of all current cars/trucks are (EVs) by 2050?
Today the total electricity generated by power plants in 2021, is 4,165,030,000,000kWh.
Scientific American didn't follow the science when they state 90% of cars(only by the way) are EVs by 2050 by explaining where the nearly Three times (300%) more
electricity is going to come from?
Today the average current power plant of the 11,070 total power plants in usa Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) generates 376,244,806 kWh per year.
Simple math which Scientific American, Biden, and all the other grossly uniformed advocates of EVs evidently can't do!

• Divide the total electricity needed to power the 90% of cars are EVs by the average power plant generation: 11,717,339,760,000 kWh /376,244,806kWh or a total of NEW power plants: 31,143 ! Please check the math folks.
• The average EV gets about .25 kWh per mile. Average Electric Car kWh Per Mile [Results From 231 EVs]
• The Average American drives 14,263 miles/ year thus using 57,052 kWh per driver. https://www.thezebra.com/resources/driving/average-miles-driven-per-year/
• With approximately 205,380,000 Americans driving a total of 2,929,334,940,000 miles using 57,052 kWh each or total kWh needed:11,717,339,760,000 kWh.
• So simple math states if we have 205,380,000 drivers (of the 228,200,000 total American drivers) driving EVs we will need 31,143 more generating plants.

So I won't have this issue but my granddaughter's generation will have blackouts on a daily basis.
Remember California is requiring that all NEW cars sold in 2035 be EVs.... all the while???
There were 25,281 blackout events in 2019, a 23% increase from 20,598 in 2018

https://www.bloomenergy.com/bloom-energy-outage-map/

THINK folks... why haven't we heard about this???

Sorry mate - you got it all wrong

It isn't about having to build 31,143 new power plants - it's about wanting to build 31,143 extra power-plants = $$$$$ trillions.
And all these new power-plants will generate energy exclusively via Solar, Wind and Hydro. Extra $$$$ trillions. So get ready to move your civilization-progress obstructing house out of the way.

Global warming increase is entirely caused by the fossil burning industry, cars and households (you know CO2) - ask any green science expert, he will utterly confirm it to you.
Natural emitting CO2 sources - like volcano's and the oceans are going to be covered with concrete slabs (oh no wait CO2 causer) ah... with, well whatever environmental friendly substance, and being used as slab foundations to construct solar parks and Wind generating parks, onto them - might just save your house from being moved.

The greens being far more advanced then all other scientists, have recognized this already since the 70's and have since successfully dismantled the oil and coal energy driven suppliers, and formost the nuclear enery providers, since the latter are not emitting CO2 they became logically a prime target - and the greens are still going strong in that direction. This also explains some random blackouts - but hey, less CO2 emissions - right?
And e.g. the tires and interior of all these eV cars are going to be replaced with wood and grass-fiber based tires and interiors (enough forests and grasslands still around) and not via burning fossils to get some Goodyear tires or smug synthetic leather seats or dashboards. - again less CO2. Why we still need to wait for these environmental friendly tires and interior fittings - even for our present CO2 emitting cars - I can't really tell you.

Natural occurring CO2 emitters like these ghastly humans will be dealt with swiftly via maybe viruses - the last one didn't work out as expected. All we need is 4 Billion less people. Ukraine and Russia are already essential contributors in that regard - without obtaining the deserved recognition towards reducing CO2.

Anyway the greens and their industrial supporters e.g. Elon are already rubbing their hands in view of our bright human battery and solar future. So let's not obstruct them - but work with them. And let's pray to God, that scientific and economic resources will not be injected into nonsense technology like hydrogen energy - it would rid us of all these Solar, Wind-parks, coal plants and nuclear plants - now we wouldn't want that - right?

BTW - great post off yours. - thanks

 

[zaangalewa]

"Follow the science" has been used by the left to defend its Covid policies but it is applicable to this statement by Scientific American...
in their headline story from Ninety Percent of U.S. Cars Must Be Electric by 2050 to Meet Climate Goals

Ninety Percent of U.S. Cars Must Be Electric by 2050 to Meet Climate Goals​

But here are two GLARING issues that Scientific American...observed as.... "Its articles, solidly based on scholarly research, well written, and carefully edited, are accompanied by definitions of scientific terms and by illustrations."
This magazine that has been around since 1845 has certainly missed the point with this article and here is why!
1) Scientific American in stating 90% of cars must be electric by 2050... they totally forget TRUCKS!
2) But the MOST egregious error of this prestigious respected magazine is this: where will the 12,461,525,806,512 additional kWh come from if 90.0% of all current cars/trucks are (EVs) by 2050?
Today the total electricity generated by power plants in 2021, is 4,165,030,000,000kWh.
Scientific American didn't follow the science when they state 90% of cars(only by the way) are EVs by 2050 by explaining where the nearly Three times (300%) more
electricity is going to come from?
Today the average current power plant of the 11,070 total power plants in usa Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) generates 376,244,806 kWh per year.
Simple math which Scientific American, Biden, and all the other grossly uniformed advocates of EVs evidently can't do!

• Divide the total electricity needed to power the 90% of cars are EVs by the average power plant generation: 11,717,339,760,000 kWh /376,244,806kWh or a total of NEW power plants: 31,143 ! Please check the math folks.
• The average EV gets about .25 kWh per mile. Average Electric Car kWh Per Mile [Results From 231 EVs]
• The Average American drives 14,263 miles/ year thus using 57,052 kWh per driver. https://www.thezebra.com/resources/driving/average-miles-driven-per-year/
• With approximately 205,380,000 Americans driving a total of 2,929,334,940,000 miles using 57,052 kWh each or total kWh needed:11,717,339,760,000 kWh.
• So simple math states if we have 205,380,000 drivers (of the 228,200,000 total American drivers) driving EVs we will need 31,143 more generating plants.

So I won't have this issue but my granddaughter's generation will have blackouts on a daily basis.
Remember California is requiring that all NEW cars sold in 2035 be EVs.... all the while???
There were 25,281 blackout events in 2019, a 23% increase from 20,598 in 2018

https://www.bloomenergy.com/bloom-energy-outage-map/

THINK folks... why haven't we heard about this???

By the way: I miss such calculations since a long time in discussions. The most people today seem not to be able to make such calculations any longer on their own.

The problem with CO2 emissions is by the way first of all the speed of this emissions. We are much too fast and much too many people worldwide. As far as I am able to see in long term more plants will again reduce the greenhouse CO2 gas level. But this needs time - a long time. So "green sky scrapers" - in general also "green houses" - are also an important idea in such a context. And we could send back energy which comes from the sun easily with the trick "white roofs" or "white streets" and so on - but solar panels are better because they produce electricity. In this context exist for example together with energy storages also many systems which could increase the autonomy of little units - a farm for example is easily able to produce also electricity in many ways. If we "harvest" too much solar energy then we can save 50% of this energy (what's a lot and not little) in hydrogenium. For heat exchangers in winter for example - or we could build aeroplanes who use hydrogeniusm., Also air-taxes in cities are thinkable and so on and so on and so on. We could even produce gas and oil "made by the sun". There are many many many ways to live in a better way. Bio-Methane from cows instead of natural gas for example. But some want to go no new way at all and others want only go one or two ways. And all this ways seem to be wrong. What I miss is a wider range with many possibilities where many people are able to find new ways.

And if you remember: It existed a time when 1 of 3 jobs in the USA depended on the expensive project to bring a man to the moon. If this not had happened - whatelse had happened? An economic crisis? So costs is only one factor.

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.
John F. Kennedy

This time we do not have to win against each other - this time we all will have to win together with each other.

 

[healthmyths]

Sorry mate - you got it all wrong

It isn't about having to build 31,143 new power plants - it's about wanting to build 31,143 extra power-plants = $$$$$ trillions.
And all these new power-plants will generate energy exclusively via Solar, Wind and Hydro. Extra $$$$ trillions. So get ready to move your civilization-progress obstructing house out of the way.

Global warming increase is entirely caused by the fossil burning industry, cars and households (you know CO2) - ask any green science expert, he will utterly confirm it to you.
Natural emitting CO2 sources - like volcano's and the oceans are going to be covered with concrete slabs (oh no wait CO2 causer) ah... with, well whatever environmental friendly substance, and being used as slab foundations to construct solar parks and Wind generating parks, onto them - might just save your house from being moved.

The greens being far more advanced then all other scientists, have recognized this already since the 70's and have since successfully dismantled the oil and coal energy driven suppliers, and formost the nuclear enery providers, since the latter are not emitting CO2 they became logically a prime target - and the greens are still going strong in that direction. This also explains some random blackouts - but hey, less CO2 emissions - right?
And e.g. the tires and interior of all these eV cars are going to be replaced with wood and grass-fiber based tires and interiors (enough forests and grasslands still around) and not via burning fossils to get some Goodyear tires or smug synthetic leather seats or dashboards. - again less CO2. Why we still need to wait for these environmental friendly tires and interior fittings - even for our present CO2 emitting cars - I can't really tell you.

Natural occurring CO2 emitters like these ghastly humans will be dealt with swiftly via maybe viruses - the last one didn't work out as expected. All we need is 4 Billion less people. Ukraine and Russia are already essential contributors in that regard - without obtaining the deserved recognition towards reducing CO2.

Anyway the greens and their industrial supporters e.g. Elon are already rubbing their hands in view of our bright human battery and solar future. So let's not obstruct them - but work with them. And let's pray to God, that scientific and economic resources will not be injected into nonsense technology like hydrogen energy - it would rid us of all these Solar, Wind-parks, coal plants and nuclear plants - now we wouldn't want that - right?

BTW - great post off yours. - thanks

Well then while you consider me obstructive to CO2 emission reduction by as Biden guarantees to "rid fossil fuels" because of "moving my house",
but what are you by not helping to reduce CO2 emission by using this:
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the process of capturing CO2 that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere from industrial activity, and injecting it into deep geologic formations for safe, secure and permanent storage.

Carbon capture and storage | ExxonMobil

ExxonMobil is one of the world's leaders in carbon capture and storage, one of the critical technologies required to achieve net zero emissions and the climate goals outlined in the Paris Agreement.

corporate.exxonmobil.com

Why destroy the trillions of dollars invested in fossil fuels only to spend trillions replacing fossil fuels?

Feed additives for cattle, new rice-farming techniques, advanced approaches to oil and gas leak detection, coal methane capture, and modern water and waste facilities can all be effective.

Curbing methane emissions: How five industries can counter a major climate threat

Methane accounts for about one-third of global warming. New McKinsey research shows how five industries can cut emissions with proven technologies and at a reasonable cost.

www.mckinsey.com

So why dramatically eliminate fossil fuels that will destroy trillions of dollars in producing fossil fuels and then spend Trillions more trying to eliminate fossil fuel emissions. Future generations like my granddaughter's granddaughter will be totally handicapped by these wasteful expenditures.

 

[Kruska]

Well then while you consider me obstructive to CO2 emission reduction by as Biden guarantees to "rid fossil fuels" because of "moving my house",
but what are you by not helping to reduce CO2 emission by using this:
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the process of capturing CO2 that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere from industrial activity, and injecting it into deep geologic formations for safe, secure and permanent storage.

Carbon capture and storage | ExxonMobil

ExxonMobil is one of the world's leaders in carbon capture and storage, one of the critical technologies required to achieve net zero emissions and the climate goals outlined in the Paris Agreement.

corporate.exxonmobil.com

Why destroy the trillions of dollars invested in fossil fuels only to spend trillions replacing fossil fuels?

Feed additives for cattle, new rice-farming techniques, advanced approaches to oil and gas leak detection, coal methane capture, and modern water and waste facilities can all be effective.

Curbing methane emissions: How five industries can counter a major climate threat

Methane accounts for about one-third of global warming. New McKinsey research shows how five industries can cut emissions with proven technologies and at a reasonable cost.

www.mckinsey.com

So why dramatically eliminate fossil fuels that will destroy trillions of dollars in producing fossil fuels and then spend Trillions more trying to eliminate fossil fuel emissions. Future generations like my granddaughter's granddaughter will be totally handicapped by these wasteful expenditures.

Ah... my previous post was actually pure sarcasm in regards to this CO2 hype - and lib's/greens blaming Global warming entirely onto non natural CO2 emissions.

Off course CCS is known - but it isn't profitable to those using it - it's investment actually costs the e.g. petrol-chemical industry profit from it's normal business.
But producing e.g. Windmills and Solar-farms - is a lucrative business, with immediate profit.

Producing and selling battery vehicles is a very, very, lucrative business, especially for those not wanting to compete with combustion engine manufacturers who hold/control all the patents and know-how. e.g. Elon Musk. The by far largest impact however was that the Chinese government realized it's one time chance, to circumvent the entire global car manufacturing industry via EVs. China due to it's economic progress had the $$ to embark onto an environment friendly concept themselves from 2000 onward. (hey, they got no green party!!) - as such replacing brown coal with imported Black coal, and reducing fossil burning via largely increasing Nuclear-energy plants. Where it makes sense Windmills and solar-plants were, and are build.

Since China is and will stay to be the worlds largest vehicle market - all those wanting to remain/compete in China, had no other choice but to follow this EV hype. Therefore investing huge sums to develop battery concepts - and therefore now pushing EV's themselves. But China in 2023 already owns the global market in that respect. Same applies towards windmills and solar- technology aka solar plants and solar panels.

The behind the curtain issue is quite simple if I may say so;
One needs to know from who the greens initially derive from and as to what their political agenda truly was in the late 60's to early 70's.

The founders of the European - especially French and German greens (before the name green came up) were students inspired with the Socialist ideal - Socialist’s belief in absolute democracy (everyone needs to be allowed to do what ever he wishes - tolerance and acceptance towards these absolute democrats needs to be insured via laws and additional laws in view of minorities) - (the latter constituting a sizable voting power) and last not least controlling the market prices.
Controlling the market price is actually communism - via the state controlling the industry/economy by either direct ownership or via political institutions implementing specific laws that allow them to take indirect control.

The greens initially embarked onto an anti-nuclear energy crusade - this gave them the initial support from young people who did not vote or would never have considered voting for an added political party, since the political spectrum was already taken in by existing parties. So - fearmongering folks into a nuclear power-plant holocaust. In parallel initiating peace-movements foremost directed towards nuclear weapons to be stationed in Germany and Europe (Pershing II) and in general NATO as such. The more people they manged to infect the more of the coming up followers started to get into own generated ideas towards general environmental issues.

For example recycling concepts and a real pusher - pollution caused by the fossil industry and car's. Later e.g. acid rain and ozone hole and now CO2.

Initially they were not strong enough to tackle the petrol-chemical industry in regards to pollution - so they devised in the mid 70's the fearmongering concept - that fossils are not abundant and if we do not cut down on fuel consumption - the lights will go out world wide latest in 1995. Thereby trying to gain a political leverage towards the prices of petrol controlled by the petrol-chemical industry via - the State should control/dictate the price of petrol. So speed limits came up, less speed less pollution. The industry countered in the late 70's with injection engines replacing carburetors and turbos- so the speed limit came off the table at least in Germany - but the now GREEN with an official political party in 1980 - then came up with a need to protect the environment via installing catalytic converters in cars, whilst keeping up their condemnation of the fossil and nuclear indusrty.

This was the first green concept that "unintentionally" created an additional market - hundreds of millions of catalytic converters. Plus additional revenue via State held technical inspection institutions. It was the first "environmental" concept the greens had managed to get introduced via implementing a law. Due to the established parties not wanting to lose further voters - they started to accept and in-cooperate lib/green dogmas into their own parties.

Catalytic converters can be considered to be the Big Bang creating the Green Universe

Additionally certain people and industries realized that with "environment" extra $$ can be made. And instead of one garbage can - now two and later 5 would be needed to ensure household e.g. wastage recycling. etc. etc. etc.

Since the petrol-chemical industry was far too powerful in regards to controlling governments e.g. via lobbies and $$ contributions towards diverse parties - the greens decided to give it a rest - for the meantime - and redirect their attention towards the general industry, e.g. (pollution filters, output control, production licenses) thus gaining direct control onto the establishment of new production plants and directing state subsidies towards technologies, only those in favor for the greens or in favor by the greens.

The nuclear power industry also was too powerful to be tackled directly - but - the greens had realized that nuclear energy policy is hinged to the issue of disposing radioactive rods and materials. The general public in general agreed with the greens that storage in caverns or salt mines couldn't be a permanent solution. So the majority of the population and the respective ruling parties agreed - let's stop building additional nuclear power-plants and deactivate older ones. The greens had one party after the other - until the nuclear industry countered with the technology of nuclear recycling aka Nuclear fuel reprocessing plants.

Therefore if the greens could put and end to the construction of Nuclear fuel reprocessing plants - they could ultimately kill of the nuclear industries future. Arguments by pro-nuclear groups that nuclear energy does not pollute and especially not intentionally - where brushed aside and ridiculed by the greens. Power-plant leaks, human errors, etc.
However the concept of Nuclear fuel reprocessing plants was still pursued by the respective ruling parties.

Despite the greens organizing huge demonstrations towards the construction site of such plants and the railway net connecting the transports of nuclear waste to those intended plants and to the existing caverns and salt-mines, right down to destroying rails and power-lines and the respective states having to invest hugely into security forces and additionally facing thus economic related setbacks - they still didn't manage to stop it. Additionally any government related infrastructure projects were boycotted and harassed by violent demonstrations and green individuals invoking judicial means to stop/delay such projects - thus making them more and more expensive. Infrastructure projects such as new airports and runways. highway expansions, new county roads right down to any industrial plant that supposedly caused hazardous emissions. The greens were stuck.

Then Chernobyl happened ( a super nova of the green universe) - a huge boost for the greens all over the world and a clear sign that now they could finish off the nuclear power industry for good. Dozens of such nuclear catastrophes were predicted for the years to come and haunt us. In many European countries the greens suddenly became a serious political power, and the established political parties took "environmental" issues into their political manifest in order to keep their voters at bay. Thus unavoidably, additionally contributing to the never ending topic of environmental issues.

However the greens in e.g. Germany had already infested an entire upcoming generation since the early 70's not just with environmental issues but social dogmas aka general revolution towards the establishment and it's cultural values. So the greens in the 90's developed into two specific camps - socialists and environmentalists but unified politically as the Green Party. Socialist then being termed (Liberals) are the political wing to destroy the respective countries cultures, the so called sociopolitical structures and it's established morals.
The environmental wing are the tool to destroying industry that isn't or can't be controlled by the greens via fearmongering and discovering/highlighting new potential targets.

Due to almost 20 years of conducting/planing violent demonstrations - the military wing (Antifa and leftist Hooligans) possess from the 90's onward far more experience and potential in the destruction and the manipulation of sociopolitical structures - then those groups/people that are trying to conserve existing sociopolitical structures and morals. They are simply not violent enough.

Now in 2023 (50+ years) - the political wing has managed to rip society apart via the introduction of new terms - e.g. Political correctness, human and civil rights, gender quotas, protection and encouragement of minority groups such as LGBTs, and propagating, supporting racial and foreign religious minority communities, etc. etc. all constituting potential additional voters, and having and still raising/educating their kids to disrespect and attack any non-liberal recognized authority, right down to attacking teachers and school bus drivers. Not excluding individuals in the opposite camp doing the same, mostly due to not being able to be entirely shielded from libertarian society's influences.

Now in 2023 (50+ years) - the environmental wing has managed almost entirely to destroy the nuclear industry (luckily only in Western countries) but has not succeeded entirely onto the destruction of the petrol-chemical industry. keep in mind that the three remaining most powerful institutions in Western countries are;

The finance and commercial institutions - handled and manipulated by the political wing (to become an alternative banking/finance system via e.g. a new monetary value evaluation system) e.g. 1$ in green industry is set at a value of 5$ generated in other industries, or 1kg of bio food is worth 3k of non-bio food. The combined sum of "alternative" produced goods will set the basis for a nations GDP value and thus peoples buying power towards alternative and non alternative goods. Automatically e.g. cattle farmers (CO2 emitters) are financially run down via vegetable based steak producers. So in the end - the socialists will achieve their dream - controlling the market price.
The IT industry - handled and manipulated by the political wing
The petrol-chemical industry and it's connected institutions - handled and manipulated by the environmental wing

Any other industries/institutions are peanuts or already controlled by the greens - e.g. alternative industry - on it's way to become the No.2 industry, or e.g. the MSM.

In order to finally kill off the petrol-chemical industry, and being replaced by the alternative industry - Global warming - has become the (Black hole of the Green Universe)

Humanity and all other life is going to die due to heatstroke or will drown and starve to death. because? well due to the petrol-chemical fossil based industry. emitting CO2. But due to the ozone hole (1985) (the White dwarfs in the Green Universe) we are already dead. Oh wait no - due to the world wide banning of CFC the ozone hole is now recuperating according to greens, whilst non-green research shows that the ozon hole is bigger then ever before.

However to make things even more interesting, Global warming can't be scientifically excluded from causing a reduction of the ozone hole either. Due to the ozone layer actually being regulated via temperature swings in the stratosphere in conjunction with warming and cooling cycles in the arctic and Antarctica. (the cooler the latter gets the bigger the ozone hole gets) - but it's all melting right now - right? - well so much for conclusive temperature related science.

I know it's a hell of a long post and the majority won't even read through it - but I hope it helps to answer your question as to why the environmentalist wing and the political wing of the Greens couldn't give a shit about CCS.

Anyway the most feared nightmare for the Greens are - hydrogen energy based projects and concepts in addition to modern nuclear-fission based energy providers.
Why? well because they wouldn't control them, which leaves them only with an utterly deranged, dysfunctional and deplorable sociopolitical society, devouring Portobello and vegan steaks and throwing their jute household garbage sacks onto the street. Whilst trying to ensure that your granddaughter might join them.

 

[Billiejeens]

"Follow the science" has been used by the left to defend its Covid policies but it is applicable to this statement by Scientific American...
in their headline story from Ninety Percent of U.S. Cars Must Be Electric by 2050 to Meet Climate Goals

Ninety Percent of U.S. Cars Must Be Electric by 2050 to Meet Climate Goals​

But here are two GLARING issues that Scientific American...observed as.... "Its articles, solidly based on scholarly research, well written, and carefully edited, are accompanied by definitions of scientific terms and by illustrations."
This magazine that has been around since 1845 has certainly missed the point with this article and here is why!
1) Scientific American in stating 90% of cars must be electric by 2050... they totally forget TRUCKS!
2) But the MOST egregious error of this prestigious respected magazine is this: where will the 12,461,525,806,512 additional kWh come from if 90.0% of all current cars/trucks are (EVs) by 2050?
Today the total electricity generated by power plants in 2021, is 4,165,030,000,000kWh.
Scientific American didn't follow the science when they state 90% of cars(only by the way) are EVs by 2050 by explaining where the nearly Three times (300%) more
electricity is going to come from?
Today the average current power plant of the 11,070 total power plants in usa Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) generates 376,244,806 kWh per year.
Simple math which Scientific American, Biden, and all the other grossly uniformed advocates of EVs evidently can't do!

• Divide the total electricity needed to power the 90% of cars are EVs by the average power plant generation: 11,717,339,760,000 kWh /376,244,806kWh or a total of NEW power plants: 31,143 ! Please check the math folks.
• The average EV gets about .25 kWh per mile. Average Electric Car kWh Per Mile [Results From 231 EVs]
• The Average American drives 14,263 miles/ year thus using 57,052 kWh per driver. https://www.thezebra.com/resources/driving/average-miles-driven-per-year/
• With approximately 205,380,000 Americans driving a total of 2,929,334,940,000 miles using 57,052 kWh each or total kWh needed:11,717,339,760,000 kWh.
• So simple math states if we have 205,380,000 drivers (of the 228,200,000 total American drivers) driving EVs we will need 31,143 more generating plants.

So I won't have this issue but my granddaughter's generation will have blackouts on a daily basis.
Remember California is requiring that all NEW cars sold in 2035 be EVs.... all the while???
There were 25,281 blackout events in 2019, a 23% increase from 20,598 in 2018

https://www.bloomenergy.com/bloom-energy-outage-map/

THINK folks... why haven't we heard about this???

The adults will take back over soon.
These left wing idiots alway overplay their hand.

 

[Billiejeens]

And suppose that Santa Claus brings every child on earth a toy... I know math isn't your forte, duck, but supposition isn't going to prove your point. In what world do you see the population increasing but the number and type of conveyances reducing? SMFH, is there something in the water on Vancouver Island that promotes idiocy?

Yes.

 

[Concerned American]

Yes.

Naw, I wouldn't go that far. There are many fine communities on that island from the parliament building and museum to Port Hardy. The duck is just an ignorant commie that does what his CCP/Russian bosses tell him to do.

 

[mamooth]

As a collective, American drivers cover 3.2 trillion miles each year,

Look at those goalposts move!

First you were just talking about 90% of passenger cars. Now you've upped it to every single vehicle.

90% of passenger cars is more like 2.0 trillion.

Where will these 2,126 plants come from?

Mostly, by charging cars at night, and expanding existing plants, and expanding renewable energy.

Your failure there is assuming that totally new plants are the only option.

 

[healthmyths]

Look at those goalposts move!

First you were just talking about 90% of passenger cars. Now you've upped it to every single vehicle.

90% of passenger cars is more like 2.0 trillion.


Mostly, by charging cars at night, and expanding existing plants, and expanding renewable energy.

Your failure there is assuming that totally new plants are the only option.

I'm laughing at you so much for several reasons:
1) Where does electricity come from that will be charging their cars? DUH!
2) Where is the proof for your totally unsupported, personal, subjective assumptions?

AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN!

According to "The Science" by Scientific American...
Ninety Percent of U.S. Cars Must Be Electric by 2050 to Meet Climate Goals
14,492,333,735,000 Additional kWh needed if: 90.0% of all current cars/trucks are (EVs) by 2050
Where will their electricity come from that the charging systems will need???
RIGHT now... Total kWh electricity generated In USA source: Electricity generation, capacity, and sales in the United States - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
4,116,000,000,000 Total electricity generated in USA today in 2021 by coal,nuclear,gas.
49,030,000,000 EIA estimates generated with small-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) systems.
4,165,030,000,000 Total electricity generated in USA in 2021 by all power plants
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT??? according to Scientific American... ONLY cars which there are according to this source..(and by the way...WHERE Are your sources??)
SO dummy...there are 228,200,000 Drivers in the USA!!! Total number of licensed drivers in the U.S. by state | Statista
if 90% (again per Scientific American become EV drivers or total 205,380,000.
NOW dummy how many kWh does a EV use to travel 100 miles??? Dummy! 2022 Tesla Model 3 RWD: 25 kWh/100 miles Electric truck - Wikipedia
AGAIN dummy the facts are the average American drive 14,263 miles/ year https://www.thezebra.com/resources/driving/average-miles-driven-per-year/
AGAIN dummy.. how many total kWh will be used by American drivers drive a total of 2,929,334,940,000 miles or 732,333,735,000 kWh ADDED to the annual
electricity produced by 11,070 power plants that generate per plant 376,244,806 WHICH MEANS what dummy???
Divide 732,333,735,000 by 376,244,806 per plant how many ADDITIONAL electric generating plants is that DUMMY? 1,946 NEW plants! AND you think that
the existing plants can add another 376,244,806 kWh and make up the difference... when...

 

[healthmyths]

Look at those goalposts move!

First you were just talking about 90% of passenger cars. Now you've upped it to every single vehicle.

90% of passenger cars is more like 2.0 trillion.


Mostly, by charging cars at night, and expanding existing plants, and expanding renewable energy.

Your failure there is assuming that totally new plants are the only option.

I'm laughing at you so much for several reasons:
1) Where does electricity come from that will be charging their cars? DUH!
2) Where is the proof for your totally unsupported, personal, subjective assumptions?

AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN!

According to "The Science" by Scientific American...
Ninety Percent of U.S. Cars Must Be Electric by 2050 to Meet Climate Goals
14,492,333,735,000 Additional kWh needed if: 90.0% of all current cars/trucks are (EVs) by 2050
Where will their electricity come from that the charging systems will need???
RIGHT now... Total kWh electricity generated In USA source: Electricity generation, capacity, and sales in the United States - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
4,116,000,000,000 Total electricity generated in USA today in 2021 by coal,nuclear,gas.
49,030,000,000 EIA estimates generated with small-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) systems.
4,165,030,000,000 Total electricity generated in USA in 2021 by all power plants
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT??? according to Scientific American... ONLY cars which there are according to this source..(and by the way...WHERE Are your sources??)
SO dummy...there are 228,200,000 Drivers in the USA!!! Total number of licensed drivers in the U.S. by state | Statista
if 90% (again per Scientific American become EV drivers or total 205,380,000.
NOW dummy how many kWh does a EV use to travel 100 miles??? Dummy! 2022 Tesla Model 3 RWD: 25 kWh/100 miles Electric truck - Wikipedia
AGAIN dummy the facts are the average American drive 14,263 miles/ year https://www.thezebra.com/resources/driving/average-miles-driven-per-year/
AGAIN dummy.. how many total kWh will be used by American drivers drive a total of 2,929,334,940,000 miles or 732,333,735,000 kWh ADDED to the annual
electricity produced by 11,070 power plants that generate per plant 376,244,806 WHICH MEANS what dummy???
Divide 732,333,735,000 by 376,244,806 per plant how many ADDITIONAL electric generating plants is that DUMMY? 1,946 NEW plants! AND you think that
the existing plants can add another 376,244,806 kWh and make up the difference... when...

View attachment 775857

 

[martybegan]

NOT one particle of truth!
FACTS:
228,200,000 Total Drivers Total number of licensed drivers in the U.S. by state | Statista
205,380,000 90% Total drivers of Electric Vehicles (Evs)
miles by EV drivers at ave/year/of 14,263 average miles, an average American drives per year
American drivers per this source>>https://www.thezebra.com/resources/driving/average-miles-driven-per-year/
Total miles by 90% of 228,200,000 drivers averaging 14,263 miles is 2,929,334,940,000 miles.

FACT: NOT 0.35... but 0.25!
2022 Tesla Model 3 RWD: 25 kWh/100 miles Source: Electric truck - Wikipedia
0.25 kWh EV car to go 1 mile. 2nd source: Average Electric Car kWh Per Mile [Results From 231 EVs]
FACT:
miles by EV drivers at ave/year/of 14,263 average miles, an average American drives per year
American drivers per this source: https://www.thezebra.com/resources/driving/average-miles-driven-per-year/
FACT:
228,200,000 Total Drivers Total number of licensed drivers in the U.S. by state | Statista
205,380,000 Total drivers of ElectricVehicles (Evs) at Scientific American's statement of 90%!
Souce: Ninety Percent of U.S. Cars Must Be Electric by 2050 to Meet Climate Goals

FACT: 205,380,000 drivers driving ave 14,263 miles or 2,929,334,940,000 miles X 0.25 kWh/mile or 732,333,735,000 kWh just for cars!

Based on FACT: 4,165,030,000,000 kWh generated per year by 11,070 generating plant or average per plant of 376,244,805 kWh/year.
New plants just for Cars... 1,946 new plants.
So your math is wrong plus you provide NO FACTS.. No links! No substantiation! Why not it is so easy to do a search!!! Follow my links!
AGAIN... the average plant today generates 376,244,805 kWh (That's dividing total US output of 4.165 Trillion kWh by 11,070 plants!
4,165,030,000,000 kWh electricity generated in USA today in 2021 source:
Electricity generation, capacity, and sales in the United States - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Plus he ignores the need to get this increased power through a woefully undersized infrastructure, into residential areas, with people all charging at the same time.

 

[the other mike]

"Follow the science" has been used by the left to defend its Covid policies but it is applicable to this statement by Scientific American...
in their headline story from Ninety Percent of U.S. Cars Must Be Electric by 2050 to Meet Climate Goals

Ninety Percent of U.S. Cars Must Be Electric by 2050 to Meet Climate Goals​

But here are two GLARING issues that Scientific American...observed as.... "Its articles, solidly based on scholarly research, well written, and carefully edited, are accompanied by definitions of scientific terms and by illustrations."
This magazine that has been around since 1845 has certainly missed the point with this article and here is why!
1) Scientific American in stating 90% of cars must be electric by 2050... they totally forget TRUCKS!
2) But the MOST egregious error of this prestigious respected magazine is this: where will the 12,461,525,806,512 additional kWh come from if 90.0% of all current cars/trucks are (EVs) by 2050?
Today the total electricity generated by power plants in 2021, is 4,165,030,000,000kWh.
Scientific American didn't follow the science when they state 90% of cars(only by the way) are EVs by 2050 by explaining where the nearly Three times (300%) more
electricity is going to come from?
Today the average current power plant of the 11,070 total power plants in usa Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) generates 376,244,806 kWh per year.
Simple math which Scientific American, Biden, and all the other grossly uniformed advocates of EVs evidently can't do!

• Divide the total electricity needed to power the 90% of cars are EVs by the average power plant generation: 11,717,339,760,000 kWh /376,244,806kWh or a total of NEW power plants: 31,143 ! Please check the math folks.
• The average EV gets about .25 kWh per mile. Average Electric Car kWh Per Mile [Results From 231 EVs]
• The Average American drives 14,263 miles/ year thus using 57,052 kWh per driver. https://www.thezebra.com/resources/driving/average-miles-driven-per-year/
• With approximately 205,380,000 Americans driving a total of 2,929,334,940,000 miles using 57,052 kWh each or total kWh needed:11,717,339,760,000 kWh.
• So simple math states if we have 205,380,000 drivers (of the 228,200,000 total American drivers) driving EVs we will need 31,143 more generating plants.

So I won't have this issue but my granddaughter's generation will have blackouts on a daily basis.
Remember California is requiring that all NEW cars sold in 2035 be EVs.... all the while???
There were 25,281 blackout events in 2019, a 23% increase from 20,598 in 2018

https://www.bloomenergy.com/bloom-energy-outage-map/

THINK folks... why haven't we heard about this???

Why do they leave out other alternatives ?
Biofuels ( hemp , algae, etc)
Hydrogen
Probably over a dozen patents being kept secret by the fossil fuel industry.....some from Nicola Tesla himself ironically.

 

[healthmyths]

Why do they leave out other alternatives ?
Biofuels ( hemp , algae, etc)
Hydrogen
Probably over a dozen patents being kept secret by the fossil fuel industry.....some from Nicola Tesla himself ironically.

PROVE IT!!! Where are your links? I go to the trouble to provide YOU links but you do what people like YOU do... make your OWN subjective unproven statements!