diy solar

diy solar

Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?

Current total output is a measure as to how bad things are now. Their trajectory is how much worse or better things will be. I think both are important.

The U.S. is on a downward trend and China is flatening out. But India, with a population the size of China and hungry economy, is on a rapid upward trend.

People do like to play games with graphs don't they ..... This one looks like propaganda from China.

The one I posted clearly showed them STILL on a vertical rise .... I'll believe that it's going to magically level off and start declining when I see it actually happen.

No doubt India is going to be a big problem .... but, is China trying to shift the focus to India?

If there can't be consensus about something as simple as where is the huge increase in CO2 coming from, there is little hope there will be consensus on anything else .... and just like every other WOKE thing, the US is supposed to pay the price for past things that have already been corrected.

People like Bill Gates want to micro manage the CO2 and get us eating fake meat and bugs while they make a huge profit from it.
Meanwhile, there is much more low hanging fruit .... and agriculture will be destroyed.
 
Last edited:
Why ignore the simple fact that some countries emissions are on a vertical rise and others ... like ours are on the decrease.
bob, I don't think it's ignoring, IMO there is very little we can do about what others nations do.
we can show them the way, we just can't make them drink the cool aid.

you got wonder how much autism is environmental

googling

Environmental risk factors for autism: an evidence-based review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses​


is your thinking we traded Diphtheria, Polio, Rubella for autism?

IMO the world could be a better place if we all had autism, no more bipolar emotional roller coasters BS. ⚠️
 
Last edited:
aenyc posted a theory that we saturated our atmosphere with co2, his post said
there can be no more thermal increase because of that, even if that proves correct :unsure:
that may not hinder increasing harm to humans (COPD,autism, birth defects of unknown characteristics).
we are moving into using Star Trek speak Undiscovered Country
 
Last edited:
aenyc posted a theory that we saturated our atmosphere with co2, his post said
there can be no more thermal increase because of that, even if that proves correct
that may not hinder increasing harm to humans.

It has been proven that the typical greenhouse theory no longer increases warming above 400 PPM CO2 .... The climate activists quickly countered this with a new theory of how this affects the upper atmosphere and still causes warming.
I personally think the earth has mechanism in place to prevent CO2 from being overall harmful.
What OTHER harms are there to humans?
I have seen people who theorize that CO2 is good for people's overall health .... It relaxes the arteries. A person can significantly lower their blood pressure by holding their breath or doing controlled slow breathing to cause a buildup of CO2 in the system.
If you do a little searching you can a lot of people who want MORE CO2 in their system.
 
I have seen people who theorize that CO2 is good for people's overall health
bob, it's also a good way to kill someone, think I seen it in a Charlie Chan movie once.
close the garage door with the ICE engine running.


I personally think the earth has mechanism in place to prevent CO2 from being overall harmful.
Bob, you could be right, the pagan's thought of mother nature(earth) as a living thing, I get the
logic, 20% of humans is not human, with the size of the earth 20% may not be earth, yet a living
animate thing. if we can have a liver, maybe mother nature can also 🤪

talk about outside the box, Charlie Chan and mother nature being on-topic :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
bob, it's also a good way to kill someone, think I seen it in a Charlie Chan movie once.
close the garage door with the ICE engine running.
That's carbon monoxide .... deadly .... keeps the body from utilizing oxygen.
Bob, you could be right, the pagan's thought of mother nature(earth) as a living thing, I get the
logic, 20% of humans is not human, with the size of the earth 20% may not be earth, yet a living
animate thing. if we can have a liver, maybe mother nature can also 🤪
Kinda curious isn't it ..... just for one simple thing. We exhale CO2 .... plants gobble it up. Without CO2 they would die off. They "exhale" oxygen that we need to survive.
Another curious thing to me is that even though other things in the atmosphere vary ..... oxygen stays almost constant.
I think the earth is a system that we have barely begun to understand.
 
I wonder if autism is rising in china and countries with growing coal fired power generating facilities.

Capture502.PNG

Capture503.PNG

That's carbon monoxide .... deadly .... keeps the body from utilizing oxygen.
ICE engines put lots of that in our atmosphere, EV's not so much. IMO
oxygen stays almost constant.
Bob that may be because we are in a closed system(vacuum)
that may be why CO2 and carbon monoxide pose a risk to us.

H20 is also almost constant
37.5 million-billion gallons

Given that the surface area of Earth is about 197 million square miles (510 million square kilometers), there's around 37.5 million-billion gallons of water in the atmosphere, Fabry said. If all of this mass were to fall at once, it would raise the global ocean level by about 1.5 inches (3.8 centimeters),
 
Last edited:
aenyc posted a theory that we saturated our atmosphere with co2, his post said
there can be no more thermal increase because of that, even if that proves correct :unsure:
that may not hinder increasing harm to humans (COPD,autism, birth defects of unknown characteristics).
we are moving into using Star Trek speak Undiscovered Country
Tommy it is not a theory States like TN and others are out lawing Cloud Seed .

We are ~330 million ppl we all breathe the same air . The rest of the world is 8 billion plus ppl. We are not their keeper. So we agree. How does 330 million ppl control 8 billion plus ppl?

IMG_6378.jpeg
 
million ppl control 8 billion plus ppl?
D71, not going to happen, IMO what's going to happen as people see the long term health risk
that comes with unrestraint atmospheric pollutants like CO2 and carbon monoxide they will follow
our lead and take steps minimize their carbon footprint.

the world is watching this issue

Capture491.PNG
 
bob, I don't think it's ignoring, IMO there is very little we can do about what others nations do.
we can show them the way, we just can't make them drink the cool aid.

you got wonder how much autism is environmental

googling

Environmental risk factors for autism: an evidence-based review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses​


is your thinking we traded Diphtheria, Polio, Rubella for autism?

IMO the world could be a better place if we all had autism, no more bipolar emotional roller coasters BS. ⚠️
Tommy was tested a few times for iq. They said it was rather high. I think they were high .. …. 1 of my family was a EE PE with all kinds of training in nuclear energy and nuclear medicine. He setup and did the classes for them.
He was way over - educated in physics too. Taught college worked all kinds of other jobs why these ppl want college professor jobs - do other jobs too. Get paid for all of it monies and grants plus more. Get called to give opinion and pass on knowledge.

That family member also had Dyslexia so he over learned everything always wanted be smartest guy in room and usually was. Other family member never a day in college way smarter on iq test. Smarter than me. Hmmmm ….. he was like a mad scientist…came up with great ideas but never put the effort into presentation. His stuff worked. Just not pretty.

I was the one putting the square peg through the round hole and vice versus. Made it look easy.

I remember pre-school and teachers testing us with these. I was stuck in school with bunch of booger eaters.
IMG_6476.jpeg

Everyday I feel dumb and dumber. Everything around us is polluted.
Be real we are already there.
Would you be willing to be a communist?
 
Would you be willing to be a communist?
D71, I'm in paradise now :love:
Tommy was tested a few times for iq. They said it was rather high. I think they were high
D71, one aspect of my limitations is I know nothing for sure, it's all theory or hypnosis, nothing is black/white
that's why aenyc confuses me with his END OF STORY line.

and there is only one underlining law...DO NO HARM

even Ohm law works until it doesn't(think tunnel diode)


Capture491.PNG
 
Last edited:
Tommy was tested a few times for iq. They said it was rather high. I think they were high .. …. 1 of my family was a EE PE with all kinds of training in nuclear energy and nuclear medicine. He setup and did the classes for them.
He was way over - educated in physics too. Taught college worked all kinds of other jobs why these ppl want college professor jobs - do other jobs too. Get paid for all of it monies and grants plus more. Get called to give opinion and pass on knowledge.

That family member also had Dyslexia so he over learned everything always wanted be smartest guy in room and usually was. Other family member never a day in college way smarter on iq test. Smarter than me. Hmmmm ….. he was like a mad scientist…came up with great ideas but never put the effort into presentation. His stuff worked. Just not pretty.

I was the one putting the square peg through the round hole and vice versus. Made it look easy.

I remember pre-school and teachers testing us with these. I was stuck in school with bunch of booger eaters.
View attachment 215472

Everyday I feel dumb and dumber. Everything around us is polluted.
Be real we are already there.
Would you be willing to be a communist?

I'm fack'n dead. 😆😆😆🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
 
People do like to play games with graphs don't they ..... This one looks like propaganda from China.
Well, Asia in your graph is different from China in my graph as Asia includes India, Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, Thailand, and 40 other nations. But even though the x/y scales are a bit different the numbers seem to dovetail to me.

It's pretty easy for the brain to see what it expects and jump to false conclusions. We all do it, so don't feel bad.

The one I posted clearly showed them STILL on a vertical rise
They are still on the rise. The one I posted clearly says they're currently on a >4C trajectory. The "leveling" off is "future" based on current policies/actions. Leveling off also doesn't mean reductions, that won't occur until they start closing down fossil fuel plants or actively removing GHGs.

.... I'll believe that it's going to magically level off and start declining when I see it actually happen.
Well stick around, by 2030 it should be noticeable.

No doubt India is going to be a big problem .... but, is China trying to shift the focus to India?
Why would they bother? It's not like they don't know who's going to win in their election. India and the U.S. elections? Well, that's anyone's guess.

If there can't be consensus about something as simple as where is the huge increase in CO2 coming from
Ever hear the old saying there are three types of people? Those that understand math and those that don't?
Same thing here, there is scientific consensus, and then there's a machine driven by money trying to cause doubt (this isn't conspiracy theory, fossil fuel companies have testified before congress they are doing it, see Fueling the Climate Crisis: Exposing Big Oil's Disinformation). That people disbelieve isn't surprising. What's surprising is that is those that disbelief and insist they correct in that because they are A) not experts, and B) believe they really have researched the data unbiasedly, C) so sure and confident they happily post the contrary.

There has yet to be one post in this forum that shows any science to the contrary that hasn't been debunked.
(To everyone that feels like that might be a challenge, it's not! Here's a link to the most common >200 myths with explanations as to why they are wrong: 200 climate myths With Explanations as to why they're wrong, please try to find something new to be debunked before posting ; -)

... there is little hope there will be consensus on anything else ....
It is disappointing that there is so much manipulation of emotions to divide us. People say they don't believe in the impacts of climate change because they're not going to eat bugs and are eager to bring up children exposed to possible dangers of mining cobalt (while ignoring children at greater risk of starvation from climate change). I suspect if we do continue to do nothing, people's kids might be happy to have bugs to eat in the future.

People like Bill Gates want to micro manage the CO2 and get us eating fake meat and bugs while they make a huge profit from it. Meanwhile, there is much more low hanging fruit .... and agriculture will be destroyed.
Sounds like you're being driven by emotions rather than logic as those are irrational emotional arguments.

How are people like Bill Gates, who pours millions of his own money into solutions and startups, making a profit from it? As far as I know, he doesn't even sell Crispy Cricket Breakfast Cereal. Yes, he does have investments (e.g., farms that sell onions/carrots) that sell products, but he doesn't need to give his money away knowing he'll not see a dime back.

How is agriculture going to be destroyed?
Doing away with something like cows won't happen without an act of congress and I sure don't see that happening as they'd be recalled and lynched. Yes, livestock is responsible for 7 to 8% of the total problem (ref) currently, but is the knee jerk reaction of eliminating cows the solution when there are so many other proven effective things or knowing that making them net neutral is actually not that expensive? Reasonable people don't do that. Politicians would be to afraid to try.

aenyc posted a theory that we saturated our atmosphere with co2, his post said there can be no more thermal increase because of that,
That's incorrect and a common myth. It's explained in depth here. It's been pointed out to him numerous times (along with evidence for the other claptrap he posts) so disappointing he's still posting it. But it seems anything that disagrees with his world-view is a part of the "greater conspiracy".

... The climate activists quickly countered this with a new theory of how this affects the upper atmosphere and still causes warming.
Just spinning it and dismissing the science without a care in the world?

This is a popular myth because it was proposed by a famous physicist Dr. William Harper. His analogy was if you paint a barn red, the first coat might not make the barn look red (ref). The idea is that those pigments (like CO2) reflect light and that if you add more CO2 you won't get any more heat reflected just as adding more layers of red paint won't make the barn look any redder.

From physics, that's true for the surface of the barn. But, it's pretty obvious the atmosphere isn't a flat surface and has layers. That is the infrared has to escape from the surface of the earth out into space. The complexity is compounded because the atmosphere has layers at different temperatures and those temperatures determine the frequency of the radiation. You can read more about it here, but the earlier ref is better IMO.

.....We exhale CO2 .... plants gobble it up. Without CO2 they would die off.
Too much CO2 can be bad too (Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Will Help and Hurt Crops)
 
Last edited:
Well here you go, they are starting to tell you like it really is:

Climate Professor Thinks We Should ‘Cull’ the Human Population to Reach Emissions Targets​



Professor Bill McGuire is a well-known vulcanologist and climate scientist who doesn’t care much for humanity. He tweeted out a scathingly brilliant idea if you’re in the mortuary business or work as a grave digger.


.

Ooopsie. McGuire deleted the tweet a few hours later but had no regrets. The trouble is, we just don’t understand how brilliant he is.



Full story here.
 

The Green Energy Wall Can’t Arrive Quickly Enough​

We are fast approaching something I have called the “Green Energy Wall.” The “Wall” consists of some combination of real-world obstacles, partly cost and partly physics, that will inevitably end the quest for emissions-free “net zero” electricity generation well before the goal of zero emissions is reached. I first identified the approaching Wall in this post in December 2021, and remarked that it was “gradually coming into focus” in this follow-up post in November 2023. Everyone who pays attention and is capable of doing basic arithmetic knows that the we are approaching this Wall, some jurisdictions much faster than others. (New York has voluntarily put itself in the front ranks.).

What we don’t know is how the hitting of the Wall will manifest itself: Widespread and frequent blackouts? Regular, enforced load-shedding brown-outs? Tripling or quadrupling of electricity prices? A political uprising as people realize that they have been duped by scammers claiming that an energy transition would be easy and cheap? Or perhaps it will be all of the above.

Meanwhile, the years pass slowly. The impossibility of the situation we are digging into becomes more and more obvious, but so far there is no obvious crisis. Will it arrive in another year, or two? Or maybe five?

Consider New York. Multiple statutes and regulations commit us to energy-transition mandates that simply will not be met. Among the fantasies are two major statutes passed in 2019, one for New York State (Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act), and the other for the City (Local Law 97); and vehicle emissions standards adopted in 2022 by New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation.

Start with those vehicle emissions standards. In 2022 the DEC adopted for New York the standards and requirements set forth in the California Air Resources Board’s “Advanced Clean Cars II” regulation. California’s regulations call for minimum percentages of vehicles sold to be “zero emissions” starting with the 2026 model year, and then rapidly scaling up to 100% “zero emissions” by the 2035 model year. Here is a chart from CARB of the percentages of vehicles sold, by model year, that are supposed to be “zero emissions.”:


EVs are not the only things that qualify as “zero emissions” (e.g., hydrogen vehicles qualify), but EVs are the only things that qualify and also exist in meaningful numbers. The 2026 model year begins around September 2025 — that is, about 16 months away. What is the current percent of vehicles sold in New York that are “zero emissions”? A piece on March 6, 2024 in the New York Times puts the percentage of electric vehicles sold in the New York “metropolitan area” in 2023 at less than 10%. The article does not give a figure for New York State as a whole, but undoubtedly the figure for the state — including rural upstate areas — is well less than the percentage in the City and suburbs. Meanwhile many sources report that EV sales have suddenly declined sharply in the first quarter of 2024. (I can’t find statistics on that broken down by state.). But even if EV sales in New York State continued to increase in the first months of this year, are they really going to somehow get to 35% of all sales within a little more than a year? And then to 43% after just one more year, and then 51% after one more year, and so on to 100% by 2035? This is completely ridiculous.

Equally ridiculous is the mandate in the CLCPA for 70% of electricity generation from “renewables” by 2030. The people in charge of implementing this mandate are completely incompetent and have no idea what they are doing. After passage of the Act in 2019, the first significant step, in 2020 and 2021, was to close the two zero-emissions nuclear reactors at Indian Point that provided about 25% of New York City’s electricity, and replace them with two brand new natural gas plants, thus substantially increasing emissions. So to date, the progress toward the so-called 70 x 30 goal has been negative.

The signature initiative to achieve the 70 x 30 goal is a plan for 9000 MW of offshore wind off the coast of Long Island. In this post on March 5 I did the simple arithmetic to calculate that, if all of that capacity actually gets built, it would at best provide about 16% of New York’s current electricity consumption — before the addition of new loads from the electrification of the vehicle fleet and of home heating. Granted, we have the large hydro plant at Niagara Falls that they count as “renewable,” plus some other hydro resources that, together with Niagara Falls, might come to 20% of consumption. So with those plus the offshore wind, perhaps we can get to 35% of consumption. (Meanwhile, the offshore wind projects keep getting canceled and delayed as the developers maneuver to get themselves increased prices.)

How are we going to get to 70% from renewables in under 6 years? They literally have no clue. Something called a “Scoping Plan” has been generated pursuant to the CLCPA. It foresees a need for something they call the “Dispatchable Emissions Free Resource.” This is something that does not currently exist, and likely will not exist during any relevant time frame.

Yet the lack of any viable replacement has not prevented New York from pledging to close its well-functioning natural gas plants. Several were scheduled for closure this year. But then, back in November, somebody noticed that there was nothing to replace the plants, so the forced retirement of four of these plants got postponed for two years. News flash: two years from now, we’re still not going to have anything to replace these plants. The same will be true four years from now, and six and eight and ten. Will they simply keep postponing the mandated closure? Perhaps this is how we avoid smashing into the Green Energy Wall.

And then we have Local Law 97, supposedly mandating all large (25,000 square feet and up) residential buildings to convert to electric heat, mostly by 2030. This will represent an increase in the demand on the grid by something in the range of 30%. This at the same time as the natural gas plants are mandated to close, to be only partially replaced by some highly irregular offshore wind that will not fully replace the gas generation, let alone begin to supply the increased demand.

Something has to give here, and it will give. It will be much for the best if this happens quickly, rather than dragging on for years and years.
 
More pissing in your face by the power "elites" and their shills like Svetz:

Washington Post: Have Cold Showers to Prevent Climate Change (While they fly private jets and sail diesel megayachts and have multiple oceanfront multistory megamansions)​

Clearly we haven’t plumbed the bottom of the well of climate absurdity.

Why you should embrace using cold water, almost all the time
Heating water gobbles energy, leading to higher utility bills and more planet-warming emissions.
By Allyson Chiu
May 12, 2024 at 6:30 a.m. EDT
You may not be giving a second thought to setting your washing machine on the hot cycle, cranking your showers to a steamy temperature or scrubbing your dirty dishes under a stream of scalding water.
If you did, you’d find that you probably don’t need to use so much hot water — and that you could be saving energy and cutting your utility bills. Water heating is responsible for more than 10 percent of both annual residential energy use and consumer utility costs, the biggest share after air conditioning and heating, according to the Energy Department. An American household uses an average of 64 gallons of hot water a day — close to the amount needed to fill an average bathtub— by doing laundry, showering, washing the dishes and running kitchen and bathroom faucets.
While there are home improvements that can help you cut back on the energy it takes to heat water, including installing a heat pump water heater, one easy solution is to switch to cold water.

“If you’re wasting cold water to get your hot water, then you’re really wasting both water and the energy resources,” she said. “Those energy resources still come largely from fossil fuels, and so they’re adding to emissions in the environment at a time when we really need to be doing everything we can to reduce carbon emissions.”

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2024/05/11/cold-water-laundry-shower-dishes/#
The real question in my mind, how is the climate movement going to top this absurdity? Self flagellation every time you are tempted by machine age transport? Drinking your own pee to save water? Comment suggestions welcome, but please keep them family friendly.
 

“In contemplating the propaganda of the past, one cannot help but wonder why recognizing similar patterns in contemporary narratives proves so challenging to so many people. The impulse to improve the world, driven by a zealous desire to fix perceived wrongs, paradoxically leads to the destruction of the very world one aims to improve – just as much now as ever.


As the digital landscape continues to summon legions to innumerable crusades—any and all perceivable societal ills, be they stoked by religious propaganda, nationalist propaganda or any propaganda you care to mention—the result is always the same.

We’re making all the same mistakes. We can see the tyrannies and propaganda of yesterday and condemn it as heinous, as downright evil—and yet, rarely do we see it in today, nor, often, in ourselves.”
 
Back
Top