[continued from previous message]
> a PC that's got a 500x higher clock is considered to be "slow".
>
>> ...so people don't die from the change in
>> direction creating more problems than it solves.
>
> You're whining about an ounce of prevention while ignoring the fact that
without
> it, you're going to be paying a pound of flesh for the cure.
>
You say you have the cure, I say you have the "Wuhan virus vaccine II"
it doesn't work. Your cure is FAKE SCIENCE and the real pound of flesh
will be paid by anyone who buys into the cure.
Changing from combustion engine Fossil powered cars, to electric cars
that get electric from fossil power, isn't going to fix the FAKE GLOBAL
WARMING if it's caused by Fossil being burned as energy, be it used
directly as gasoline/diesel or converting that fossil to electric
energy.
>> You see this is who Democrats are, they want radical change now, like a
>> spoiled child wants their toy now or they want candy now, and it can't
>> take time or work or patience to get it.
>
> Incorrect: these changes have been known and being worked for 40+ years
> just from a US public policy standpoint. Just because you've been ignorant
> of them doesn't mean they didn't exist and hasn't been happening.
And yet to be proven by science...
>
>> And the Government has failed to squelch the Democrats radical
>> tendencies with the political process as it was designed to do.
>
> Wrong, by literal definition of what a democratic republic is.
>
The Senate was designed to work slower to make sure things had time to
be proven... the courts also slow down that Legislative process.
Marxist Mao killed 40 million with his knee jerk ideas on farming during
the *GREAT LEAP FORWARD* because his word was law (research THE GREAT
LEAP FORWARD but don't just click on WIKIPEDIA look deeper)... and there
was no process to slow him down for the people to evaluate the plans.
Mao enacted his plan and 40 million people dies because his plan was
just plain stupid, Mao had no experience in FARMING. The people who were
experienced in the basics of producing food were considered a problem
NOT a solution.
>> SO people will die here and over seas from starvation and the stupidity of
>> Democrats.
>
> Which will be the 75% of the 21.5M population of Florida as it goes
underwater
> from choosing to not take any preventive measures, as per those
opposed...right?
>
Dunno, it seems like Florida was under water at some point in the
past... but Democrats predicted some 21ft of ocean rise by 2020 didn't
they? I guess Florida just barely escaped that 21ft flood... but the
next 21ft of ocean rise will probably be the one that gets them...
>>>> Which is why I pointed out
>>>> that Solar/Wind requires that you use fossil fuel to make them and to
>>>> install them and keep them running, ...
>>>
>>> No, that's merely recognizing that most of today's power mix is from
>>> those sources, and that today's grid relies on those as their waveform
anchor.
>>> It doesn't *have* to be that way -
Why has the GRID NOT been replaced... you can't run ELECTRIC cars on
good intentions, it takes a GRID or 100 million solar panel charging
systems in their homes... or a mixture of that.
>>> - it just is, and largely because of the way
>>> that the economic accounting is done, its cheaper because of the
externality
>>> costs that aren't being included.
>>
>> Then you need to build a parallel grid ...
>
> No, the current grid has been proven to be perfectly fine to upgrade (and
cheaper too),
> notwithstanding those which were grossly mismanaged (side eye at Texas & CA).
Mismanaged by the people adding in Solar and Wind? They both have large
investments in solar/wind generation and GRIDS.
>
>>>> ... it isn't efficient use of energy.
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter because the ultimate arbiter of market selection isn't any
technology's
>>> efficiency, but its cost.
>>>
>> Cost creates efficiency, take a course in economics and read about
>> elasticity...
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticity_(economics)
>
> Sorry, but that isn't quite correct either for this application: while
increases in efficiency
> is the conventional paradigm for reducing costs in a consumptive energy
system, when
> the prime power isn't consumptive, other factors come into play for cost
optimization.
>
> Case in point, what's been found is that at current technology levels, the
strategy for
> least cost actually calls for overbuilding of the renewable, because this
then
> minimizes the costs in power banking by reducing its magnitude. Read more
here:
>
Over building the SOLAR/WIND capacity to compensate for the fact it's
NOT as efficient as the claims and that the GRID can't run on FAKE NEWS
STORIES.... The fact it's NOT as efficient as they said means the cost
of the initial installation was wrong due to lies being told to
producers and consumers. Lies and corruption aren't beneficial but are
currently expanding in the Democrat organized crime political system...
and I point to Solyndra and the many fossil fuel pipeline and drilling
cancellations by Democrats executive orders. The corruption has
increased the cost to consumers by way of cap and trade taxes and
subsidies and graft and all that skews the supply/demand structure.
>
>
>>> Case in point, Solar/Wind had already dropped to half as much as coal back
in 2019:
>>>
>>
>> NO... Solar/Wind was subsidized, and coal and other fossils were being
>> attacked and taxed and undermined...
>
> The decades of subsidies for oil, gas & coal utterly dwarf the renewable
subsidies
> that you're trying to complain about. Case in point:
>
> "Fossil Fuels Received $5.9 Trillion In Subsidies in 2020"
>
>
All subsidies and graft and corruption is bad supply/demand setting the
price.
>>> Having a 50% cost reduction buys you a lot of resources to build power
banking
>>> systems to make those varying renewable sources have a flat 24/7 response.
>>>
>> It was a 50% tax adjustment and they gave tax credits to buy the EV's
>
> Nope, the costs that Noah was citing are for corporate UTILITY GRID
infrastructure.
> There aren't the tax credits for EV automobiles here.
>
>> Cap-and-trade (WAGE AND PRICE) markets use the power of
>> [COMMUNISM/Socialism] to cut *YOUR* emissions but NOT the elites
>> emissions. Apparently they use the power of [CENSORSHIP] to do this as well.
>
> Nope. The purpose of cap & trade was to identify an economic lever to
basically
> have those industries primarily responsible for increased CO2 emissions to
pay
> for what they're polluting out into the world, because the current market
does not
> impose a tax on that externality cost being imposed on others.
>
What pollution... CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere... so it's a FAKE
TAX ON ONE GROUP that transfers subsidies to another group. It's cap
and trade Socialism that disrupts supply/demand. Basically it's
Communism coming in the back door.
>> Cap and trade will mean those costs will be passed on to the consumers ...
>
> Hello ... the costs are *already* being passed on to the public.
CO2 isn't a cost... carbon is the stuff of life, without it we die. It's
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
