GM Is Stalling EV Production Because Demand Is Falling Off..Joe C craps on self

[Into the Night]

Joey shits the sheets.

Brace for the Wind and Electric-Vehicle Bailouts

ord assured investors last week that its generous deal with the United Auto Workers wouldn’t threaten its profitability. Maybe. The same can’t be said of its electric vehicles, which lost $3.1 billion during the first nine months of this year.

Those losses will doubtless grow, and anyone who thinks Washington won’t give auto makers another bailout should think again. Last week Munich-based Siemens Energy, one of the world’s top wind manufacturers, said the German government is prepared to extend as much as €16 billion (or $16.9 billion) in state guarantees to rescue it.

Government has invested too much politically and financially in renewables and electric vehicles to let the companies go bust.
In June Siemens blamed a “substantial increase in failure rates of wind turbine components” for its mounting losses—about $4.8 billion this year—and warned that its financial problems could drag on for years as it repairs and replaces faulty equipment. The company has a backlog of orders from wind developers chasing government subsidies, but banks won’t extend credit because of its financial troubles. Siemens wants Berlin to issue loan guarantees on the faulty premise that its failure could endanger the country’s economy and national security. Wind is the new too-big-to-fail enterprise.

German leaders worry that Chinese manufacturers will take over wind manufacturing as they did solar-panel production a decade ago and are now doing with electric vehicles. China boasts 10 of the world’s 15 largest turbine manufacturers and can sell turbines at half the price of European manufacturers, owing largely to its cheap coal power.

The bailouts are already happening in the form of heavy subsidies. Yes...they will get worse.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Emissivity is not affected by composition. There is no 'composition term' in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

If composition of matter doesn't matter then all matter must have the same emissivity. All matter doesn't have the same emissivity so the emissivity changes based on the composition of the matter.

Your denial of the laws of thermodynamics is pretty obvious at this point. You simply claim that everything is a black body and there is no change in emissivity.

 

[Into the Night]

If composition of matter doesn't matter then all matter must have the same emissivity.

False dichotomy fallacy. Emissivity is not governed by composition.

All matter doesn't have the same emissivity so the emissivity changes based on the composition of the matter.

Composition does not govern emissivity.

Your denial of the laws of thermodynamics is pretty obvious at this point.

You are describing yourself again.

You simply claim that everything is a black body

Never did. You are hallucinating again.

and there is no change in emissivity.

Emissivity is a measured constant. It is not possible to measure the emissivity of Earth.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

False dichotomy fallacy. Emissivity is not governed by composition.

Composition does not govern emissivity.

You are describing yourself again.

Never did. You are hallucinating again.

Emissivity is a measured constant. It is not possible to measure the emissivity of Earth.

Emissivity is not a constant. It is a number between 0 and 1 and varies based on the material and temperature of that material.

If emissivity is a constant than there would be no need to measure the emissivity of Earth since it would be a constant and be the same as for every other piece of matter. You seem to admit that emissivity isn't a constant when you argue we can't measure the emissivity of Earth.

In the general case, the Stefan–Boltzmann law for radiant exitance takes the form:

M = ε M ∘ = ε σ T 4

where ε is the emissivity of the matter doing the emitting. The emissivity is generally between zero and one,

Does brick have the same emissivity as asphalt? Is brick a different composition than asphalt?

 

[Into the Night]

Emissivity is not a constant.

Emissivity is a measured constant.

It is a number between 0 and 1 and varies based on the material and temperature of that material.

It is not based on the material or it's temperature.

If emissivity is a constant than there would be no need to measure the emissivity of Earth since it would be a constant and be the same as for every other piece of matter.

It is necessary to measure the emissivity of Earth if you plan to calculate the radiance from Earth caused by temperature.

You seem to admit that emissivity isn't a constant when you argue we can't measure the emissivity of Earth.

It is a measured constant. It is not possible to measure the emissivity of Earth.

Does brick have the same emissivity as asphalt?

Maybe, maybe not. It is not possible to tell without measuring each of them.

Is brick a different composition than asphalt?

Yes.

Emissivity is not affected by composition.

I realize you must try to destroy the Stefan-Boltzmann law, since it's in the way of your religion.
I also realize you must try to destroy the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, since they are also in the way of your religion.

But you can't.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Emissivity is a measured constant.

It is not based on the material or it's temperature.

It is necessary to measure the emissivity of Earth if you plan to calculate the radiance from Earth caused by temperature.

It is a measured constant. It is not possible to measure the emissivity of Earth.

Maybe, maybe not.

Yes.

Emissivity is not affected by composition.

Since you are claiming emissivity is a constant, what is the number?

The constant for the speed of light is - 299 792 458 m / s
What are you claiming is the constant for emissivity?


Here are the emissivities of various materials
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/emissivity-coefficients-d_447.html
The emissivity for Beryllium is .18 at 300K
The emissivity for asphalt is .93 at 300K

Readers not named Into the Night will be able to see that asphalt is not the same composition as Beryllium.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The way ITN wants it, if you climb into bed on a cold night and crawl under a pile of blankets, you'll never get warm...

 

[Into the Night]

Since you are claiming emissivity is a constant, what is the number?

It is a measured constant.

The constant for the speed of light is - 299 792 458 m / s
What are you claiming is the constant for emissivity?

It is a measured constant.

Here are the emissivities of various materials
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/emissivity-coefficients-d_447.html
The emissivity for Beryllium is .18 at 300K
The emissivity for asphalt is .93 at 300K

Emissivity is not affected by the material.

Readers not named Into the Night will be able to see that asphalt is not the same composition as Beryllium.

Never said it was, dumbass.

 

[Into the Night]

The way ITN wants it, if you climb into bed on a cold night and crawl under a pile of blankets, you'll never get warm...

Sure you will. Blankets reduce heat. The food you ate provides the energy. As long as heat stays within the tolerance limits of your own body, your body will be at the temperature your regulatory system sets for it.
Put a blanket on a rock, though, and it will not make the rock warmer. Blankets are not energy. They only reduce heat. Remember that most of your metabolism is spent heating your body well above the typical room temperature of 70 deg F. The purpose of a blanket here is to reduce the ability of your body to heat the entire room.

Earth has no blanket.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Sure you will. Blankets reduce heat.

Earth has no blanket.

"Reduce?"

 

[Into the Night]

"Reduce?"

Yes. Reduce. Blankets reduce heat. That is their purpose.

Perhaps you don't understand what heat is.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy (not the energy itself).

Knowing that you are an electrician, let me build a simile for you:

Heat is like current. It is not the energy itself. The the flow of thermal energy, just like current is the flow of electrons.
A blanket acts like a resistor, reducing the current.

The metabolism from your body is used mostly to heat your body above a typical room temperature. It's like an engine, converting chemical energy into thermal energy. The simile in electronics is a generator.

Overload the generator, and you get a brown out or the generator simply quits.
Overload the body's ability to convert chemical energy to thermal energy to keep the body warm, and you feel cold. If it goes far enough, you die.

By using blankets and coats, you introduce resistance to the flow, reducing the load on the 'generator'.

Blankets and coats reduce heat, just in the same way a resistor reduces current.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Q = m(∆T)

My earlier example is a variant of insulation and how it works.

 

[Into the Night]

Q = m(∆T)

My earlier example is a variant of insulation and how it works.

Note that first line: Insulation materials are often specified in terms of their thermal resistance.
Also note that R is specified as a resistance applied to BTU/hr, just as electron flow is specified in joules per second (amperes) and can be reduced by a resistor measured in ohms.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

In simplest terms, when you have two masses at two different temperatures, they will move to equilibrium in temperature based on their thermal efficiency.

In terms of the Earth, it is a mass. It has some albedo measuring its absorption of energy versus reflection of energy. The sun is a mass and has energy too. The Sun is hotter so it transfers some of that heat to the mass of the Earth. The temperature of the two at some point reach equilibrium.

If you change the albedo of the Earth, or the composition of the atmosphere which acts much like an insulator for the solid mass of the Earth, you will have a change in the temperature of the Earth relative to the Sun. If the Sun puts out more or less energy (the temperature rises or falls) then it too can cause the Earth to warm or cool until equilibrium is reached at the new temperature difference.

The argument with the Greentard front isn't one about whether the Earth can warm or cool, but rather about the cause of warming or cooling as observed. The problem with the Greentard argument is it is essentially a McNamara fallacy. They, and climate scientists, et al., make measurements of some things related to the mass of the Earth and the Sun but don't come close to measuring everything involved and even don't know every variable involved.

Yet, from their limited data collection, they make assumptions about cause and effect and then demand everyone change their lives and upheave society to meet those demands. The problem comes when this is done at great cost and ends in failure. For the Greentards, they then forget history and pursue a new path demanding more change.

The obvious solution, if you accept they are possibly correct, is to do the things that cost the least and could have the desired effects first rather than embark on a costly program of "zero tolerance" focused on a single solution to a complex problem.

For me, until they change methods and go to one of least cost, potentially some or great effect, they aren't getting my support.

 

[Into the Night]

In simplest terms, when you have two masses at two different temperatures, they will move to equilibrium in temperature based on their thermal efficiency.

There is no 'thermal efficiency' here. They will move to equilibrium (increase entropy) until the temperature difference is zero, at which point heat reaches zero.

In terms of the Earth, it is a mass.

Good for you. Next?

It has some albedo

Albedo is not used in any equation. Emissivity is used, which is the inversion of albedo.
The emissivity is a measured constant. It is not possible to measure the emissivity of Earth. Emissivity is also the same as absorptivity. The easier a surface can absorb light, the easier it is for it to emit light due to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

measuring its absorption of energy versus reflection of energy.

It is not possible to measure the emissivity of Earth.

The sun is a mass and has energy too. The Sun is hotter so it transfers some of that heat to the mass of the Earth.

It is not possible to transfer heat.

The temperature of the two at some point reach equilibrium.

You are forgetting the radiance of Earth, dissipating energy into space.

If you change the albedo of the Earth,

Emissivity is a measured constant.

or the composition of the atmosphere

Emissivity is not government by composition of the radiating material.

which acts much like an insulator

The atmosphere does not act like an insulator. Now you are ignoring radiant heat, conductive heat, and convective heat.

for the solid mass of the Earth,

The atmosphere is not a thermal insulator.

you will have a change in the temperature of the Earth relative to the Sun.

Conclusion based on ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law and quantum mechanics.

If the Sun puts out more or less energy (the temperature rises or falls) then it too can cause the Earth to warm or cool until equilibrium is reached at the new temperature difference.

The Sun is a remarkably stable star. It's energy output is pretty constant. The argument is that a Magick Holy Gas is causing additional energy.

The argument with the Greentard front isn't one about whether the Earth can warm or cool,
but rather about the cause of warming or cooling as observed.

It is not observed. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

The problem with the Greentard argument is it is essentially a McNamara fallacy. They, and climate scientists, et al., make measurements of some things related to the mass of the Earth and the Sun but don't come close to measuring everything involved and even don't know every variable involved.

This is also known as a quantitative fallacy, or an argument from randU fallacy.

Yet, from their limited data collection,

There is no data collection. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

they make assumptions about cause and effect

There is no data. They simply make assumptions.

and then demand everyone change their lives and upheave society to meet those demands.

A classic example of the roots of where this religion comes from: the Church of Karl Marx.

The problem comes when this is done at great cost and ends in failure.

No. The problem comes from the tyranny.

For the Greentards, they then forget history and pursue a new path demanding more change.

Which is what they call their tyranny...'change'.

The obvious solution, if you accept they are possibly correct, is to do the things that cost the least and could have the desired effects first rather than embark on a costly program of "zero tolerance" focused on a single solution to a complex problem.

Correct??? No. Ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law in favor of a religion is NOT any 'correct'. Ignoring statistical mathematics in favor of a religion is NOT any 'correct'.

For me, until they change methods and go to one of least cost, potentially some or great effect, they aren't getting my support.

There is no problem, so there is no cost.

Remember, the 'problem' is religiously based.