Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

And yet you posted about it

 

interesting

"Creating Deepest Hole on Earth For Geothermal Energy Revolution"

 

What? All the rest of the car? The wheels the metal, brakes?



I think we are going to see recylcing of these batteries scale up over the next decade as they claim to already have the tech and are currently building the factories to do it...which would reduce the need for mining.

 

That scientists did believe in "Global Cooling" in the 1970's to early 1980's?

And you rejects anything because apparently they do not like the source. Yet funny, I still have not heard you refute any of the claims.

And no, it is not "outdated", what it is is topical to the time period discussed. I am trying to discuss that many of the same alarmists behind "Global Warming" today were behind "Global Cooling" 40+ years ago. And you scream that my sources are outdated, when they are from that very timeframe?

I imagine you also would equally dismiss the Federalist and Anti-Federalist articles if the topic was the Constitution. "Outdated newspaper articles, bad journalism".

 

I will admit, I am a frequent watcher of Anton Petrov. Especially when talking about the space and hard Earth sciences, he really seems to have a great ability to discuss very complex topics and bring them into language most can understand. For example, whenever I am in a discussion here or other places about the early formation of our Earth-Moon system and Thea, I use his video explaining LLSVP as he breaks it down much better than I ever could to somebody not familiar with such topics.

However, I am also aware that quite often he will report on things like this.



And the problem is that he reports on everything equally. In other words, he reports on these types of things with the same honesty that he does an actual scientific paper. And whenever he branches into these kinds of topics, his response threads beg him to return to his specialty, and not largely repeating David Avocado Wolfe kinds of reports. And that essentially he is trying to make an honest explanation based entirely on the claims of a PR guy. And does not seem to consider that the information in the PR report is not being honest.

 

Is it not of interest?

 

The problem is that those are individuals, editorials, etc.

I could also show you long lists of right wingers who claim that the planet is not warming and that even if it were, there is no chance that humans are involved.

In no insignificant part, this is due to the fact that extreme stories sell well and get clicks.

The better way to do this is to actually look to science - IPCC reports, NASA, NOAA, etc. These science organizations (and many others) present mainline views agreed by the vast majority of climatologists.

 

"Gloom and Doom", nah, it's more like "who you gonna believe me or your lyin' eyes". Can the produce it in industrial size quantities for decades? If so what damage would that do to surrounding landscape and environment?

 

The largest problem with home solar right now is the supply chain. Corporations building everything from wind farms to solar farms to home solar are finding it extremely hard to fill demand. There is room today between demand and the possibility of filling that demand, so if demand goes down a little, that's not really going to be a change.

As for older solar installations, the biggest deal there is that the efficiency of panels has been increasing rapidly. For some with 20 year old panels it could well be a financial win to get them replaced with new panels with far higher efficiency than 20 year old panels ever had when they were new.

One way to get new solar installed today involves companies that will add solar to your home for free if you will share the benefit of cheaper power with them. In that case, if they see that it is a win to change to higher performing panels, they will do that.

 

So, how much natural environment was damages and endangered species lose critical environment to create this?

 

You mean like the world is going to burn up by 2100? Hurricanes getting stronger and more frequent, polar bears drowning, more tornagos - those kinds of "extreme stories?

Those agencies are political science experts, not so much in climate science.

 

Yes - I do mean like those kinds of "extreme stories". Though some of that is happening, it often get presented in extreme ways.

IPCC, NASA, NOAA are not political science.

 

"Some"? As in "hardly noticeable"

So, the UN and the United States Government are NOT political entities?

 

The point is that they are held to science.

They aren't running for office, etc. And, they take no more than an advisory role in policy.

Another check is that such organizations throughout the world are coming to the same scientific conclusions, even though the politics and policy decisions are not the same between countries.

Calling NASA and NOAA "political entities" is really rather BS. It's like saying that America is incapable of science.

 

So brakes that's the rest of the car there's no seats or interior or plastic dashboards or classic door panels and plastic body panels or plastic headlights or rubber hoses It's Just brakes?

Yeah they will definitely want to reclaim the lithium but there's a lot of a car that can't be recycled.

 

No, they're not.

But the people that control their jobs, budget, and authority ARE politicians.

Yep, it's called Globalism.

Not exactly. They answer to political entities.

 

But they still have a lifespan of no more than around 25 years. And each year they degrade, losing around 5% of their efficiency. So in 20 years they are producing little if any power.

Oh right, one of the biggest scams that there is. You are aware that most solar lease companies are all scams, right?

And no, they are not "free", there are a hell of a lot of hooks and catches with them. Such as, they now have a lease on the roof of your house, that they can then sell to another later on. You literally have lost control of your roof. And they under theory "share the benefit", by selling you back the power made on your roof at a reduced price. It is not free.

Then there is the programs that "rent" you the roofs. Same deal, you pay them for it, and hope that you can get the cost back. However, a big fact is that you do not get any tax credits for either of those programs. None, sip, zilch, the company that actually owns them gets that.

Your even trying to talk about the "free" systems shows me that you really do not know or understand how all of this works. TANSTAAFL

 

That is a stupendous conspiracy theory.

And, you have NO evidence of that.

 

Actually, it is not. What, you think "politicians" are only elected into office?

Higher learning and governmental agencies are full of Politicians. So is the military, as pretty much anybody at or above the ranks of Colonel (O-6) or First Sergeant (E- are also politicians.

So are the entire Presidential Cabinet, and many of the top layers of every branch and organization in the government.

Look anywhere in academia, and just try to tell us that politics do not play a part. Hell, one of the biggest "money makers" in many colleges is the department that has the least to do with education, and that is the sports programs.

Sorry, but you are an absolute fool if you can not recognize this, and think it is a "conspiracy theory". The government is giving out huge grants, and to academia that is like putting out a free bar at a cocktail party. Even those with no interest are going to surge there, hoping to get a piece of it.

Now granted, as I said I am a skeptic and am one of the first to scream about "conspiracy theories". But you are wrong, he is simply stating a fact that you apparently are not even aware of. Or outright try to reject because you do not like what it implies about the system.

 

No, you are claiming that the entire world of science is totally compromised - to the point of scientists in all countries consistently telling the OPPOSITE of the truth.

And, you have not explained that AT ALL.

Beyond that, what scientists are say is what IS happening - something that is absolutely contrary to your stupendous conspiracy theory.

 

We've seen what happens when politicians try to pervert science on a number of occasions, even by relatively small amounts.

The scientists squak.

 

There is all of that but less then regular cars. no muffler, no exhaust, no radiator, no lead/acid battery, no oil changes, no piston engine...are you suggesting we just abolish all cars? go back to wooden wagons? the flintstone mobile? I mean I think I'd rather just let the world burn at that point.

 

no it isn't it's actually more.

There are gas-powered cars that last 20 or 30 years and when they don't last anymore they're taken to junk yards and parted out because there's still cars like that that people want to make run or keep running.

He won't have this with electric cars. When the battery fails it isn't worth repairing. So you get past a certain age there is no marketable value for any of those parts so they don't go to junk yards and go to the dump.

Further batteries are a chemical component based on other products I've used with lithium-ion batteries the longest you'll get out of a car that runs on them is 7 to 10 years tops.

Think about it this way nobody really wants to recycle any of this stuff I have three old laptops and about a dozen old cell phones nobody's asking me for them nobody wants them.

That's going to be the battery in your electric car.

they're absolutely is exhaust the power plant that makes the electricity for it does produce exhaust, there is a radiator and coolant because heat causes premature battery death there has to be a radiator on it also it helps heat the battery when it's cold so there is a radiator. And there is a lead acid battery that's typically used to run accessories.

versus going back to electric cars electric cars are a thing of the past they dominated the automotive industry up until 1901 when the more modern fuel powered piston engine vehicle surpassed it and land speed record.

And electric cars are still limited by range and charging.

Right now it may be great because for certain cars there's enough charging not really but we'll leave that argument for another day. But California was talking about fast charging.

Four fast chargers require the same amount of electricity 230 homes. California was talking about installing 1.5 million of them statewide that means they would have to provide the same amount of electricity that they would for 86 million homes. They provide electricity for 14 million homes currently and they barely do that.

So as long as they remain one or so percent of vehicles on the road then yeah only one will probably be nice once they start taking a larger percentage I doubt they'll last much longer than that.

Let's say they were 20% of vehicles on the road now would mean you are tethered to 150 mi from where you live or you're going to wait hours in line for a fast charger possibly even days.

But that's what you're suggesting electric cars is going backwards. 1840 to 1901 was the heyday of the electric car some 90% of vehicles were electric.

 

Like an engine you can replace the battery on an EV...you don't have to junk the car so far as I know and I own one.

 

Sure you can. It does cost about 22k though. You can replace an engine and transmission and maybe it's half of that.

Last time I was quoted a long block it was $4,500.

You could buy a pretty nice used car for 22k.