Cooling Looms As Earth’s True Climate Calamity

[ForcedAppeal]

Salt water from the ocean weighs approx 8.55 lbs per gallon and fresh water weighs approx. 8.34 lbs per gallon, so that is 2.5% greater density of ocean water

That's why.

Now it's your turn

Oh yeah.....LOL

I eagerly await your response. With references of course.

 

[danarhea]

Salt water from the ocean weighs approx 8.55 lbs per gallon and fresh water weighs approx. 8.34 lbs per gallon, so that is 2.5% greater density of ocean water

That's why.

Now it's your turn

Oh yeah.....LOL

I eagerly await your response. With references of course.

Yea, read my edit. LOL.

 

[ForcedAppeal]

Yea, read my edit. LOL.

We're all good. Thanks

 

[danarhea]

We're all good. Thanks

Not really. 3 gigs in 2 days, then worked 12 hours today. I think I need to get some sleep. 'Cya later. LOL.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Now Lord, I really enjoyed your linkless "losses and stuff" narrative but 16 kW the Volt needs to travel 38 miles. at 10 cents a kW, that a 1.60. If you have a car that gets 38 mpg, a gallon of gas costs about 3.71. Now before you start your "taxes and stuff" narrative, the cost of just the oil for a gallon of gas at 98 dollars a barrel is 2.34 (63%). Refining costs are about 60 cents.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. I will assume your numbers are correct, they look about right.

I brought that into the discussion trying to clarify the angles argued. These cars aren't really greener when you consider the losses of power from source fuel to rubber on the road. Again, at the present time, extra energy usage will be on demand by coil, oil, etc. Solar and wind will already be used because they are always on, off, or somewhere in between as determined by nature, so added demand is furnished with fossil fuels. Therefore, the green argument really has no merit in many of our opinions.

As for the cost, yes, so much cheaper to operate once you foot the initial cost. It's that initial cost that prevents them, in many cases, from being cheaper to use. Then... Batteries are still not endless in life. I believe the current batteries in use only maintain about 60% of their charge capacity after about 5 years of use. how much to replace your batteries?

In my opinion, we simply are not there yet, to make this an affordable technology.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Not really. 3 gigs in 2 days, then worked 12 hours today. I think I need to get some sleep. 'Cya later. LOL.

Smoke a bowl for me. Rest well.

 

[Vern]

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. I will assume your numbers are correct, they look about right.

I brought that into the discussion trying to clarify the angles argued. These cars aren't really greener when you consider the losses of power from source fuel to rubber on the road. .

actually Lord, unless you can somehow prove that electric companies are selling electricity below cost I pretty sure I’ve just proven that the lower cost means its greener even with all those “losses and stuff”. Just so you know, when someone wants to “clarify any angles” they tend to be specific. Posting vague recollections about battery life or electrical losses not being part of the cost of electricity doesn’t really ‘clarify’ anything to me.

And “greener” also includes “pollution and stuff” (dare I mention carbon footprint?). Even pretending all electricity is generated by oil and coal (wait, you already are pretending that), its less pollution because of control measures at the power plants. Luckily all electricity isn’t generated by oil and coal. And as more electricity is generated by renewable resources and natural gas the electric car just gets greener and greener. (and charging at night makes power plants more efficient). Here’s a nice article that might “clarify some angles” concerning costs and footprints.


Are Chevy Volts Really Cheaper and Cleaner? A Case Study | Observations, Scientific American Blog Network


And then there’s the patriotic aspect electric cars. They don’t help Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuala. Could you imagine if President Obama advocated a plan that Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuala approved of. Oh the bumper sticker slogans the cons would post over and over. Geez, you guys raked President Obama over the coals because Haliburton didn’t approve of his Libyan policy. My goodness, how do cons explain complaining about something that’s greener, cheaper and patriotic. I can only guess Haliburton doesn’t approve. This article will help "clarify the patriotic angles".

“This relentless partisan campaign against American products and American jobs has been so successful that GM CEO Dan Akerson suggested it contributed to lower than expected demand, “We did not design the Volt to become a political punching bag and that’s what it’s become.”
Yesterday, in an astonishing burst of candor, Fox & Friends has set the record straight with its story, “Can the Chevy Volt help win the War on Terror?”

Fox News Debunks Right-Wing Lies About Chevy Volt: It's 'An Anti-Terrorist Weapon' And 'The Safest Car On The Road' | ThinkProgress

 

[Lord of Planar]

actually Lord, unless you can somehow prove that electric companies are selling electricity below cost I pretty sure I’ve just proven that the lower cost means its greener even with all those “losses and stuff”.

I'm not convinced they are greener, and if so, only marginally. That part I don't know with certainty, but fuel in modern engies does burn cleaner than coal. Once the car is made, it is greener in the aspect it doesn't use as much energy. If I mislead, I was pointing out that it is not as green as people think it is. In post 31, I responded to "More inefficient than ICEs?" with "I would say it's hard to say." I didn't say one way or another.

Just so you know, when someone wants to “clarify any angles” they tend to be specific.

Are you suggesting bringing the topic up doesn't steer the conversation to such a direction? I may get more specific. It depends on the time i wish to devote to this topic as I don't have the numbers at my fingertips.

Posting vague recollections about battery life or electrical losses not being part of the cost of electricity doesn’t really ‘clarify’ anything to me.

We all know battery technology technology isn't where we need it at yet for EV's. Vague or not, there is no define batter life I've seen, and it is not a point that should be ignored. To date, I don't think we know the real costs of the battery per miles driven.

And “greener” also includes “pollution and stuff” (dare I mention carbon footprint?). Even pretending all electricity is generated by oil and coal (wait, you already are pretending that), its less pollution because of control measures at the power plants. Luckily all electricity isn’t generated by oil and coal. And as more electricity is generated by renewable resources and natural gas the electric car just gets greener and greener. (and charging at night makes power plants more efficient).

Pretending? It is rare that our power generation isn't already using all the renewable energy. Can you show me that any additional demands are by other renewable sources? If I'm wrong, I would love to see that. As it sits, I firmly believe that the extra energy needed is by those sources that can be throttled as needed, like coal, oil, and natural gas.

Here’s a nice article that might “clarify some angles” concerning costs and footprints.


Are Chevy Volts Really Cheaper and Cleaner? A Case Study | Observations, Scientific American Blog Network

Do their numbers really represent reality to you? I used to love Scientific American, but they are no longer very accurate in most things reported. I can no longer trust them.

I pay over $0.10 for electricity for additional electricity over a specific KWH level and it has gone up very little, if any since 2011. Where are they getting theirs? Only $0.0885 per kwh... I live in Oregon where most of our power is hydroelectric and cheap compared to most the nation. I think my cost is $0.075/kwh, but by the time distribution charges and other fees they tack on per kwh, it's over $0.10/kwh.

Note that they do a few things to make the numbers better. They include the fuel the car came with for gas costs vs. the actual fuel used. They don't say how much the tax payers subsidized them for the 240V charging station, or the cost of rewiring the home for it.

Now with some of these numbers looking fishy to me, am I to trust the usage stated as well? Does 0.265 kwh per mile really seem accurate to you? It might be, but what if it is a doctored number, like the others appear to be?

If I drove my Trans Am that 10,102 miles, at my gas and electrical costs (I figure $3.90/gal $0.10851/kwh), that I would save $1829 in fuel. That's nothing to sneeze at, but I'm only figuring 18 MPG. If I wanted fuel efficiency, and picked up something with 30 MPG, it would be a savings of $953. Just how far must you drive this vehicle to pay for the savings? If we claim a ballpark savings of $1,000 per 10,000 miles, it takes a pretty long distance to save that money, especially if there were no subsidies on any of these costs.

Now can you imagine how much more power we need to generate if people actually drove 30,000,000 EV's as their primary transportation? Now I'm OK with that, but just where is that power going to come from?

And then there’s the patriotic aspect electric cars. They don’t help Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuala.

I'm OK with that. What I am not OK with is the huge subsidies involved to bring something to market before its time. Our national spending is already too damn high.

Could you imagine if President Obama advocated a plan that Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuala approved of. Oh the bumper sticker slogans the cons would post over and over. Geez, you guys raked President Obama over the coals because Haliburton didn’t approve of his Libyan policy. My goodness, how do cons explain complaining about something that’s greener, cheaper and patriotic. I can only guess Haliburton doesn’t approve. This article will help "clarify the patriotic angles".

Aren't we getting a bit silly here?

“This relentless partisan campaign against American products and American jobs has been so successful that GM CEO Dan Akerson suggested it contributed to lower than expected demand, “We did not design the Volt to become a political punching bag and that’s what it’s become.”

You mean like the Pinto scare? The NHTSA didn't consider it excessive for a recall, until, political force by public pressure. people die in accidents anyway, and to separate the difference with the fuel tank, when other cars can catch fire as well. Just at a less frequent rate...

Yesterday, in an astonishing burst of candor, Fox & Friends has set the record straight with its story, “Can the Chevy Volt help win the War on Terror?”

Fox News Debunks Right-Wing Lies About Chevy Volt: It's 'An Anti-Terrorist Weapon' And 'The Safest Car On The Road' | ThinkProgress

Sure, it has a very safe rating. So did the Pinto, but it had that "exploding tank" problem. In the end of that, with 3,173,491 cars sold, only 27 deaths can be attributed to that if I am to believe wiki, even though more were claimed. Now comparing that with the battery fires we have seen for so few Volts made, what is the reality? The volt doesn't even need to be in an accident.


OK...

Long reply. Hope I didn't miss something critical proofreading.

 

[Vern]

I'm not convinced they are greener, and if so, only marginally. That part I don't know with certainty, but fuel in modern engies does burn cleaner than coal. Once the car is made, it is greener in the aspect it doesn't use as much energy. If I mislead, I was pointing out that it is not as green as people think it is. In post 31, I responded to "More inefficient than ICEs?" with "I would say it's hard to say." I didn't say one way or another..

Mmmmm, how do I put this delicately. This isn’t a “post your opinion based on nothing” forum. It’s a debate forum. I really don’t care about your opinion. And not so strangely your opinion seems to consistently point to “not greener”. You back nothing up. You just create new narratives when a light is shined on your ‘opinions’. Get this, I’ve done a losses study for a utility. Would you believe on a percentage basis, its single digits? Probably not and nor should you so let me back up my point

Electric power transmission and distribution losses (% of output) | Data | Table

see how I did that. I made a statement and I backed it up. I didn’t expect you to believe my opinion. I didn’t ‘recollect’ some vague opinion, I didn’t ask a question. I backed up my point. Lets face it, thats easy to do when your opinion is based on facts. Mmm, and what about your linkless and convenient opinion about modern engines are cleaner than coal. First silly, we’re not comparing modern engines to burning coal. We’re comparing whats greener, electric or IC engines. But I think you knew that. And even if the electricity comes from coal, its still cheaper and cleaner ( and again, that includes "all them losses and such")

“Electric vehicles in the United States save money on fuel and are less polluting than most gasoline-powered vehicles, even in places where electricity is made by burning coal, the Union of Concerned Scientists said in a report released on Monday. “
Electric cars cheaper to run, less polluting: report | Reuters

(cue the “I don’t believer the UGS” post)

Modern engines are close to 25%.

Mmmm, on the highway for a small percentage of cars. The average is 20to 26%. In the city its 14-16%. Odd that you somehow managed to ‘recollect’ the high end of one aspect of an ICE that supports your position.

Fuel Economy: Where the Energy Goes

there is a great deal of loss. loss in transformers and transmission lines. each stage has a loss.

I’ve already dealt with this convenient ‘recollection’

I believe the current batteries in use only maintain about 60% of their charge capacity after about 5 years of use. how much to replace your batteries?

Mmmmm, another strangely convenient opinion (and of course linkless) that supports your “supposin” , “recollectin” and “postulatin”. The volt batteries are warranted for 100k or 8 years. (I don’t need to post a link to an easily googled fact). And actual data from Prius owners doesn’t support your “supposin” , “recollectin” and “postulatin” either.

Are you suggesting bringing the topic up doesn't steer the conversation to such a direction?

That’s good. Cons routinely have to ‘misparaphrase’ what I said. I clearly stated you clarified nothing with your questions and “recollectin”. You ever so subtly redefined it as “steering the conversation”. I like it when a con puts effort into their posts but sadly you clarified nothing with your ‘steering’.

Do their numbers really represent reality to you? I used to love Scientific American, but they are no longer very accurate in most things reported. I can no longer trust them.

Ah, another con classic but excellent use of the "folksy" " I used to love SA". It really adds the perception of credibility. The problem lord is you cant post one factual article that disputes the numbers in the link I posted. You can “recollect” that you don’t believe SA but you cant post anything that disputes it.

Sure, it has a very safe rating

Er uh lord, lets have more ‘clarifying’ and less ‘steering’. We’re talking about “greener” not safety. But I must congratulate your use of the “battery fire” phrase. It must be a “librul media conspiracy” to not be reading about the daily fires in the volt.

then you must remember that on demand energies are generally oil or coal fueled, and then have those long distance transmission and power transfer inefficiencies..

Mmm , this is just a tired retread of your previous “losses and stuff” posts but it adds the twist of “demand energies”. Most plug ins are charged at night, ie after peak demand. Night time electrical loads make generators more efficient.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Mmmmm, how do I put this delicately. This isn’t a “post your opinion based on nothing” forum. It’s a debate forum. I really don’t care about your opinion. And not so strangely your opinion seems to consistently point to “not greener”. You back nothing up.

If that's your opinion, why bother replying to me? Is your opinion of how debate works on the internet, a googling contest?

If you don't understand the points I make, what good is counter-material going to make to you?

 

[American]

Once in the batteries, EVs offer efficiencies at 80%+, IIRC. ICEs at about 15%.

Everything else is more about centralized generation and sloppy distribution.

One of my favorite aspects of an all electric fleet is grid storage. Load levelling and all that.

Google is working on it.

Further, EVs don't care where the electricity comes from, so advances in energy production wouldn't require replacing the fleet. Just different "plugs".

Personally, series hybrids (like the Volt, and diesel locomotives) offer the best of both worlds.

An ICE functions at peak efficiency at a single RPM. Set one to provide a percentage over cruising energy requirements and the batteries provide the extra energy for acceleration and hill climbing. Much smaller battery banks are required as well.

Still not as profitable as gas cars, and not the best thing for petroleum profits. Hence the resistance.

GM doesn't give a damn what you burn, as long as you buy a car from them. Have you consider battery life, and that added cost to car ownership? The cars are expensive to begin with, then they tax you for them, then you buy new batteries after so many miles. Your savings are evaporating, and we haven't mention the hazardous waste issue.

 

[American]

Mmmmm, how do I put this delicately. This isn’t a “post your opinion based on nothing” forum. It’s a debate forum. I really don’t care about your opinion. And not so strangely your opinion seems to consistently point to “not greener”. You back nothing up. You just create new narratives when a light is shined on your ‘opinions’. Get this, I’ve done a losses study for a utility. Would you believe on a percentage basis, its single digits? Probably not and nor should you so let me back up my point

Electric power transmission and distribution losses (% of output) | Data | Table

see how I did that. I made a statement and I backed it up. I didn’t expect you to believe my opinion. I didn’t ‘recollect’ some vague opinion, I didn’t ask a question. I backed up my point. Lets face it, thats easy to do when your opinion is based on facts. Mmm, and what about your linkless and convenient opinion about modern engines are cleaner than coal. First silly, we’re not comparing modern engines to burning coal. We’re comparing whats greener, electric or IC engines. But I think you knew that. And even if the electricity comes from coal, its still cheaper and cleaner ( and again, that includes "all them losses and such")

“Electric vehicles in the United States save money on fuel and are less polluting than most gasoline-powered vehicles, even in places where electricity is made by burning coal, the Union of Concerned Scientists said in a report released on Monday. “
Electric cars cheaper to run, less polluting: report | Reuters

(cue the “I don’t believer the UGS” post)


Mmmm, on the highway for a small percentage of cars. The average is 20to 26%. In the city its 14-16%. Odd that you somehow managed to ‘recollect’ the high end of one aspect of an ICE that supports your position.

Fuel Economy: Where the Energy Goes



I’ve already dealt with this convenient ‘recollection’



Mmmmm, another strangely convenient opinion (and of course linkless) that supports your “supposin” , “recollectin” and “postulatin”. The volt batteries are warranted for 100k or 8 years. (I don’t need to post a link to an easily googled fact). And actual data from Prius owners doesn’t support your “supposin” , “recollectin” and “postulatin” either.


That’s good. Cons routinely have to ‘misparaphrase’ what I said. I clearly stated you clarified nothing with your questions and “recollectin”. You ever so subtly redefined it as “steering the conversation”. I like it when a con puts effort into their posts but sadly you clarified nothing with your ‘steering’.



Ah, another con classic but excellent use of the "folksy" " I used to love SA". It really adds the perception of credibility. The problem lord is you cant post one factual article that disputes the numbers in the link I posted. You can “recollect” that you don’t believe SA but you cant post anything that disputes it.



Er uh lord, lets have more ‘clarifying’ and less ‘steering’. We’re talking about “greener” not safety. But I must congratulate your use of the “battery fire” phrase. It must be a “librul media conspiracy” to not be reading about the daily fires in the volt.


Mmm , this is just a tired retread of your previous “losses and stuff” posts but it adds the twist of “demand energies”. Most plug ins are charged at night, ie after peak demand. Night time electrical loads make generators more efficient.

Not surprising that the chairman of the board of the org that put out the report referenced by Reuters was the co-chair of the IPCC.

 

[Dooble]

So wee little electric cars are bad for the environment and should be taken off the market in favor of gas guzzling SUV's--humanity demands this.

I know I do.

 

[Lord of Planar]

So wee little electric cars are bad for the environment and should be taken off the market in favor of gas guzzling SUV's--humanity demands this.

No, they have every right to be in the market. Just don't subsidize their costs. If people want to buy them, then let them.

 

[Vern]

Not surprising that the chairman of the board of the org that put out the report referenced by Reuters was the co-chair of the IPCC.

er uh American, the IPCC isn't some conservative think tank that puts out lying editorials. If somebody is a co chair of the IPCC its not because he spewed right wing ideology at a cocktail party the Koch bros were at. Not that I don't like the fact that you posted the "I don't believe the AGU" nonsense just I said would happen, I was just looking for more of an intelligent attempt at it. sorry.

No, they have every right to be in the market. Just don't subsidize their costs. If people want to buy them, then let them.

mmmm, so the new narrative is "don't subsidize their costs". should I assume we wont be hearing about your vague and linkless 'recollections' that the volt is not greener, cheaper and more patriotic than an ICE? before you cut and run completely from the topic and for the cons that have zero knowledge, Bush created the volt subsidy. it was a classic conservative socialist handout to a corporation.

 

[Lord of Planar]

mmmm, so the new narrative is "don't subsidize their costs". should I assume we wont be hearing about your vague and linkless 'recollections' that the volt is not greener, cheaper and more patriotic than an ICE? before you cut and run completely from the topic and for the cons that have zero knowledge, Bush created the volt subsidy. it was a classic conservative socialist handout to a corporation.

I don't like it when people assume my position. That's also one reason that will cause you to lose with people in a debate. Assuming their reasons...

I don't care less who signed the bill allowing subsidies. Bush made a bad move. I do not support that position, nor have I ever blamed Obomba over this one.

Is the volt cheaper when the subsidies are removed?

 

[What if...?]

GM doesn't give a damn what you burn, as long as you buy a car from them. Have you consider battery life, and that added cost to car ownership? The cars are expensive to begin with, then they tax you for them, then you buy new batteries after so many miles. Your savings are evaporating, and we haven't mention the hazardous waste issue.

Growing pains.

 

[What if...?]

I'm not convinced they are greener, and if so, only marginally. That part I don't know with certainty, but fuel in modern engies does burn cleaner than coal. Once the car is made, it is greener in the aspect it doesn't use as much energy. If I mislead, I was pointing out that it is not as green as people think it is. In post 31, I responded to "More inefficient than ICEs?" with "I would say it's hard to say." I didn't say one way or another.



Are you suggesting bringing the topic up doesn't steer the conversation to such a direction? I may get more specific. It depends on the time i wish to devote to this topic as I don't have the numbers at my fingertips.



We all know battery technology technology isn't where we need it at yet for EV's. Vague or not, there is no define batter life I've seen, and it is not a point that should be ignored. To date, I don't think we know the real costs of the battery per miles driven.



Pretending? It is rare that our power generation isn't already using all the renewable energy. Can you show me that any additional demands are by other renewable sources? If I'm wrong, I would love to see that. As it sits, I firmly believe that the extra energy needed is by those sources that can be throttled as needed, like coal, oil, and natural gas.



Do their numbers really represent reality to you? I used to love Scientific American, but they are no longer very accurate in most things reported. I can no longer trust them.

I pay over $0.10 for electricity for additional electricity over a specific KWH level and it has gone up very little, if any since 2011. Where are they getting theirs? Only $0.0885 per kwh... I live in Oregon where most of our power is hydroelectric and cheap compared to most the nation. I think my cost is $0.075/kwh, but by the time distribution charges and other fees they tack on per kwh, it's over $0.10/kwh.

Note that they do a few things to make the numbers better. They include the fuel the car came with for gas costs vs. the actual fuel used. They don't say how much the tax payers subsidized them for the 240V charging station, or the cost of rewiring the home for it.

Now with some of these numbers looking fishy to me, am I to trust the usage stated as well? Does 0.265 kwh per mile really seem accurate to you? It might be, but what if it is a doctored number, like the others appear to be?

If I drove my Trans Am that 10,102 miles, at my gas and electrical costs (I figure $3.90/gal $0.10851/kwh), that I would save $1829 in fuel. That's nothing to sneeze at, but I'm only figuring 18 MPG. If I wanted fuel efficiency, and picked up something with 30 MPG, it would be a savings of $953. Just how far must you drive this vehicle to pay for the savings? If we claim a ballpark savings of $1,000 per 10,000 miles, it takes a pretty long distance to save that money, especially if there were no subsidies on any of these costs.

Now can you imagine how much more power we need to generate if people actually drove 30,000,000 EV's as their primary transportation? Now I'm OK with that, but just where is that power going to come from?

I'm OK with that. What I am not OK with is the huge subsidies involved to bring something to market before its time. Our national spending is already too damn high.



Aren't we getting a bit silly here?



You mean like the Pinto scare? The NHTSA didn't consider it excessive for a recall, until, political force by public pressure. people die in accidents anyway, and to separate the difference with the fuel tank, when other cars can catch fire as well. Just at a less frequent rate...



Sure, it has a very safe rating. So did the Pinto, but it had that "exploding tank" problem. In the end of that, with 3,173,491 cars sold, only 27 deaths can be attributed to that if I am to believe wiki, even though more were claimed. Now comparing that with the battery fires we have seen for so few Volts made, what is the reality? The volt doesn't even need to be in an accident.


OK...

Long reply. Hope I didn't miss something critical proofreading.

30 million car battery banks represents real grid storage.

Offering a net energy savings, load levelling, etc.

 

[Vern]

If that's your opinion, why bother replying to me? Is your opinion of how debate works on the internet, a googling contest?

I reply to you because I believe you are purposely posting false narratives. Literally every thing you posted was wrong. And to call me posting actual facts a "googling contest" pretty much confirms my opinion because you're just trying to deflect from posting nothing to back up your false points.

If you don't understand the points I make, what good is counter-material going to make to you?

more deflection. I understand your false right wing talking points perfectly. You should be able to tell as I responded directly to them. But I would love to see your attempts at "counter-material" as you've posted nothing to back up your points. I pretty much shredded your "supposing" and "recollectin". And the SA article really drives home the point about costs and pollution/carbon footprint. You had no "counter-material" , its why you used the "attack credibility" routine. (again I really liked your folksy "I used to love SA"). I don't even think Townhall or Newsmax can help you with "counter-material "

Hey, I saw an email once that said it costs 18 dollars a day to charge the volt. maybe you could post that.

so lets sum up. the chevy volt, greener, cheaper and more patriotic.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I reply to you because I believe you are purposely posting false narratives. Literally every thing you posted was wrong...

Well, I make mistakes like the power grid losses, but you are wrong in what you say about me.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Not to change the subject, however, if the earth is cooling the temperatures in winter will logically become cooler and the need for heating homes will become greater. Based upon the actions that President Obama has taken fuel to heat homes has risen drastically. That's a fact. Throughout the Northern sections of America heating the home in the time of low to below freezing temperatures becomes a necessity. Why would President Obama and his Progressive cohorts want to raise the cost of fuel so high that it would affect the health of those people, by claiming the earth is heating up?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Not to change the subject, however, if the earth is cooling the temperatures in winter will logically become cooler and the need for heating homes will become greater. Based upon the actions that President Obama has taken fuel to heat homes has risen drastically. That's a fact. Throughout the Northern sections of America heating the home in the time of low to below freezing temperatures becomes a necessity. Why would President Obama and his Progressive cohorts want to raise the cost of fuel so high that it would affect the health of those people, by claiming the earth is heating up?

My thought is they want even more people to rely on government handout to elect more demonrats into office.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

30 million car battery banks represents real grid storage.

Offering a net energy savings, load levelling, etc.

Thirty million environmental hazardous battery banks. Batteries have a bad habit of exploding and spreading the sulfuric acid when recharged or recharged improperly. They also have a bad way of leaking lead into aquifers contaminating them.

See:
Lead-acid battery safety - Environment, Health & Safety ...

www.uwsa.edu/oslp/ehs/occupational-safety/misc-safety/battery-safety
Lead-acid batteries are physically large batteries that contain lead plates in a solution of acid to ... of sulfuric acid ... lead acid battery vent ...

Then there's disposal of the batteries as types. Lead/Acid, NiCads, Mercury Batteries, Lithium, and Alkaline etc.,

EPA regulations require different methods of disposal for each of the batteries listed, Above all batteries may not be discarded in landfills or incinerators.

Batteries, Universal Wastes | Wastes | US EPA

www.epa.gov › … › Hazardous Waste › Waste Types › Universal Wastes

Discusses batteries that are listed as hazardous waste including information on how to recycle and treat them.

Then there are individual state and federal laws governing the transportation of exhausted batteries.

Shall I continue to disclose the dangers of battery disposal? Perhaps a safer more effective method of storing electricity should be found?

 

[What if...?]

Thirty million environmental hazardous battery banks. Batteries have a bad habit of exploding and spreading the sulfuric acid when recharged or recharged improperly. They also have a bad way of leaking lead into aquifers contaminating them.

See:
Lead-acid battery safety - Environment, Health & Safety ...

www.uwsa.edu/oslp/ehs/occupational-safety/misc-safety/battery-safety
Lead-acid batteries are physically large batteries that contain lead plates in a solution of acid to ... of sulfuric acid ... lead acid battery vent ...

Then there's disposal of the batteries as types. Lead/Acid, NiCads, Mercury Batteries, Lithium, and Alkaline etc.,

EPA regulations require different methods of disposal for each of the batteries listed, Above all batteries may not be discarded in landfills or incinerators.

Batteries, Universal Wastes | Wastes | US EPA

www.epa.gov › … › Hazardous Waste › Waste Types › Universal Wastes

Discusses batteries that are listed as hazardous waste including information on how to recycle and treat them.

Then there are individual state and federal laws governing the transportation of exhausted batteries.

Shall I continue to disclose the dangers of battery disposal? Perhaps a safer more effective method of storing electricity should be found?

No commercial EVs use lead acid batteries. They are not suited for that use. Home builders do, but many of their batteries are rebuildable and lead acid batteries are one of the most recycled items.

Actual types used have environmental issues, but these are being addressed. They certainly don't end up in the landfill.

Can you pour gas on the ground legally? No you can't.

You're not very good at this.

 

[What if...?]

I reply to you because I believe you are purposely posting false narratives. Literally every thing you posted was wrong. And to call me posting actual facts a "googling contest" pretty much confirms my opinion because you're just trying to deflect from posting nothing to back up your false points.



more deflection. I understand your false right wing talking points perfectly. You should be able to tell as I responded directly to them. But I would love to see your attempts at "counter-material" as you've posted nothing to back up your points. I pretty much shredded your "supposing" and "recollectin". And the SA article really drives home the point about costs and pollution/carbon footprint. You had no "counter-material" , its why you used the "attack credibility" routine. (again I really liked your folksy "I used to love SA"). I don't even think Townhall or Newsmax can help you with "counter-material "

Hey, I saw an email once that said it costs 18 dollars a day to charge the volt. maybe you could post that.

so lets sum up. the chevy volt, greener, cheaper and more patriotic.

AND the first production series hybrid, which IMO was what they should have done in the first place.