Here is the UN report. https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/1115452 You rightys are creating an unreversable problem. Global warming is a real and serious problem. Autos and fossil fuels are a huge part of the problem.
Reality check on electric cars
- Thread starter Stringfellow Hawk
- Start date
Into the Night
Verified User
Medicine is not a journal. Burning gasoline produces CO2 and water.
Into the Night
Verified User
Fossils aren't used for fuel. Automobiles generally use gasoline, producing primarily CO2 and water.
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Yea, yea, sure... For over 50 years the IPCC and UN have been making outlandish and totally wrong predictions about the effects of Gorebal Warming. Your average psychic could do better. Yet, somehow, despite that there are lots of people who still think and believe the IPCC should be taken seriously.
https://nypost.com/2021/11/12/50-years-of-predictions-that-the-climate-apocalypse-is-nigh/
Well, I for one long ago stopped taking their drivel seriously. They're idiots, and they've proved it repeatedly now.
Yea, yea, sure... For over 50 years the IPCC and UN have been making outlandish and totally wrong predictions about the effects of Gorebal Warming. Your average psychic could do better. Yet, somehow, despite that there are lots of people who still think and believe the IPCC should be taken seriously.
https://nypost.com/2021/11/12/50-years-of-predictions-that-the-climate-apocalypse-is-nigh/
Well, I for one long ago stopped taking their drivel seriously. They're idiots, and they've proved it repeatedly now.
Yes, they have proven to be right.https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
So, your proof is that the IPCC and their allies say the IPCC is correct...? That's your proof?
If they could have built a reactor for $4 to $6 billion, they would have done it by now. Seriously, that is so low, it would be easy to do. There have been reactors that were never built that investors spent $4 billion on. Shoreham cost a total of $30 billion in todays money, and never produced any electricity.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
$4 to $6 billion per gigawatt nameplate. That translates to $16 to $24 billion for a large nuclear plant. Even at $24 billion, it's still cheaper than solar for the same output.
Into the Night
Verified User
Random numbers are not evidence or a proof, dude.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to measure the total snow and ice on Earth. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric concentration of CO2 on Earth. It is not possible to measure the global sea level.
It is not possible that any gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics again.
Into the Night
Verified User
So, your proof is that the IPCC and their allies say the IPCC is correct...? That's your proof?
Circular arguments by themselves are not a fallacy. They are also called the Argument of Faith.
Trying to prove a circular argument True or False is the fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.
This is what Nordberg is trying to do. He's a fundamentalist in the Church of Global Warming, an inherently fundamentalist style religion.
This religion routinely denies and discards statistical and probability mathematics, random number mathematics, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Their made numbers they call a 'proof'.
Into the Night
Verified User
They are doing it right now.
It is easy to do.
Special pleading fallacy. Shoreham cost $6 billion to build. It produced a small amount of power before the plant was decommissioned due to political pressure. It was shut down by Democrats.
Into the Night
Verified User
By several times. Solar is the most expensive method of generating electric power, watt for watt. You have to remember that Walt apparently can't differentiate Mw and Gw.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Not to mention not understanding when those are used over time like the kilowatt-hour or GW year.
Wind is the cheapest source. However, in your comparison did you include these costs. https://e360.yale.edu/digest/air-po...presents 3.3 percent,about $8 billion per day. Solar has improved in every single way over the years. Its technology improves and its cost drops, Fossil fuels just go up in cost as the corporation profits climb 58 percent.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
If the solar panels were friggin FREE solar would still be too expensive. Does that make things clear? That's how inefficient and poor solar is as a commercial source.
Into the Night
Verified User
Wind is the 2nd most expensive method of generating electricity, just under solar panels.
I don't count the cost of undefined buzzwords.
No, it has not changed.
It has not changed.
It hasn't.
Fossils aren't used as fuel. There are no corporations selling fossils for fuel.
Argument from randU fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.
Gardner is making business decisions here based on his feelings of anger.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Disprove my statement. If the panels were free, commercial solar would still be too expensive.
The nice thing about solar is that the fuel costs nothing. If everything else was free, then solar power would be free energy.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
No, because you still need a means of producing that same amount of power when the sun isn't shining. The need for electricity is 24/7 not just when the sun is out. If the panels were free, you still need the land to put them on, the infrastructure that goes with them, the maintenance facilities to keep them working, the alternate means to either store or produce electricity when the sun isn't out, the personnel to run everything, and a way to distribute that power.
On top of that, because output is inconsistent with load, you need a means to shed excess power when it is produced.
The whole of that ends up costing more than just building reliable conventional generation using the cheapest available fuel that preferably minimizes pollution. Then you produce what you need, as you need it, 24 hours a day. Solar's inconsistent performance and inability to produce continuously are a double whammy that makes it unaffordable to use. It's why solar WILL NEVER BE COMPETITIVE WITH CONVENTIONAL GENERATION.