Global Warming - Right & Wrong

johnmitchell

These people that are sabotaging substations in various parts of the country, need to be publicly shamed and put in jail for a very long time… Shameful!!!

Gulfcoastguy

johnmitchell said:

These people that are sabotaging substations in various parts of the country, need to be publicly shamed and put in jail for a very long time… Shameful!!!

After having all of their worldly goods confiscated to pay for the repairs. 

Botch

fishlessman

Botch said:

I wonder

 How much is the coal generator to charge the car. There's already 2200 pounds ready to heat the house.....

Botch

I was wondering too, if he was being sarcastic, or biting, or just plain clueless.  No idea.  

HeavyG

Botch said:

I was wondering too, if he was being sarcastic, or biting, or just plain clueless.  No idea.  

I'm guessing he knows that Utah generates most of its electricity from coal fired plants so he just wants to make sure he can continue to "fill up his tank".

JohnInCarolina

HeavyG said:

Botch said:

I was wondering too, if he was being sarcastic, or biting, or just plain clueless.  No idea.  

I'm guessing he knows that Utah generates most of its electricity from coal fired plants so he just wants to make sure he can continue to "fill up his tank".

There was a study done years ago by a prof around here, might have been at UNC - looking at the environmental impact of EVs.  He considered everything from the battery production to the power supply.  In the end what it came down to was that they’re better for the environment (from a carbon perspective) in parts of the country where enough of the energy comes from renewables.  But where it’s coal… not so much.  There you’re mostly just trading your local CO2 source (from a gas powered car) for a remote one (with the EV and the coal plant).  So people who buy EVs to save the environment were telling themselves a bit of a lie, depending on where they lived.

That study was maybe 15 years ago.  It’s possible there’s something more recent.  But what I remember is that it was really thorough, and took into account the entire life cycle from production through ownership.

lousubcap

^^^ worth more than a quick pass.  

Gulfcoastguy

JohnInCarolina said:

HeavyG said:

Botch said:

I was wondering too, if he was being sarcastic, or biting, or just plain clueless.  No idea.  

I'm guessing he knows that Utah generates most of its electricity from coal fired plants so he just wants to make sure he can continue to "fill up his tank".

There was a study done years ago by a prof around here, might have been at UNC - looking at the environmental impact of EVs.  He considered everything from the battery production to the power supply.  In the end what it came down to was that they’re better for the environment (from a carbon perspective) in parts of the country where enough of the energy comes from renewables.  But where it’s coal… not so much.  There you’re mostly just trading your local CO2 source (from a gas powered car) for a remote one (with the EV and the coal plant).  So people who buy EVs to save the environment were telling themselves a bit of a lie, depending on where they lived.

That study was maybe 15 years ago.  It’s possible there’s something more recent.  But what I remember is that it was really thorough, and took into account the entire life cycle from production through ownership.

You are also trading local nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions for a distant point source, usually outside of cities. The coal plant also usually has emission controls. Add to that thermal efficiency and efficient electric motors and not many cars other than a Prius can match it. Then also we have to consider recent advances in battery recycling.

Ozzie_Isaac

Gulfcoastguy said:

JohnInCarolina said:

HeavyG said:

Botch said:

I was wondering too, if he was being sarcastic, or biting, or just plain clueless.  No idea.  

I'm guessing he knows that Utah generates most of its electricity from coal fired plants so he just wants to make sure he can continue to "fill up his tank".

There was a study done years ago by a prof around here, might have been at UNC - looking at the environmental impact of EVs.  He considered everything from the battery production to the power supply.  In the end what it came down to was that they’re better for the environment (from a carbon perspective) in parts of the country where enough of the energy comes from renewables.  But where it’s coal… not so much.  There you’re mostly just trading your local CO2 source (from a gas powered car) for a remote one (with the EV and the coal plant).  So people who buy EVs to save the environment were telling themselves a bit of a lie, depending on where they lived.

That study was maybe 15 years ago.  It’s possible there’s something more recent.  But what I remember is that it was really thorough, and took into account the entire life cycle from production through ownership.

You are also trading local nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions for a distant point source, usually outside of cities. The coal plant also usually has emission controls. Add to that thermal efficiency and efficient electric motors and not many cars other than a Prius can match it. Then also we have to consider recent advances in battery recycling.

Rich folks relocating their pollution to poor areas.  Pretty much stealing clean air.

dmchicago

Ozzie_Isaac said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

JohnInCarolina said:

HeavyG said:

Botch said:

I was wondering too, if he was being sarcastic, or biting, or just plain clueless.  No idea.  

I'm guessing he knows that Utah generates most of its electricity from coal fired plants so he just wants to make sure he can continue to "fill up his tank".

There was a study done years ago by a prof around here, might have been at UNC - looking at the environmental impact of EVs.  He considered everything from the battery production to the power supply.  In the end what it came down to was that they’re better for the environment (from a carbon perspective) in parts of the country where enough of the energy comes from renewables.  But where it’s coal… not so much.  There you’re mostly just trading your local CO2 source (from a gas powered car) for a remote one (with the EV and the coal plant).  So people who buy EVs to save the environment were telling themselves a bit of a lie, depending on where they lived.

That study was maybe 15 years ago.  It’s possible there’s something more recent.  But what I remember is that it was really thorough, and took into account the entire life cycle from production through ownership.

You are also trading local nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions for a distant point source, usually outside of cities. The coal plant also usually has emission controls. Add to that thermal efficiency and efficient electric motors and not many cars other than a Prius can match it. Then also we have to consider recent advances in battery recycling.

Rich folks relocating their pollution to poor areas.  Pretty much stealing clean air.

Herschel was right 

Gulfcoastguy

Ozzie_Isaac said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

JohnInCarolina said:

HeavyG said:

Botch said:

I was wondering too, if he was being sarcastic, or biting, or just plain clueless.  No idea.  

I'm guessing he knows that Utah generates most of its electricity from coal fired plants so he just wants to make sure he can continue to "fill up his tank".

There was a study done years ago by a prof around here, might have been at UNC - looking at the environmental impact of EVs.  He considered everything from the battery production to the power supply.  In the end what it came down to was that they’re better for the environment (from a carbon perspective) in parts of the country where enough of the energy comes from renewables.  But where it’s coal… not so much.  There you’re mostly just trading your local CO2 source (from a gas powered car) for a remote one (with the EV and the coal plant).  So people who buy EVs to save the environment were telling themselves a bit of a lie, depending on where they lived.

That study was maybe 15 years ago.  It’s possible there’s something more recent.  But what I remember is that it was really thorough, and took into account the entire life cycle from production through ownership.

You are also trading local nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions for a distant point source, usually outside of cities. The coal plant also usually has emission controls. Add to that thermal efficiency and efficient electric motors and not many cars other than a Prius can match it. Then also we have to consider recent advances in battery recycling.

Rich folks relocating their pollution to poor areas.  Pretty much stealing clean air.

Not exactly a new thing , the coal plant locations predate the modern electric cars, but in this case the emissions are being released in an area that has far fewer people that are far further apart. Also in the South East many of the coal plants have been replaced by natural gas plants that emit far less pollutants per kWhr.

JohnInCarolina

Gulfcoastguy said:

JohnInCarolina said:

HeavyG said:

Botch said:

I was wondering too, if he was being sarcastic, or biting, or just plain clueless.  No idea.  

I'm guessing he knows that Utah generates most of its electricity from coal fired plants so he just wants to make sure he can continue to "fill up his tank".

There was a study done years ago by a prof around here, might have been at UNC - looking at the environmental impact of EVs.  He considered everything from the battery production to the power supply.  In the end what it came down to was that they’re better for the environment (from a carbon perspective) in parts of the country where enough of the energy comes from renewables.  But where it’s coal… not so much.  There you’re mostly just trading your local CO2 source (from a gas powered car) for a remote one (with the EV and the coal plant).  So people who buy EVs to save the environment were telling themselves a bit of a lie, depending on where they lived.

That study was maybe 15 years ago.  It’s possible there’s something more recent.  But what I remember is that it was really thorough, and took into account the entire life cycle from production through ownership.

You are also trading local nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions for a distant point source, usually outside of cities. The coal plant also usually has emission controls. Add to that thermal efficiency and efficient electric motors and not many cars other than a Prius can match it. Then also we have to consider recent advances in battery recycling.

For sure there have been a lot of advances over the last decade, and I’m fairly certain an EV is a better choice for the environment than the alternative.  And of course as renewables continue to come online that will only improve.  

The main point is that the power to charge up the batteries comes from somewhere, and sometimes that is a coal fired power plant that pumps plenty of CO2 into the atmosphere.  So those “zero emissions” bumper stickers aren’t always accurate.

Gulfcoastguy

Or people can just complain about pollution and climate change.

JohnInCarolina

meanwhile…

Ozzie_Isaac

JohnInCarolina said:

meanwhile…

400 to 100 in a year.  Impressive.

HeavyG

And some say TSLA is still overvalued.

fishlessman

It's starting to look like a failing Bitcoin stock😁

Gulfcoastguy

Watch Musk repurchase all of the stock that he dumped at 10% of the price that he was paid when he sold it.

JohnInCarolina

Gulfcoastguy said:

Watch Musk repurchase all of the stock that he dumped at 10% of the price that he was paid when he sold it.

He is a genius…

fishlessman

Gulfcoastguy said:

Watch Musk repurchase all of the stock that he dumped at 10% of the price that he was paid when he sold it.

This makes sense

Botch

It's starting (excerpt from WaPo):
 

Arizona city cuts off a neighborhood’s water supply amid drought

By Joshua Partlow

Updated January 16, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. EST|Published January 16, 2023 at 8:24 a.m. EST

 
SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — The survival — or at least the basic sustenance — of hundreds in a desert community amid the horse ranches and golf courses outside Phoenix now rests on a 54-year-old man with a plastic bucket of quarters.

John Hornewer picked up a quarter and put it in the slot. The lone water hose at a remote public filling station sputtered to life and splashed 73 gallons into the steel tank of Hornewer’s water hauling truck. After two minutes, it stopped. Hornewer, one of two main suppliers responsible for delivering water to a community of more than 2,000 homes known as Rio Verde Foothills, fished out another quarter.

“It so shouldn’t be like this,” Hornewer said.

Some living here amid the cactus and creosote bushes see themselves as the first domino to fall as the Colorado River tips further into crisis. On Jan. 1, the city of Scottsdale, which gets the majority of its water from the Colorado River, cut off Rio Verde Foothills from the municipal water supply that it has relied on for decades. The result is a disorienting and frightening lack of certainty about how residents will find enough water as their tanks run down in coming weeks, with a bitter political feud impacting possible solutions.

Officials fear ‘complete doomsday scenario’ for drought-stricken Colorado River

The city’s decision — and the failure to find a dependable alternative — has forced water haulers like Hornewer to scour distant towns for any available gallons. About a quarter of the homes in Rio Verde Foothills, a checkerboard of one-acre lots linked by dirt roads in an unincorporated part of Maricopa County, rely on water from a municipal pipe hauled by trucks. Since the cutoff, their water prices have nearly tripled. The others have wells, though many of these have gone dry as the water table has fallen by hundreds of feet in some places after years of drought.

“This is a real hard slap in the face to everybody,” said Hornewer, who has been hauling water to his neighbors for more than two decades. “It’s not sustainable. We’re not going to make it through a summer like this.”

HeavyG

NYTimes had coverage also: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/16/us/arizona-water-rio-verde-scottsdale.html

U_tarded

Botch said:

It's starting (excerpt from WaPo):
 

Arizona city cuts off a neighborhood’s water supply amid drought

By Joshua Partlow

Updated January 16, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. EST|Published January 16, 2023 at 8:24 a.m. EST

 
SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — The survival — or at least the basic sustenance — of hundreds in a desert community amid the horse ranches and golf courses outside Phoenix now rests on a 54-year-old man with a plastic bucket of quarters.

John Hornewer picked up a quarter and put it in the slot. The lone water hose at a remote public filling station sputtered to life and splashed 73 gallons into the steel tank of Hornewer’s water hauling truck. After two minutes, it stopped. Hornewer, one of two main suppliers responsible for delivering water to a community of more than 2,000 homes known as Rio Verde Foothills, fished out another quarter.

“It so shouldn’t be like this,” Hornewer said.

Some living here amid the cactus and creosote bushes see themselves as the first domino to fall as the Colorado River tips further into crisis. On Jan. 1, the city of Scottsdale, which gets the majority of its water from the Colorado River, cut off Rio Verde Foothills from the municipal water supply that it has relied on for decades. The result is a disorienting and frightening lack of certainty about how residents will find enough water as their tanks run down in coming weeks, with a bitter political feud impacting possible solutions.

Officials fear ‘complete doomsday scenario’ for drought-stricken Colorado River

The city’s decision — and the failure to find a dependable alternative — has forced water haulers like Hornewer to scour distant towns for any available gallons. About a quarter of the homes in Rio Verde Foothills, a checkerboard of one-acre lots linked by dirt roads in an unincorporated part of Maricopa County, rely on water from a municipal pipe hauled by trucks. Since the cutoff, their water prices have nearly tripled. The others have wells, though many of these have gone dry as the water table has fallen by hundreds of feet in some places after years of drought.

“This is a real hard slap in the face to everybody,” said Hornewer, who has been hauling water to his neighbors for more than two decades. “It’s not sustainable. We’re not going to make it through a summer like this.”

The water situation in the west is so f-ing scary.  Nothing has been done about it for decades and this is just the beginning.  Utah (especially southern UT) has little to no regulation or plans for improvement. Their solution about 5 years ago was a pipeline from lake Powell.  You all can imagine how that panned out.  This is what climate change denial is going to bring us all. 

Gulfcoastguy

Perhaps they will move to where the water is?

dmchicago

Gulfcoastguy said:

Perhaps they will move to where the water is?

You a clown. Bro. 

Legume

Buyer beware, but cities and counties need to be held accountable for green lighting new developments where critical infrastructure and resources do not exist.  Tax grab at best, so suspend any property tax as a start, maybe refund back to the purchase date as It should be on the cities and counties to hold the developers accountable for that kind of a contract.  Stupid.

Gulfcoastguy

dmchicago said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

Perhaps they will move to where the water is?

You a clown. Bro. 

Just replaying what I hear every hurricane season.

Botch

A self-accusing, but still hypocritical, take.  And a further reason I'm glad I have no offspring.
 
https://youtu.be/63KXfwC9BdU

JohnInCarolina

http://twitter.com/LauraMillanL/status/1635243102532190208?s=20