The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Fred Reed ArchiveBlogview
Nuclear-Powered Cars, Tesla, Gore, Solar Power, Elon Musk, and More
A Broad Spectrum Column
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

OK, I’m trying to figure out cars. Especially the electric and nuclear-powered ones. Mostly the fizzing and fuming about how great electrics are, or maybe the end of civilization, seems political. Liberals love them because they will prevent pollution, end global warming, and maybe stop hair loss. Libertarians hate them because they associate them with clean air, federal subsidies, and Al Gore. If Al Gore came out in favor of sex, libertarians would stop reproducing.

Now, according to the excellent automotive columnist, Eric Peters, nobody wants e-cars because they cost too much, don’t go far enough before the battery dies, and take too long to refill. This all seems to be true. Now, anyway. (He also says cars will be boring when they all have the same quiet, tedious electric motors. He may have something. Would you buy a Harley if it just made a gentle soughing sound?)

But all these objections come down to the battery, no? If you could make the dratted thing go, say, six hundred miles on a charge, then after a long day’s driving on a road trip, you could plug during lunch, or overnight at the hotel and have a full tank in the morning.

Maybe the batteries will never get cheap enough. Maybe they will explode like Samsung telephones or hand grenades.The longest-lived I have heard of is Tesla’s barely-over-three hundred mile version, and somehow they never say three hundred miles of what kind of driving.

Still, if I were forced to drive a Tesla (I sure as hell wouldn’t buy one for $35K, and lots more for the big battery.) I wouldn’t notice the difference ninety-five percent of the time, if at all. Few of us often drive three hundred miles in a day.

A funny little electric car. Think of the Energizer bunny. Beats a motor scooter in a rain storm. China is neck-deep in all sizes and shapes. Including trucks.

A funny little electric car. Think of the Energizer bunny. Beats a motor scooter in a rain storm. China is neck-deep in all sizes and shapes. Including trucks.

Next, China. (This column is going to jump around some. Get used to it.). The Chinese are going hard into Duracell cars, both funny little ones and normal ones, but they have a different government and different problems. One problem is pollution. In Beijing, it is said, you can cut the air into blocks and build walls with them. Since much of China is densely urban, and lots of Chinese are getting middle class and want cars, this is pretty serious. At least if you like breathing. Anyway, they have loads of e-cars, from funny little sort-of cars to real ones.

So next year, they say, they will introduce an $8K electric car that won’t be much of a car but perfectly adequate for commuting and going to malls. To get around the charge-time problem, they are making the battery removable. In the gas station, they pull out the dead battery, shove in another, and you are refueled in ten minutes. Mostly you wouldn’t do this because you wouldn’t drain the battery in a day and at night you would plug it in at home.

Wiley rascals, those orientals.

So where does the electricity come from? From all kinds of generating plants, I guess–now. But if it came from nuclear power plants, then you would have a nuclear-powered car. See? And you would have zero pollution of the air.

You would also have much less need of any petroleum derivative, such as gasoline, for ground transportation. Aha!

ORDER IT NOW

Now, I don’t know what the Chinese government has in mind. Mysteriously, Xi does not call to seek my advice. I suppose he wants to demonstrate his independence. I do know, though, that Beijing worries because it doesn’t have oil of its own. China depends on Mideastern oil which Washington, now in the pathologically aggressive last years of its empire, could cut off.

Further, China is the world leader in small nuclear reactors (the Nimble Dragon) packaged as local power sources. This critter will be about the size of a bus, fit on a truck, and produce less than 300 MW. it will be much cheaper than big ones, and not require the overkill of a big plant in a small city. You could charge a great passel of cars with one. I don’t know whether the Chinese have thought of this. I will take bets, though.

We have now covered nuclear-powered cars. Onward to solar energy. Again, libertarians are against it, probably because Al Gore thinks it is a good idea. For entirely un-mysterious reasons, oil companies and electric utilities are against it. Me, I am for it. It is free, and doesn’t smell bad. (This really does have something to do with cars. Sort of. Wait.)

Here in Mexico, many people, including yours truly, use solar hot-water heaters.They work fine, almost always, and provide a tremendous savings on propanel, and pay for themselves in a year or two, depending on the exchange rate. A great idea, unless you sell propane.

Others here get their electricity from photovoltaic panels. These cost more and the payback time is longer, and there are various ways you can do it–tie into the electric grid, or go off grid with batteries. But they work.

Now we arrive, again, at Elon Musk. (All roads lead to Elon, even if you need to launch a spaceship.) He is now selling photovoltaic Elon Tiles, You put them on your entire roof, which he claims is not killer expensive. Considering that three or four panels a few feet square run entire houses here, a Musk roof might power an aircraft carrier.

Of course, you may not have an aircraft carrier.

Not too surprisingly, Mr. Musk suggests that you buy one of his Tesla electric cars and charge it with an Elon Tile roof, storing the current in one of his battery packs, which he knows about because Teslas use batteries.

How well all of this will work, or parts of it, I don’t know. Maybe car batteries have peaked out and won’t get better, and electric cars will just be look-at-me toys for the over-moneyed. Maybe Elon Tiles won’t work for some reason I can’t think of. But if I were a gasoline company, or electric utility especially, I believe I believe I would look for an anxiety-management clinic.

(Republished from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Economics • Tags: China, Electric Cars, Elon Musk, Solar Energy, Tesla 
    []
  1. Max Payne says:

    Only communists would drive electric cars.

    It makes me sick that BMW started releasing electric and hybrid cars. What is this? East Germany?

    Read More
    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    Plug-in hybrid that goes about 10 miles but takes gas is kinda nice, like the Honda Accord of that style a few years ago. Short trips are essentially free, and long trips are unrestricted, except that it gets like 48mpg, so you go a LONG way on a little gas.

    Just try to avoid the bought-new price.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /freed/nuclear-powered-cars-tesla-al-gore-solar-power-elon-musk-and-more/#comment-1963442
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Rurik says:

    the excellent automotive columnist, Eric Peters,

    yep!

    I’m using off grid solar for a lot of things these days

    charging batteries for assorted cars and boat and power tools being the beginning, and LED lights for the workshop.. fans, other things.

    It is the way of the future. And Musk’s batteries are an encouraging development

    but there’s something here that is more visceral than 0-60 in under 3 seconds

    I swear I can actually smell the burnt rubber and oil watching shit like this

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Musk is a hustler. Here's why:

    Tesla Car Batteries Not Remotely Green, Study Finds
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/21/delingpole-tesla-car-batteries-co2-not-remotely-green-study-finds/

    The Elon Musk scam:
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/01/eric-peters/elons-carbon-con/

    Tesla battery, subsidy and sustainability fantasies
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/23/tesla-battery-subsidy-and-sustainability-fantasies/

    Tesla Cars Aren't As Carbon (And Taxpayer) Friendly As You Think
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-10/tesla-cars-arent-carbon-and-taxpayer-friendly-you-think

    Tesla car battery production releases as much CO2 as 8 years of gasoline driving
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/20/tesla-car-battery-production-releases-as-much-co2-as-8-years-of-gasoline-driving/

    The real story being missed is just how pathetic things look right now for electric cars. Gasoline prices in the U.S. turned historically cheap in 2015 and stayed cheap, icing demand for gasless cars…Tesla was rocked by a controversial Swedish study that found that making one of its car batteries released as much CO2 as eight years of gasoline-powered driving. And Bloomberg reported last week on a study by Chinese engineers that found electric vehicles, because of battery manufacturing and charging by fossil-fueled electricity, still emit-50 per cent more carbon than internal-combustion engines”.
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-28/electric-vehicles-no-threat-oil-prices-anytime-soon

    The lie of 'electric cars are the onrushing future' demolished here:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/11/the-art-of-the-deal-saving-the-u-s-auto-industry-from-a-planet-saving-agreement

    , @Colleen Pater
    as someone who has lived off the grid for 30 years and built my own hydroelectric systems alcohol stills biodiesel plants hydrogen electrolyzers fuel cells wood fired and solar fired combo hot water systems to name just a few i can tell you categorically musk has done ZERO to further off grid electric its all hat and no cattle, its pretty much borders a sweatshop marketing campaign to triggered snowflakes who are too enstuperated by multicultural education system to cope with the simple math of amp hours and dollars. his batteries suck they are thrice the cost and have half the cycles of the simplest golf cart battery, dont even get me started on his roof tiles they are like his cars virtue signifiers for wealthy eloi. I also have a house in NYC which has the highest tax rebates in the world when combined with fed and state for solar. it also has almost the highest electric rates in the world, and its still not worth installing these systems except has a prepper tactic. the math works out to break even with tax rebates IF the utilities dont change their buyback policies which they legally can.and by the time you have recovered your even break the system is worn out and you must again fork out the up front cost at which point its highly unlikely there will be all the free money to do it with.
    That said solar panels have gotten cheaper and a bit better, and there is enough synthetically manufactured interest that R and D may produce better batteries. North america for the most part has the least need and most fossil fuel and has the worst solarization so this stuff makes more sense in china and other places that dont have our resources.If the costs really came down at least more than 50% it might be a good thing here as adjunct to the griid, utilities could be a batterry particularly in summer AC months,which is sort of whats happening they have the govt and consumers paying for solar at great cost to offset the extra capacity trhey should be building, but of course if not for govt and consumers they would be selling cheaper nuclear so whatever
  3. They have generator trailers for electric vehicles which can double as emergency generators.

    Connected to an EV with a hundred-mile range, Cashen estimated the Pru’s combined lithium-ion batteries and four-cylinder, 750-cc diesel generator could provide a range of 700 miles on six gallons of gas – or a 116-mpg equivalent. The Pru has the ability to deliver up to 400 volts and can also be used as a standalone charging unit wherever power is unavailable.

    Personally, I’m more interested in electric bicycles. I’m looking at the Trek Powerfly 9 or the Rungu Juggernaut electric trike. Hunters are going for the QuietKat 750. “Normal people” are opting for the Sondors electric bike if they can find them. Go to YouTube for Electric Fat Tire Bikes videos.

    https://www.amazon.com/QuietKat-FatKat-Electric-Mountain-Black/dp/B01L047G0G

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    I do love electric bikes; I built one of my own a few years back and I've never regretted it.
    , @CanSpeccy

    They have generator trailers for electric vehicles which can double as emergency generators.
     
    Its more convenient to buy a Chevy Volt, the gas engine and electric drive come in one package.
  4. @Max Payne
    Only communists would drive electric cars.

    It makes me sick that BMW started releasing electric and hybrid cars. What is this? East Germany?

    Plug-in hybrid that goes about 10 miles but takes gas is kinda nice, like the Honda Accord of that style a few years ago. Short trips are essentially free, and long trips are unrestricted, except that it gets like 48mpg, so you go a LONG way on a little gas.

    Just try to avoid the bought-new price.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Plug-in hybrids are excellent and improving steadily. If plugin hybrids and pure plugins could be powered by nuke-generated electricity, these vehicles would indeed substantially lower our air pollution.

    There's no good reason for "conservatives" to be implacably opposed to these vehicles.

    Subsidies and incentives to ditch heavy-polluting internal combustion vehicles in favor of plugin hybrids, is a different issue, but that might be worthwhile as well.

    Since we live in one of the relatively few areas with a reasonably extensive recharging network, we are saving up to buy a plugin hybrid.

    PS are we serious about getting the Hell out of the Middle East and not having to depend on backwards, volatile, unreliable Muslim and African petroleum-exporting regimes like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Qatar, etc.? If so, we ought to be pushing hard for people to give up pure combustion vehicles in favor of electric and part-electric vehicles, and for small nuke power plants to power the vehicles. Even massive subsidies and incentives would cost little compared to the trillions we have wasted on our wars and interference in the Middle East and Central Asia.

  5. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I’m hoping self-driving technology eventually becomes popular among drunk drivers and just plain careless drivers alike.

    Read More
  6. unit472 says:

    Years ago after a hurricane knocked out my electric power I pulled out my small Honda generator ( 5 hp gas motor rated for 2500 watts) and wondered if it could run a small 6000 BTU window air conditioner. It couldn’t. Starting amperage was too high. Now a 6000 BTU A/C will only cool a small room but in hot weather ( as Mexico has) a cool small room is better than nothing. I had to sweat it out but could microwave food, run the refrigerator and have light at night with my small generator.

    I seriously doubt a few solar panels could power a modern American house. The summer air conditioning load would be too much in most of the country outside of San Francisco and, even with a gas furnace, you still have to power the fans and controls with electricity so it would be ‘iffy’ even in the winter with its reduced sunshine. A battery back up might make it more feasible but a lot more costly too.

    Then there is the owner/operator problem. Most people are neither roofers or electricians so fooling around with main power disconnects, inverters and batteries is going to create casualties and fires. Then there is the need to get up on the roof and clean your solar panels. Leaves, dust ( I live by a regional airport and had to move my boat down below because of all the kerosene soot jets deposited on the roof when it was power washed!) will require at least an annual cleaning and people will fall off. Insurance companies will start to notice these issues with DIY power systems too. As to feeding power back into the grid, well, utility workers might not like that as they could be electrocuted when they have to service neighborhood lines.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Very good points all, Mr. Unit. I like dealing with the details. Fred Reed is very far from being an engineer, so his writing on this is just general claptrap.

    BTW, I think he meant a Mexican roof, so I don't know if you had a misunderstanding on this, per "Others here get their electricity from photovoltaic panels" . Fred lives in Ole Meheeecoh, and you might not have known this.
  7. 5371 says:

    [If Al Gore came out in favor of sex, libertarians would stop reproducing.]

    Who would notice?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I don't know where Fred gets his nutty ideas about libertarians. Why would libertarians have a problem with (especially) localized power generation or things electric in general? That part is, well, nutty, is what it is. Perhaps he's confused by people who don't like the automated driving vehicles that will result eventually in major loss of freedom. That change doesn't really have to do with the type of energy used though.

    Is it that libertarians like to have sex in the backs of cars, which will be impossible in the smart cars, excepting for midget libertarians? I could be getting down to the problem here.

    Yeah, in the backs of cars ... be cool or be cast out.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EoG3lXLCc8

    ????
  8. I keep a few solar panels to charge the iToys and run small electronics like DVD players and flat-panel TVs, because the last thing you want in a longer-term power outage or other emergency is abunch of whiny, unentertained family members pressing you to fix things. The complaints about the net being down are bad enough, but they can still watch movies and listen to music.

    Read More
  9. The solar panel and rechargeable battery economy doesn’t scale without cheap Chinese rare earth metals. Currently China mines these for cheap because the mines (and miners) are located in places that the Chinese government doesn’t care about. They’re willing the destroy these rural places in exchange for cleaner air in the cities.

    But the whole scheme is liable to collapse once they grow up a bit and start caring about rural ecology too.

    (Though maybe, too, they can prolong it a bit by buying and destroying huge tracts of African land.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bubba
    Good point - China has leased millions of acres in Russia for mining, but I haven't read anything on how it is going. And unless they invade Africa, their investments will be fruitless. Here is a great video that I am stealing from a comment by a very smart guy on a Steve Sailer post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfg-DK1I1JE
    , @Oleaginous Outrager
    That's been the America's (and most of the rest of the West's) most successful export: pollution. If folks think coal mining is a n ecological disaster, they should take a tour of a Chinese rare earth pit.


    @(((They))) Live


    it looks to me that the Saudis are finished, they run out of cash sometime around 2020, Yuge war on the way when that happens, I hope the US stays out of it
     
    How can the Saudis have a war if Americans aren't fighting it for them? Besides ramping up the terrorism, of course. The house of Saud certainly has that down to a deadly science.
    , @Che Guava
    You are wrong there, mistaking the role of rare earth elements in display and generator tech for that of lithium in batteries.

    Renewables:hydro-electric power is surely effective in places where there is much precipitation year-round.

    One can go a looong way from Tokyo (a few hnndred kms), see hydro-electric plants dedicated to the larger of the two subway conglomerates. It works, but also means almost no wild rivers. So, our salmon production still exists, but is mainly farmed trout-born salmon.

    Wind and solar:Better storage tech is needed. Read an article in IEEE Spectrum years ago, the author was suggesting gigantic flywheels, but the mechanical tech for it is lacking, the tech for giant flywheels doesn't exist.

    Even if it did, to run them efficiently would require magnetic suspension (for which the tech does not exist in the case of large, very heavy objects), which requires electric power, so that solution is inefficient.

    I am thinking that locally distributed fuel cells are the best current solution for storage, but again, the energy cost to get hydrogen back from what they gather and consume to produce power is high.

    The best solution is a much lower human population, 2,000 million would be ideal, but the idiot (literal, as in very low average IQ) demographic warriors will never accepting it.

    So, doom sometime soon, in terms of history.

    On a closing note, Elon Musk has many good ideas, but fact is, Tesla, Space X, and the hyperloop test track are all based on giant government subsidies. He is a very wealtiy person, so why is he not doing any of these projects without gigantic subsidies from your taxpayers?
  10. Solar panels are great, if you live in a God forsaken desert like most of Mexico. But if you live someplace where on average you have rain every 3 days and actually have seasons, well we will keep burning our coal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Then, it becomes all about the storage, Chris. It comes to batteries again. With large solar plants, the energy could be stored via pumping water uphill (this works in conjunction with hydro power, which is basically nature-made solar power). For home power it takes lots of expensive batteries to store enough to run an American house for even 1 cloudy day.

    Of course, your latitude has a bunch to do with how many panels will cover you, hence the pay-off time, also. Up in the northern climates with both low sun most of the time or no sun due to clouds, IN ADDITION TO weather that requires a lot of energy for comfortable living, solar can cover the small stuff, but no way can it cover the heating - get some big propane tanks if you want to live off the grid.
    , @Delinquent Snail
    Chinese recently developed panels that generated electricy from rain water. Its smaller then from the sun, but its better then nothing.
  11. @Chris Mallory
    Solar panels are great, if you live in a God forsaken desert like most of Mexico. But if you live someplace where on average you have rain every 3 days and actually have seasons, well we will keep burning our coal.

    Then, it becomes all about the storage, Chris. It comes to batteries again. With large solar plants, the energy could be stored via pumping water uphill (this works in conjunction with hydro power, which is basically nature-made solar power). For home power it takes lots of expensive batteries to store enough to run an American house for even 1 cloudy day.

    Of course, your latitude has a bunch to do with how many panels will cover you, hence the pay-off time, also. Up in the northern climates with both low sun most of the time or no sun due to clouds, IN ADDITION TO weather that requires a lot of energy for comfortable living, solar can cover the small stuff, but no way can it cover the heating – get some big propane tanks if you want to live off the grid.

    Read More
  12. @5371
    [If Al Gore came out in favor of sex, libertarians would stop reproducing.]

    Who would notice?

    I don’t know where Fred gets his nutty ideas about libertarians. Why would libertarians have a problem with (especially) localized power generation or things electric in general? That part is, well, nutty, is what it is. Perhaps he’s confused by people who don’t like the automated driving vehicles that will result eventually in major loss of freedom. That change doesn’t really have to do with the type of energy used though.

    Is it that libertarians like to have sex in the backs of cars, which will be impossible in the smart cars, excepting for midget libertarians? I could be getting down to the problem here.

    Yeah, in the backs of cars … be cool or be cast out.

    ????

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEFOBILLS
    Why would Libertarians object to Fred's nutty ideas?

    Libertarians believe in a free market. There is no such things as a free market. There are three kinds of markets: Elastic, Inelastic and Mixed.

    Elastic markets have ready competition, and closely align with Free Market theology.

    Inelastic markets are the commons, and natural monopolies. Things like ports are geographic features, and thus must be regulated to keep prices from being monopolized.

    Libertarians, due to their Free Market Theory, do not understand that the commons are required to be low price to then give economic freedom. Also, future has to be invested in, to then lower access price of the commons.

    For example, electrical grid is to be regulated or government owned, because said grid is part of the commons. It would not do to have two competing power companies trying to deliver last mile with duplicate wiring to your home. That would raise prices.

    Any sort of long range planning, especially planning that involves the commons, cannot be done by free market theology. China is directing their pattern of industrial development with industrial policy, and this sort of planning notion is anathema to Libertarians. The Market must decide!

    In the end China will have an evolved infrastructure that gives them security, low pollution, and quite possibly economic freedom in the form of low cost energy via their cheap nuclear power. Solar in China's desert areas is not beyond consideration either. All of this requires investment and planning, which are part of the commons. Commons are not free markets.

    , @Citizen of the world
    Rush.. great band. And I like this song :)
  13. @unit472
    Years ago after a hurricane knocked out my electric power I pulled out my small Honda generator ( 5 hp gas motor rated for 2500 watts) and wondered if it could run a small 6000 BTU window air conditioner. It couldn't. Starting amperage was too high. Now a 6000 BTU A/C will only cool a small room but in hot weather ( as Mexico has) a cool small room is better than nothing. I had to sweat it out but could microwave food, run the refrigerator and have light at night with my small generator.

    I seriously doubt a few solar panels could power a modern American house. The summer air conditioning load would be too much in most of the country outside of San Francisco and, even with a gas furnace, you still have to power the fans and controls with electricity so it would be 'iffy' even in the winter with its reduced sunshine. A battery back up might make it more feasible but a lot more costly too.

    Then there is the owner/operator problem. Most people are neither roofers or electricians so fooling around with main power disconnects, inverters and batteries is going to create casualties and fires. Then there is the need to get up on the roof and clean your solar panels. Leaves, dust ( I live by a regional airport and had to move my boat down below because of all the kerosene soot jets deposited on the roof when it was power washed!) will require at least an annual cleaning and people will fall off. Insurance companies will start to notice these issues with DIY power systems too. As to feeding power back into the grid, well, utility workers might not like that as they could be electrocuted when they have to service neighborhood lines.

    Very good points all, Mr. Unit. I like dealing with the details. Fred Reed is very far from being an engineer, so his writing on this is just general claptrap.

    BTW, I think he meant a Mexican roof, so I don’t know if you had a misunderstanding on this, per “Others here get their electricity from photovoltaic panels” . Fred lives in Ole Meheeecoh, and you might not have known this.

    Read More
  14. The conundrum of electric cars is that they require electricity which is still created mostly with coal or natural gas. If everyone went electric, the power demand would spike to unbelievable heights, leading to more power plants, leading to even more pollution. Even natural gas emits CO2 from combustion. Internal combustion hydrocarbon engines are still far more efficient than electric cars, in so far as power generation per dollar. Don’t tell your hippie neighbor driving a Prius, though.
    With the exception of solar panels, all electricity is created by spinning magnets inside a copper coil. Only the manner of spinning the coil changes between hydroelectric, coal, nuclear, and natural gas. All of it is inefficient in that the electricity is produced not to match demands, but to match peak demands. It’s not acquirable on an as-needed basis, such as turning on a faucet for water, but must be fed to the grid continuously, whether it’s used or not. It’s like leaving the faucet on 24/7/365.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    For human urban concentrations on Planet Earth, the only long-term solution is fusion-powered rail or maglev. Needed real soon, too. Fusion is within reach, where Seebeck generation is not.
    , @utu
    With the exception of solar panels

    Solar panel will pay off for itself (the expense of energy to make it) in terms of energy in about 5 years. Was the energy that was used to produce it clean energy? If not, then for the first 5 years of using solar panel you do not contribute anything to reduction of CO2.

    One solar panel can give a birth to another once every five years.

    If we switched completely to clean (no CO2) energy (including all cars and machines) how many years we need to wait before we have enough energy produced by solar panels?

    Now what is the lifespan of solar panels? 20 years? So one solar panel can have maximum 4 babies when it uses all energy it produces just for reproduction.

    I am afraid that solar panels are just a pipe dream. Which is always a great opportunity to make money by some. The believers in the dream willingly hand the money to the opportunists.
  15. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @RebelWriter
    The conundrum of electric cars is that they require electricity which is still created mostly with coal or natural gas. If everyone went electric, the power demand would spike to unbelievable heights, leading to more power plants, leading to even more pollution. Even natural gas emits CO2 from combustion. Internal combustion hydrocarbon engines are still far more efficient than electric cars, in so far as power generation per dollar. Don't tell your hippie neighbor driving a Prius, though.
    With the exception of solar panels, all electricity is created by spinning magnets inside a copper coil. Only the manner of spinning the coil changes between hydroelectric, coal, nuclear, and natural gas. All of it is inefficient in that the electricity is produced not to match demands, but to match peak demands. It's not acquirable on an as-needed basis, such as turning on a faucet for water, but must be fed to the grid continuously, whether it's used or not. It's like leaving the faucet on 24/7/365.

    For human urban concentrations on Planet Earth, the only long-term solution is fusion-powered rail or maglev. Needed real soon, too. Fusion is within reach, where Seebeck generation is not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    For human urban concentrations on Planet Earth, the only long-term solution is fusion-powered rail or maglev.
     
    For the Western nations the only long-term [energy] solution for "human urban concentrations" is more concentration.

    America's post-WW2 urban sprawl, said to have been promoted to reduce casualties in a nuclear war, means vast areas of blacktop and hundreds of millions of automobiles racking up tens of thousands of kilometers a years. Rebuild the cities (and solve the unemployment problem for a generation) at high density, with tree-lined avenues, and a decent coffee shop on every corner, add a few million autonomous minibuses that can be summoned with a cell phone app, and most Americans will dispense with a car altogether.
  16. Clyde says:

    How about self driving automobiles, Fred? They are a complete farce. Billions are being spent by corporations, Google, Apple, with more cash than they know what to do with. They are spending for a hipper than thou image.
    I can see small areas like Palo Alto being retrofitted for self driving automobiles. Their accidents and miscalculations will be a lawyer’s dream. You will not see extensive use of self drivers for at least 100 years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bizarro World Observer
    You might be right. But truck builders are working on driverless trucks now, and they wouldn't be doing that if it weren't feasible. The savings in drivers' wages would be -- will be -- yuge. And it will increase the squeeze on unskilled workers.
  17. utu says:
    @RebelWriter
    The conundrum of electric cars is that they require electricity which is still created mostly with coal or natural gas. If everyone went electric, the power demand would spike to unbelievable heights, leading to more power plants, leading to even more pollution. Even natural gas emits CO2 from combustion. Internal combustion hydrocarbon engines are still far more efficient than electric cars, in so far as power generation per dollar. Don't tell your hippie neighbor driving a Prius, though.
    With the exception of solar panels, all electricity is created by spinning magnets inside a copper coil. Only the manner of spinning the coil changes between hydroelectric, coal, nuclear, and natural gas. All of it is inefficient in that the electricity is produced not to match demands, but to match peak demands. It's not acquirable on an as-needed basis, such as turning on a faucet for water, but must be fed to the grid continuously, whether it's used or not. It's like leaving the faucet on 24/7/365.

    With the exception of solar panels

    Solar panel will pay off for itself (the expense of energy to make it) in terms of energy in about 5 years. Was the energy that was used to produce it clean energy? If not, then for the first 5 years of using solar panel you do not contribute anything to reduction of CO2.

    One solar panel can give a birth to another once every five years.

    If we switched completely to clean (no CO2) energy (including all cars and machines) how many years we need to wait before we have enough energy produced by solar panels?

    Now what is the lifespan of solar panels? 20 years? So one solar panel can have maximum 4 babies when it uses all energy it produces just for reproduction.

    I am afraid that solar panels are just a pipe dream. Which is always a great opportunity to make money by some. The believers in the dream willingly hand the money to the opportunists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Indeed.

    And consider the toxic disposal of old solar panels & batteries.

    Not to mention the mining, energy use, and the toxic production by-products of the panels & batteries.

    By far, so called, and incorrectly called 'fossil fuels' ARE the most efficient to date other than nuclear.

    Only neo-Marxists want the government to control the entire economy by allowing them to control our sources of energy.

    and BTW:


    US oil companies make about five cents off a single gallon of gasoline, on the other hand US Big Government taxes on a single gallon is around seventy-one cents for some states & rising, the tax is now $1.00 for CA.
    IOW, greedy governments make fourteen to twenty times what oil companies make and it is the oil companies who make & deliver the vital product to the marketplace.
    It’s Big Government, not Big Oil.
     
    and:
    Every year in the US alone, millions of birds, bats, and flying critters are killed by windmills. Not to mention the destruction of the terrain & animal life below them.
    , @Delinquent Snail
    "Now what is the lifespan of solar panels? 20 years?"

    Its about 30 years. At about 10-15 years, the production will start to drop and then it flatlines around 30 years. Depending on wear and tear, of course.

    Most companies will replace panels that dont meet a set production value while you are still under contract.
  18. American cars, great for driving straight.
    Here in the Netherlands we have small roads with curves, city lay outs and canals developed hundreds of years ago. Almost no private parking spaces in cities, so the Chevrolet caprice I owned would stick out 5 feet when parked diagonally to the canal. So some of the hundreds of bicyclists would crash into it. Gasoline being 5,- euro per gallon and the car-owner tax going by weight. I was quickly cured of owning an American car.

    Until recently, because of all the enviromental subsidies, CO2 and ownership taxes, etc, buying a 85k Tesla did not cost you anything after taxes for 5 years.
    Buying a Chevrolet camaro in the usa starts at 26k, here at 65k. It is all about Taxes!!

    Read More
  19. Ofcourse the real problem with energy is the human luxury of living were you please and do so comfortably.
    Who in there right mind would want to live in a swamp or desert without aironditioning?
    Before the abundance of energy people simply died.

    It is the likes of Texaco, Shell, etc that have given billions of people a chance to live. Next time when you say a prayer, mention Them.

    Read More
  20. Good Solar PV panels should last far longer than 20 years, you usually get a guarantee that the panel will produce 80% of its rated output after 20/25 years, but they will continue to work for years after that

    Also Fred the Tesla Model 3 costs $35K batteries included, 200 mile range and fast charging, and the batteries in the Tesla should last longer than the car

    People keep betting against Musk and they keep losing

    With oil/gas fracking plus EVs it looks to me that the Saudis are finished, they run out of cash sometime around 2020, Yuge war on the way when that happens, I hope the US stays out of it

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    (((They))) Live:

    Those betting against Musk will start winning when his government subsides are cut off or even substantially decreased!
    , @Willem Hendrik
    World population is stil growing by 1.5 million per week!
    Almost 90,ooo,ooo car were sold last year.

    Tesla did 90,ooo units.
    Electric cars are not even close to being out of infancy.

    Musk is a good salesman though. Besides Hitler ;) I havent seen a man who can so mesmerise people with his promises....
  21. Fred,

    Solar power isn’t free. The fuel cost is zero. But that’s a long, long way from free power.

    The Grate Deign

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bubba
    Just like hydro and look how expensive that is especially to Canadians.
  22. Dan Hayes says:
    @(((They))) Live
    Good Solar PV panels should last far longer than 20 years, you usually get a guarantee that the panel will produce 80% of its rated output after 20/25 years, but they will continue to work for years after that

    Also Fred the Tesla Model 3 costs $35K batteries included, 200 mile range and fast charging, and the batteries in the Tesla should last longer than the car

    People keep betting against Musk and they keep losing

    With oil/gas fracking plus EVs it looks to me that the Saudis are finished, they run out of cash sometime around 2020, Yuge war on the way when that happens, I hope the US stays out of it

    (((They))) Live:

    Those betting against Musk will start winning when his government subsides are cut off or even substantially decreased!

    Read More
    • Replies: @SBaker
    Seemingly, the nearly 5 billion in government assistance may have facilitated development of the musk oil products.
  23. I doubt it, AFAIK the Model 3 will cost $35K with out subsides in most US states, for $35K there is no better car, this will become clear once people get a chance to test drive it, Teslas biggest problem will be keeping up with demand

    Musk is pissing off a lot of very powerful people which is why we keep hearing so much BS about subsides

    Read More
    • Replies: @Escher
    Are you saying the car will sell like hot cakes even without subsidies for EVs?
  24. RobRich says: • Website

    Fred,

    “Onward to solar energy. Again, libertarians are against it, probably because Al Gore thinks it is a good idea.”

    The first time I heard of solar energy was from the libertarians. Renewables is a big deal in their world platform. They just don’t think it should be subsidized by coerced taxes or silly propaganda.

    Read More
  25. @(((They))) Live
    Good Solar PV panels should last far longer than 20 years, you usually get a guarantee that the panel will produce 80% of its rated output after 20/25 years, but they will continue to work for years after that

    Also Fred the Tesla Model 3 costs $35K batteries included, 200 mile range and fast charging, and the batteries in the Tesla should last longer than the car

    People keep betting against Musk and they keep losing

    With oil/gas fracking plus EVs it looks to me that the Saudis are finished, they run out of cash sometime around 2020, Yuge war on the way when that happens, I hope the US stays out of it

    World population is stil growing by 1.5 million per week!
    Almost 90,ooo,ooo car were sold last year.

    Tesla did 90,ooo units.
    Electric cars are not even close to being out of infancy.

    Musk is a good salesman though. Besides Hitler ;) I havent seen a man who can so mesmerise people with his promises….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Escher
    Steve Jobs was a great salesman. Unlike Musk, he actually delivered on his promises.
  26. indeed, indeed.

    The Tesla Roadster will never reach production, and if it does nobody will buy it
    The Model S will never reach production, and if it does nobody will buy it
    The Model X will never reach production and….
    The Model 3 will never reach production and if ……..
    The Falcon 1 will never launch, SpaceX are a joke with not enough money
    The Falcon 9 will never launch
    The Dragon capsule will never reach the ISS
    Its not possible to recover the first stage of a rocket
    Its not possible to reuse the first stage of a rocket
    The Falcon Heavy will never launch
    Musk will never build a space comms system
    Tesla will never sell 500K Model 3s a year

    and on and on it goes

    half a million EVs a year is like a small country ringing up OPEC and telling them where to go, and thats just Tesla. Nissan, BMW, Ford, VW, GM, Toyota, almost every car company has multiple EVs in the works, when the CEO of Shell says his next car will be electric its pretty clear the way things are going

    But yeah Musk is like Hitler

    Read More
    • Replies: @Willem Hendrik
    You left out the boring co. and hyperlooptiedooptie.
    I admire Him greatly for his salesmanship. Pluggin 100 year old ideas, tossing in some iPadarie, and revamping it as new, reaping billions from believers who can' t read a 10-K form.

    After all, He could just go yachting. that would be truly boring.
    , @Escher
    To repeat what many have already said, sales of Teslas would be nowhere near their current numbers without subsidies. Musk is a huckster par excellence.
  27. @(((They))) Live
    indeed, indeed.

    The Tesla Roadster will never reach production, and if it does nobody will buy it
    The Model S will never reach production, and if it does nobody will buy it
    The Model X will never reach production and....
    The Model 3 will never reach production and if ........
    The Falcon 1 will never launch, SpaceX are a joke with not enough money
    The Falcon 9 will never launch
    The Dragon capsule will never reach the ISS
    Its not possible to recover the first stage of a rocket
    Its not possible to reuse the first stage of a rocket
    The Falcon Heavy will never launch
    Musk will never build a space comms system
    Tesla will never sell 500K Model 3s a year

    and on and on it goes

    half a million EVs a year is like a small country ringing up OPEC and telling them where to go, and thats just Tesla. Nissan, BMW, Ford, VW, GM, Toyota, almost every car company has multiple EVs in the works, when the CEO of Shell says his next car will be electric its pretty clear the way things are going

    But yeah Musk is like Hitler

    You left out the boring co. and hyperlooptiedooptie.
    I admire Him greatly for his salesmanship. Pluggin 100 year old ideas, tossing in some iPadarie, and revamping it as new, reaping billions from believers who can’ t read a 10-K form.

    After all, He could just go yachting. that would be truly boring.

    Read More
  28. @TomSchmidt
    Plug-in hybrid that goes about 10 miles but takes gas is kinda nice, like the Honda Accord of that style a few years ago. Short trips are essentially free, and long trips are unrestricted, except that it gets like 48mpg, so you go a LONG way on a little gas.

    Just try to avoid the bought-new price.

    Plug-in hybrids are excellent and improving steadily. If plugin hybrids and pure plugins could be powered by nuke-generated electricity, these vehicles would indeed substantially lower our air pollution.

    There’s no good reason for “conservatives” to be implacably opposed to these vehicles.

    Subsidies and incentives to ditch heavy-polluting internal combustion vehicles in favor of plugin hybrids, is a different issue, but that might be worthwhile as well.

    Since we live in one of the relatively few areas with a reasonably extensive recharging network, we are saving up to buy a plugin hybrid.

    PS are we serious about getting the Hell out of the Middle East and not having to depend on backwards, volatile, unreliable Muslim and African petroleum-exporting regimes like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Qatar, etc.? If so, we ought to be pushing hard for people to give up pure combustion vehicles in favor of electric and part-electric vehicles, and for small nuke power plants to power the vehicles. Even massive subsidies and incentives would cost little compared to the trillions we have wasted on our wars and interference in the Middle East and Central Asia.

    Read More
  29. @Si1ver1ock
    They have generator trailers for electric vehicles which can double as emergency generators.

    Connected to an EV with a hundred-mile range, Cashen estimated the Pru's combined lithium-ion batteries and four-cylinder, 750-cc diesel generator could provide a range of 700 miles on six gallons of gas – or a 116-mpg equivalent. The Pru has the ability to deliver up to 400 volts and can also be used as a standalone charging unit wherever power is unavailable.


     

    Personally, I'm more interested in electric bicycles. I'm looking at the Trek Powerfly 9 or the Rungu Juggernaut electric trike. Hunters are going for the QuietKat 750. "Normal people" are opting for the Sondors electric bike if they can find them. Go to YouTube for Electric Fat Tire Bikes videos.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCZ26-Tzlew


    https://www.amazon.com/QuietKat-FatKat-Electric-Mountain-Black/dp/B01L047G0G

    I do love electric bikes; I built one of my own a few years back and I’ve never regretted it.

    Read More
  30. It is simply amazing and heartbreaking to realize that apparently nobody sees through this farce regarding electric and self-driving cars and and just precisely what are the intentions of the PTB in forcing these abberations of logic upon a hapless working-stiff population.
    So okay here it is :

    The head honchos, the big wheels in the leftist DS have as an end goal the total elimination of privately-owned and operated cars : Period.

    They know and I know, that when the point is reached upon which privately-owned eternal combustion powered cars are outlawed there will not be an ENCOMPASSING replacement thereof through the production of electric and or self-driven automobiles, and at that point the ownership of privat cars will slowly or not so slowly fade away, along with vibrant urban realities and a mobile population.

    The reason behind all of this madness being : Leftist/communist/socialist politicos simply abhor, simply detest the reality of mobile, self-determined, “happy” individuals, and the most convincing aspect of this viewpoint being the fact that the old UDSSR had been in the position of creating a complete automobile producing industry, which they refrained from implementing due to their paranoia of a mobile people and visions of Paris 1789, rolling heads etc.

    Myself personally : I love automobiles and in my younger days I actually owned eleven Alfa Romeos ( in succession) and I dread, even at the ripe age of seventy-seven, I dread the coming of age of a society doomed to treading bikes and walking in the deep snow, so as to sooth the manias of leftist oppressors.

    But rest assured even after the elimination of privatly-owned cars, there will be an abundant supply of “staff cars” within the gov motor parks so at least the cadre’ will not be forced to revert to the peasant style of transportation : Bikes and buses.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US army Vet and pro jazz musician.

    Read More
    • Agree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @Alden
    You are probably right. I've found that virtually everything pushed by TPTB is detrimental.
    , @Clyde
    A superior post and thanks! I agree w you all the way as far a self owned automobile gave independence and girls to guys.
  31. WHAT says:

    Nobody could have predicted that (((weev))) would snitch for the shabbos goy regime in Kiev, absolutely nobody.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    I do not know to what you refer, did nothce weev (Auernheimer) is lately influential on the Daily Stormer, not a site I read as a habit, but he is influential there, mainly through a bizarre concept he is calling 'white sharla'', which is why I clicked through to read it.

    Please, a few details and links, your post is too brief.

    I had unpleasant contact with him once in 2005 or 2006, on the IRC of a certain infamous encyclopaedia site. Gave as good as I got.

    Actually, after very early days, he stopped, left me alone. I would write relevant and good articles that had genuine wit and 'net dimension. He would write the *very* occasional dull and off-topic article (IIRC, he did the original 'Roman Empire', which remains a pile of off-topic faesces, but has little or no resemblance to weev's original effort). Idea being to scream 'Not just a troll, I can writing stuff, too, no rilly!!' Always off-topic, always lacking the 'net dimensiom that would have brought it on-topic.

    Still, he was a very smug yet talented troll. His Christian preacher vids on u-tube early this decade were good, while his own ego was overblown in them, I really thought he was serious about the Christian aspect at the time. No cheap shots. Likely still is.

    He did a great job on a clueless writer for O'Reilly's (the tech books, not your media figure). I forget the name. That was at least 15 yrs. ago.

    Funny stuff.

    Did time for collecting a lot of non-secure data (so -called 'hacking', not that he wasn't pretty good at the real kind earlier on). Would guess he would have more time or not an early release, except for ((())), but seems to disavow that except when it might really help at a time of great need.

    Comments abt. him by his mother are pretty funny. If not quite disowned (maybe is), sure deeply estranged.

    Really surprised to see that he is now a Big Man
  32. Bubba says:
    @anonymous coward
    The solar panel and rechargeable battery economy doesn't scale without cheap Chinese rare earth metals. Currently China mines these for cheap because the mines (and miners) are located in places that the Chinese government doesn't care about. They're willing the destroy these rural places in exchange for cleaner air in the cities.

    But the whole scheme is liable to collapse once they grow up a bit and start caring about rural ecology too.

    (Though maybe, too, they can prolong it a bit by buying and destroying huge tracts of African land.)

    Good point – China has leased millions of acres in Russia for mining, but I haven’t read anything on how it is going. And unless they invade Africa, their investments will be fruitless. Here is a great video that I am stealing from a comment by a very smart guy on a Steve Sailer post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfg-DK1I1JE

    Read More
  33. Bubba says:
    @The Grate Deign
    Fred,

    Solar power isn't free. The fuel cost is zero. But that's a long, long way from free power.

    The Grate Deign

    Just like hydro and look how expensive that is especially to Canadians.

    Read More
  34. Fred, the idea of the battery which can be replaced as at a service station like filling up one’s gas tank was the idea with which Shai Agassi launched Better Place in Israel. I think it only got off the ground with enough sales and enough battery changing stations in Israel and Denmark though Better Place (Australia) did something honest if unprofitable with the money it raised from investors like me before the Australian CEO Evan Thòrnley was given Shai Agassi’s job in Israel and it finally expired.

    Its Australian board was mpressive, including our now Chief Scientist Alan Finkel who, like Thornley, had made a large fortune in California (Axon Instruments from memory). As he has now given the government an intelligent energy plan which nonetheless accepts the (for Australia) useless aim of meeting a renewables target he may have had something to do with Better Place’s offer of battery charging electricity which was all from renewables (probably only notionally, by way of negotiable certificate I suspect). That does point to the reality that China is probably aiming to do a lot of wind and solar charging of batteries, as well as nuclear when wind and sun are lacking.

    Read More
  35. I have been following these developments since 2005.it looks like the whole issue is heavily ideologilized and no comprehensive scientific research is done as to what has more sense and especially economically, environmentally and resources wise viable long term. Emotional side is also quite obvious as well designed vast public transport on net would cover all needs and would remove lots of problems saving exausible resources in the process. But here come emotions and love of private motoring. We are ultimately irrational beings. Regarding Musk, he looks like a fraud.

    Read More
  36. @anonymous coward
    The solar panel and rechargeable battery economy doesn't scale without cheap Chinese rare earth metals. Currently China mines these for cheap because the mines (and miners) are located in places that the Chinese government doesn't care about. They're willing the destroy these rural places in exchange for cleaner air in the cities.

    But the whole scheme is liable to collapse once they grow up a bit and start caring about rural ecology too.

    (Though maybe, too, they can prolong it a bit by buying and destroying huge tracts of African land.)

    That’s been the America’s (and most of the rest of the West’s) most successful export: pollution. If folks think coal mining is a n ecological disaster, they should take a tour of a Chinese rare earth pit.

    it looks to me that the Saudis are finished, they run out of cash sometime around 2020, Yuge war on the way when that happens, I hope the US stays out of it

    How can the Saudis have a war if Americans aren’t fighting it for them? Besides ramping up the terrorism, of course. The house of Saud certainly has that down to a deadly science.

    Read More
  37. Dr. X says:

    Now we arrive, again, at Elon Musk. (All roads lead to Elon, even if you need to launch a spaceship.) He is now selling photovoltaic Elon Tiles, You put them on your entire roof, which he claims is not killer expensive.

    Musk is hardly “selling” much of anything. His companies are all losing money. They are entirely propped up by government subsidies.

    Musk and Tesla now own Solar City, and they are getting a $750 million-taxpayer funded, taxpayer owned solar panel factory from the State of New York for $1 in annual rent. Not a single solar panel has been manufactured there yet, but the construction contractor and Gov. Cuomo’s top personal aide have both been arrested and charged with felony bid-rigging.

    Solar City’s stock fell by two-thirds last year when it pulled out of the Nevada market (probably the sunniest state in the country) when the state government eliminated its subsidies.

    Read More
  38. Joe Hide says:

    Article was humorous, insightful, & speculative …. but especially humorous. Good job Fred!

    Read More
  39. George says:

    My problem with residential solar is you can’t have trees if they block your solar cells, and because of solar easement laws, you can’t have trees if your neighbor does. You also risk legal action if building vertical additions in cities because your neighbor has a solar cell that can’t actually power anything much on their roof.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_easement

    Read More
  40. Che Guava says:
    @anonymous coward
    The solar panel and rechargeable battery economy doesn't scale without cheap Chinese rare earth metals. Currently China mines these for cheap because the mines (and miners) are located in places that the Chinese government doesn't care about. They're willing the destroy these rural places in exchange for cleaner air in the cities.

    But the whole scheme is liable to collapse once they grow up a bit and start caring about rural ecology too.

    (Though maybe, too, they can prolong it a bit by buying and destroying huge tracts of African land.)

    You are wrong there, mistaking the role of rare earth elements in display and generator tech for that of lithium in batteries.

    Renewables:hydro-electric power is surely effective in places where there is much precipitation year-round.

    One can go a looong way from Tokyo (a few hnndred kms), see hydro-electric plants dedicated to the larger of the two subway conglomerates. It works, but also means almost no wild rivers. So, our salmon production still exists, but is mainly farmed trout-born salmon.

    Wind and solar:Better storage tech is needed. Read an article in IEEE Spectrum years ago, the author was suggesting gigantic flywheels, but the mechanical tech for it is lacking, the tech for giant flywheels doesn’t exist.

    Even if it did, to run them efficiently would require magnetic suspension (for which the tech does not exist in the case of large, very heavy objects), which requires electric power, so that solution is inefficient.

    I am thinking that locally distributed fuel cells are the best current solution for storage, but again, the energy cost to get hydrogen back from what they gather and consume to produce power is high.

    The best solution is a much lower human population, 2,000 million would be ideal, but the idiot (literal, as in very low average IQ) demographic warriors will never accepting it.

    So, doom sometime soon, in terms of history.

    On a closing note, Elon Musk has many good ideas, but fact is, Tesla, Space X, and the hyperloop test track are all based on giant government subsidies. He is a very wealtiy person, so why is he not doing any of these projects without gigantic subsidies from your taxpayers?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    The best solution is a much lower human population, 2,000 million would be ideal
     
    Well the European people, both in America and Europe, are doing their best to commit suicide with a way below replacement fertility. Trouble is, the Treason Party running the US and the EU are dedicated to bringing in tens of millions of highly philoprogenitive people from elsewhere to more than make up the declining numbers of Europeans.

    So pushing the idea, as the Pope has been doing, that white people have too many children looks like advocacy of white genocide, not a solution to any environmental problem.

    Anyhow, we don't need no "solution" to energy use. Energy use is what made the modern world possible. Practically no one want to go back to the world of horses and carts, backbreaking manual labor, and a privy in every back yard.

    The problem we have is environmental degradation (much less severe in the Western world than it was 50 years ago), the solution to which will have many aspects including vastly increased energy-use efficiency, and taxes on carbon and other pollutants (which will provide the incentive for a competitive market economy to devise the most cost-effective pollution solutions). Trump should end the climate debate for all time by introducing a carbon tax with a countervailing duty on imports from countries without a carbon tax.

    , @Wizard of Oz
    One form of storage I read of rarely is wind powered pumping of water to higher levels from which it can provide hydro electŕic power. Doesn't that make good economic sense givenn the high price of peak load electricity?
    , @Sam J.
    "...Elon Musk has many good ideas, but fact is, Tesla, Space X, and the hyperloop test track are all based on giant government subsidies..."

    I have no idea why people are complaining about the subsidies. These subsidies were enacted before Musk started these businesses. They are things that are vital to our national defense and also a great boon to independence for people who don't want big business running our lives. Solar power, electric cars means you don't depend on monopolies. Musk is going to build solar cells in the US. Beats giving the Chinese money for windmills which suck(not the small ones, I'm for them).

    Boeing has received around $10 billion so far for a launch system and have delivered nothing. Just in US government launch system savings all the subsidies given to Musk will be made back on lower launch cost. Whether he's in business or not you're going to be paying for these as we need the access to space.
  41. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Si1ver1ock
    They have generator trailers for electric vehicles which can double as emergency generators.

    Connected to an EV with a hundred-mile range, Cashen estimated the Pru's combined lithium-ion batteries and four-cylinder, 750-cc diesel generator could provide a range of 700 miles on six gallons of gas – or a 116-mpg equivalent. The Pru has the ability to deliver up to 400 volts and can also be used as a standalone charging unit wherever power is unavailable.


     

    Personally, I'm more interested in electric bicycles. I'm looking at the Trek Powerfly 9 or the Rungu Juggernaut electric trike. Hunters are going for the QuietKat 750. "Normal people" are opting for the Sondors electric bike if they can find them. Go to YouTube for Electric Fat Tire Bikes videos.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCZ26-Tzlew


    https://www.amazon.com/QuietKat-FatKat-Electric-Mountain-Black/dp/B01L047G0G

    They have generator trailers for electric vehicles which can double as emergency generators.

    Its more convenient to buy a Chevy Volt, the gas engine and electric drive come in one package.

    Read More
  42. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    For human urban concentrations on Planet Earth, the only long-term solution is fusion-powered rail or maglev. Needed real soon, too. Fusion is within reach, where Seebeck generation is not.

    For human urban concentrations on Planet Earth, the only long-term solution is fusion-powered rail or maglev.

    For the Western nations the only long-term [energy] solution for “human urban concentrations” is more concentration.

    America’s post-WW2 urban sprawl, said to have been promoted to reduce casualties in a nuclear war, means vast areas of blacktop and hundreds of millions of automobiles racking up tens of thousands of kilometers a years. Rebuild the cities (and solve the unemployment problem for a generation) at high density, with tree-lined avenues, and a decent coffee shop on every corner, add a few million autonomous minibuses that can be summoned with a cell phone app, and most Americans will dispense with a car altogether.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    " A decent coffee shop on every corner"

    Yeah sure so every working American person can, instead of going off to a job, hang around european style at the corner cafe' and talk marxism, and the evils of white folks with the other hanger-arounders, in the meanwhile the gov is printing money Weimar style to pay for all of this unproductive european-style socializing.

    "And most Americans will dispense with a car altogether"

    BS, most Americans, including myself, love the ownership of automobiles, and do not look at automobiles as some kind of evil innovation designed to destroy the environment, but rather an expression of personal freedom.

    Of course there are the anti-automobile hippy types who slosh around stoned, in their birkenstocks, thinking how hip and progressive and "anti" they are, while the working-stiffs are out creating the resources to keep the economy, and society afloat.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro Jazz musician.
    , @anarchyst
    You are living in a fantasy (nightmare) world...the automobile is responsible for uplifting humanity and giving us the FREEDOM to go where we want, when we want, and live where we want--no train or bus schedules needed.
    I, for one, have NO desire to live in a city--PERIOD...
    You appear to be one of the (anointed) "environmentalist types" who would force the "unwashed masses" into soviet-style high-rise apartments, prohibit the use of cars, and forced to use buses, trains and other "multimodal transportation systems". You would force people into the squalorous conditions that existed in pre-automobile American cities, with the diseases and other negative aspects of "high-density" living. Only you "anointed" environmentalists would have the use of cars, country dachas, and other amenities that you would deny to the rest of humanity.
    In fact, YOU are the type that would like to see the human population reduced by approximately 90% "by any means necessary" including gulagization (for having improper thoughts about environmentalism), the introduction of epidemics, and other soviet methods of "population reduction".
    You appear to be the type who thinks the YOU know what is best for people, their aspirations be damned, a la Al Gore.
    I have NO USE for you environmentalist types, you limp-wristed, birkenstock-wearing, prius-driving, tofu-eating, poor excuses for human beings..
    Just why don't you take your own advice and eliminate yourselves first?
    You environmentalists are like watermelons--"green" on the outside and "red" (communist) on the inside.
    , @Alden
    Don't we already have "autonomous minibuses" known as taxi cabs and uber? A cell phone app, a phone call, waiting for uber or walking down to a nearby cab stand waving down a cab, what's the difference?

    San Francisco used to have jitney buses that ran on some of the main streets. They were small buses. One had to wave them down and they let people off wherever they wanted. They were privately owned and licensed, a decent little business for a small investment

    Los Angeles has Dart buses. They are part of the city bus system. They just run around commercial districts. Fare is only about 25 cents. The idea is drive to work and park. But instead of driving to lunch or errands at lunch time use these Dart buses. They are very convenient for people who live in business districts.

    Someone told me it's possible to travel from Los Angeles to San Diego using buses.

    Cities have had public transit for hundreds of years.

    The more things change.

    The main obstacle to the dream of living in high rise cities and public transit is race and crime. Taking public transit at night causes murder, rape and robbery by the blacks and Hispanics that infest the cities. If you have kids in cities private schools are a necessity to protect them from those hell hole dangerous schools.

    The major, major reason for the suburbs was the black conquest of the cities by murder, rape, robbery, burglary, force, violence, terrorism and ethnic cleansing.

    Until the late 1940s our northern cities were wonderful places that functioned very well with few cars. Then the blacks conquered the cities and the White refugees fled to the suburbs.

    None of the things you mentioned will make the cities live able again until the criminals are eliminated.
  43. Wally says:
    @Rurik

    the excellent automotive columnist, Eric Peters,
     
    yep!

    I'm using off grid solar for a lot of things these days

    charging batteries for assorted cars and boat and power tools being the beginning, and LED lights for the workshop.. fans, other things.

    It is the way of the future. And Musk's batteries are an encouraging development

    but there's something here that is more visceral than 0-60 in under 3 seconds

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4nQKRIteGE

    I swear I can actually smell the burnt rubber and oil watching shit like this

    Musk is a hustler. Here’s why:

    Tesla Car Batteries Not Remotely Green, Study Finds

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/21/delingpole-tesla-car-batteries-co2-not-remotely-green-study-finds/

    The Elon Musk scam:

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/01/eric-peters/elons-carbon-con/

    Tesla battery, subsidy and sustainability fantasies

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/23/tesla-battery-subsidy-and-sustainability-fantasies/

    Tesla Cars Aren’t As Carbon (And Taxpayer) Friendly As You Think

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-10/tesla-cars-arent-carbon-and-taxpayer-friendly-you-think

    Tesla car battery production releases as much CO2 as 8 years of gasoline driving

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/20/tesla-car-battery-production-releases-as-much-co2-as-8-years-of-gasoline-driving/

    The real story being missed is just how pathetic things look right now for electric cars. Gasoline prices in the U.S. turned historically cheap in 2015 and stayed cheap, icing demand for gasless cars…Tesla was rocked by a controversial Swedish study that found that making one of its car batteries released as much CO2 as eight years of gasoline-powered driving. And Bloomberg reported last week on a study by Chinese engineers that found electric vehicles, because of battery manufacturing and charging by fossil-fueled electricity, still emit-50 per cent more carbon than internal-combustion engines”.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-28/electric-vehicles-no-threat-oil-prices-anytime-soon

    The lie of ‘electric cars are the onrushing future’ demolished here:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/11/the-art-of-the-deal-saving-the-u-s-auto-industry-from-a-planet-saving-agreement

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Tesla was rocked by a controversial Swedish study that found that making one of its car batteries released as much CO2 as eight years of gasoline-powered driving. And Bloomberg reported last week on a study by Chinese engineers that found electric vehicles, because of battery manufacturing and charging by fossil-fueled electricity, still emit-50 per cent more carbon than internal-combustion engines”.
     
    none of that matters Wally, because it's never been about carbon emissions or saving the environment.

    It's about cutting off the source of money for 'terrorist' nations like Iran or Hitlerian countries like Russia or Venezuela who thumb their noses at the Fiend. ((They)) have all those snowflakes diving expensive subsidized hybrids as a virtue signaling, status whoring SJW way to show they're not like bad-whites like Billy Bob

    the whole global warming farce isn't being motivated by an affirmation of anything, (they couldn't give a fuck about the environment) but rather by a repudiation of the people who symbolize that the snowflakes and their mentors hate with a passion:

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a3/fc/a0/a3fca014abc5c0802d96c2df4ac68111.jpg
    , @Sam J.
    I have no evidence at all but I bet that the people criticizing Musk and electric cars are big business types who are scared that we'll be free of their monopoly grip.
  44. Wally says:
    @anonymous
    I'm hoping self-driving technology eventually becomes popular among drunk drivers and just plain careless drivers alike.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfRqNAhAe6c

    Uber & Lyft do quite well.

    Read More
  45. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Che Guava
    You are wrong there, mistaking the role of rare earth elements in display and generator tech for that of lithium in batteries.

    Renewables:hydro-electric power is surely effective in places where there is much precipitation year-round.

    One can go a looong way from Tokyo (a few hnndred kms), see hydro-electric plants dedicated to the larger of the two subway conglomerates. It works, but also means almost no wild rivers. So, our salmon production still exists, but is mainly farmed trout-born salmon.

    Wind and solar:Better storage tech is needed. Read an article in IEEE Spectrum years ago, the author was suggesting gigantic flywheels, but the mechanical tech for it is lacking, the tech for giant flywheels doesn't exist.

    Even if it did, to run them efficiently would require magnetic suspension (for which the tech does not exist in the case of large, very heavy objects), which requires electric power, so that solution is inefficient.

    I am thinking that locally distributed fuel cells are the best current solution for storage, but again, the energy cost to get hydrogen back from what they gather and consume to produce power is high.

    The best solution is a much lower human population, 2,000 million would be ideal, but the idiot (literal, as in very low average IQ) demographic warriors will never accepting it.

    So, doom sometime soon, in terms of history.

    On a closing note, Elon Musk has many good ideas, but fact is, Tesla, Space X, and the hyperloop test track are all based on giant government subsidies. He is a very wealtiy person, so why is he not doing any of these projects without gigantic subsidies from your taxpayers?

    The best solution is a much lower human population, 2,000 million would be ideal

    Well the European people, both in America and Europe, are doing their best to commit suicide with a way below replacement fertility. Trouble is, the Treason Party running the US and the EU are dedicated to bringing in tens of millions of highly philoprogenitive people from elsewhere to more than make up the declining numbers of Europeans.

    So pushing the idea, as the Pope has been doing, that white people have too many children looks like advocacy of white genocide, not a solution to any environmental problem.

    Anyhow, we don’t need no “solution” to energy use. Energy use is what made the modern world possible. Practically no one want to go back to the world of horses and carts, backbreaking manual labor, and a privy in every back yard.

    The problem we have is environmental degradation (much less severe in the Western world than it was 50 years ago), the solution to which will have many aspects including vastly increased energy-use efficiency, and taxes on carbon and other pollutants (which will provide the incentive for a competitive market economy to devise the most cost-effective pollution solutions). Trump should end the climate debate for all time by introducing a carbon tax with a countervailing duty on imports from countries without a carbon tax.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    Imagine a dime standing parallel to a goal line on a 100-yard-long football field representing all atmospheric gases. That's the carbon dioxide from human activity in the atmosphere.

    Carbon dioxide is a trace gas and it's not a pollutant.
  46. Wally says:
    @utu
    With the exception of solar panels

    Solar panel will pay off for itself (the expense of energy to make it) in terms of energy in about 5 years. Was the energy that was used to produce it clean energy? If not, then for the first 5 years of using solar panel you do not contribute anything to reduction of CO2.

    One solar panel can give a birth to another once every five years.

    If we switched completely to clean (no CO2) energy (including all cars and machines) how many years we need to wait before we have enough energy produced by solar panels?

    Now what is the lifespan of solar panels? 20 years? So one solar panel can have maximum 4 babies when it uses all energy it produces just for reproduction.

    I am afraid that solar panels are just a pipe dream. Which is always a great opportunity to make money by some. The believers in the dream willingly hand the money to the opportunists.

    Indeed.

    And consider the toxic disposal of old solar panels & batteries.

    Not to mention the mining, energy use, and the toxic production by-products of the panels & batteries.

    By far, so called, and incorrectly called ‘fossil fuels’ ARE the most efficient to date other than nuclear.

    Only neo-Marxists want the government to control the entire economy by allowing them to control our sources of energy.

    and BTW:

    US oil companies make about five cents off a single gallon of gasoline, on the other hand US Big Government taxes on a single gallon is around seventy-one cents for some states & rising, the tax is now $1.00 for CA.
    IOW, greedy governments make fourteen to twenty times what oil companies make and it is the oil companies who make & deliver the vital product to the marketplace.
    It’s Big Government, not Big Oil.

    and:
    Every year in the US alone, millions of birds, bats, and flying critters are killed by windmills. Not to mention the destruction of the terrain & animal life below them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    Solar plants in California pay people to clean up the cooked birds that fly into the directed light beam. Its their only job at the facility and its full time.....
  47. bjondo says:

    I have a 1980 Suburban. Very cheap to operate.

    I have 6 Neocons attached to the rear and 4 in front and they push/pull.

    I listen to the radio and drink ale.

    I recommend this to all.

    See a Neocon, make ‘em useful.

    Read More
  48. @Rurik

    the excellent automotive columnist, Eric Peters,
     
    yep!

    I'm using off grid solar for a lot of things these days

    charging batteries for assorted cars and boat and power tools being the beginning, and LED lights for the workshop.. fans, other things.

    It is the way of the future. And Musk's batteries are an encouraging development

    but there's something here that is more visceral than 0-60 in under 3 seconds

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4nQKRIteGE

    I swear I can actually smell the burnt rubber and oil watching shit like this

    as someone who has lived off the grid for 30 years and built my own hydroelectric systems alcohol stills biodiesel plants hydrogen electrolyzers fuel cells wood fired and solar fired combo hot water systems to name just a few i can tell you categorically musk has done ZERO to further off grid electric its all hat and no cattle, its pretty much borders a sweatshop marketing campaign to triggered snowflakes who are too enstuperated by multicultural education system to cope with the simple math of amp hours and dollars. his batteries suck they are thrice the cost and have half the cycles of the simplest golf cart battery, dont even get me started on his roof tiles they are like his cars virtue signifiers for wealthy eloi. I also have a house in NYC which has the highest tax rebates in the world when combined with fed and state for solar. it also has almost the highest electric rates in the world, and its still not worth installing these systems except has a prepper tactic. the math works out to break even with tax rebates IF the utilities dont change their buyback policies which they legally can.and by the time you have recovered your even break the system is worn out and you must again fork out the up front cost at which point its highly unlikely there will be all the free money to do it with.
    That said solar panels have gotten cheaper and a bit better, and there is enough synthetically manufactured interest that R and D may produce better batteries. North america for the most part has the least need and most fossil fuel and has the worst solarization so this stuff makes more sense in china and other places that dont have our resources.If the costs really came down at least more than 50% it might be a good thing here as adjunct to the griid, utilities could be a batterry particularly in summer AC months,which is sort of whats happening they have the govt and consumers paying for solar at great cost to offset the extra capacity trhey should be building, but of course if not for govt and consumers they would be selling cheaper nuclear so whatever

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    his cars virtue signifiers for wealthy eloi.
     
    I agree

    but I still like solar for off-grid applications and free battery chargers.

    I built a nice one using an old satellite TV dish mount. It's perfect because it's designed to hold a panel at just the right angle and is designed to be mounted on a pole. So now I stick the thing over my boat trailer guide and wire it to the batteries. Great way to keep em trickle-charged, and use it for other stuff too.

    Off -grid is going to become increasingly popular in the third world as well, like S. America and the Caribbean where reliable power is often a problem, and also it gives you independence and privacy from the Beast.

    looked at those 'smart meters' lately?
  49. @CanSpeccy

    For human urban concentrations on Planet Earth, the only long-term solution is fusion-powered rail or maglev.
     
    For the Western nations the only long-term [energy] solution for "human urban concentrations" is more concentration.

    America's post-WW2 urban sprawl, said to have been promoted to reduce casualties in a nuclear war, means vast areas of blacktop and hundreds of millions of automobiles racking up tens of thousands of kilometers a years. Rebuild the cities (and solve the unemployment problem for a generation) at high density, with tree-lined avenues, and a decent coffee shop on every corner, add a few million autonomous minibuses that can be summoned with a cell phone app, and most Americans will dispense with a car altogether.

    ” A decent coffee shop on every corner”

    Yeah sure so every working American person can, instead of going off to a job, hang around european style at the corner cafe’ and talk marxism, and the evils of white folks with the other hanger-arounders, in the meanwhile the gov is printing money Weimar style to pay for all of this unproductive european-style socializing.

    “And most Americans will dispense with a car altogether”

    BS, most Americans, including myself, love the ownership of automobiles, and do not look at automobiles as some kind of evil innovation designed to destroy the environment, but rather an expression of personal freedom.

    Of course there are the anti-automobile hippy types who slosh around stoned, in their birkenstocks, thinking how hip and progressive and “anti” they are, while the working-stiffs are out creating the resources to keep the economy, and society afloat.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro Jazz musician.

    Read More
    • LOL: CanSpeccy
    • Replies: @Alden
    The Woman's magazines often run articles on how to save big bucks in small ways. First on the list is:

    Lose the Starbucks habit. Make coffee at home and at work and save $20 to $40 a week, $1,000 to $2,000 a year.
  50. anarchyst says:
    @CanSpeccy

    For human urban concentrations on Planet Earth, the only long-term solution is fusion-powered rail or maglev.
     
    For the Western nations the only long-term [energy] solution for "human urban concentrations" is more concentration.

    America's post-WW2 urban sprawl, said to have been promoted to reduce casualties in a nuclear war, means vast areas of blacktop and hundreds of millions of automobiles racking up tens of thousands of kilometers a years. Rebuild the cities (and solve the unemployment problem for a generation) at high density, with tree-lined avenues, and a decent coffee shop on every corner, add a few million autonomous minibuses that can be summoned with a cell phone app, and most Americans will dispense with a car altogether.

    You are living in a fantasy (nightmare) world…the automobile is responsible for uplifting humanity and giving us the FREEDOM to go where we want, when we want, and live where we want–no train or bus schedules needed.
    I, for one, have NO desire to live in a city–PERIOD…
    You appear to be one of the (anointed) “environmentalist types” who would force the “unwashed masses” into soviet-style high-rise apartments, prohibit the use of cars, and forced to use buses, trains and other “multimodal transportation systems”. You would force people into the squalorous conditions that existed in pre-automobile American cities, with the diseases and other negative aspects of “high-density” living. Only you “anointed” environmentalists would have the use of cars, country dachas, and other amenities that you would deny to the rest of humanity.
    In fact, YOU are the type that would like to see the human population reduced by approximately 90% “by any means necessary” including gulagization (for having improper thoughts about environmentalism), the introduction of epidemics, and other soviet methods of “population reduction”.
    You appear to be the type who thinks the YOU know what is best for people, their aspirations be damned, a la Al Gore.
    I have NO USE for you environmentalist types, you limp-wristed, birkenstock-wearing, prius-driving, tofu-eating, poor excuses for human beings..
    Just why don’t you take your own advice and eliminate yourselves first?
    You environmentalists are like watermelons–”green” on the outside and “red” (communist) on the inside.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    You appear to be one of the (anointed) “environmentalist types” who would force the “unwashed masses” into soviet-style high-rise apartments, prohibit the use of cars, and forced to use buses, trains and other “multimodal transportation systems”. You would force people into the squalorous conditions that existed in pre-automobile American cities, with the diseases and other negative aspects of “high-density” living.
     
    Apparently, in your anachistic fantasy world, the low density Western city emerged as the spontaneous consequence of individuals acting in total freedom and independence. The reality, however, is entirely different. The low density Western city is a direct consequence of urban planning, zoning bylaws and publicly funded, maintained and managed highways, sewers, water supply systems, fire departments and much else beside.

    Free the people from government direction, allowing them to follow their own inclinations, and urban densities would soar as property owners in the more attractive and exclusive residential areas of cities such as London, Toronto, Paris, etc. sell out to developers intent on raising density by a factor of two, four, and twenty-four.

    As for your car, well I guess there'd still be privately owned tollways you could use.
  51. @Clyde
    How about self driving automobiles, Fred? They are a complete farce. Billions are being spent by corporations, Google, Apple, with more cash than they know what to do with. They are spending for a hipper than thou image.
    I can see small areas like Palo Alto being retrofitted for self driving automobiles. Their accidents and miscalculations will be a lawyer's dream. You will not see extensive use of self drivers for at least 100 years.

    You might be right. But truck builders are working on driverless trucks now, and they wouldn’t be doing that if it weren’t feasible. The savings in drivers’ wages would be — will be — yuge. And it will increase the squeeze on unskilled workers.

    Read More
  52. MEFOBILLS says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    I don't know where Fred gets his nutty ideas about libertarians. Why would libertarians have a problem with (especially) localized power generation or things electric in general? That part is, well, nutty, is what it is. Perhaps he's confused by people who don't like the automated driving vehicles that will result eventually in major loss of freedom. That change doesn't really have to do with the type of energy used though.

    Is it that libertarians like to have sex in the backs of cars, which will be impossible in the smart cars, excepting for midget libertarians? I could be getting down to the problem here.

    Yeah, in the backs of cars ... be cool or be cast out.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EoG3lXLCc8

    ????

    Why would Libertarians object to Fred’s nutty ideas?

    Libertarians believe in a free market. There is no such things as a free market. There are three kinds of markets: Elastic, Inelastic and Mixed.

    Elastic markets have ready competition, and closely align with Free Market theology.

    Inelastic markets are the commons, and natural monopolies. Things like ports are geographic features, and thus must be regulated to keep prices from being monopolized.

    Libertarians, due to their Free Market Theory, do not understand that the commons are required to be low price to then give economic freedom. Also, future has to be invested in, to then lower access price of the commons.

    For example, electrical grid is to be regulated or government owned, because said grid is part of the commons. It would not do to have two competing power companies trying to deliver last mile with duplicate wiring to your home. That would raise prices.

    Any sort of long range planning, especially planning that involves the commons, cannot be done by free market theology. China is directing their pattern of industrial development with industrial policy, and this sort of planning notion is anathema to Libertarians. The Market must decide!

    In the end China will have an evolved infrastructure that gives them security, low pollution, and quite possibly economic freedom in the form of low cost energy via their cheap nuclear power. Solar in China’s desert areas is not beyond consideration either. All of this requires investment and planning, which are part of the commons. Commons are not free markets.

    Read More
  53. @Chris Mallory
    Solar panels are great, if you live in a God forsaken desert like most of Mexico. But if you live someplace where on average you have rain every 3 days and actually have seasons, well we will keep burning our coal.

    Chinese recently developed panels that generated electricy from rain water. Its smaller then from the sun, but its better then nothing.

    Read More
  54. For what its worth, ive worked for a couple solar companies over the past year and everyone in management talked crap about the musk panels every time it came up. “They are too expensive, they are untested, they wont work like promised”. If the higher ups were so quick to dismiss it and trash it prior to its release, it must have scared them.

    As to all the naysayers, solar is a great investment if
    1) you get over 280 days of sunshine a year and
    2)you spend over 300 a month in winter and 500 a month in summer for electricity.

    You will make your money back in under 10 years. Most contracts last 20 years so its basically discounted electricity from then on for the life of the system.

    The chinese have recently made a new solar cell that can generate electricity from rain water, so even if you get 200 days of rain a year, you can still lessen your pull from the grid.

    And a fun fact to go out on: solar panels work better in the cold. High heat will often cut your production down tremendously. Many people recieve credits in winter from generating so much EXTRA electricity.

    Read More
  55. @Wally
    Indeed.

    And consider the toxic disposal of old solar panels & batteries.

    Not to mention the mining, energy use, and the toxic production by-products of the panels & batteries.

    By far, so called, and incorrectly called 'fossil fuels' ARE the most efficient to date other than nuclear.

    Only neo-Marxists want the government to control the entire economy by allowing them to control our sources of energy.

    and BTW:


    US oil companies make about five cents off a single gallon of gasoline, on the other hand US Big Government taxes on a single gallon is around seventy-one cents for some states & rising, the tax is now $1.00 for CA.
    IOW, greedy governments make fourteen to twenty times what oil companies make and it is the oil companies who make & deliver the vital product to the marketplace.
    It’s Big Government, not Big Oil.
     
    and:
    Every year in the US alone, millions of birds, bats, and flying critters are killed by windmills. Not to mention the destruction of the terrain & animal life below them.

    Solar plants in California pay people to clean up the cooked birds that fly into the directed light beam. Its their only job at the facility and its full time…..

    Read More
  56. @utu
    With the exception of solar panels

    Solar panel will pay off for itself (the expense of energy to make it) in terms of energy in about 5 years. Was the energy that was used to produce it clean energy? If not, then for the first 5 years of using solar panel you do not contribute anything to reduction of CO2.

    One solar panel can give a birth to another once every five years.

    If we switched completely to clean (no CO2) energy (including all cars and machines) how many years we need to wait before we have enough energy produced by solar panels?

    Now what is the lifespan of solar panels? 20 years? So one solar panel can have maximum 4 babies when it uses all energy it produces just for reproduction.

    I am afraid that solar panels are just a pipe dream. Which is always a great opportunity to make money by some. The believers in the dream willingly hand the money to the opportunists.

    “Now what is the lifespan of solar panels? 20 years?”

    Its about 30 years. At about 10-15 years, the production will start to drop and then it flatlines around 30 years. Depending on wear and tear, of course.

    Most companies will replace panels that dont meet a set production value while you are still under contract.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    One hopes they recycle as much as they can, but since only the trace materials that make them work are really valuable, perhaps they don't bother. Would seem simple enough (with bulk panels) to separate the silicon and active bits from the glass, and both from the metal. Melt (especially the former) them down separately, skim and drain off the bits with more concentrated active bits, repeat, etc.

    Since it is now on the company site (not the details or documentation), I think to say that some of my work is involved with chips for autonomous vehicles doesn't violate my NDA. Any more, no way.

    It will be interesting to seeing how quickly, where, and in what fields and situations it (humans not driving in general) is to become compulsory. I loved driving when in the countryside, just an old Civic and some diesel job, the very narrow country roads made the Civic easier, even if a little slow up hills. Don't need to drive here.

    I tried the mail address you posted, didn't work on my phone. Will trying again on a PC once I'm out of this city. Miserable summer hol. weather, non-stop rain from last Thu. to morning of this Thu.

    Finally out this evening. Starting to rain again right now, maybe best to go to ¥100 shop, buying a cheap folding umbrella.
  57. @Achmed E. Newman
    I don't know where Fred gets his nutty ideas about libertarians. Why would libertarians have a problem with (especially) localized power generation or things electric in general? That part is, well, nutty, is what it is. Perhaps he's confused by people who don't like the automated driving vehicles that will result eventually in major loss of freedom. That change doesn't really have to do with the type of energy used though.

    Is it that libertarians like to have sex in the backs of cars, which will be impossible in the smart cars, excepting for midget libertarians? I could be getting down to the problem here.

    Yeah, in the backs of cars ... be cool or be cast out.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EoG3lXLCc8

    ????

    Rush.. great band. And I like this song :)

    Read More
  58. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @anarchyst
    You are living in a fantasy (nightmare) world...the automobile is responsible for uplifting humanity and giving us the FREEDOM to go where we want, when we want, and live where we want--no train or bus schedules needed.
    I, for one, have NO desire to live in a city--PERIOD...
    You appear to be one of the (anointed) "environmentalist types" who would force the "unwashed masses" into soviet-style high-rise apartments, prohibit the use of cars, and forced to use buses, trains and other "multimodal transportation systems". You would force people into the squalorous conditions that existed in pre-automobile American cities, with the diseases and other negative aspects of "high-density" living. Only you "anointed" environmentalists would have the use of cars, country dachas, and other amenities that you would deny to the rest of humanity.
    In fact, YOU are the type that would like to see the human population reduced by approximately 90% "by any means necessary" including gulagization (for having improper thoughts about environmentalism), the introduction of epidemics, and other soviet methods of "population reduction".
    You appear to be the type who thinks the YOU know what is best for people, their aspirations be damned, a la Al Gore.
    I have NO USE for you environmentalist types, you limp-wristed, birkenstock-wearing, prius-driving, tofu-eating, poor excuses for human beings..
    Just why don't you take your own advice and eliminate yourselves first?
    You environmentalists are like watermelons--"green" on the outside and "red" (communist) on the inside.

    You appear to be one of the (anointed) “environmentalist types” who would force the “unwashed masses” into soviet-style high-rise apartments, prohibit the use of cars, and forced to use buses, trains and other “multimodal transportation systems”. You would force people into the squalorous conditions that existed in pre-automobile American cities, with the diseases and other negative aspects of “high-density” living.

    Apparently, in your anachistic fantasy world, the low density Western city emerged as the spontaneous consequence of individuals acting in total freedom and independence. The reality, however, is entirely different. The low density Western city is a direct consequence of urban planning, zoning bylaws and publicly funded, maintained and managed highways, sewers, water supply systems, fire departments and much else beside.

    Free the people from government direction, allowing them to follow their own inclinations, and urban densities would soar as property owners in the more attractive and exclusive residential areas of cities such as London, Toronto, Paris, etc. sell out to developers intent on raising density by a factor of two, four, and twenty-four.

    As for your car, well I guess there’d still be privately owned tollways you could use.

    Read More
  59. Logan says:

    “I do know, though, that Beijing worries because it doesn’t have oil of its own.”

    USA has 58B barrels of frackable shale oil, China 32B barrels.

    Sounds like China has quite the potential for an oil boom.

    BTW, I’ve long thought that the way to deal with the Middle East is to defund it. Pay a bounty on every barrel of oil produced in this country until we are entirely self-sufficient. Then pay a bounty for US drillers to fan out around the world and frack for oil in Oz, and Argentina, and China, and India ane everywhere else. Made oil widely available everywhere, if not necessarily cheap.

    Then the Middle East can go pound sand.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    USA has 58B barrels of frackable shale oil, China 32B barrels.
     
    In 2016, the US consumes about 19 million barrels per day; China about 11 million. Do the math, that is about 7 billion barrels per year for the US and 4 billion barrels for China.

    Some estimate the U.S. holds 264 billion barrels of oil, more than half of which is located in shale.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves

    It simply makes more sense strategically and economically for the US and China to import oil while producing their own oil.
    , @CanSpeccy

    I’ve long thought that the way to deal with the Middle East is to defund it. Pay a bounty on every barrel of oil produced in this country until we are entirely self-sufficient.
     
    Better still, an import duty on not only oil but across the board, which would be consistent with World Trade Organization rules and would protect all US industries, thereby ending the unemployment problem and boosting wages.
  60. Alden says:
    @Authenticjazzman
    It is simply amazing and heartbreaking to realize that apparently nobody sees through this farce regarding electric and self-driving cars and and just precisely what are the intentions of the PTB in forcing these abberations of logic upon a hapless working-stiff population.
    So okay here it is :

    The head honchos, the big wheels in the leftist DS have as an end goal the total elimination of privately-owned and operated cars : Period.

    They know and I know, that when the point is reached upon which privately-owned eternal combustion powered cars are outlawed there will not be an ENCOMPASSING replacement thereof through the production of electric and or self-driven automobiles, and at that point the ownership of privat cars will slowly or not so slowly fade away, along with vibrant urban realities and a mobile population.

    The reason behind all of this madness being : Leftist/communist/socialist politicos simply abhor, simply detest the reality of mobile, self-determined, "happy" individuals, and the most convincing aspect of this viewpoint being the fact that the old UDSSR had been in the position of creating a complete automobile producing industry, which they refrained from implementing due to their paranoia of a mobile people and visions of Paris 1789, rolling heads etc.

    Myself personally : I love automobiles and in my younger days I actually owned eleven Alfa Romeos ( in succession) and I dread, even at the ripe age of seventy-seven, I dread the coming of age of a society doomed to treading bikes and walking in the deep snow, so as to sooth the manias of leftist oppressors.

    But rest assured even after the elimination of privatly-owned cars, there will be an abundant supply of "staff cars" within the gov motor parks so at least the cadre' will not be forced to revert to the peasant style of transportation : Bikes and buses.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US army Vet and pro jazz musician.

    You are probably right. I’ve found that virtually everything pushed by TPTB is detrimental.

    Read More
  61. Alden says:
    @CanSpeccy

    For human urban concentrations on Planet Earth, the only long-term solution is fusion-powered rail or maglev.
     
    For the Western nations the only long-term [energy] solution for "human urban concentrations" is more concentration.

    America's post-WW2 urban sprawl, said to have been promoted to reduce casualties in a nuclear war, means vast areas of blacktop and hundreds of millions of automobiles racking up tens of thousands of kilometers a years. Rebuild the cities (and solve the unemployment problem for a generation) at high density, with tree-lined avenues, and a decent coffee shop on every corner, add a few million autonomous minibuses that can be summoned with a cell phone app, and most Americans will dispense with a car altogether.

    Don’t we already have “autonomous minibuses” known as taxi cabs and uber? A cell phone app, a phone call, waiting for uber or walking down to a nearby cab stand waving down a cab, what’s the difference?

    San Francisco used to have jitney buses that ran on some of the main streets. They were small buses. One had to wave them down and they let people off wherever they wanted. They were privately owned and licensed, a decent little business for a small investment

    Los Angeles has Dart buses. They are part of the city bus system. They just run around commercial districts. Fare is only about 25 cents. The idea is drive to work and park. But instead of driving to lunch or errands at lunch time use these Dart buses. They are very convenient for people who live in business districts.

    Someone told me it’s possible to travel from Los Angeles to San Diego using buses.

    Cities have had public transit for hundreds of years.

    The more things change.

    The main obstacle to the dream of living in high rise cities and public transit is race and crime. Taking public transit at night causes murder, rape and robbery by the blacks and Hispanics that infest the cities. If you have kids in cities private schools are a necessity to protect them from those hell hole dangerous schools.

    The major, major reason for the suburbs was the black conquest of the cities by murder, rape, robbery, burglary, force, violence, terrorism and ethnic cleansing.

    Until the late 1940s our northern cities were wonderful places that functioned very well with few cars. Then the blacks conquered the cities and the White refugees fled to the suburbs.

    None of the things you mentioned will make the cities live able again until the criminals are eliminated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Yes, as a Canadian, I overlooked the fact that anarchy now rules in much of America: a great country while it lasted, but, in the age of the Neocons and anti-racists, in its death throws, apparently.
  62. Alden says:
    @Authenticjazzman
    " A decent coffee shop on every corner"

    Yeah sure so every working American person can, instead of going off to a job, hang around european style at the corner cafe' and talk marxism, and the evils of white folks with the other hanger-arounders, in the meanwhile the gov is printing money Weimar style to pay for all of this unproductive european-style socializing.

    "And most Americans will dispense with a car altogether"

    BS, most Americans, including myself, love the ownership of automobiles, and do not look at automobiles as some kind of evil innovation designed to destroy the environment, but rather an expression of personal freedom.

    Of course there are the anti-automobile hippy types who slosh around stoned, in their birkenstocks, thinking how hip and progressive and "anti" they are, while the working-stiffs are out creating the resources to keep the economy, and society afloat.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro Jazz musician.

    The Woman’s magazines often run articles on how to save big bucks in small ways. First on the list is:

    Lose the Starbucks habit. Make coffee at home and at work and save $20 to $40 a week, $1,000 to $2,000 a year.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    No clue as to what you are blathering about.
    As far as Starbucks goes : I have never set foot into one of their shops, and I heard that they host jazz gigs in the US.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army Vet, and pro Jazz musician.
  63. Che Guava says:
    @WHAT
    Nobody could have predicted that (((weev))) would snitch for the shabbos goy regime in Kiev, absolutely nobody.

    I do not know to what you refer, did nothce weev (Auernheimer) is lately influential on the Daily Stormer, not a site I read as a habit, but he is influential there, mainly through a bizarre concept he is calling ‘white sharla”, which is why I clicked through to read it.

    Please, a few details and links, your post is too brief.

    I had unpleasant contact with him once in 2005 or 2006, on the IRC of a certain infamous encyclopaedia site. Gave as good as I got.

    Actually, after very early days, he stopped, left me alone. I would write relevant and good articles that had genuine wit and ‘net dimension. He would write the *very* occasional dull and off-topic article (IIRC, he did the original ‘Roman Empire’, which remains a pile of off-topic faesces, but has little or no resemblance to weev’s original effort). Idea being to scream ‘Not just a troll, I can writing stuff, too, no rilly!!’ Always off-topic, always lacking the ‘net dimensiom that would have brought it on-topic.

    Still, he was a very smug yet talented troll. His Christian preacher vids on u-tube early this decade were good, while his own ego was overblown in them, I really thought he was serious about the Christian aspect at the time. No cheap shots. Likely still is.

    He did a great job on a clueless writer for O’Reilly’s (the tech books, not your media figure). I forget the name. That was at least 15 yrs. ago.

    Funny stuff.

    Did time for collecting a lot of non-secure data (so -called ‘hacking’, not that he wasn’t pretty good at the real kind earlier on). Would guess he would have more time or not an early release, except for ((())), but seems to disavow that except when it might really help at a time of great need.

    Comments abt. him by his mother are pretty funny. If not quite disowned (maybe is), sure deeply estranged.

    Really surprised to see that he is now a Big Man

    Read More
  64. bjondo says:

    who needs self driving?
    use public transport unless the purpose is for control of the passenger.
    rikshaws pulled by politicians and ceos.

    Read More
  65. Clyde says:
    @Authenticjazzman
    It is simply amazing and heartbreaking to realize that apparently nobody sees through this farce regarding electric and self-driving cars and and just precisely what are the intentions of the PTB in forcing these abberations of logic upon a hapless working-stiff population.
    So okay here it is :

    The head honchos, the big wheels in the leftist DS have as an end goal the total elimination of privately-owned and operated cars : Period.

    They know and I know, that when the point is reached upon which privately-owned eternal combustion powered cars are outlawed there will not be an ENCOMPASSING replacement thereof through the production of electric and or self-driven automobiles, and at that point the ownership of privat cars will slowly or not so slowly fade away, along with vibrant urban realities and a mobile population.

    The reason behind all of this madness being : Leftist/communist/socialist politicos simply abhor, simply detest the reality of mobile, self-determined, "happy" individuals, and the most convincing aspect of this viewpoint being the fact that the old UDSSR had been in the position of creating a complete automobile producing industry, which they refrained from implementing due to their paranoia of a mobile people and visions of Paris 1789, rolling heads etc.

    Myself personally : I love automobiles and in my younger days I actually owned eleven Alfa Romeos ( in succession) and I dread, even at the ripe age of seventy-seven, I dread the coming of age of a society doomed to treading bikes and walking in the deep snow, so as to sooth the manias of leftist oppressors.

    But rest assured even after the elimination of privatly-owned cars, there will be an abundant supply of "staff cars" within the gov motor parks so at least the cadre' will not be forced to revert to the peasant style of transportation : Bikes and buses.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US army Vet and pro jazz musician.

    A superior post and thanks! I agree w you all the way as far a self owned automobile gave independence and girls to guys.

    Read More
  66. Anon7 says:

    “…To get around the charge-time problem, they are making the battery removable. In the gas station, they pull out the dead battery, shove in another, and you are refueled in ten minutes…

    Wiley rascals, those orientals.”

    Nope. First tried by an Israeli company, can’t remember the name (Better Place? 2009). It used a robotic system for replacement, it was much quicker than filling a 13 gallon tank. I think they went bankrupt.

    My fave Chinese car Is a kind of Flintstone car were peddles drop down for use by the occupants. it’s used in freeways waiting around.

    Read More
  67. Che Guava says:
    @Delinquent Snail
    "Now what is the lifespan of solar panels? 20 years?"

    Its about 30 years. At about 10-15 years, the production will start to drop and then it flatlines around 30 years. Depending on wear and tear, of course.

    Most companies will replace panels that dont meet a set production value while you are still under contract.

    One hopes they recycle as much as they can, but since only the trace materials that make them work are really valuable, perhaps they don’t bother. Would seem simple enough (with bulk panels) to separate the silicon and active bits from the glass, and both from the metal. Melt (especially the former) them down separately, skim and drain off the bits with more concentrated active bits, repeat, etc.

    Since it is now on the company site (not the details or documentation), I think to say that some of my work is involved with chips for autonomous vehicles doesn’t violate my NDA. Any more, no way.

    It will be interesting to seeing how quickly, where, and in what fields and situations it (humans not driving in general) is to become compulsory. I loved driving when in the countryside, just an old Civic and some diesel job, the very narrow country roads made the Civic easier, even if a little slow up hills. Don’t need to drive here.

    I tried the mail address you posted, didn’t work on my phone. Will trying again on a PC once I’m out of this city. Miserable summer hol. weather, non-stop rain from last Thu. to morning of this Thu.

    Finally out this evening. Starting to rain again right now, maybe best to go to ¥100 shop, buying a cheap folding umbrella.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    I agree with what another poster said about cars going out. Once we have smart cars that drive themselves safely, it will become a national service and you will just use your phone to call a car for a ride. No accidents, no issues. This wont remove manual cars tho, people in america equate driving to freedom. It will just remove 90%of the idiots from our roads and put most trauma surgeons out of a job. (Untill they start acting like every other industry player and "manufacture" a need for their services or form a lobbying group to prevent it from ever happening.)

    As to the email, ive never used the service, so im not sure if i did it right. Oh well.

    How nice that its raining where you are. I live in a desert and we get a couple inches a year. There is that off year where we get flooded, but its only once every few years. Last time it happened, we had hail larger then golf balls, county wide flooding, and a man in a van was swept down into a drainage tunnel and burried under 5 feet of mud. I live in an extreme area, 110 in the summer, 30 in the winter. If it wasnt for my work and family, id be gone faster then brownies at an obesity convention.
  68. Ace says:
    @CanSpeccy

    The best solution is a much lower human population, 2,000 million would be ideal
     
    Well the European people, both in America and Europe, are doing their best to commit suicide with a way below replacement fertility. Trouble is, the Treason Party running the US and the EU are dedicated to bringing in tens of millions of highly philoprogenitive people from elsewhere to more than make up the declining numbers of Europeans.

    So pushing the idea, as the Pope has been doing, that white people have too many children looks like advocacy of white genocide, not a solution to any environmental problem.

    Anyhow, we don't need no "solution" to energy use. Energy use is what made the modern world possible. Practically no one want to go back to the world of horses and carts, backbreaking manual labor, and a privy in every back yard.

    The problem we have is environmental degradation (much less severe in the Western world than it was 50 years ago), the solution to which will have many aspects including vastly increased energy-use efficiency, and taxes on carbon and other pollutants (which will provide the incentive for a competitive market economy to devise the most cost-effective pollution solutions). Trump should end the climate debate for all time by introducing a carbon tax with a countervailing duty on imports from countries without a carbon tax.

    Imagine a dime standing parallel to a goal line on a 100-yard-long football field representing all atmospheric gases. That’s the carbon dioxide from human activity in the atmosphere.

    Carbon dioxide is a trace gas and it’s not a pollutant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Imagine a dime standing parallel to a goal line on a 100-yard-long football field representing all atmospheric gases.
     
    Perhaps I'm slightly more numerate than you, but I find it easier to understand concentrations in more scientifically conventional terms such as percentages than as a ratio of dimes to football fields.

    The measure you give is, incidentally, out by a factor of 25.


    Carbon dioxide is a trace gas and it’s not a pollutant.
     
    Would you say that the same concentration (0.04%) of cyanide in air would also constitute a "trace," not a pollutant?

    It seems the more ignorant a person is, the more confident they are in pronouncing on technical matters. How much, for example, will a doubling in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration increase or decrease global primary production (e.g., crop yields and hence the African and Asian populations that those crop yields will support)?

    But you have, I suspect, never given the matter a thought, or even thought of giving such questions a thought, since you would otherwise be more hesitant to display your ignorance whereof you speak.

  69. @Alden
    The Woman's magazines often run articles on how to save big bucks in small ways. First on the list is:

    Lose the Starbucks habit. Make coffee at home and at work and save $20 to $40 a week, $1,000 to $2,000 a year.

    No clue as to what you are blathering about.
    As far as Starbucks goes : I have never set foot into one of their shops, and I heard that they host jazz gigs in the US.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army Vet, and pro Jazz musician.

    Read More
  70. Escher says:
    @(((They))) Live
    I doubt it, AFAIK the Model 3 will cost $35K with out subsides in most US states, for $35K there is no better car, this will become clear once people get a chance to test drive it, Teslas biggest problem will be keeping up with demand

    Musk is pissing off a lot of very powerful people which is why we keep hearing so much BS about subsides

    Are you saying the car will sell like hot cakes even without subsidies for EVs?

    Read More
  71. Escher says:
    @Willem Hendrik
    World population is stil growing by 1.5 million per week!
    Almost 90,ooo,ooo car were sold last year.

    Tesla did 90,ooo units.
    Electric cars are not even close to being out of infancy.

    Musk is a good salesman though. Besides Hitler ;) I havent seen a man who can so mesmerise people with his promises....

    Steve Jobs was a great salesman. Unlike Musk, he actually delivered on his promises.

    Read More
  72. Escher says:
    @(((They))) Live
    indeed, indeed.

    The Tesla Roadster will never reach production, and if it does nobody will buy it
    The Model S will never reach production, and if it does nobody will buy it
    The Model X will never reach production and....
    The Model 3 will never reach production and if ........
    The Falcon 1 will never launch, SpaceX are a joke with not enough money
    The Falcon 9 will never launch
    The Dragon capsule will never reach the ISS
    Its not possible to recover the first stage of a rocket
    Its not possible to reuse the first stage of a rocket
    The Falcon Heavy will never launch
    Musk will never build a space comms system
    Tesla will never sell 500K Model 3s a year

    and on and on it goes

    half a million EVs a year is like a small country ringing up OPEC and telling them where to go, and thats just Tesla. Nissan, BMW, Ford, VW, GM, Toyota, almost every car company has multiple EVs in the works, when the CEO of Shell says his next car will be electric its pretty clear the way things are going

    But yeah Musk is like Hitler

    To repeat what many have already said, sales of Teslas would be nowhere near their current numbers without subsidies. Musk is a huckster par excellence.

    Read More
  73. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Logan
    "I do know, though, that Beijing worries because it doesn’t have oil of its own."

    USA has 58B barrels of frackable shale oil, China 32B barrels.

    Sounds like China has quite the potential for an oil boom.

    BTW, I've long thought that the way to deal with the Middle East is to defund it. Pay a bounty on every barrel of oil produced in this country until we are entirely self-sufficient. Then pay a bounty for US drillers to fan out around the world and frack for oil in Oz, and Argentina, and China, and India ane everywhere else. Made oil widely available everywhere, if not necessarily cheap.

    Then the Middle East can go pound sand.

    USA has 58B barrels of frackable shale oil, China 32B barrels.

    In 2016, the US consumes about 19 million barrels per day; China about 11 million. Do the math, that is about 7 billion barrels per year for the US and 4 billion barrels for China.

    Some estimate the U.S. holds 264 billion barrels of oil, more than half of which is located in shale.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves

    It simply makes more sense strategically and economically for the US and China to import oil while producing their own oil.

    Read More
  74. SBaker says:
    @Dan Hayes
    (((They))) Live:

    Those betting against Musk will start winning when his government subsides are cut off or even substantially decreased!

    Seemingly, the nearly 5 billion in government assistance may have facilitated development of the musk oil products.

    Read More
  75. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Ace
    Imagine a dime standing parallel to a goal line on a 100-yard-long football field representing all atmospheric gases. That's the carbon dioxide from human activity in the atmosphere.

    Carbon dioxide is a trace gas and it's not a pollutant.

    Imagine a dime standing parallel to a goal line on a 100-yard-long football field representing all atmospheric gases.

    Perhaps I’m slightly more numerate than you, but I find it easier to understand concentrations in more scientifically conventional terms such as percentages than as a ratio of dimes to football fields.

    The measure you give is, incidentally, out by a factor of 25.

    Carbon dioxide is a trace gas and it’s not a pollutant.

    Would you say that the same concentration (0.04%) of cyanide in air would also constitute a “trace,” not a pollutant?

    It seems the more ignorant a person is, the more confident they are in pronouncing on technical matters. How much, for example, will a doubling in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration increase or decrease global primary production (e.g., crop yields and hence the African and Asian populations that those crop yields will support)?

    But you have, I suspect, never given the matter a thought, or even thought of giving such questions a thought, since you would otherwise be more hesitant to display your ignorance whereof you speak.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    Concentration of CO2 in atmosphere = 0.04%
    CO2 contributed by man = 3.4%
    Inches in football field not counting expansion of grass in summer = 3600
    0.04% of 3600 = 1.44 inches.
    3.4% of 1.44 = .04896 inches.
    Thickness of dime = .053 inches.
    .04896 is 92.4% of thickness of a dime.

    I was wrong once about 7 years ago. It may have happened again.

    Note the word "and" after "trace gas."
    , @John Jeremiah Smith

    Would you say that the same concentration (0.04%) of cyanide in air would also constitute a “trace,” not a pollutant?
     
    LOL, you posturing jackass. Yes, be it cyanide or laughing gas, at that concentration, it's a trace.

    A "pollutant" is anything a definer chooses to define as a pollutant. If it please you, milord, frigging oregano vapor is a pollutant.

    Run your bullshit by a class of 5th-graders. Maybe they'll believe it.
  76. @Che Guava
    You are wrong there, mistaking the role of rare earth elements in display and generator tech for that of lithium in batteries.

    Renewables:hydro-electric power is surely effective in places where there is much precipitation year-round.

    One can go a looong way from Tokyo (a few hnndred kms), see hydro-electric plants dedicated to the larger of the two subway conglomerates. It works, but also means almost no wild rivers. So, our salmon production still exists, but is mainly farmed trout-born salmon.

    Wind and solar:Better storage tech is needed. Read an article in IEEE Spectrum years ago, the author was suggesting gigantic flywheels, but the mechanical tech for it is lacking, the tech for giant flywheels doesn't exist.

    Even if it did, to run them efficiently would require magnetic suspension (for which the tech does not exist in the case of large, very heavy objects), which requires electric power, so that solution is inefficient.

    I am thinking that locally distributed fuel cells are the best current solution for storage, but again, the energy cost to get hydrogen back from what they gather and consume to produce power is high.

    The best solution is a much lower human population, 2,000 million would be ideal, but the idiot (literal, as in very low average IQ) demographic warriors will never accepting it.

    So, doom sometime soon, in terms of history.

    On a closing note, Elon Musk has many good ideas, but fact is, Tesla, Space X, and the hyperloop test track are all based on giant government subsidies. He is a very wealtiy person, so why is he not doing any of these projects without gigantic subsidies from your taxpayers?

    One form of storage I read of rarely is wind powered pumping of water to higher levels from which it can provide hydro electŕic power. Doesn’t that make good economic sense givenn the high price of peak load electricity?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    You have a good point there, Wiz., and have heard of it before, but if you are thinking about it, it would only work to set up a reserve energy supply, and only in special circumstances.

    Lifting the water requires energy, Generation machinery is far from perfectly efficient. So if you are driving the water up by using, for example, a nearby or parallel stream, of necessity, that flow loses energy in driving whatever mechanism is used to pump the water to a higher place.

    When that in a higher place flows down, the ineffiency of conversion is even lower, threefold:energy of lifting, inefficiency of that, and inefficiency of conversion of the flow when the water from the elevated place is reaching the generators.
    , @MarkinLA
    Los Angeles DWP uses a variation of this. They have two reservoirs (Lake Castaic is one I believe). During peak hours in the daytime they generate electricity with the water from the higher lake. At night they pump it back. It actually wastes energy but saves the city money because the electricity generated is when power is expensive and producing it themselves saves money over buying it. The electricity used to pump the water up is the energy they purchase from other utilities that would just go to waste at night and they get it cheaply.
    , @Sam J.
    The amount of power per volume is low. If you have a dam already it's cost effective, if not not so much.

    I wonder if you couldn't use large slow flywheels? Maybe a strong shell, carbon fiber or whatever and water or dirt internally. Bury it in backyards.
  77. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Alden
    Don't we already have "autonomous minibuses" known as taxi cabs and uber? A cell phone app, a phone call, waiting for uber or walking down to a nearby cab stand waving down a cab, what's the difference?

    San Francisco used to have jitney buses that ran on some of the main streets. They were small buses. One had to wave them down and they let people off wherever they wanted. They were privately owned and licensed, a decent little business for a small investment

    Los Angeles has Dart buses. They are part of the city bus system. They just run around commercial districts. Fare is only about 25 cents. The idea is drive to work and park. But instead of driving to lunch or errands at lunch time use these Dart buses. They are very convenient for people who live in business districts.

    Someone told me it's possible to travel from Los Angeles to San Diego using buses.

    Cities have had public transit for hundreds of years.

    The more things change.

    The main obstacle to the dream of living in high rise cities and public transit is race and crime. Taking public transit at night causes murder, rape and robbery by the blacks and Hispanics that infest the cities. If you have kids in cities private schools are a necessity to protect them from those hell hole dangerous schools.

    The major, major reason for the suburbs was the black conquest of the cities by murder, rape, robbery, burglary, force, violence, terrorism and ethnic cleansing.

    Until the late 1940s our northern cities were wonderful places that functioned very well with few cars. Then the blacks conquered the cities and the White refugees fled to the suburbs.

    None of the things you mentioned will make the cities live able again until the criminals are eliminated.

    Yes, as a Canadian, I overlooked the fact that anarchy now rules in much of America: a great country while it lasted, but, in the age of the Neocons and anti-racists, in its death throws, apparently.

    Read More
  78. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Pump storage is not an option unless you have some hills or hollows up which, or from which, water can be pumped. Here’s a concluding remark from a recent (2014 Stanford study):

    “Pumped Hydro Storage is not without it’s drawbacks. A low utilization factor essentially makes it a very expensive monument with no actual utility. Also, the costs of construction can quickly balloon out of control such as with the Helms Pumped Storage facility, whose initial cost estimate of $200 million ballooned to $600 million in the course of several years. ”

    The capital cost of a pumped storage system seems to be two to six times that of a gas turbine generator, so gas turbines for peak power are probably cheaper in most cases, even after taking account of the fuel cost.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks. It certainly doesn't look like a large scale solution to anything though it could perhaps be justified for turning intermittent windpower pumping into local peakload hydro power.
  79. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Logan
    "I do know, though, that Beijing worries because it doesn’t have oil of its own."

    USA has 58B barrels of frackable shale oil, China 32B barrels.

    Sounds like China has quite the potential for an oil boom.

    BTW, I've long thought that the way to deal with the Middle East is to defund it. Pay a bounty on every barrel of oil produced in this country until we are entirely self-sufficient. Then pay a bounty for US drillers to fan out around the world and frack for oil in Oz, and Argentina, and China, and India ane everywhere else. Made oil widely available everywhere, if not necessarily cheap.

    Then the Middle East can go pound sand.

    I’ve long thought that the way to deal with the Middle East is to defund it. Pay a bounty on every barrel of oil produced in this country until we are entirely self-sufficient.

    Better still, an import duty on not only oil but across the board, which would be consistent with World Trade Organization rules and would protect all US industries, thereby ending the unemployment problem and boosting wages.

    Read More
  80. Che Guava says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    One form of storage I read of rarely is wind powered pumping of water to higher levels from which it can provide hydro electŕic power. Doesn't that make good economic sense givenn the high price of peak load electricity?

    You have a good point there, Wiz., and have heard of it before, but if you are thinking about it, it would only work to set up a reserve energy supply, and only in special circumstances.

    Lifting the water requires energy, Generation machinery is far from perfectly efficient. So if you are driving the water up by using, for example, a nearby or parallel stream, of necessity, that flow loses energy in driving whatever mechanism is used to pump the water to a higher place.

    When that in a higher place flows down, the ineffiency of conversion is even lower, threefold:energy of lifting, inefficiency of that, and inefficiency of conversion of the flow when the water from the elevated place is reaching the generators.

    Read More
  81. @Che Guava
    One hopes they recycle as much as they can, but since only the trace materials that make them work are really valuable, perhaps they don't bother. Would seem simple enough (with bulk panels) to separate the silicon and active bits from the glass, and both from the metal. Melt (especially the former) them down separately, skim and drain off the bits with more concentrated active bits, repeat, etc.

    Since it is now on the company site (not the details or documentation), I think to say that some of my work is involved with chips for autonomous vehicles doesn't violate my NDA. Any more, no way.

    It will be interesting to seeing how quickly, where, and in what fields and situations it (humans not driving in general) is to become compulsory. I loved driving when in the countryside, just an old Civic and some diesel job, the very narrow country roads made the Civic easier, even if a little slow up hills. Don't need to drive here.

    I tried the mail address you posted, didn't work on my phone. Will trying again on a PC once I'm out of this city. Miserable summer hol. weather, non-stop rain from last Thu. to morning of this Thu.

    Finally out this evening. Starting to rain again right now, maybe best to go to ¥100 shop, buying a cheap folding umbrella.

    I agree with what another poster said about cars going out. Once we have smart cars that drive themselves safely, it will become a national service and you will just use your phone to call a car for a ride. No accidents, no issues. This wont remove manual cars tho, people in america equate driving to freedom. It will just remove 90%of the idiots from our roads and put most trauma surgeons out of a job. (Untill they start acting like every other industry player and “manufacture” a need for their services or form a lobbying group to prevent it from ever happening.)

    As to the email, ive never used the service, so im not sure if i did it right. Oh well.

    How nice that its raining where you are. I live in a desert and we get a couple inches a year. There is that off year where we get flooded, but its only once every few years. Last time it happened, we had hail larger then golf balls, county wide flooding, and a man in a van was swept down into a drainage tunnel and burried under 5 feet of mud. I live in an extreme area, 110 in the summer, 30 in the winter. If it wasnt for my work and family, id be gone faster then brownies at an obesity convention.

    Read More
  82. Rurik says:
    @Wally
    Musk is a hustler. Here's why:

    Tesla Car Batteries Not Remotely Green, Study Finds
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/21/delingpole-tesla-car-batteries-co2-not-remotely-green-study-finds/

    The Elon Musk scam:
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/01/eric-peters/elons-carbon-con/

    Tesla battery, subsidy and sustainability fantasies
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/23/tesla-battery-subsidy-and-sustainability-fantasies/

    Tesla Cars Aren't As Carbon (And Taxpayer) Friendly As You Think
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-10/tesla-cars-arent-carbon-and-taxpayer-friendly-you-think

    Tesla car battery production releases as much CO2 as 8 years of gasoline driving
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/20/tesla-car-battery-production-releases-as-much-co2-as-8-years-of-gasoline-driving/

    The real story being missed is just how pathetic things look right now for electric cars. Gasoline prices in the U.S. turned historically cheap in 2015 and stayed cheap, icing demand for gasless cars…Tesla was rocked by a controversial Swedish study that found that making one of its car batteries released as much CO2 as eight years of gasoline-powered driving. And Bloomberg reported last week on a study by Chinese engineers that found electric vehicles, because of battery manufacturing and charging by fossil-fueled electricity, still emit-50 per cent more carbon than internal-combustion engines”.
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-28/electric-vehicles-no-threat-oil-prices-anytime-soon

    The lie of 'electric cars are the onrushing future' demolished here:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/11/the-art-of-the-deal-saving-the-u-s-auto-industry-from-a-planet-saving-agreement

    Tesla was rocked by a controversial Swedish study that found that making one of its car batteries released as much CO2 as eight years of gasoline-powered driving. And Bloomberg reported last week on a study by Chinese engineers that found electric vehicles, because of battery manufacturing and charging by fossil-fueled electricity, still emit-50 per cent more carbon than internal-combustion engines”.

    none of that matters Wally, because it’s never been about carbon emissions or saving the environment.

    It’s about cutting off the source of money for ‘terrorist’ nations like Iran or Hitlerian countries like Russia or Venezuela who thumb their noses at the Fiend. ((They)) have all those snowflakes diving expensive subsidized hybrids as a virtue signaling, status whoring SJW way to show they’re not like bad-whites like Billy Bob

    the whole global warming farce isn’t being motivated by an affirmation of anything, (they couldn’t give a fuck about the environment) but rather by a repudiation of the people who symbolize that the snowflakes and their mentors hate with a passion:

    Read More
  83. Rurik says:
    @Colleen Pater
    as someone who has lived off the grid for 30 years and built my own hydroelectric systems alcohol stills biodiesel plants hydrogen electrolyzers fuel cells wood fired and solar fired combo hot water systems to name just a few i can tell you categorically musk has done ZERO to further off grid electric its all hat and no cattle, its pretty much borders a sweatshop marketing campaign to triggered snowflakes who are too enstuperated by multicultural education system to cope with the simple math of amp hours and dollars. his batteries suck they are thrice the cost and have half the cycles of the simplest golf cart battery, dont even get me started on his roof tiles they are like his cars virtue signifiers for wealthy eloi. I also have a house in NYC which has the highest tax rebates in the world when combined with fed and state for solar. it also has almost the highest electric rates in the world, and its still not worth installing these systems except has a prepper tactic. the math works out to break even with tax rebates IF the utilities dont change their buyback policies which they legally can.and by the time you have recovered your even break the system is worn out and you must again fork out the up front cost at which point its highly unlikely there will be all the free money to do it with.
    That said solar panels have gotten cheaper and a bit better, and there is enough synthetically manufactured interest that R and D may produce better batteries. North america for the most part has the least need and most fossil fuel and has the worst solarization so this stuff makes more sense in china and other places that dont have our resources.If the costs really came down at least more than 50% it might be a good thing here as adjunct to the griid, utilities could be a batterry particularly in summer AC months,which is sort of whats happening they have the govt and consumers paying for solar at great cost to offset the extra capacity trhey should be building, but of course if not for govt and consumers they would be selling cheaper nuclear so whatever

    his cars virtue signifiers for wealthy eloi.

    I agree

    but I still like solar for off-grid applications and free battery chargers.

    I built a nice one using an old satellite TV dish mount. It’s perfect because it’s designed to hold a panel at just the right angle and is designed to be mounted on a pole. So now I stick the thing over my boat trailer guide and wire it to the batteries. Great way to keep em trickle-charged, and use it for other stuff too.

    Off -grid is going to become increasingly popular in the third world as well, like S. America and the Caribbean where reliable power is often a problem, and also it gives you independence and privacy from the Beast.

    looked at those ‘smart meters’ lately?

    Read More
  84. @CanSpeccy
    Pump storage is not an option unless you have some hills or hollows up which, or from which, water can be pumped. Here's a concluding remark from a recent (2014 Stanford study):

    "Pumped Hydro Storage is not without it's drawbacks. A low utilization factor essentially makes it a very expensive monument with no actual utility. Also, the costs of construction can quickly balloon out of control such as with the Helms Pumped Storage facility, whose initial cost estimate of $200 million ballooned to $600 million in the course of several years. "

    The capital cost of a pumped storage system seems to be two to six times that of a gas turbine generator, so gas turbines for peak power are probably cheaper in most cases, even after taking account of the fuel cost.

    Thanks. It certainly doesn’t look like a large scale solution to anything though it could perhaps be justified for turning intermittent windpower pumping into local peakload hydro power.

    Read More
  85. @Che Guava
    You have a good point there, Wiz., and have heard of it before, but if you are thinking about it, it would only work to set up a reserve energy supply, and only in special circumstances.

    Lifting the water requires energy, Generation machinery is far from perfectly efficient. So if you are driving the water up by using, for example, a nearby or parallel stream, of necessity, that flow loses energy in driving whatever mechanism is used to pump the water to a higher place.

    When that in a higher place flows down, the ineffiency of conversion is even lower, threefold:energy of lifting, inefficiency of that, and inefficiency of conversion of the flow when the water from the elevated place is reaching the generators.

    Thanks. See my reply to #81

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Well, you are demonstrating that you are quite capable of logical thought.

    In several other recent posts, too. Wanting to reply to other posters and you in latest threads, but for me, have too much work, so must be responsible, and soon sleeping.

    To the mods:I have posted one reply, an 'agree', and another reply, wide time spacing. Keep getting the 'posting too fast' message.

    Something wrong with your algorithm there if it is not from button-pressing by a human.
    , @Che Guava
    To the mods:Only activity from me in the last few days, one reply, an 'Agree', and another reply, in that order and in the span of more than three hours, not closely spaced, getting the 'posting too fast' message, from just pressing on 'Agree', the first time. That is not even a post.

    Again, from above reply, much over an hour later than that.

    Something wrong with your program there if it is automatic and not from button-pressing by a human. Reaction with 'posting too fast' to a first button press is inane, I know the one-per hour rule, so 'posting too fast' in response to a first press is even stranger.

    Nothing else posted until this.
  86. MarkinLA says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    One form of storage I read of rarely is wind powered pumping of water to higher levels from which it can provide hydro electŕic power. Doesn't that make good economic sense givenn the high price of peak load electricity?

    Los Angeles DWP uses a variation of this. They have two reservoirs (Lake Castaic is one I believe). During peak hours in the daytime they generate electricity with the water from the higher lake. At night they pump it back. It actually wastes energy but saves the city money because the electricity generated is when power is expensive and producing it themselves saves money over buying it. The electricity used to pump the water up is the energy they purchase from other utilities that would just go to waste at night and they get it cheaply.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks. But does it "waste" energy? By what messure?
  87. @MarkinLA
    Los Angeles DWP uses a variation of this. They have two reservoirs (Lake Castaic is one I believe). During peak hours in the daytime they generate electricity with the water from the higher lake. At night they pump it back. It actually wastes energy but saves the city money because the electricity generated is when power is expensive and producing it themselves saves money over buying it. The electricity used to pump the water up is the energy they purchase from other utilities that would just go to waste at night and they get it cheaply.

    Thanks. But does it “waste” energy? By what messure?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    It wastes energy inasmuch as the system is less than 100% efficient, i.e., it takes more than one unit of power to pump enough water up hill to generate one unit of power when that water flows back downhill.

    Such systems increase peak power generation, using off-peak power from another source. If the other source is carbon-free, e.g., solar or wind, then you have additional carbon-free peak power.

    The downside is the additional capital cost, which is probably much higher than for a gas-fired turbine. And if you take into account the embodied fossil fuel energy in the additional structures (dams, pipes, turbines, etc.) you may be no further ahead in terms of carbon emissions, as with a Tesla roadster and its battery that has an embodied energy content equivalent to 17.5 tons of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels.

    Energy efficiency is probably the most productive investment, but there seems little effort in that direction, presumably because the profit opportunities for shrinking the energy market are limited. For example, in Queensland, they found that painting school roofs with reflective white paint lowered classroom temperatures by 2–3 C, which sufficed to eliminate the need for air-conditioning.

    Something they did not look into was the benefit of shutting off the AC and opening the windows, thereby lowering the carbon dioxide concentration in the classrooms from perhaps two or three thousand parts per million to just a few hundred parts per million. This is a difference with huge effects on certain cognitive capacities. In fact, the general stupidity of certain modern civilizations could very well be due in large part to that effect brought about by reckless energy use and near universal air-conditioning in sealed buildings with inadequate fresh air intake.

  88. Ace says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Imagine a dime standing parallel to a goal line on a 100-yard-long football field representing all atmospheric gases.
     
    Perhaps I'm slightly more numerate than you, but I find it easier to understand concentrations in more scientifically conventional terms such as percentages than as a ratio of dimes to football fields.

    The measure you give is, incidentally, out by a factor of 25.


    Carbon dioxide is a trace gas and it’s not a pollutant.
     
    Would you say that the same concentration (0.04%) of cyanide in air would also constitute a "trace," not a pollutant?

    It seems the more ignorant a person is, the more confident they are in pronouncing on technical matters. How much, for example, will a doubling in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration increase or decrease global primary production (e.g., crop yields and hence the African and Asian populations that those crop yields will support)?

    But you have, I suspect, never given the matter a thought, or even thought of giving such questions a thought, since you would otherwise be more hesitant to display your ignorance whereof you speak.

    Concentration of CO2 in atmosphere = 0.04%
    CO2 contributed by man = 3.4%
    Inches in football field not counting expansion of grass in summer = 3600
    0.04% of 3600 = 1.44 inches.
    3.4% of 1.44 = .04896 inches.
    Thickness of dime = .053 inches.
    .04896 is 92.4% of thickness of a dime.

    I was wrong once about 7 years ago. It may have happened again.

    Note the word “and” after “trace gas.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    I was wrong once about 7 years ago. It may have happened again.
     
    It sure has.

    CO2 contributed by man = 3.4%
     
    I guess your improving. Last time you were out by a factor of 25. This time it's only a factor of ten.

    Pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentration: 260-270 ppm.

    July 2017 atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration: 407.25 ppm.


    Change primarily due to to human activity: + 137.25 ppm, or 33.7%.
  89. Sam J. says:
    @Che Guava
    You are wrong there, mistaking the role of rare earth elements in display and generator tech for that of lithium in batteries.

    Renewables:hydro-electric power is surely effective in places where there is much precipitation year-round.

    One can go a looong way from Tokyo (a few hnndred kms), see hydro-electric plants dedicated to the larger of the two subway conglomerates. It works, but also means almost no wild rivers. So, our salmon production still exists, but is mainly farmed trout-born salmon.

    Wind and solar:Better storage tech is needed. Read an article in IEEE Spectrum years ago, the author was suggesting gigantic flywheels, but the mechanical tech for it is lacking, the tech for giant flywheels doesn't exist.

    Even if it did, to run them efficiently would require magnetic suspension (for which the tech does not exist in the case of large, very heavy objects), which requires electric power, so that solution is inefficient.

    I am thinking that locally distributed fuel cells are the best current solution for storage, but again, the energy cost to get hydrogen back from what they gather and consume to produce power is high.

    The best solution is a much lower human population, 2,000 million would be ideal, but the idiot (literal, as in very low average IQ) demographic warriors will never accepting it.

    So, doom sometime soon, in terms of history.

    On a closing note, Elon Musk has many good ideas, but fact is, Tesla, Space X, and the hyperloop test track are all based on giant government subsidies. He is a very wealtiy person, so why is he not doing any of these projects without gigantic subsidies from your taxpayers?

    “…Elon Musk has many good ideas, but fact is, Tesla, Space X, and the hyperloop test track are all based on giant government subsidies…”

    I have no idea why people are complaining about the subsidies. These subsidies were enacted before Musk started these businesses. They are things that are vital to our national defense and also a great boon to independence for people who don’t want big business running our lives. Solar power, electric cars means you don’t depend on monopolies. Musk is going to build solar cells in the US. Beats giving the Chinese money for windmills which suck(not the small ones, I’m for them).

    Boeing has received around $10 billion so far for a launch system and have delivered nothing. Just in US government launch system savings all the subsidies given to Musk will be made back on lower launch cost. Whether he’s in business or not you’re going to be paying for these as we need the access to space.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    Well, I for one am not complaining about subsidies per se. I am by no means a small government libertarian or a free market capitalist type. I am actually quite dirigiste in my socio-economic outlook. I believe that governments ought to nationalize key industries and direct capital investment in the national interest. Elon Musk gets no heat from me on that score.

    My problem with Musk is that he is a carnival-barking frontman for a sinister alliance of Leftist hacks, including but not limited to environmentalists, internationalists, and crony capitalists. It isn't that I'm bothered by the subsidies he receives; it's that, from a basic consideration of the physics and economics involved, electric cars are not viable period. This is a pipe dream that no amount of subsidies can turn into reality, and all the time and money spent on it is wasted in the long run.

  90. Sam J. says:
    @Wally
    Musk is a hustler. Here's why:

    Tesla Car Batteries Not Remotely Green, Study Finds
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/21/delingpole-tesla-car-batteries-co2-not-remotely-green-study-finds/

    The Elon Musk scam:
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/01/eric-peters/elons-carbon-con/

    Tesla battery, subsidy and sustainability fantasies
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/23/tesla-battery-subsidy-and-sustainability-fantasies/

    Tesla Cars Aren't As Carbon (And Taxpayer) Friendly As You Think
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-10/tesla-cars-arent-carbon-and-taxpayer-friendly-you-think

    Tesla car battery production releases as much CO2 as 8 years of gasoline driving
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/20/tesla-car-battery-production-releases-as-much-co2-as-8-years-of-gasoline-driving/

    The real story being missed is just how pathetic things look right now for electric cars. Gasoline prices in the U.S. turned historically cheap in 2015 and stayed cheap, icing demand for gasless cars…Tesla was rocked by a controversial Swedish study that found that making one of its car batteries released as much CO2 as eight years of gasoline-powered driving. And Bloomberg reported last week on a study by Chinese engineers that found electric vehicles, because of battery manufacturing and charging by fossil-fueled electricity, still emit-50 per cent more carbon than internal-combustion engines”.
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-28/electric-vehicles-no-threat-oil-prices-anytime-soon

    The lie of 'electric cars are the onrushing future' demolished here:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/11/the-art-of-the-deal-saving-the-u-s-auto-industry-from-a-planet-saving-agreement

    I have no evidence at all but I bet that the people criticizing Musk and electric cars are big business types who are scared that we’ll be free of their monopoly grip.

    Read More
  91. Sam J. says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    One form of storage I read of rarely is wind powered pumping of water to higher levels from which it can provide hydro electŕic power. Doesn't that make good economic sense givenn the high price of peak load electricity?

    The amount of power per volume is low. If you have a dam already it’s cost effective, if not not so much.

    I wonder if you couldn’t use large slow flywheels? Maybe a strong shell, carbon fiber or whatever and water or dirt internally. Bury it in backyards.

    Read More
  92. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Ace
    Concentration of CO2 in atmosphere = 0.04%
    CO2 contributed by man = 3.4%
    Inches in football field not counting expansion of grass in summer = 3600
    0.04% of 3600 = 1.44 inches.
    3.4% of 1.44 = .04896 inches.
    Thickness of dime = .053 inches.
    .04896 is 92.4% of thickness of a dime.

    I was wrong once about 7 years ago. It may have happened again.

    Note the word "and" after "trace gas."

    I was wrong once about 7 years ago. It may have happened again.

    It sure has.

    CO2 contributed by man = 3.4%

    I guess your improving. Last time you were out by a factor of 25. This time it’s only a factor of ten.

    Pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentration: 260-270 ppm.

    July 2017 atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration: 407.25 ppm.

    Change primarily due to to human activity: + 137.25 ppm, or 33.7%.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    The 3.4% figure refers to current annual human contribution.

    Humans can only claim responsibility, if that's the word, for abut [sic] 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually, the rest of it is all natural.
     
    Junk Science.com

    The 3.4% figure is a dead giveaway on the "annual" part. You must not be familiar with the basics.

    Your two cites only deal with (1) what some estimate to be the pre-industrial levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and (2) current measurements. Something that happens after something else (2 minus 1) is not necessarily caused by that something else. It's a common logical fallacy. Perhaps you have another citation that actually argues that the change in concentration is due to human activity. Regardless, my initial image has nothing to do with changes occurring since the Pleistocene.
  93. @Sam J.
    "...Elon Musk has many good ideas, but fact is, Tesla, Space X, and the hyperloop test track are all based on giant government subsidies..."

    I have no idea why people are complaining about the subsidies. These subsidies were enacted before Musk started these businesses. They are things that are vital to our national defense and also a great boon to independence for people who don't want big business running our lives. Solar power, electric cars means you don't depend on monopolies. Musk is going to build solar cells in the US. Beats giving the Chinese money for windmills which suck(not the small ones, I'm for them).

    Boeing has received around $10 billion so far for a launch system and have delivered nothing. Just in US government launch system savings all the subsidies given to Musk will be made back on lower launch cost. Whether he's in business or not you're going to be paying for these as we need the access to space.

    Well, I for one am not complaining about subsidies per se. I am by no means a small government libertarian or a free market capitalist type. I am actually quite dirigiste in my socio-economic outlook. I believe that governments ought to nationalize key industries and direct capital investment in the national interest. Elon Musk gets no heat from me on that score.

    My problem with Musk is that he is a carnival-barking frontman for a sinister alliance of Leftist hacks, including but not limited to environmentalists, internationalists, and crony capitalists. It isn’t that I’m bothered by the subsidies he receives; it’s that, from a basic consideration of the physics and economics involved, electric cars are not viable period. This is a pipe dream that no amount of subsidies can turn into reality, and all the time and money spent on it is wasted in the long run.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Do you deny that electric cars will or may become economically viable within say the lifetime of someone already driving? Peak oil may be a long way off but eventually it will have to be electricity that powers motor vehicles will it not? And if CO2 does prove to be as dangerous as some fear electricity produced by wind, solar and various hydro devices will be what keeps us mobile will it not? True there is a time value to money which may affect timing.
    , @Sam J.
    "...basic consideration of the physics and economics involved, electric cars are not viable period..."

    Well I think can easily thwart this statement with the simple fact that, they exist. Arguing that there's some "physics" reason electric cars can't exist is a sure fire loser.

    Electric cars are just getting started. Battery tech is gaining every day. I just read yesterday that they've found a way to make zinc-air batteries work. Far cheaper and theoretically far more energy storage than lithium. Even if batteries won't work flywheels will. Far higher storage levels than lithium have already been made. All of this research is risky though and that's why we need subsidies. Several car makers before Musk have failed at making electric cars and he might too but it doesn't change our need for them.
    , @Sam J.
    "...My problem with Musk is that he is a carnival-barking frontman..."

    So it really gets down to...you don't like him. I'm hardly a fan of the left, like really not a fan, but I support energy independence for defense and personal liberty reasons. If he can make it work I could care less about his other passions.
  94. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks. But does it "waste" energy? By what messure?

    It wastes energy inasmuch as the system is less than 100% efficient, i.e., it takes more than one unit of power to pump enough water up hill to generate one unit of power when that water flows back downhill.

    Such systems increase peak power generation, using off-peak power from another source. If the other source is carbon-free, e.g., solar or wind, then you have additional carbon-free peak power.

    The downside is the additional capital cost, which is probably much higher than for a gas-fired turbine. And if you take into account the embodied fossil fuel energy in the additional structures (dams, pipes, turbines, etc.) you may be no further ahead in terms of carbon emissions, as with a Tesla roadster and its battery that has an embodied energy content equivalent to 17.5 tons of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels.

    Energy efficiency is probably the most productive investment, but there seems little effort in that direction, presumably because the profit opportunities for shrinking the energy market are limited. For example, in Queensland, they found that painting school roofs with reflective white paint lowered classroom temperatures by 2–3 C, which sufficed to eliminate the need for air-conditioning.

    Something they did not look into was the benefit of shutting off the AC and opening the windows, thereby lowering the carbon dioxide concentration in the classrooms from perhaps two or three thousand parts per million to just a few hundred parts per million. This is a difference with huge effects on certain cognitive capacities. In fact, the general stupidity of certain modern civilizations could very well be due in large part to that effect brought about by reckless energy use and near universal air-conditioning in sealed buildings with inadequate fresh air intake.

    Read More
  95. Ace says:
    @CanSpeccy

    I was wrong once about 7 years ago. It may have happened again.
     
    It sure has.

    CO2 contributed by man = 3.4%
     
    I guess your improving. Last time you were out by a factor of 25. This time it's only a factor of ten.

    Pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentration: 260-270 ppm.

    July 2017 atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration: 407.25 ppm.


    Change primarily due to to human activity: + 137.25 ppm, or 33.7%.

    The 3.4% figure refers to current annual human contribution.

    Humans can only claim responsibility, if that’s the word, for abut [sic] 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually, the rest of it is all natural.

    Junk Science.com

    The 3.4% figure is a dead giveaway on the “annual” part. You must not be familiar with the basics.

    Your two cites only deal with (1) what some estimate to be the pre-industrial levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and (2) current measurements. Something that happens after something else (2 minus 1) is not necessarily caused by that something else. It’s a common logical fallacy. Perhaps you have another citation that actually argues that the change in concentration is due to human activity. Regardless, my initial image has nothing to do with changes occurring since the Pleistocene.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    The world-ocean, by several orders of magnitude, is the greatest source/sink of atmospheric CO2.

    By annual period, the release/absorption of atmospheric CO2 by the world ocean varies, unpredictably, by 15% - 20%. This represents an enormous quantity of CO2, and utterly swamps-out any contribution from anthropogenic sources.

    Anthropogenic CO2 is a boogeyman. Meaningless to all but credulous fools.
  96. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Something that happens after something else (2 minus 1) is not necessarily caused by that something else.

    I didn’t say it was. I said “primarily due to.”

    The 3.4% figure refers to current annual human contribution.

    That’s not what you said. What you said was:

    Concentration of CO2 in atmosphere = 0.04%
    CO2 contributed by man = 3.4%

    As for it being “the annual human contribution”, what’s that supposed to mean? A 3.4% annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration due to human activity? Presumably not. So I’ll guess that you meant that, of the total additions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, 3.4% are human caused. But so what?

    There’s something call the carbon cycle. When atmospheric concentration is constant, 100% of what is released by decaying vegetation, volcanoes, etc. is balanced by what is sequestered by geological processes and photosynthetic fixation. So when carbon emissions due to human activity are added to the carbon emissions of natural origin, the atmospheric concentration will rise unless the sequestration rate increases by the same amount as the rate of additions.

    But evidently the sequestration rate has not risen to balance the increased rate of additions, for otherwise the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is rising.

    What’s more changes in the carbon isotope ratio of atmospheric carbon dioxide indicates that most of the additional carbon being added to the atmosphere is of fossil fuel origin.

    I suggest you go back to Wattsupwiththat.com or wherever you get your misinformation, and where you’ll feel comfy trading bullshit with Smokey the Bear and other habitués of such sites for simpletons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I would be interested in references to changes in the carbon isotope ratios indicating that most of the CO2 increase came from fossil fuel burning (and ? forests). I presume you mean C13 and C14.

    Retired particle physicist T.W.Quirk wrote a 2009 Energy & Environment article (peer reviewed fwiw) that showed or purported to show that most of the CO2 increase came from the ocean.

    Common sense arguments for that might include the fact that there is 100s of times as much CO2 in the sea as in the atmosphere and that warming tropical waters would release CO2 just as appears to have happened 100s of thousands of years ago when warming preceded the rises in atmospheric CO2.

    On the other hand I speculate that fossil fuel emitted CO2 gets sbsorbed in the oceans at high latitudes but is thorougjly mixed with oceanic CO2 by the time it reaches warm tropical waters where it is emitted. Thus the oceanic signal might be misleading. I put this to a sceptical physicist who had drawn my attention to Quirk's article but he gave me no very satisfactory reply. I remember him saying that increased CO2 had meant more growth and that some forests anyway were using a lot of it, and increasing amounts: fwiw.
  97. @CanSpeccy

    Imagine a dime standing parallel to a goal line on a 100-yard-long football field representing all atmospheric gases.
     
    Perhaps I'm slightly more numerate than you, but I find it easier to understand concentrations in more scientifically conventional terms such as percentages than as a ratio of dimes to football fields.

    The measure you give is, incidentally, out by a factor of 25.


    Carbon dioxide is a trace gas and it’s not a pollutant.
     
    Would you say that the same concentration (0.04%) of cyanide in air would also constitute a "trace," not a pollutant?

    It seems the more ignorant a person is, the more confident they are in pronouncing on technical matters. How much, for example, will a doubling in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration increase or decrease global primary production (e.g., crop yields and hence the African and Asian populations that those crop yields will support)?

    But you have, I suspect, never given the matter a thought, or even thought of giving such questions a thought, since you would otherwise be more hesitant to display your ignorance whereof you speak.

    Would you say that the same concentration (0.04%) of cyanide in air would also constitute a “trace,” not a pollutant?

    LOL, you posturing jackass. Yes, be it cyanide or laughing gas, at that concentration, it’s a trace.

    A “pollutant” is anything a definer chooses to define as a pollutant. If it please you, milord, frigging oregano vapor is a pollutant.

    Run your bullshit by a class of 5th-graders. Maybe they’ll believe it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    LOL, you posturing jackass. Yes, be it cyanide or laughing gas, at that concentration, it’s a trace.
     
    For posturing jackassery, your statement would be hard to beat.

    A trace is an amount too small to be accurately measured. Four hundred parts per million of just about anything is not hard to measure. And 400 parts per million of cyanide will kill you in about half an hour, a measurable, if not beneficial, consequence.

    Carbon dioxide in air is also measurable in very small concentrations. For about a hundred dollars you can buy a Chinese made infra-red spectrometer (via AliExpress) that measures carbon dioxide in air to within a few parts per million.

    And like cyanide, carbon dioxide in air has significant consequences. At the pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentration of 260-270 ppm, terrestrial plants grow perfectly well. At 400 ppm, many of them grow substantially better. That is why the rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is such a serious matter. It means global primary (plant) production is increasing each year by billions of tons, which has the potential for supporting billions of additional humans, a consequence you no doubt welcome, and for which you will be especially glad when many of those additional humans pour into the United States or wherever it is you live and occupy a portion of your living space.
  98. @Ace
    The 3.4% figure refers to current annual human contribution.

    Humans can only claim responsibility, if that's the word, for abut [sic] 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually, the rest of it is all natural.
     
    Junk Science.com

    The 3.4% figure is a dead giveaway on the "annual" part. You must not be familiar with the basics.

    Your two cites only deal with (1) what some estimate to be the pre-industrial levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and (2) current measurements. Something that happens after something else (2 minus 1) is not necessarily caused by that something else. It's a common logical fallacy. Perhaps you have another citation that actually argues that the change in concentration is due to human activity. Regardless, my initial image has nothing to do with changes occurring since the Pleistocene.

    The world-ocean, by several orders of magnitude, is the greatest source/sink of atmospheric CO2.

    By annual period, the release/absorption of atmospheric CO2 by the world ocean varies, unpredictably, by 15% – 20%. This represents an enormous quantity of CO2, and utterly swamps-out any contribution from anthropogenic sources.

    Anthropogenic CO2 is a boogeyman. Meaningless to all but credulous fools.

    Read More
    • Agree: Ace
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    "Anthropogenic CO2 is a boogeyman. Meaningless to all but credulous fools"

    It's interesting that you say that. Not only does it contradict the claim of the multi-billion-dollar-a-year climate science research community, but it contradicts what all but those on the outermost fringes of the warming denial crowd have to say. Both warmists and climate warming deniers agree that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is rising and that the primary causes are fossil fuel combustion, human caused deforestation and the manufacture of cement. What the camps disagree on is whether the climatic consequences of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration are significant.

    But you and Ace apparently know better than everyone, and say that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions of 38 billion tons a year have no effect whatever on the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

    If correct, you must be in line for a shared Nobel prize.

    Well done.

    Incidentally, do you happen to know why atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has been rising since the beginning of the industrial revolution, if as you say, it has nothing to do with human activity?

    , @Wizard of Oz
    I don't think anthropogenic sources are negligible if you count the forest fires especislly in Indonesiavand Amazonia since these are largely to clear land for palm oil or meat production.
  99. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @John Jeremiah Smith
    The world-ocean, by several orders of magnitude, is the greatest source/sink of atmospheric CO2.

    By annual period, the release/absorption of atmospheric CO2 by the world ocean varies, unpredictably, by 15% - 20%. This represents an enormous quantity of CO2, and utterly swamps-out any contribution from anthropogenic sources.

    Anthropogenic CO2 is a boogeyman. Meaningless to all but credulous fools.

    “Anthropogenic CO2 is a boogeyman. Meaningless to all but credulous fools”

    It’s interesting that you say that. Not only does it contradict the claim of the multi-billion-dollar-a-year climate science research community, but it contradicts what all but those on the outermost fringes of the warming denial crowd have to say. Both warmists and climate warming deniers agree that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is rising and that the primary causes are fossil fuel combustion, human caused deforestation and the manufacture of cement. What the camps disagree on is whether the climatic consequences of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration are significant.

    But you and Ace apparently know better than everyone, and say that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions of 38 billion tons a year have no effect whatever on the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

    If correct, you must be in line for a shared Nobel prize.

    Well done.

    Incidentally, do you happen to know why atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has been rising since the beginning of the industrial revolution, if as you say, it has nothing to do with human activity?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Does it not strike you that the natural causes of the end of the Little Ice Age are perhaps more likely to have led to the increases in atmospheric CO2 than industrial emissions until well into the 20th century? (Warmer waters emit CO2 of which there is much more in the oceans than in the atmosphere).
    , @John Jeremiah Smith

    If correct, you must be in line for a shared Nobel prize.
     
    Do you believe that a statement from the media that most "scientists" produce research that "proves" the Earth is, um, melting...do you believe that proves the claim?
  100. @Intelligent Dasein
    Well, I for one am not complaining about subsidies per se. I am by no means a small government libertarian or a free market capitalist type. I am actually quite dirigiste in my socio-economic outlook. I believe that governments ought to nationalize key industries and direct capital investment in the national interest. Elon Musk gets no heat from me on that score.

    My problem with Musk is that he is a carnival-barking frontman for a sinister alliance of Leftist hacks, including but not limited to environmentalists, internationalists, and crony capitalists. It isn't that I'm bothered by the subsidies he receives; it's that, from a basic consideration of the physics and economics involved, electric cars are not viable period. This is a pipe dream that no amount of subsidies can turn into reality, and all the time and money spent on it is wasted in the long run.

    Do you deny that electric cars will or may become economically viable within say the lifetime of someone already driving? Peak oil may be a long way off but eventually it will have to be electricity that powers motor vehicles will it not? And if CO2 does prove to be as dangerous as some fear electricity produced by wind, solar and various hydro devices will be what keeps us mobile will it not? True there is a time value to money which may affect timing.

    Read More
  101. @John Jeremiah Smith
    The world-ocean, by several orders of magnitude, is the greatest source/sink of atmospheric CO2.

    By annual period, the release/absorption of atmospheric CO2 by the world ocean varies, unpredictably, by 15% - 20%. This represents an enormous quantity of CO2, and utterly swamps-out any contribution from anthropogenic sources.

    Anthropogenic CO2 is a boogeyman. Meaningless to all but credulous fools.

    I don’t think anthropogenic sources are negligible if you count the forest fires especislly in Indonesiavand Amazonia since these are largely to clear land for palm oil or meat production.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    I don’t think anthropogenic sources are negligible if you count the forest fires especislly in Indonesiavand Amazonia since these are largely to clear land for palm oil or meat production.
     
    For the general case, only volcanic activity can be of sufficient amplitude to move the atmospheric needle. Now, OTOH, set fire to the entire Amazon basin, yes, the needle will move a little. Once.
    , @John Jeremiah Smith

    I don’t think anthropogenic sources are negligible if you count the forest fires especislly in Indonesiavand Amazonia since these are largely to clear land for palm oil or meat production.
     
    My above is not to say there should be no concern over release of CO2. However, my concern is for the continued biological health of the world-ocean, not the piddly, and declining, fossil fuel contribution.

    We had better take care of that there ocean, or we are all well and truly screwed.
    , @Ace
    How many gigatons of CO2 are realeased by these events?
  102. @CanSpeccy

    Something that happens after something else (2 minus 1) is not necessarily caused by that something else.
     
    I didn't say it was. I said "primarily due to."

    The 3.4% figure refers to current annual human contribution.
     
    That's not what you said. What you said was:

    Concentration of CO2 in atmosphere = 0.04%
    CO2 contributed by man = 3.4%
     
    As for it being "the annual human contribution", what's that supposed to mean? A 3.4% annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration due to human activity? Presumably not. So I'll guess that you meant that, of the total additions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, 3.4% are human caused. But so what?

    There's something call the carbon cycle. When atmospheric concentration is constant, 100% of what is released by decaying vegetation, volcanoes, etc. is balanced by what is sequestered by geological processes and photosynthetic fixation. So when carbon emissions due to human activity are added to the carbon emissions of natural origin, the atmospheric concentration will rise unless the sequestration rate increases by the same amount as the rate of additions.

    But evidently the sequestration rate has not risen to balance the increased rate of additions, for otherwise the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is rising.

    What's more changes in the carbon isotope ratio of atmospheric carbon dioxide indicates that most of the additional carbon being added to the atmosphere is of fossil fuel origin.

    I suggest you go back to Wattsupwiththat.com or wherever you get your misinformation, and where you'll feel comfy trading bullshit with Smokey the Bear and other habitués of such sites for simpletons.

    I would be interested in references to changes in the carbon isotope ratios indicating that most of the CO2 increase came from fossil fuel burning (and ? forests). I presume you mean C13 and C14.

    Retired particle physicist T.W.Quirk wrote a 2009 Energy & Environment article (peer reviewed fwiw) that showed or purported to show that most of the CO2 increase came from the ocean.

    Common sense arguments for that might include the fact that there is 100s of times as much CO2 in the sea as in the atmosphere and that warming tropical waters would release CO2 just as appears to have happened 100s of thousands of years ago when warming preceded the rises in atmospheric CO2.

    On the other hand I speculate that fossil fuel emitted CO2 gets sbsorbed in the oceans at high latitudes but is thorougjly mixed with oceanic CO2 by the time it reaches warm tropical waters where it is emitted. Thus the oceanic signal might be misleading. I put this to a sceptical physicist who had drawn my attention to Quirk’s article but he gave me no very satisfactory reply. I remember him saying that increased CO2 had meant more growth and that some forests anyway were using a lot of it, and increasing amounts: fwiw.

    Read More
  103. @CanSpeccy
    "Anthropogenic CO2 is a boogeyman. Meaningless to all but credulous fools"

    It's interesting that you say that. Not only does it contradict the claim of the multi-billion-dollar-a-year climate science research community, but it contradicts what all but those on the outermost fringes of the warming denial crowd have to say. Both warmists and climate warming deniers agree that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is rising and that the primary causes are fossil fuel combustion, human caused deforestation and the manufacture of cement. What the camps disagree on is whether the climatic consequences of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration are significant.

    But you and Ace apparently know better than everyone, and say that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions of 38 billion tons a year have no effect whatever on the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

    If correct, you must be in line for a shared Nobel prize.

    Well done.

    Incidentally, do you happen to know why atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has been rising since the beginning of the industrial revolution, if as you say, it has nothing to do with human activity?

    Does it not strike you that the natural causes of the end of the Little Ice Age are perhaps more likely to have led to the increases in atmospheric CO2 than industrial emissions until well into the 20th century? (Warmer waters emit CO2 of which there is much more in the oceans than in the atmosphere).

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Does it not strike you that the natural causes of the end of the Little Ice Age are perhaps more likely to have led to the increases in atmospheric CO2 than industrial emissions until well into the 20th century?
     
    prior to the industrial age, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration was in a declining trends was it not? But since the beginning of the 20th century, when use of fossil fuels really took off, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has been rising steadily. Last year, so I read somewhere, human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide totalled 38 billion tons. That would add 7.6 parts per million to the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, which is of the same order as the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. This has been going on for a century and more now. Makes you think, doesn't it.

    Of course the picture is complicated by all sorts of other additions and subtractions. But so far as I am aware, none of the prominent critics of global warming theory, for example the legendary mathematician, Freeman Dyson, question the role of human activity in raising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

  104. @CanSpeccy
    "Anthropogenic CO2 is a boogeyman. Meaningless to all but credulous fools"

    It's interesting that you say that. Not only does it contradict the claim of the multi-billion-dollar-a-year climate science research community, but it contradicts what all but those on the outermost fringes of the warming denial crowd have to say. Both warmists and climate warming deniers agree that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is rising and that the primary causes are fossil fuel combustion, human caused deforestation and the manufacture of cement. What the camps disagree on is whether the climatic consequences of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration are significant.

    But you and Ace apparently know better than everyone, and say that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions of 38 billion tons a year have no effect whatever on the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

    If correct, you must be in line for a shared Nobel prize.

    Well done.

    Incidentally, do you happen to know why atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has been rising since the beginning of the industrial revolution, if as you say, it has nothing to do with human activity?

    If correct, you must be in line for a shared Nobel prize.

    Do you believe that a statement from the media that most “scientists” produce research that “proves” the Earth is, um, melting…do you believe that proves the claim?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Do you believe that a statement from the media that most “scientists” produce research that “proves” the Earth is, um, melting…
     
    No, I had not "heard that the Earth is, um, [or not um,] melting." Perhaps you would provide a reference so that we would all be better informed about this apparently catastrophic development.
  105. @Wizard of Oz
    I don't think anthropogenic sources are negligible if you count the forest fires especislly in Indonesiavand Amazonia since these are largely to clear land for palm oil or meat production.

    I don’t think anthropogenic sources are negligible if you count the forest fires especislly in Indonesiavand Amazonia since these are largely to clear land for palm oil or meat production.

    For the general case, only volcanic activity can be of sufficient amplitude to move the atmospheric needle. Now, OTOH, set fire to the entire Amazon basin, yes, the needle will move a little. Once.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You may, or may not, be right about anthropogenic warming but you did pour scorn on anthropogenic CO2 and I think you will find that tropicsl forest burning makes a very significsnt contribution.
  106. @Wizard of Oz
    I don't think anthropogenic sources are negligible if you count the forest fires especislly in Indonesiavand Amazonia since these are largely to clear land for palm oil or meat production.

    I don’t think anthropogenic sources are negligible if you count the forest fires especislly in Indonesiavand Amazonia since these are largely to clear land for palm oil or meat production.

    My above is not to say there should be no concern over release of CO2. However, my concern is for the continued biological health of the world-ocean, not the piddly, and declining, fossil fuel contribution.

    We had better take care of that there ocean, or we are all well and truly screwed.

    Read More
  107. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    If correct, you must be in line for a shared Nobel prize.
     
    Do you believe that a statement from the media that most "scientists" produce research that "proves" the Earth is, um, melting...do you believe that proves the claim?

    Do you believe that a statement from the media that most “scientists” produce research that “proves” the Earth is, um, melting…

    No, I had not “heard that the Earth is, um, [or not um,] melting.” Perhaps you would provide a reference so that we would all be better informed about this apparently catastrophic development.

    Read More
  108. @John Jeremiah Smith

    I don’t think anthropogenic sources are negligible if you count the forest fires especislly in Indonesiavand Amazonia since these are largely to clear land for palm oil or meat production.
     
    For the general case, only volcanic activity can be of sufficient amplitude to move the atmospheric needle. Now, OTOH, set fire to the entire Amazon basin, yes, the needle will move a little. Once.

    You may, or may not, be right about anthropogenic warming but you did pour scorn on anthropogenic CO2 and I think you will find that tropicsl forest burning makes a very significsnt contribution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    You may, or may not, be right about anthropogenic warming but you did pour scorn on anthropogenic CO2 and I think you will find that tropicsl forest burning makes a very significant contribution.
     
    Scorn? More like amused tolerance.

    If I were motivated, I would research the actual numbers of ocean CO2 vs. fossil fuel CO2. Ocean CO2, as you probably know, is significantly an issue of O2-producing algae blooms and, to a lesser extent, kelp and other sea-based vegetation. Most theories of how the Earth atmosphere acquired its "standard" 21% oxygen concentration point directly to ocean algae. Where else would it come from? De-oxidation of volcanic rock? How?

    In the beginning, the earth was without form and void. And there warn't no oxygen! Where did it come from? Where does most of it come from now? Where does 99% of CHO conversion cycle take place, now or ever?

    Fossil fuel CO2 is a red herring for the gullible to lunch on.
  109. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Would you say that the same concentration (0.04%) of cyanide in air would also constitute a “trace,” not a pollutant?
     
    LOL, you posturing jackass. Yes, be it cyanide or laughing gas, at that concentration, it's a trace.

    A "pollutant" is anything a definer chooses to define as a pollutant. If it please you, milord, frigging oregano vapor is a pollutant.

    Run your bullshit by a class of 5th-graders. Maybe they'll believe it.

    LOL, you posturing jackass. Yes, be it cyanide or laughing gas, at that concentration, it’s a trace.

    For posturing jackassery, your statement would be hard to beat.

    A trace is an amount too small to be accurately measured. Four hundred parts per million of just about anything is not hard to measure. And 400 parts per million of cyanide will kill you in about half an hour, a measurable, if not beneficial, consequence.

    Carbon dioxide in air is also measurable in very small concentrations. For about a hundred dollars you can buy a Chinese made infra-red spectrometer (via AliExpress) that measures carbon dioxide in air to within a few parts per million.

    And like cyanide, carbon dioxide in air has significant consequences. At the pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentration of 260-270 ppm, terrestrial plants grow perfectly well. At 400 ppm, many of them grow substantially better. That is why the rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is such a serious matter. It means global primary (plant) production is increasing each year by billions of tons, which has the potential for supporting billions of additional humans, a consequence you no doubt welcome, and for which you will be especially glad when many of those additional humans pour into the United States or wherever it is you live and occupy a portion of your living space.

    Read More
  110. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz
    Does it not strike you that the natural causes of the end of the Little Ice Age are perhaps more likely to have led to the increases in atmospheric CO2 than industrial emissions until well into the 20th century? (Warmer waters emit CO2 of which there is much more in the oceans than in the atmosphere).

    Does it not strike you that the natural causes of the end of the Little Ice Age are perhaps more likely to have led to the increases in atmospheric CO2 than industrial emissions until well into the 20th century?

    prior to the industrial age, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration was in a declining trends was it not? But since the beginning of the 20th century, when use of fossil fuels really took off, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has been rising steadily. Last year, so I read somewhere, human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide totalled 38 billion tons. That would add 7.6 parts per million to the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, which is of the same order as the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. This has been going on for a century and more now. Makes you think, doesn’t it.

    Of course the picture is complicated by all sorts of other additions and subtractions. But so far as I am aware, none of the prominent critics of global warming theory, for example the legendary mathematician, Freeman Dyson, question the role of human activity in raising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    Don't forget that the legendary Ace does question the role of human activity in that.
  111. Sam J. says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    Well, I for one am not complaining about subsidies per se. I am by no means a small government libertarian or a free market capitalist type. I am actually quite dirigiste in my socio-economic outlook. I believe that governments ought to nationalize key industries and direct capital investment in the national interest. Elon Musk gets no heat from me on that score.

    My problem with Musk is that he is a carnival-barking frontman for a sinister alliance of Leftist hacks, including but not limited to environmentalists, internationalists, and crony capitalists. It isn't that I'm bothered by the subsidies he receives; it's that, from a basic consideration of the physics and economics involved, electric cars are not viable period. This is a pipe dream that no amount of subsidies can turn into reality, and all the time and money spent on it is wasted in the long run.

    “…basic consideration of the physics and economics involved, electric cars are not viable period…”

    Well I think can easily thwart this statement with the simple fact that, they exist. Arguing that there’s some “physics” reason electric cars can’t exist is a sure fire loser.

    Electric cars are just getting started. Battery tech is gaining every day. I just read yesterday that they’ve found a way to make zinc-air batteries work. Far cheaper and theoretically far more energy storage than lithium. Even if batteries won’t work flywheels will. Far higher storage levels than lithium have already been made. All of this research is risky though and that’s why we need subsidies. Several car makers before Musk have failed at making electric cars and he might too but it doesn’t change our need for them.

    Read More
  112. Sam J. says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    Well, I for one am not complaining about subsidies per se. I am by no means a small government libertarian or a free market capitalist type. I am actually quite dirigiste in my socio-economic outlook. I believe that governments ought to nationalize key industries and direct capital investment in the national interest. Elon Musk gets no heat from me on that score.

    My problem with Musk is that he is a carnival-barking frontman for a sinister alliance of Leftist hacks, including but not limited to environmentalists, internationalists, and crony capitalists. It isn't that I'm bothered by the subsidies he receives; it's that, from a basic consideration of the physics and economics involved, electric cars are not viable period. This is a pipe dream that no amount of subsidies can turn into reality, and all the time and money spent on it is wasted in the long run.

    “…My problem with Musk is that he is a carnival-barking frontman…”

    So it really gets down to…you don’t like him. I’m hardly a fan of the left, like really not a fan, but I support energy independence for defense and personal liberty reasons. If he can make it work I could care less about his other passions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    OT but how do you think the American expression "I could care less about X" came about? The rest of the Anglophone countries [still I think] say "I *couldn't* care less about X" which is more logical.
  113. @Wizard of Oz
    You may, or may not, be right about anthropogenic warming but you did pour scorn on anthropogenic CO2 and I think you will find that tropicsl forest burning makes a very significsnt contribution.

    You may, or may not, be right about anthropogenic warming but you did pour scorn on anthropogenic CO2 and I think you will find that tropicsl forest burning makes a very significant contribution.

    Scorn? More like amused tolerance.

    If I were motivated, I would research the actual numbers of ocean CO2 vs. fossil fuel CO2. Ocean CO2, as you probably know, is significantly an issue of O2-producing algae blooms and, to a lesser extent, kelp and other sea-based vegetation. Most theories of how the Earth atmosphere acquired its “standard” 21% oxygen concentration point directly to ocean algae. Where else would it come from? De-oxidation of volcanic rock? How?

    In the beginning, the earth was without form and void. And there warn’t no oxygen! Where did it come from? Where does most of it come from now? Where does 99% of CHO conversion cycle take place, now or ever?

    Fossil fuel CO2 is a red herring for the gullible to lunch on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Fossil fuel CO2 is a red herring for the gullible to lunch on.
     
    yes, and it's cynically being used to prep the planet for a tax scheme that will deliver the power to tax, (and the legal teeth to penalize) every last human's breath, as taxable. The ulitimate victory of the Oligarchs/Fiend.

    Who do they think is going to wield that power to tax carbon emissions?

    Unless it's the ((unilateral power today)) that treats Europe like a mangy omega dog who had better be obedient or else.

    are they going to demand that Russia too bow down to the holy carbon tax?

    I've even heard liberals say that they're going to benevolently give back most of the money!!!

    hahhahahahh hahhahahaha!!!

    I almost died laughing when I heard that! And the wide-eyed liberal was sincere, and self-righteous when I mocked him/the idea that they're really benevolent and want to help and save us all!

    how fucking stupid can these people be?!


    tropicsl forest burning makes a very significant contribution.
     
    *if* the people who claim to be concerned about the environment really were, then they'd talk about human over-population. Just the population of Africa is going to exponentially explode in the coming decades

    https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/worlds-most-important-graph-2017-f.png

    the destruction of the environment and the loss of species and habitat are due to too many people. Duh!

    that is why the planet is losing species after species. It's why the carbon dioxide-eating rain forests are being wiped out and the savannas and all the habitats of the planet's amazing denizens- who humans are blindly wiping out in the name of infinite greed + intractable tribal hatreds.

    the carbon scheme is just another trick of the Oligarchs/PTB to control the bipedal human farm animals, and $hear them. All while packing them onto the farms. More and more and more and more. No end in sight for making the farm animals more compliant and dutiful as they reduce their footprint.

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bEQ9Ca7ZRFI/T8zyGOE616I/AAAAAAAAIa4/QIq7FTv6c1g/s640/African+slave+ship+diagram.jpg

    when they've doubled and tripled the numbers of humans who're increasingly going to be using energy of all kinds, what kind of planet do they expect to have?

  114. Why do people assume Musk is on, or of the left, he grew up in South Africa FFS

    I think he’s clever enough not give his honest opinion on certain matters, but he knows the truth

    Also I understand that people may not like his EVs, but to call him a carnival barker is a bit much, he has changed the car industry and SpaceX has clearly disrupted the space industry, ULA may not exist 5 years from now, 5 years ago ULA were laughing at SpaceX

    Read More
  115. Rurik says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    You may, or may not, be right about anthropogenic warming but you did pour scorn on anthropogenic CO2 and I think you will find that tropicsl forest burning makes a very significant contribution.
     
    Scorn? More like amused tolerance.

    If I were motivated, I would research the actual numbers of ocean CO2 vs. fossil fuel CO2. Ocean CO2, as you probably know, is significantly an issue of O2-producing algae blooms and, to a lesser extent, kelp and other sea-based vegetation. Most theories of how the Earth atmosphere acquired its "standard" 21% oxygen concentration point directly to ocean algae. Where else would it come from? De-oxidation of volcanic rock? How?

    In the beginning, the earth was without form and void. And there warn't no oxygen! Where did it come from? Where does most of it come from now? Where does 99% of CHO conversion cycle take place, now or ever?

    Fossil fuel CO2 is a red herring for the gullible to lunch on.

    Fossil fuel CO2 is a red herring for the gullible to lunch on.

    yes, and it’s cynically being used to prep the planet for a tax scheme that will deliver the power to tax, (and the legal teeth to penalize) every last human’s breath, as taxable. The ulitimate victory of the Oligarchs/Fiend.

    Who do they think is going to wield that power to tax carbon emissions?

    Unless it’s the ((unilateral power today)) that treats Europe like a mangy omega dog who had better be obedient or else.

    are they going to demand that Russia too bow down to the holy carbon tax?

    I’ve even heard liberals say that they’re going to benevolently give back most of the money!!!

    hahhahahahh hahhahahaha!!!

    I almost died laughing when I heard that! And the wide-eyed liberal was sincere, and self-righteous when I mocked him/the idea that they’re really benevolent and want to help and save us all!

    how fucking stupid can these people be?!

    tropicsl forest burning makes a very significant contribution.

    *if* the people who claim to be concerned about the environment really were, then they’d talk about human over-population. Just the population of Africa is going to exponentially explode in the coming decades

    the destruction of the environment and the loss of species and habitat are due to too many people. Duh!

    that is why the planet is losing species after species. It’s why the carbon dioxide-eating rain forests are being wiped out and the savannas and all the habitats of the planet’s amazing denizens- who humans are blindly wiping out in the name of infinite greed + intractable tribal hatreds.

    the carbon scheme is just another trick of the Oligarchs/PTB to control the bipedal human farm animals, and $hear them. All while packing them onto the farms. More and more and more and more. No end in sight for making the farm animals more compliant and dutiful as they reduce their footprint.

    when they’ve doubled and tripled the numbers of humans who’re increasingly going to be using energy of all kinds, what kind of planet do they expect to have?

    Read More
    • Agree: Che Guava
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    Yup.

    I find it rather illuminating that the Great They manage to skim the wallets of the Stupids with sugar sugar sugar sugar, then plunder the rest via "health insurance". Cracks me up .... health insurance, by golly. Make 'em sick for a penny; make 'em well for a dollar.

    A pint of water, flavored or "spring" (nudge nudge) for $1.69. The mind balks. Lord, what fools these mortals be indeed.

    Remember when we were daily given dire warnings of the population explosion? No more of that! There's gold to be had! Gold!
  116. Ace says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I don't think anthropogenic sources are negligible if you count the forest fires especislly in Indonesiavand Amazonia since these are largely to clear land for palm oil or meat production.

    How many gigatons of CO2 are realeased by these events?

    Read More
  117. Ace says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Does it not strike you that the natural causes of the end of the Little Ice Age are perhaps more likely to have led to the increases in atmospheric CO2 than industrial emissions until well into the 20th century?
     
    prior to the industrial age, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration was in a declining trends was it not? But since the beginning of the 20th century, when use of fossil fuels really took off, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has been rising steadily. Last year, so I read somewhere, human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide totalled 38 billion tons. That would add 7.6 parts per million to the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, which is of the same order as the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. This has been going on for a century and more now. Makes you think, doesn't it.

    Of course the picture is complicated by all sorts of other additions and subtractions. But so far as I am aware, none of the prominent critics of global warming theory, for example the legendary mathematician, Freeman Dyson, question the role of human activity in raising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

    Don’t forget that the legendary Ace does question the role of human activity in that.

    Read More
  118. @Rurik

    Fossil fuel CO2 is a red herring for the gullible to lunch on.
     
    yes, and it's cynically being used to prep the planet for a tax scheme that will deliver the power to tax, (and the legal teeth to penalize) every last human's breath, as taxable. The ulitimate victory of the Oligarchs/Fiend.

    Who do they think is going to wield that power to tax carbon emissions?

    Unless it's the ((unilateral power today)) that treats Europe like a mangy omega dog who had better be obedient or else.

    are they going to demand that Russia too bow down to the holy carbon tax?

    I've even heard liberals say that they're going to benevolently give back most of the money!!!

    hahhahahahh hahhahahaha!!!

    I almost died laughing when I heard that! And the wide-eyed liberal was sincere, and self-righteous when I mocked him/the idea that they're really benevolent and want to help and save us all!

    how fucking stupid can these people be?!


    tropicsl forest burning makes a very significant contribution.
     
    *if* the people who claim to be concerned about the environment really were, then they'd talk about human over-population. Just the population of Africa is going to exponentially explode in the coming decades

    https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/worlds-most-important-graph-2017-f.png

    the destruction of the environment and the loss of species and habitat are due to too many people. Duh!

    that is why the planet is losing species after species. It's why the carbon dioxide-eating rain forests are being wiped out and the savannas and all the habitats of the planet's amazing denizens- who humans are blindly wiping out in the name of infinite greed + intractable tribal hatreds.

    the carbon scheme is just another trick of the Oligarchs/PTB to control the bipedal human farm animals, and $hear them. All while packing them onto the farms. More and more and more and more. No end in sight for making the farm animals more compliant and dutiful as they reduce their footprint.

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bEQ9Ca7ZRFI/T8zyGOE616I/AAAAAAAAIa4/QIq7FTv6c1g/s640/African+slave+ship+diagram.jpg

    when they've doubled and tripled the numbers of humans who're increasingly going to be using energy of all kinds, what kind of planet do they expect to have?

    Yup.

    I find it rather illuminating that the Great They manage to skim the wallets of the Stupids with sugar sugar sugar sugar, then plunder the rest via “health insurance”. Cracks me up …. health insurance, by golly. Make ‘em sick for a penny; make ‘em well for a dollar.

    A pint of water, flavored or “spring” (nudge nudge) for $1.69. The mind balks. Lord, what fools these mortals be indeed.

    Remember when we were daily given dire warnings of the population explosion? No more of that! There’s gold to be had! Gold!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    I find it rather illuminating that the Great They manage to skim the wallets of the Stupids with sugar sugar sugar sugar, then plunder the rest via “health insurance”. ... Make ‘em sick for a penny; make ‘em well for a dollar.
     
    pound?

    but yea, or high fructose corn syrup. soda pop with aspartame and a thousand other poisons out there to fatten up the waddling cattle, and get em ready for their 'health care'. where they put them on statins and other pharmaceutical$ to keep em "healthy".


    A pint of water, flavored or “spring” (nudge nudge) for $1.69. The mind balks.
     
    isn't that funny

    'you can't just drink the water out of the ground, are you insane!'

    you have to buy water to drink!

    by dad would be in disbelief, utterly

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XlptOyY57E

    but the frog boils too slowly for it to notice


    Remember when we were daily given dire warnings of the population explosion? No more of that! There’s gold to be had! Gold!
     
    bingo!

    it's very, very sad and tragic.

    and amazing! Men like Obama and Al Gore and Leonardo lecture us all about using less carbon as they exit their private jets.

    https://media.wmagazine.com/photos/585345eec7188f9b26c91b10/master/w_768,h_320,c_limit/davidgeffen5.jpg

    George Clooney, the boss, all of them mock and ridicule these pathetic fools as they luxuriate on yachts that burn more diesel fuel in an hour than an evil, polar bear killing SUV uses in a year.

    https://media.wmagazine.com/photos/585345f457dfc3b0230f6e6d/master/pass/davidgeffen1.jpg

    http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music-arts/takes-helicopter-global-warming-conference-article-1.1084407

  119. @Sam J.
    "...My problem with Musk is that he is a carnival-barking frontman..."

    So it really gets down to...you don't like him. I'm hardly a fan of the left, like really not a fan, but I support energy independence for defense and personal liberty reasons. If he can make it work I could care less about his other passions.

    OT but how do you think the American expression “I could care less about X” came about? The rest of the Anglophone countries [still I think] say “I *couldn’t* care less about X” which is more logical.

    Read More
  120. Che Guava says:

    I will trying the mail again, on PC, Understand your PoV on rain, but constant rain for over a week is very depressing. Did not feel like using PCs at hotels on the three days it left for a break.

    We had hail in Tokyo in the last couple of weeks, there is a wnrd for it, but many people don’t know it, because it is so rare. I’d seen hail before, but only when overseas.

    Do you know of the amateur racing video games set on Tokyo expressways? They are based on reality. The police were only to crack down on it about ten years ago. The first of the video games was earlier, Initial D.

    In general, the police don’t (or didn’t) care if you are not to endangering anybody. In the countryside, would push my Civic up to 150, 170 kph on downhill stretches of wide roads, in areas with no people and few or no other cars.

    A friend who is better with traffic conditions in and around Tokyo than me, drives at abt. 170 kph all of the way to near Tokyo, from the west coast, on the elevated expressways.

    There were even police cars along the way at times, he has a speed-radar detector, but never bothered to using it there, many others driving around the same speed.

    I think the attitude of the police is to allow it to minimising traffic jams. Also, perhaps, to making it like an autobahn.

    However, I would be encouraging nobody to trying their luck unless knowing place and situation well!

    A poster on another thread here posted a link to a very interesting article on self-driving vehicles.

    http://spectrum.ieee.org/transportation/self-driving/the-big-problem-with-selfdriving-cars-is-people

    Many valid points and strongly recommended.

    Read More
  121. Rurik says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith
    Yup.

    I find it rather illuminating that the Great They manage to skim the wallets of the Stupids with sugar sugar sugar sugar, then plunder the rest via "health insurance". Cracks me up .... health insurance, by golly. Make 'em sick for a penny; make 'em well for a dollar.

    A pint of water, flavored or "spring" (nudge nudge) for $1.69. The mind balks. Lord, what fools these mortals be indeed.

    Remember when we were daily given dire warnings of the population explosion? No more of that! There's gold to be had! Gold!

    I find it rather illuminating that the Great They manage to skim the wallets of the Stupids with sugar sugar sugar sugar, then plunder the rest via “health insurance”. … Make ‘em sick for a penny; make ‘em well for a dollar.

    pound?

    but yea, or high fructose corn syrup. soda pop with aspartame and a thousand other poisons out there to fatten up the waddling cattle, and get em ready for their ‘health care’. where they put them on statins and other pharmaceutical$ to keep em “healthy”.

    A pint of water, flavored or “spring” (nudge nudge) for $1.69. The mind balks.

    isn’t that funny

    ‘you can’t just drink the water out of the ground, are you insane!’

    you have to buy water to drink!

    by dad would be in disbelief, utterly

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XlptOyY57E

    but the frog boils too slowly for it to notice

    Remember when we were daily given dire warnings of the population explosion? No more of that! There’s gold to be had! Gold!

    bingo!

    it’s very, very sad and tragic.

    and amazing! Men like Obama and Al Gore and Leonardo lecture us all about using less carbon as they exit their private jets.

    George Clooney, the boss, all of them mock and ridicule these pathetic fools as they luxuriate on yachts that burn more diesel fuel in an hour than an evil, polar bear killing SUV uses in a year.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music-arts/takes-helicopter-global-warming-conference-article-1.1084407

    Read More
  122. Che Guava says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks. See my reply to #81

    Well, you are demonstrating that you are quite capable of logical thought.

    In several other recent posts, too. Wanting to reply to other posters and you in latest threads, but for me, have too much work, so must be responsible, and soon sleeping.

    To the mods:I have posted one reply, an ‘agree’, and another reply, wide time spacing. Keep getting the ‘posting too fast’ message.

    Something wrong with your algorithm there if it is not from button-pressing by a human.

    Read More
  123. Che Guava says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks. See my reply to #81

    To the mods:Only activity from me in the last few days, one reply, an ‘Agree’, and another reply, in that order and in the span of more than three hours, not closely spaced, getting the ‘posting too fast’ message, from just pressing on ‘Agree’, the first time. That is not even a post.

    Again, from above reply, much over an hour later than that.

    Something wrong with your program there if it is automatic and not from button-pressing by a human. Reaction with ‘posting too fast’ to a first button press is inane, I know the one-per hour rule, so ‘posting too fast’ in response to a first press is even stranger.

    Nothing else posted until this.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Fred Reed Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
Sounds Like A Low-Ranked American University To Me
Very Long, Will Bore Hell Out Of Most People, But I Felt Like Doing It
It's Not A Job. It's An Adventure.
Cloudy, With Possible Tidal Wave