World Politics

[the watcher]

1 hour ago, GCn20 said:

I thought that the environmentalists were saying that most of the methane was from cows. You mean I substituted refried beans for beef for nothing?

It sure is. Dirty energy is dirty energy. Avoiding one environmental catastrophe by creating another just seems really, really dumb to me. Especially when it can be avoided if people didn't play politics with it and really made an effort to actually, you know...clean up the world instead of peacocking on environmental policy.

All energy sources have their  enviromental costs , yes.  BUT  those costs  aren't equal. 

On methane from cows :  

I have pasture I rent out. I have crop land I rent out. My pasture will be green and removing CO2 from the atmosphere before seeds are in the ground on the crop ground. When my renters are cutting ripe grain in August on the crop ground my pasture will still be removing CO2 for months to come. I don't believe that was ever worked into the calculation of methane removal. AND marginal land is usually used for pastures. It saves it from being grain farmed. On the other hand there is a good argument about the amount of water cows consume and the amount of food a cow consumes to produce 1 pound of tasty beef. Can 7 billion people be sustained when we feed so much to cows and pigs.

Answers are never simple. People who produce studies will always have a point of view they wish to promote. Our age of information it  making it  increasingly difficult to ferret out what to believe.

 

[Wideleft]

34 minutes ago, the watcher said:

My information was from a DW documentary which is Germany's public broadcaster.

"FACT: The greenhouse gas emissions associated with an electric vehicle over its lifetime are typically lower than those from an average gasoline-powered vehicle, even when accounting for manufacturing." 

That's not what I was challenging.  I said it depends on your energy source, how you produce your electricity.

 

" FACT: Electric vehicles typically have a smaller carbon footprint than gasoline cars, even when accounting for the electricity used for charging." 

Do you know what type of electricity generation is being used to calculate that ? If it is hydro I % 100 agree. So if it's in Canada , I agree. If it's nuclear let's say in France, I agree. If it's in countries that rely on Coal generated power (especially older plants ) I disagree. If it's a world wide average, I have no idea.

 

 

This is from the EPA, so it takes the various forms of power generation in the U.S. into account.  Consider that even if the U.S. were to reach 50% adoption of EV's, there is zero chance that they would expand coal energy to help facilitate that.  There is no appetite for coal and there are cleaner options that aren't natural gas either that can make up the difference.  The nice thing about wind and solar is that it does not require centralized power plants, although there are some interesting solar facilities in production.

Just think how much power could be produced if even 75% of South facing roofs in Winnipeg had solar installations.

The key to all of this is energy storage and that technology is growing by leaps and bounds and has shown that there are innumerable ways to skin that cat.  I highly recommend Nova's "Search For The Super Battery" that talks about all sorts of ways to store power at different scales (and is already 5 years old).  

https://www.pbs.org/video/search-super-battery-preview-plc6qv/

[17to85]

1 hour ago, Wideleft said:

Myth #1: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of the power plant emissions.

• FACT: Electric vehicles typically have a smaller carbon footprint than gasoline cars, even when accounting for the electricity used for charging.

  
  Electric vehicles (EVs) have no tailpipe emissions. Generating the electricity used to charge EVs, however, may create carbon pollution. The amount varies widely based on how local power is generated, e.g., using coal or natural gas, which emit carbon pollution, versus renewable resources like wind or solar, which do not. Even accounting for these electricity emissions, research shows that an EV is typically responsible for lower levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) than an average new gasoline car. To the extent that more renewable energy sources like wind and solar are used to generate electricity, the total GHGs associated with EVs could be even lower. Learn more about electricity production in your area.

  EPA and DOE’s Beyond Tailpipe Emissions Calculator can help you estimate the greenhouse gas emissions associated with charging and driving an EV or a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) where you live. You can select an EV or PHEV model and type in your zip code to see the CO₂ emissions and how they stack up against those associated with a gasoline car.

 

 

Myth #5: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of battery manufacturing.

• FACT: The greenhouse gas emissions associated with an electric vehicle over its lifetime are typically lower than those from an average gasoline-powered vehicle, even when accounting for manufacturing.

  
  Some studies have shown that making a typical electric vehicle (EV) can create more carbon pollution than making a gasoline car. This is because of the additional energy required to manufacture an EV’s battery. Still, over the lifetime of the vehicle, total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with manufacturing, charging, and driving an EV are typically lower than the total GHGs associated with a gasoline car. That’s because EVs have zero tailpipe emissions and are typically responsible for significantly fewer GHGs during operation (see Myth 1 above).

  For example, researchers at Argonne National Laboratory estimated emissions for both a gasoline car and an EV with a 300-mile electric range. In their estimates, while GHGs from EV manufacturing are higher (shown in blue below), total GHGs for the EV are still lower than those for the gasoline car.

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths

So first fact doesn't contradict the post you are quoting,  both talk about it depending on the source of electricity. 

Second fact I don't think anyone ever thinks of the greenhouse emissions for production.... this is what I was saying before about how environmental issues = greenhouse gasses. Heavy metal mining is ******* brutal on the environment. The tailings ponds are toxic for pretty much ever and you can't reclaim the land nearly as easily.

[Wideleft]

8 minutes ago, the watcher said:

All energy sources have their  enviromental costs , yes.  BUT  those costs  aren't equal. 

On methane from cows :  

I have pasture I rent out. I have crop land I rent out. My pasture will be green and removing CO2 from the atmosphere before seeds are in the ground on the crop ground. When my renters are cutting ripe grain in August on the crop ground my pasture will still be removing CO2 for months to come. I don't believe that was ever worked into the calculation of methane removal. AND marginal land is usually used for pastures. It saves it from being grain farmed. On the other hand there is a good argument about the amount of water cows consume and the amount of food a cow consumes to produce 1 pound of tasty beef. Can 7 billion people be sustained when we feed so much to cows and pigs.

Answers are never simple. People who produce studies will always have a point of view they wish to promote. Our age of information it  making it  increasingly difficult to ferret out what to believe.

 

The thing is, a lot of things can be true even when they conflict.  It's also why calculating the costs of externalities is so difficult.

2 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

So first fact doesn't contradict the post you are quoting,  both talk about it depending on the source of electricity. 

Second fact I don't think anyone ever thinks of the greenhouse emissions for production.... this is what I was saying before about how environmental issues = greenhouse gasses. Heavy metal mining is ******* brutal on the environment. The tailings ponds are toxic for pretty much ever and you can't reclaim the land nearly as easily.

Don't know why there's an assumption that I'm being contradictory.

Heavy metal mining isn't the only kind of resource extraction that's brutal on the environment.

[GCn20]

2 hours ago, Wideleft said:

You're going to have to start citing sources if you want to be taken seriously.  While cattle contribute methane to the atmosphere, no one has ever said that MOST methane comes from cattle.

You can't complain about people "playing politics" when you are repeating ridiculous political talking points.

Ok, so when the wingnuts from your side of the argument say something outrageous then deny and ask for sources and accuse people of playing politics with it. Got it. I will write down your sage advice and give it the consideration it deserves.

[Tracker]

  

 

                                      

[17to85]

2 hours ago, Wideleft said:

The thing is, a lot of things can be true even when they conflict.  It's also why calculating the costs of externalities is so difficult.

Don't know why there's an assumption that I'm being contradictory.

Heavy metal mining isn't the only kind of resource extraction that's brutal on the environment.

Fun fact! you can reclaim oil sands mining back to the way it was before quite easily and the tailings aren't nearly as toxic and can be much more easily dealt with. (the assumption of course being that governments hold companies accountable for actually doing the reclamation)

 

I know everyone wants to bang hard on the "oil and gas is the worst thing ever!" drum, but it's really not as bad as people make it seem. Heavy metal extraction is a much bigger issue environmentally but everything now is greenhouse gasses this or climate change that. 

[Mark F]

Internal combustion engines are extremely inefficient compared to electric.

 

Using Ice....its like going to a restaurant, ordering a meal, and throwing 2/3 of it in the trash, eating 1/3. Oilco got to love that. When you spend 100 dollars to fill your tank, maybe 30.00 of your cash propels your car. The rest... heat, and smoke. (Greenhouse gases, and many other toxic substances, which are a big public health problem)

 

any argument about which is better is preposterous.

 

and as far as this being the only environemtal issue discussed..... 

It is the mother of all issues...

And is the only thing, staring us right in the face, (aside from nuclear war) which if not checked, will completely change the world, permanently, (as far as humanity is concerned)

and definitely not... for the better.

 

surprising number of people here who dont understand this.
 

It has been explained, in ways anyone can understand, many times.

 

Edited March 16, 2022 by Mark F

[the watcher]

23 minutes ago, Mark F said:

Internal combustion engines are extremely inefficient compared to electric.

 

Using Ice....its like going to a restaurant, ordering a meal, and throwing 2/3 of it in the trash, eating 1/3. Oilco got to love that. When you spend 100 dollars to fill your tank, maybe 30.00 of your cash propels your car. The rest... heat, and smoke. (Greenhouse gases, and many other toxic substances, which are a big public health problem)

 

any argument about which is better is preposterous.

 

and as far as this being the only environemtal issue discussed..... 

It is the mother of all issues...

And is the only thing, staring us right in the face, (aside from nuclear war) which if not checked, will completely change the world, permanently, (as far as humanity is concerned)

and definitely not... for the better.

 

surprising number of people here who dont understand this.
 

It has been explained, in ways anyone can understand, many times.

 

It's a discussion. It should be discussed and argued. I tell my Grandkids they can have whatever opinion they want but they need to be able to say why. You will note I've never said global warming isn't a massive issue. I've never said we shouldn't wean ourselves off fossil fuels as they are the major cause. I haven't said combustion engines are better than EVs . What I have said is our concern beside EVs should be how we produce electricity.  The switch from fossil fuels needs to be done intelligently. And it will be painful. And I'M  surprised how many  people don't understand that. 

[the watcher]

4 hours ago, Wideleft said:

This is from the EPA, so it takes the various forms of power generation in the U.S. into account.  Consider that even if the U.S. were to reach 50% adoption of EV's, there is zero chance that they would expand coal energy to help facilitate that.  There is no appetite for coal and there are cleaner options that aren't natural gas either that can make up the difference.  The nice thing about wind and solar is that it does not require centralized power plants, although there are some interesting solar facilities in production.

Just think how much power could be produced if even 75% of South facing roofs in Winnipeg had solar installations.

The key to all of this is energy storage and that technology is growing by leaps and bounds and has shown that there are innumerable ways to skin that cat.  I highly recommend Nova's "Search For The Super Battery" that talks about all sorts of ways to store power at different scales (and is already 5 years old).  

https://www.pbs.org/video/search-super-battery-preview-plc6qv/

I'll check it out. I don't know what will happen in the states. Having  private power companies and the general attitudes down there  in my mind are going to be an issue. I don't know if they get off the coal train soon. Plus they have struggled with transmission as well. Their political situation is bound to enter and grind things to a halt.

Wind and solar are good but I don't know if there are many or any countries where they make up the bulk of electricity production. There's certainly nothing wrong with them as a strong supplement. Again Canada as a whole is situated pretty well with our ability to produce hydro power.

[Tracker]

20 minutes ago, the watcher said:

I'll check it out. I don't know what will happen in the states. Having  private power companies and the general attitudes down there  in my mind are going to be an issue. I don't know if they get off the coal train soon. Plus they have struggled with transmission as well. Their political situation is bound to enter and grind things to a halt.

Wind and solar are good but I don't know if there are many or any countries where they make up the bulk of electricity production. There's certainly nothing wrong with them as a strong supplement. Again Canada as a whole is situated pretty well with our ability to produce hydro power.

I believe that I have posted it here before, but anyone wanting an inside look at the American electrical system should search out the documentary, "Power Trip" by Jonathan and Drew Scott of H&G fame.

[Tracker]

Trump explains to Fox News host that there's "a lot of love" behind Putin's invasion of Ukraine

Donald Trump claimed that there is "a lot of love" behind Russian President Vladimir Putin's devastating invasion of Ukraine, which has already resulted in hundreds of civilian casualties. 

The former president's bizarre remarks came during a Sunday radio interview with Fox News host Jeanine Pirro, who asked Trump about the deadly incursion. 

"He's got a big ego," Trump said of Putin. "Again, I know him very well ... I understand he's gotten rid of a lot of his generals." 

Trump also speculated that the Russian president felt "cornered," suggesting that Putin might commit "unspeakable" acts of warfare if the invasion doesn't go his way. 

Later in the segment, the former president argued that Putin is on a conquest to restore the Soviet Union. 

"You say, what's the purpose of this? They had a country," Trump explained. "You could see it was a country where there was a lot of love and we're doing it because, you know, somebody wants to make his country larger or he wants to put it back the way it was when actually it didn't work very well."

https://www.salon.com/2022/03/16/explains-to-fox-news-host-that-theres-a-lot-of-love-behind-putins-invasion-of-ukraine/

[the watcher]

18 minutes ago, Tracker said:

I believe that I have posted it here before, but anyone wanting an inside look at the American electrical system should search out the documentary, "Power Trip" by Jonathan and Drew Scott of H&G fame.

Ill add that to my watch / read list. ( Anything delay finishing up my 2021 books )

[bustamente]

Putin will not be happy about Biden 800M in weapons to Ukraine, prepare more body bags 

[Tracker]

                                                    

[Mark H.]

7 hours ago, Mark F said:

Internal combustion engines are extremely inefficient compared to electric.

Using Ice....its like going to a restaurant, ordering a meal, and throwing 2/3 of it in the trash, eating 1/3. Oilco got to love that. When you spend 100 dollars to fill your tank, maybe 30.00 of your cash propels your car. The rest... heat, and smoke. (Greenhouse gases, and many other toxic substances, which are a big public health problem)

The electric engine has never been the issue. The issue is...how is the electricity to power the engine being generated? Most of the world's electricity...still comes from fossil fuels. 

[Wideleft]

10 hours ago, Mark H. said:

The electric engine has never been the issue. The issue is...how is the electricity to power the engine being generated? Most of the world's electricity...still comes from fossil fuels. 

How we used to do things or even how we do things now should never dictate that we simply accept the status quo.  We don't use whale oil for lamps anymore and New York hasn't used natural gas street lights for more than 100 years.  There is no magic switch that's going to change everything at once - that's why it's called transition.

[FrostyWinnipeg]

 

[do or die]

After some analysis.....have figured out what the 3 main sources of pro-Putin propaganda are:

Channel 1(RUS)
Rossiya-1 (RUS)
Fox News (USA)

[Mark F]

4 hours ago, Wideleft said:

There is no magic switch that's going to change everything at once - that's why it's called transition.

Sometimes something happens, and things are changed unexpectedly, and very rapidly.

 

current example..... rapid, massive Response to the putin invasion. Who honestly thought this would happen. Not me.

 

the transition would be well underway, but fossil fuel is fighting it every way it can. 
 

eg:  Texas law now in effect:

 

"Essentially, the bill said the state of Texas cannot do business with financial groups that divest from fossil fuels. Issac says the goal is to get these banks and investment firms to change their policies. He calls it "a responsible way to push back that says, 'Look, if you're going to be anti-Texas, then you're not going to get to do business with Texas.'" 

The bill was signed into law last year. Now the Texas comptroller's office is creating a list of companies that could face a state boycott.

On Wednesday, Comptroller Glenn Hegar sent a letter to 19 financial companies asking for a list of any mutual funds or exchange-traded funds in their portfolios that "prohibit or limit investment in fossil fuels." He said another round of letters will go out soon to 100 other companies, and any that fails to respond within 60 days "will be presumed to be boycotting energy companies."

 

"free market" 😂

Edited March 17, 2022 by Mark F

[blue_gold_84]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-will-put-its-enemies-such-united-states-their-place-medvedev-says-2022-03-17/

Quote

LONDON, March 17 (Reuters) - Russia warned the United States on Thursday that Moscow had the might to put the world's pre-eminent superpower in its place and accused the West of stoking a wild Russophobic plot to tear Russia apart.

Dmitry Medvedev, who served as president from 2008 to 2012 and is now deputy secretary of Russia's Security Council, said the United States had stoked "disgusting" Russophobia in an attempt to force Russia to its knees.

"It will not work - Russia has the might to put all of our brash enemies in their place," Medvedev said.

No accountability whatsoever from Russia's so-called leaders. Nothing but delusional assclowns in the Kremlin.

[Fred C Dobbs]

In plain words:

 

[bustamente]

Next talking point for the Russians, the Ukrainians started it by attacking us on Russian soil so we had to beat them back and teach them a lesson

 

[do or die]

Putin's soldiers are 'looking for Ukrainian ammunition so they can shoot themselves in the leg and get sent home, intercepted Russian phone call reveals'

Vladimir Putin's men allegedly want to shoot themselves in the leg and go home
Intercepted phone call reveals Moscow's men are seeking Ukrainian ammunition
US believes Moscow has lost up to 28,000 soldiers since the start of the invasion

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10623635/Putins-soldiers-looking-Ukrainian-ammunition-shoot-home.html

[Mark H.]

9 hours ago, Wideleft said:

How we used to do things or even how we do things now should never dictate that we simply accept the status quo.  We don't use whale oil for lamps anymore and New York hasn't used natural gas street lights for more than 100 years.  There is no magic switch that's going to change everything at once - that's why it's called transition.

Yes. But there is just a bit too much hyperbole happening with EVs.