XPost: alt.politics.congress, alt.politics.corruption, alt.politics.economics
XPost: alt.politics.election, alt.politics.misc, alt.politics.obama
XPost: alt.politics.scorched-earth, alt.politics.socialism.mao,
lt.politics.trump
XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.conspiracy, alt.apocolypse
XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.infowars
XPost: alt.beam-me-up.scotty.there-is-no.intelligent-life.down-here,
alt.politics.guns
From: NOT-SURE@idiocracy.gov
On 7/17/22 12:38 PM, -hh wrote:
> On Sunday, July 17, 2022 at 10:11:03 AM UTC-4, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 7/16/22 7:53 PM, -hh wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 3:12:13 PM UTC-4, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 7/16/22 2:23 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> On 7/15/2022 4:05 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 09:44:51 -0500, "Lee" wrote:
>>>>>>> Electric vehicles flying off
>>>>>>> dealership lots amid high gas prices
>>>>>>> July 12
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where is the electricity coming from to power these, Lying Lee?
>>>>>
>>>>> From the grid and from home solar panels, you stupid cocksucker.
>>>>
>>>> The real cost isn't the AVERAGE $41,000.00 cost of a new car/EV but also
>>>> includes the solar panels and charging system and/or the cost of the
>>>> GRID being upgraded to handle more electricity demand and black out
>>>> protection so the relays on the GRID don't start tripping and create a
>>>> blackout that puts an entire region into a black-out?
>>>
>>> Average ICE new car today is more than $47K, so there’s already $6K/unit
>>> on hand to budget for infrastructure (or for buyers to take as a cost
savings).
>>
>> Given the rapid inflation the costs are climbing by $4K to $5K a year at
>> 10% inflation so we could, be using different years numbers and be off
>> by $10,000 simply by older data.
>
> If you had done any fact-checking, you would have known that your “what
if” is untrue.
>
>>>> And of course if 5% of the GRID ELECTRICITY use is the EV's charging,
>>>> then 5% of the GRID must be powered by SOLAR *and/or* WIND so that the
>>>> cars can be considered "sustainable" energy users and then after you
>>>> have built in 5% solar/wind on the grid the problem is all the Fossil
>>>> Fuel used to build those sustainable grid systems and the EV's
>>>> themselves and home SOLAR power systems that used fossil fuel to build
them.
>>>> It may take a while for the EV cars and the grid to reach a zero Carbon
>>>> point of return on the sustainable energy use so they are no longer
>>>> Carbon negative as they are when they come off the assembly lines.
>>>
>>> Good thing then that renewables on the US electric grid is already at 20%.
>>> Your ‘concern’ was already obsolete back in 2010 (when it was at 10%).
>>
>> You neglect the fact that it's years before that 20% of the grid
>> reaches ZERO CARBON in it's life span.
>
> So? If’s already paying off in lower carbon emissions, so even if it
hasn’t
> yet literally been reversed, the rate of change is still slowing, reducing
the
> magnitude of what remains to be done.
>
Paying off in a very costly way and requiring huge costs of people NOT
being able to buy food or get services or travel... and the real story
is that the GLOBAL WARMING cult is willing to kill people to achieve
their goals for their mythical CO2 solution or more accurately to reach
their NEW WORLD ORDER goals of a lower population which has been a
eugenics goal of the people who CREATED the GLOBAL WARMING MYTH. Those
eugenicist cultists goals are targeted at killing the persons least able
to protect themselves.
But as we've seen with abortion, it's the same people, willing to kill
for the CO2 myth as do for the RIGHT to kill human life in a uterus
which is also a myth... because there is no RIGHT to kill another human
life... you have a RIGHT life and Liberty, NOT to kill. The Rittenhouse
TRIAL by the Democrats was clear proof of that when Democrats put
Rittenhouse on trial for "self defense". Democrats shot themselves in
the foot with that screw up, because it was an example of the fact that
you have a RIGHT to life but not a RIGHT to kill. A big screw-up when
the same people are contradicting their own actions and trying to tell
us that killing a human life is OK if you're a Democrat Doctor with
scalpel. The contradiction was too obvious.
*Democrat Policy is unsustainable, self destructive and contradicting*
Follow the logic. It leads to the fact that the GLOBAL WARMING cult is
fighting a CO2 monster under the bed that doesn't exist... And the
reason for it is duplicitous. It's about political power.
>> All the GRID upgrades for that 20% also has to reach carbon neutral
>> before you can gleefully celebrate that the grid is 20% renewable energy.
>
> No, we can celebrate today that we are successfully slowing the rate.
At what cost? Some adventures are one way trips... What will the death
count be? You get excited about gun deaths but then don't care about
economic caused death from the man made energy shortages that will kill
people from cold and hunger and medical service disruption.
For some reason you can ignore the death caused by your "goals of an
energy locked-down nation" but when it comes to freedoms you can't
accept any deaths by guns or CO2 to have freedom. Your cult seems to be
all about the control of others and who or why their lives are taken
rather than allowing them the RIGHT to decide their own risk/reward ratio.
>> And then there's the problem that the last things I read suggest the
>> U.S. Grid has about 5% solar and wind... but I'm thinking HYDRO has
>> been our long term renewable that can get you to maybe 10% as I remember
>> seeing the charts where hydro was only 5%. Which means…
>
> What you were reading is ~7 years out of date. Current renewables is
> a shade over 20%, of which hydro is less than 10%.
Which means I was correct current is Hydro is about 5%-10% none of that
was meant to be absolute which is why I used ranges and round numbers
rather than decimal points... which means that the current claim is
still where I said and your calling me wrong when I wasn't. Because the
number for the Solar/Wind is still around 5%-10% as well, depending on
the people fudging the numbers.
And if you then apply the fact that much of that was installed in the
last 5 years but can't keep up with the GROWTH of the economy and need
for energy. While almost no new coal or fossil or nuclear energy is
being built. we are NOT able to meet the needs of replce the energy
that's retiring from service and build the NEW energy needed by using
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
