GM is pulling back on EVs

[Burkey]

If they were told now what their electric bill will look like, I doubt that 21% would stay on board.

We’ve already explained (repeatedly) that renewable energy is cheaper to produce than energy produced from fossil fuels.

Whilst the worse contributors obviously give the potential best rate of return, you can't just target one sector and ignore the 'less' contributing sectors, you need a strategy for every sector. Road transport is huge when it comes to CO2 globally. Australia has it's own issues with coal production but obviously doesn't apply to all countries.

I'm not sure car companies are 'profiteering from investment funded by tax revenue', most car companies are finding things pretty tough at the moment with huge demands on long term R&D. Subsidies vary by country, but many have no subsidies for EV's at all now.

I’m waiting for one of the deniers to start denying that methane is a GHG.
”Dude, it’s only like 0.00017% of the atmosphere“ *facepalm*

Sponsored

 

[GT 550]

Whilst the worse contributors obviously give the potential best rate of return, you can't just target one sector and ignore the 'less' contributing sectors, you need a strategy for every sector. Road transport is huge when it comes to CO2 globally. Australia has it's own issues with coal production but obviously doesn't apply to all countries.

I'm not sure car companies are 'profiteering from investment funded by tax revenue', most car companies are finding things pretty tough at the moment with huge demands on long term R&D. Subsidies vary by country, but many have no subsidies for EV's at all now.

Goodness that chart is a nonsense. Unless you're posting it as a curiosity the inability to see it as nothing more than that is curious in itself. In the context of sensible evidence based policy formulation seeking to reduce GGE it's a mischievous distraction. It's also 7 years old and therefore highly dated given recent advances, gives no indication of whether it's a timeline or snapshot statistic, and does not appear to include mining which is a huge emitter globally. And what are 'fugitive emissions from energy production' at 5.8%? Surely not filthy coal fired power stations, which many of them were in 2016, so where are they represented?

Global indicators are a macro scale statistic - more of a nuisance in many cases - and not significant when developing policy, hence slavishly targeting GGE by pushing Solar and EVs onto an already broken grid is a fool's errand when for example 'Australia’s CMM causes more global heating than all of Australia’s cars'. In light of this it'd be a rather better option to pursue such an issue collectively with industry rather than relentlessly pursuing half baked utopian ideals and trying to garner support from a sceptical population while failing to manage essential national infrastructure and adversely impacting those who can least afford it.

It really need not be stated that different strategies are required for different sectors because...they're all different. Public funds are scarce so it makes best sense to chase the greatest ROI on one's own turf as it's there that the greatest influence for change can be concentrated. As for ignoring the least offending sectors, it's essential to do so at a point because once the most offending sectors are dealt with the gains to be had by obsessively pursuing beyond the 80/20 paradigm would be a failure of public policy and wasteful of the public purse when there are more deserving pressures such as healthcare. A strategic approach along the lines of identifying the worst performing sectors and mandating realistic action in partnership with industry is the only sensible approach.

Make no mistake regarding car companies, they will simply not do anything that doesn't improve their bottom line; this could include concessions or protections (for example legislating the cessation of ICE production) but nevertheless it's only ever about the bottom line. I'm yet to see Elon Musk make a contribution to emergency services to offset the burden of runaway thermal events, just as I'm yet to see car companies offer support for grid remediation even though their profits will rely on it. The expenditure will undoubtedly come from taxpayers, possibly cloaked in a distorted argument as being necessary due to the uptake of EVs (but...we were told we 'had' to have them...hmmm). It's hardly surprising that some car companies are developing alternatives to electrification, I suspect they're well aware that the success of EVs teeters on the precipice of uncertainty and unknowns and the technology may end up hoisted on its own overly idealistic and ill managed petard.

 

[GT 550]

We’ve already explained (repeatedly) that renewable energy is cheaper to produce than energy produced from fossil fuels.

It doesn't matter a jot about what it costs to produce. What matters is the cost to the consumer. Energy companies will not forego the magnitude of their bottom line and you would be well appraised of their unashamed extortionate behaviour of late. There is not one fibre of evidence to suggest that energy will become cheaper as a result of renewables. Please prove me wrong. Actual evidence, not projection or supposition no matter how sensible it may seem.

 

[RagmopInKona]

We’ve already explained (repeatedly) that renewable energy is cheaper to produce than energy produced from fossil fuels.

I’m waiting for one of the deniers to start denying that methane is a GHG.
”Dude, it’s only like 0.00017% of the atmosphere“ *facepalm*

B/s and you know it.
Problem is the data is incomplete . They don't use any that hurt the findings in favor of the agenda and outcome by those funding the studies.
Science is bought and paid for with truth and true factual data pushed aside to ensure the next grant or funding.
So go on with your bought and paid for b/s.

 

[Gregs24]

Goodness that chart is a nonsense.

Emissions by sector - Our World in Data

Maybe you know better than the authors? Maybe not? But nonsense is a strong word

Our World in Data - Wikipedia

 

[Gregs24]

It doesn't matter a jot about what it costs to produce. What matters is the cost to the consumer. Energy companies will not forego the magnitude of their bottom line and you would be well appraised of their unashamed extortionate behaviour of late. There is not one fibre of evidence to suggest that energy will become cheaper as a result of renewables. Please prove me wrong. Actual evidence, not projection or supposition no matter how sensible it may seem.

Opinion: Renewables are cheaper than ever – so why are household energy bills only going up? | UCL News - UCL – University College London

It is indeed a problem with monopoly suppliers or lack of competition in some countries. I'm not sure however how anybody can provide you with proof about something that has not yet happened!

 

[sk47]

Hello; I suspect the "it is cheaper" to make electricity with the so called "Green" sources, Wind and solar in particular, may only be partially true. It may be that at the point source the wind farm or solar farm may produce a megawatt of electric power cheaper that many other sources under ideal conditions. That being when the wind blows and the sun shines.
I suspect some critical things are left out. One being the backup electric energy source when the wind does not blow or at night. We already have part of the plan told to us. One way to have back up electric power is with the plan to use the privately owned BEV's themselves as stored energy sources. We will be mandated to buy the BEV's and after we have paid to charge them ourselves the grid will be able to draw out some charge during times of grid need. Several posts already posted in this thread.

If that plan hopefully does not become allowed to work, then some massive and expensive projects will have to be funded by us consumers to have back up electric power. Several possible ways to do this from huge battery packs to giant flywheels to water pumped up to high pools are possible. All with high cost involved. Are these included in the "cheaper to produce electricity" scenario? Got to watch these true believer types like a hawk. They will spin and omit generously to make a point.

OK, even if they have included the above in their figures, which I doubt, there is a huge trillions of dollars problem which still exists. That being how to get that wind & solar from where it is practical to use to where it will be needed. Upgraded transmission lines for one thing. I seriously doubt that expense has been included in the claim that a wind or solar farm can make electricity cheaper. Clearly to be of value to all of us that power has to get to us.
With the older power plants coal, oil or natural gas can be shipped to any area and has been done for decades. .

These few comments are not all the flaws in the "green energy" agenda, but ought to be enough to give pause.

 

[sk47]

Could rust be the secret to solving fossil fuel power? | Watch (msn.com)

Hello; Another someday maybe solution to energy storage when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining. Iron -air batteries.
Please note, I am not dismissing the possibility of this being a workable solution for a critical issue with "green energy". More my old complaint. These things ought to be worked out before no ICE mandates go into effect and before the old coal, natural gas and oil power plants are torn down.

 

[K4fxd]

I’m waiting for one of the deniers to start denying that methane is a GHG.
”Dude, it’s only like 0.00017% of the atmosphere“ *facepalm*

Show me a working PHYSICAL model that proves methane traps heat.........Waiting..............Waiting................Waiting.............Waiting..............

Computers only spit out what the code says.

Methane might trap heat at the levels in out atmosphere, so far no one can prove or disprove it.

 

[Burkey]

It doesn't matter a jot about what it costs to produce. What matters is the cost to the consumer. Energy companies will not forego the magnitude of their bottom line and you would be well appraised of their unashamed extortionate behaviour of late. There is not one fibre of evidence to suggest that energy will become cheaper as a result of renewables. Please prove me wrong. Actual evidence, not projection or supposition no matter how sensible it may seem.

I already showed that a few pages back. Do you not remember the bit where the Australia Energy Market Operator (AEMO) said that the wholesale price of electricity was at its lowest in more than a decade? They also said that the reason was thanks to renewables.
Not projection, fact, based on evidence.

But let’s be real here, the simple fact that renewables have a payback period tells us that it MUST, by definition, be cheaper.

But don’t trust me, ask the government bodies who are responsible for measuring the data.

https://www.energy.gov.au/news-media/news/renewables-confirmed-cheapest-source-electricity

And before anyone starts, I’ll drop this here too…

“The GenCost report, led by the CSIRO with the support of AEMO, is an annual update of technology costs and shows that costs are lowest with wind and solar and storage, even up to 90 per cent share of variable renewables.

The latest report does not include the recent surge in gas and coal prices, but still puts the costs of renewables well below the fossil fuel alternatives.”

So no, they aren’t using skewed figures to ”make it fit the agenda”. In fact, if they used the current pricing for fossil fuels, it would look even better for renewables. Not that it matters, when you’re winning, you’re winning. Second place might as well be last place.

 

[Burkey]

B/s and you know it.
Problem is the data is incomplete . They don't use any that hurt the findings in favor of the agenda and outcome by those funding the studies.
Science is bought and paid for with truth and true factual data pushed aside to ensure the next grant or funding.
So go on with your bought and paid for b/s.

Never let facts get in the way of a good story. The data is in. You’re just not paying attention.

 

[K4fxd]

But let’s be real here, the simple fact that renewables have a payback period tells us that it MUST, by definition, be cheaper.

Oil wells have a "payback" period also, so do coal fired power plants........

Nice try.

 

[K4fxd]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/britain-heading-drought-entirely-man-190000650.html

Last month was the hottest June on record, we are told, which comes as a surprise to those of us in the South East who shivered in unusually keen easterly winds for the first week or so.


In fact it was not the hottest June ever, in England at least. The Met Office records go back to 1884, but the Hadley Centre’s Central England Temperature (CET) series, which predates them, made June 1846 hotter with a mean temperature of 18.2C, more than one degree celsius above last month.

The Junes of 1676, 1762, 1798, 1826 and 1976 were all nearly as hot or hotter in the CET rankings. Apart from possibly 1976, none could be attributed to carbon emissions caused by industrialisation.

No comments needed here. The FACTS speak for themselves.

I will say this, the charts that show things like this in "State of Fear" have been redacted. I wonder how long these temperature records will be searchable?

 

[Burkey]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/britain-heading-drought-entirely-man-190000650.html

Last month was the hottest June on record, we are told, which comes as a surprise to those of us in the South East who shivered in unusually keen easterly winds for the first week or so.


In fact it was not the hottest June ever, in England at least. The Met Office records go back to 1884, but the Hadley Centre’s Central England Temperature (CET) series, which predates them, made June 1846 hotter with a mean temperature of 18.2C, more than one degree celsius above last month.

The Junes of 1676, 1762, 1798, 1826 and 1976 were all nearly as hot or hotter in the CET rankings. Apart from possibly 1976, none could be attributed to carbon emissions caused by industrialisation.

No comments needed here. The FACTS speak for themselves.

I will say this, the charts that show things like this in "State of Fear" have been redacted. I wonder how long these temperature records will be searchable?

It’s interesting that you think that both the accuracy of the equipment and measurement system used in 1676 might be identical (or even vaguely similar) to that which we use in 2023.

Amazing. You just keep highlighting your ignorance of how the data is collected. Bravo sir. You are a true “sceptic”. LMFAO.

BYW, the fact that GHG’s produce heat when exposed to infrared radiation in the correct frequency range, isn’t debatable, It’s easily demonstrated, which is precisely how we know which gases react at which frequencies.

But you already knew that, because you’re a well educated physicist. Not a dumbshit who thinks that GHG’s don’t keep our planet warm.

 

[K4fxd]

If they vibrate enough to cause warming on Earth, why is Mars cold?

Yes, I know the answer is a bunch of double speak. Pesky Mars, and that damned Venus needs to speed up it's spin rate....................

Sponsored