What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Impossibility of the Democrat Fantasy Electric World

badger2

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2016
Messages
18,991
Reaction score
4,279
Points
140
Funny. The right with their polluting petroleum pumping out articles about how bad electricity is. But are the right going to give up electricity? Nope.
Great sunny day here in Wisconsin. The e-trike will be mobile and charging while it is mobile thanks to a mounted solar panel.

We're mustard, ketchup.
 

Woodznutz

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2021
Messages
7,542
Reaction score
3,304
Points
208
Ok... and...?
Oh well, to continue. Cheap fuel (actually cheap labor in a different form) will be replaced by automation, robotics, and AI. And the poor working class will continue to suffer, although the middle class will also become casualties.
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
33,801
Reaction score
8,309
Points
1,340
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
Oh well, to continue. Cheap fuel (actually cheap labor in a different form) will be replaced by automation, robotics, and AI.
This requires cheap energy.
Labor is energy. Cheap electricity replaced the energy of cheap labor. What replaces the energy of cheap electricity?
 

Jarlaxle

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2012
Messages
20,905
Reaction score
3,787
Points
245
Location
New England
According to your article. We have reached peak energy production. The same limitations on Copper for example means building new Gas, Oil, or Coal, plants is impractical because of the shortage of copper and other needed base materials.

So we will have to reduce the electrical needs of the planet with Nuclear War. Massive depopulation via nuclear war. I’m in favor.
You first.
 

Woodznutz

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2021
Messages
7,542
Reaction score
3,304
Points
208
This requires cheap energy.
Labor is energy. Cheap electricity replaced the energy of cheap labor. What replaces the energy of cheap electricity?
More efficient use of electricity, LED's for example.
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
33,801
Reaction score
8,309
Points
1,340
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
More efficient use of electricity, LED's for example.
So.... nothing replaces cheap electricity.
Funny thing about electric vehicles - while you can increase battery capacity, you cannot decrease the amount of energy necessary to get from A to B.
 
Last edited:

Woodznutz

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2021
Messages
7,542
Reaction score
3,304
Points
208
So.... nothing replaces cheap electricity.
Funny thing about electric vehicles - while you can increase battery capacity, you cannot decrease the amount of energy necessary to get from A to B.
Electricity can be generally cheaper if off-peak consumption is used more. However, not all utilities offer it, or can afford to offer it.
 

airplanemechanic

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
15,658
Reaction score
10,220
Points
1,265
Electricity can be generally cheaper if off-peak consumption is used more. However, not all utilities offer it, or can afford to offer it.

We don't have the infrastructure to support 10% of our cars being electric, much less 100%.

Did you see this


Electric vehicles SUCK. 200 mile range electric truck dropped to about 50 miles towing just that small trailer.
 
Last edited:

airplanemechanic

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
15,658
Reaction score
10,220
Points
1,265

airplanemechanic

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
15,658
Reaction score
10,220
Points
1,265

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
33,801
Reaction score
8,309
Points
1,340
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me

airplanemechanic

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
15,658
Reaction score
10,220
Points
1,265
I-70 80 90 all cross the Rockies. Lots of trucks.

Yea, I guess that is true. I don't go out that way so I don't know. I thought all of them went around the mountains.
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
33,801
Reaction score
8,309
Points
1,340
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me

Catsnmeters

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2022
Messages
3,146
Reaction score
1,186
Points
163
Is that your only response? 3 overused letters? You must be a MAGA Domestic Terrorist and Traitor.
No. I don't like the guy but i just think it's crazy to think that Trump had that in mind when he threw socialist money at big pharma to fast track a vaccine against Fauci's recommendation. I think he rushed it to get it out in time for the election.

Do you think he created the vaccine with the intent to cull the herd?
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
102,790
Reaction score
42,486
Points
2,290
The coming green electricity nightmare

Hundreds of billions in new subsidies will bring expensive, unreliable, eco-destructive power



Paul Driessen

Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) wanted regulatory reform, in part to reverse some of the Biden Administration reversals of Trump era reforms intended to expedite permits for fossil fuel projects.
Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) needed Manchin’s vote in the 50-50 Senate to enact his latest spending extravaganza, the Inflation Reduction Act, which was primarily a massive climate and “green” energy subsidy arrangement. It gives Schumer allies some $370 billion in wind, solar, battery and other funding, tax credits and subsidies. In exchange, Schumer would offer a path for Manchin’s reform bill.
Manchin voted YEA, and promptly got bushwhacked. Once he’d helped enact the IRA, he had zero leverage. Schumer, he discovered, had promised an opportunity, maybe a vote, but not actual support. House and Senate members told him, we weren’t part of your secret negotiations with Schumer; we didn’t shake hands on any deal; we don’t want easier permitting for drilling, pipelines and LNG terminals that could help send US natural gas to Britain and Europe.
In the end, it’s probably a good thing Manchin’s bill went nowhere.
Yes, it provided some much needed and long overdue reforms to curb the paralysis by analysis and endless litigation that have plagued fossil fuel, highway, airport and countless other projects for decades.
But it also had Trojan horse provisions that would have unleashed hordes of newly subsidized wind, solar and transmission marauders on much of the Lower 48 USA, to send pseudo-clean electricity to mostly Democrat cities and states that don’t want even “renewable” power generation in their own backyards.
As the Wall Street Journal and energy analyst Robert Bryce observed, Manchin’s “reforms” would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and other bureaucrats the power to issue permits and force multiple states to acquiesce to new transmission lines and 200-foot-tall towers across their scenic, habitat, agricultural and even residential lands – if the feds decide the lines are in the "national interest.” This could easily transform into federal powers of eminent domain, to take the needed acreage.
The feds could decree that thousands of miles of new transmission lines are in the “national interest” if, for instance, the lines “enhance the ability” of faraway wind and solar facilities to connect their intermittent, weather-dependent energy to an electric grid; or enable distant blue states to reach their renewable energy goals; or help achieve Biden Administration goals of stopping manmade climate change, “advancing environmental justice” and having “a net-zero economy” by 2050. Hopefully while avoiding blackout-a-week nightmares.
Populous states like New York could also work with FERC & Co. to have offshore wind turbines installed off less populated coasts, like Maine or North Carolina – and have the electricity delivered to the Empire State. New York’s peak summertime needs alone would require 2,500 monstrous 680-foot-tall 12-MW offshore turbines, operating 24/7 – when we’d be lucky if they generated electricity 40% of the year. (Imagine how many offshore ... or 6-MW onshore ... turbines we’d need to power the entire USA.)
Compounding the energy colonialism, the Manchin reform package would also give FERC authority to allocate and “socialize” transmission line costs, so that residents of states that don’t even get any of the electricity being sent along the newly imposed transmission lines would still have to help pay for them.
In short, the feds would be able to ride roughshod over states, local communities and federalism.
Let me say it again: Wind and sunshine are free, clean, green, renewable and sustainable. But harnessing this diffuse, unreliable, weather-dependent energy to power civilization definitely is not. And every bit of “renewable” power must be backed up with other power – so double our cash and material investments.
The Green Lobby and its legislator and regulator friends really seem to think they can just pass laws and earmark subsidies, demanding energy transformations by 2050 – and it will just happen. The raw materials will just be there, perhaps with a little MAGIC: Materials Acquisition for Global Industrial Change. That is, they simply assume the necessary raw materials will also just be there.
Not one of these luminaries has given a moment’s thought to – much less attempted to calculate – what this net-zero transition would require:
How many millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of EV and backup batteries, millions of transformers, thousands of miles of transmission lines – sprawling across how many millions of acres of wildlife habitat, scenic and agricultural lands, and people’s once-placid backyards?
How many billions of tons of copper, steel, aluminum, nickel, cobalt, lithium, concrete, rare earths, composite plastics and other materials? How many trillions of tons of ores and overburden? How many mines, across how many more acres – with how much fossil fuel energy to operate the enormous mining equipment, and how much toxic air and water pollution emitted in the process? Where will it be done?
To cite just one example, just those 2,500 wind turbines for New York electricity (30,000 megawatts) would require nearly 110,000 tons of copper – which would require mining, crushing, processing and refining 25 million tons of copper ore ... after removing some 40 million tons of overlying rock to reach the ore bodies. Multiply that times 50 states – and the entire world – plus transmission lines.
How many processing plants and factories would be needed? How much fossil fuel power to run those massive operations? How many thousands of square miles of toxic waste pits all over world under zero to minimal environmental standards, workplace safety standards, child and slave labor rules?
How many dead birds, bats, and endangered and other species would be killed off all across the USA and world – from mineral extraction activities, wind turbine blades, solar panels blanketing thousands of square miles of wildlife habitats, and transmission lines impacting still more land?
How many will survive hurricanes like Ian or Andrew? Where will we dump the green energy trash?
Not only do the luminaries and activists ignore these issues and refuse to address them. They actively suppress, cancel, censor and deplatform any questions and discussions about them. They collude with Big Tech companies and news agencies, which too often seem all too happy to assist.
The hard reality is, there are not, will not be, and cannot be, enough mines, metals and minerals on the entire planet – to reach any “net-zero” US economy by 2050, much less a global “green” economy.
Here’s another issue: electric vehicle and backup lithium-ion battery modules can erupt spontaneously into chemical-fueled infernos that cannot be extinguished by conventional fire-fighting means. That raises an important analog to rules Alec Baldwin should have kept uppermost in mind a year ago. Treat every firearm as if it is loaded. Never point your muzzle at anything you are not prepared to destroy.
In the Biden-Newsom-Kerry-IPCC energy arena: Treat every electric vehicle and backup battery system as if it is loaded and ready to ignite. Never park an EV, install a PowerWall or locate a backup power facility near anything you are not prepared to destroy.
That includes in your garage; near other vehicles; in parking garages under apartment and office buildings; in residential neighborhoods and highway tunnels; or on cargo ships like the Felicity Ace.
And yet we’re supposed to go along with Green Energy schemes – as we did with masks, school lockdowns and vaccinations to stop Covid – because our government, media and “public interest” groups insist that we “follow the science,” on which there can be no doubt (certainly none permitted) that we face a “manmade climate crisis” that threatens the very existence of humanity and “the only Earth we have.”
Because we have to destroy the planet (with green energy) in order to save it (from climate change).
It’s time to short-circuit this electricity nightmare, by asking these questions, demanding answers, and ending the notion that governments can simply issue edicts and compel reality to changein response.



Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environmental and human rights issues.




You don't understand...it isn't a nightmare, it is the plan.

The democrat party does not want cheap, plentiful, reliable energy......anyone who thinks that they want those things hasn't paid attention to the democrat party.

The democrats know that solar and wind will never generate enough energy, and that is their goal. They believe that humans are overpopulating the planet, damaging the planet, and that too many people are too hard to control.

So...in order to reduce the population, stop the damage and make people easier to control....you limit how much energy people have....this limits family size, property ownership, location of populations, mobility of those populations....

So the goal is to make energy massively expensive, limit access to it, and make it unreliable.......

That is the goal. If you understand that, then what they do makes complete sense.
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top