Posted on 08/17/2019 11:09:33 AM PDT by Kid Shelleen
“I am happy they are trying to lower our carbon footprint”
Why? What’s a carbon footprint and why doe sit need to be lowered? Because liberals have convinced you of it by repeating the lie that you don’t even understand?
“I am happy they are trying to lower our carbon footprint”
not to mention, that the whole “carbon footprint” thing is a total hoax to start with since the climate models are all bullshit and have pretty much all failed in their predictions of warming climate, as confirmed by satellite data ... which is why the leftist hoaxers had to change “global warming” to “climate change” several years ago ... and now that “climate change” isn’t working any more either, leftists are trying to change that to “climate emergency” and “climate crisis” ...
and btw, it’s been mathematically proven that it’s impossible to predict weather accurately beyond 72 hours because weather is a chaotic system, so how in the hell can anyone believe that climate (which is far more complex than weather) can be predicted hundreds of years out, particularly given that climate models are VASTLY more simplistic than the weather prediction models used by the National Weather Service ... (btw, i know this stuff because i used to work at the National Center for Atmospheric Research) ...
Here's how Fake News is born. the builders promised "It would ILLUMINATE 3000 to 5000 households. Of course illumination is only a small fraction of a household's electrical usage. Of course someone (Popular Mechanics?) didn't catch the deception, and a lie is born. No doubt this was intentional by the "builders" and their supporters.
A solar panel at best is rated at 1KW per meter squared. At best you may get 400-600 watts the rest lost to heat and reflection. You would need 1 million of these or 1 square kilometer to replace one power plant. That assumes of course the sun is always shining at peak summer output, and the panels never wear out or get dirty.
You left out the ohmic losses that occur in transmission. Now if the solar generated electricity is used right there on the spot, yes leave it out.
Transmission - if you can’t get the electricity to where its needed why generate it. I have read that on the average as much as 25% of electricity generated is lost in transmission (Note will not vouch on the number’s absolute accuracy!)
I can imagine a hundred years into the future when we have ugly solar panels and windmills all over the place and some environmentalist will get the brilliant idea we can beautify mother earth by replacing them all with using fossil fuels.
Like how in the 1970s the packaging industry was strong-armed into switching from glass and paper to plastic to save the planet?
No because the invasion is a Rat voter drive and nothing is more important than that.
I looked at the third option based on mostly money. I am fixing up the old car. Evan though I will be driving a car that has a money value less then the tires it sits on it will use much less of the earth's resources.
LIBs are malignancies on civil society, truth, integrity, science and everything sane people hold dear. What absolute worthless losers.
The Solar Road didn’t go as planned, so a Lunar Road might be an option.
“LIBs are malignancies on civil society, truth, integrity, science and everything sane people hold dear. “
True, and it doesn’t change or responsibility to be good stewards over this earth God gave us for our use.
Sun City, a suburb of lib Austin, TX thought they could go all solar years ago and get cheap electricity but they’re still paying more for power than if they’d just stuck with the old generated power.
Shows you can’t out-stupid a determined Progressive politician.
Wrong. The life expectancy of the batteries is far shorter than the rest of the car. You need to factor in new, strip-mined batteries every seven to ten years.
“You need to factor in new, strip-mined batteries every seven to ten years”
Already figured into the amount of resources used.
We need to find ways to use less original energy.
*ping*
That's correct: http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/carbon-rises-800-years-after-temperatures/ The first chart shows a rise of almost 100 ppm after the temperature rise of 11C or so. To get the current rise in CO2 from 280 to 410 ppm (plus 2.5 more each year), there would have to have been a temperature rise of 12C or more (mainly in the oceans) 500 to 1000 years ago.
That didn't happen. The current rise in CO2 is, for the most part, not from past warming. Some of it is, but only a small portion. That portion is probably 5-10 ppm out of the total rise, due to warming over the past few centuries.
There proved to be several problems with this goal. The first was that Normandy is not historically known as a sunny area. At the time, the region’s capital city of Caen only got 44 days of strong sunshine a year, and not much has changed since. Storms have wrecked havoc with the systems, blowing circuits. But even if the weather was in order, it appears the panels weren’t built to capture them efficiently.
You mean the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow?
To use less energy, wind powered speed bumps are added to the upgrade.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.