Leaderboard

Being a former engineer for a large power company and having earned a Master of Science in Energy and the Environment, I had PV panels installed seven years ago, with my estimated payback of 15 years, . . the right thing for an eco-freak to do. Before they could be installed, we acquired a VW e-Golf electric car. The savings in gasoline alone took the solar system payback down to 3 1/2 years. So, we added a used Tesla Model S, P85, and that took the payback down to less than three years, which means we now get free power for household and transportation. But that is not all: We do not need to go to gas stations, we fuel up at home at night with cheap baseload power. During the daytime, the PV system turns our meter backwards powering the neighborhood with clean local power, which we trade for the stuff to be used that night. If we paid for transportation fuel, the VW would cost us 4 cents/mile to drive, and the Tesla would cost 5 cents/mile at California off-peak power prices. No oil changes are a real treat along with no leaks. And since it has an electric motor, it needs NO ENGINE MAINTENANCE at all. We do not go "gas up", or get tune-ups or emissions checks, have no transmission about which to worry, no complicated machined parts needing care. THAT is what will sell the EV, and the real problem is not powering them, (the power companies have been working on and praying for the EV for a generation), the problem will be dealing with an economy which has had a large portion taken out of it. Too much of our economy is dependent on the needs of the internal combustion engine, from mechanics to emissions checkers to the folk who make oil filters, and all the folk who support them. I see a rush to EVs, (go drive one, and see), and the implications of this advance as an impending wave of dislocation for this society for which we must plan now.

Here you go - in the UK Solar on car parks 'demand has gone through the roof' No additional space used Invariably close to large electricity consumers who can directly consume the electricity so no transmission bottleneck problems Provides shading for cars Why car parks are the hottest space in solar power - BBC News Interestingly France has legislated to make solar compulsory on all car parks with over 80 spaces.

Global Oil Demand Hit A Record High In March | OilPrice.com Enjoy the oil boom notsonice !!! I am!!

Mueller Report: 34 indictments. 8 guilty. 1 case dismissed. 26 at large Durham Report: 3 indictments. 1 guilty. 2 acquitted. The fact is that Durham came up with a big fat zero when it comes to finding errors, let alone crimes. His biggest finding was that the FBI should have opened a "preliminary investigation" instead of a "full investigation". Seeing as how they were investigating someone well known as a compulsive bullshitter and liar for decades (at least in the NY media), not really a surprise.

For the record, I am from another continent, and I can't tell you how much enjoy it when you and NickW (plus a few others) constantly school the deniers (mostly EWO and Eco). It is beyond entertaining.

The problem is not water. The problem is oxidation of the gasoline. Alcohol absorbs more water than gasoline does which holds more oxygen which increases the rate of oxidation and therefore increases the rate of deposition of gasoline oxides which plug your carb low speed passages ruining said carb.

On that one I must agree. I have an 8 Hp outboard for my yacht and always use Esso 99* which is alcohol free. Same with my 3.5Hp tender OB but I don't use that much as I have an electric outboard which works very well with a lithium battery (solar charged of course). I only use about 25-30 litres a year.

Even when it’s sitting in storage, coal threatens human health https://theconversation.com/even-when-its-sitting-in-storage-coal-threatens-human-health-80865 https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/coal-and-water-pollution https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0095069618302523 Its not just the burning of coal Eco, promoting using coal is and always will be a way of promoting pollution which is harmful to all life.

Thats because the thread was started by Mark Lawson, another of his gems was "investment in renewables is tanking" clearly they arent!

Granted - there have been significant improvements but its still an issue . High compression engines just ended up blowing out much smaller particles which get into the respirable region of the lungs.

There are other factors at work promoting EV's Local air pollution (ok I know not all pollution is tailpipe) Countries not blessed with large quantities of oil and gas are reliant on imports. EV's offer an opportunity to use more ubiquitous wind and solar.

The system handles that in modern chargers by monitoring temperature, voltage etc. My laptop and phone already do it.

The Death of Coal ...one solar panel at a time Enjoy the Transition ELECTREK https://electrek.co/2023/05/25/us-wind-solar-q1-2023/ US wind and solar combined produced more electricity than coal in Q1 2023 Michelle Lewis | May 25 2023 - 2:42 pm PT 15 Comments US wind and solar together produced more electricity than coal in Q1 2023, according to a review by the SUN DAY Campaign of data just released by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). The latest issue of EIA’s “Electric Power Monthly” report (with data through March 31, 2023) reveals that in the first quarter of 2023, electrical generation by solar (including small-scale distributed systems) grew by 7.8%, compared to the same period in 2022. This was driven in large part by growth in “estimated” small-scale (e.g., rooftop) solar PV, which increased in output by 24.0% – faster than any other energy source – and accounted for nearly one-third (32.8%) of total solar production. The mix of utility-scale and small-scale solar PV plus utility-scale solar thermal provided 4.4% of the US’s electrical output during the first quarter of 2023. At the same time, electrical generation by wind increased by 5.3% compared to the same period a year ago and provided 12.5% of total US electrical generation. Together, wind and solar provided 16.9% of the US’s electrical output in Q1 2023. However, electrical generation by coal plummeted by 28.6% and provided just 15.6% of total US electrical generation during the quarter. In March alone, US wind turbines produced almost as much electricity (44,355 gigawatt-hours) as coal (49,863 GWh). When generation by all renewable energy sources (including biomass, geothermal, and hydropower) is considered, renewables accounted for 24.9% of total generation in the first three months of this year. That’s higher than their share (24.2%) in the first quarter of 2022, notwithstanding declines in production by hydropower (down 15.5%), wood + biomass (down 6.2% ), and geothermal (down 3.6%). Thus, electricity generated by the full mix of renewable energy sources exceeded that of coal by 59.5%. SUN DAY Campaign’s executive director Ken Bossong said:

"Solar farms need huge tracts of land to operate at scale, and there is often fierce competition for those parcels, driving up prices for solar developers".... Dividing the population of the US by 2.5 persons per household yields 133 million households in the US. Multiplying 133 million by 6000 square feet (the size of an average suburban plot of land) yields essentially 800 billion square feet occupied by a single family home 'primary residence'. This does not account for high-rise multifamily living or space used for streets, schools, businesses, etc. but it helps bring land use into perspective. A square mile is 5280 x 5280 feet, or roughly 28 million square feet. Dividing 800,000,000,000 by 28,000,000 yields around 28,600 square miles. A 'standard' county is about 40 miles by 40 miles, or 1600 square miles, however most counties don't quite get that large. Dividing 28,600 by 1600 square miles yields slightly less than 18 counties. Taking the square root of 28,600 yields a distance of roughly 170 miles. Therefore a square 170 miles by 170 miles within the US would be enough to house everyone living in the country. The 'lower 48 states' is roughly 3000 miles east to west times 1500 miles north to south, or about 4,500,000 square miles. Texas alone is roughly 800 miles x 800 miles. More than one million square miles of land in the United States is used for either cattle pasture or growing forage for livestock (soybeans, alfalfa, hay, etc.). The combination of 'lab grown meat' (meaning meat equivalent cultured in vats), 'milk' produced by microorganisms, and leather substitute cultured from bacteria puts livestock on the list of industries targeted for downsizing. All of this already exists - none of it is speculative. If the typical home allocates 500 square feet per resident, then the 'average' home is 1250 square feet. Each resident needs about 30Kwh of electricity per day, which translates into 6000 watts of solar panels, or roughly 300 square feet (6000 watts x 5 hours = 30Kwh). Therefore, the home should have 750 square feet of panels. In the bigger picture, this means that the area used by panels is less than the area occupied by the resident within the home, not to mention the area of the housing lot. The biggest 'waste of space' in urban areas is parking lots. Other bits of urban real estate that might be attractive for covering with solar panels are drainage ditches and/or power line right of ways. In rainier areas land is set aside for retention ponds, which could also be covered. This is before any discussion of abandoned houses or 'second homes' used by snow birds, etc. The US has plenty of room for panels. These panels could be situated entirely within urban areas and still be adequate to power the entire country. However, the 'best use' is, most likely, in conjunction with agriculture, since it has been demonstrated repeatedly that solar panels actually enhance agricultural productivity.

From the link you posted. "GM invests $854M in V-8 engines" "GM is investing over $35 billion through 2025 in electric vehicles" "The future is fully electric." Do you guys ever read the links you post? They always say electric is winning. $35B far more than $854M They are making fun of GM for not capturing EV market share... not praising them for investing in old technology.

Action on what? Earth temperature? Those fallacies have already been exploded. Only the scientifically challenged still believe in those tooth fairies.

Imagine that!!

https://dailycaller.com/2023/05/23/congress-votes-to-repeal-bidens-climate-rule-targeting-trucks-heavy-vehicles/?utm_medium=push&utm_source=daily_caller&utm_campaign=push Congress Votes To Repeal Biden’s Climate Rule Targeting Trucks, Heavy Vehicles Screenshot/The Sun ARJUN SINGHCONTRIBUTOR May 23, 20235:05 PM ET FONT SIZE: The House of Representatives voted to overturn a new regulation by the Biden administration that would require trucking companies to comply with new climate regulations, sending the measure to President Joe Biden’s desk after the Senate passed it on April 26. Senate Joint Resolution 11, which passed the Senate on April 26 by a narrow 50-49 vote, would repeal the “Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards” issued by the Environmental Protection Agency in January of 2023. The standards – affecting trucks, trains, aircraft, diesel generators, industrial engines and gas companies – would require compliance with new test procedures, warranties and emission controls, which Republicans claim would harm businesses with unnecessary regulations. (RELATED: Senate Votes To Overturn Biden EPA Rule On Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emissions) The House passed the resolution by a vote of 221-203, with four Democrats joining Republicans. The bill, which passed the Senate during the medical absence of Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and is not subject to a filibuster, will now be presented before President Biden, who will likely veto it — only the third veto of his presidency, with the preceding two also being vetoes of rule repeals. The rule has been controversial for its left-wing provisions, including an “environmental justice” provision stating that the rule’s promulgation is, in part, because “people of color and people with low income are disproportionately exposed to elevated concentrations of many pollutants in close proximity to major roadways.” Additionally, it estimated that adhering to the standards would have cost between $2,568 and $8,304 per vehicle, with a total economic cost of $55 billion. Opposition to the rule has been bipartisan, with Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia having voted in favor of repealing it in April. He said that “the Biden Administration wants to burden the trucking industry with oppressive regulations that will increase prices by thousands of dollars and push truck drivers and small trucking companies out of business,” per a statement on his website. The repeal has been sponsored by Republican Sen. Deb Fischer of Nebraska, who has said the measure would “jack up vehicle costs and hurt good paying jobs…[when] the last thing this country needs is more expensive freight costs and fewer truckers,” per a statement before the Senate vote. In the House, its passage was led by Republican Rep. Troy Nehls of Texas, who said that “The EPA’s final rule is yet another example of burdensome federal regulation and would unfairly target the trucking industry and pass costs for the American consumer and small businesses, all in the name of the Biden Administration’s woke climate change agenda,” in a statement to the DCNF. The EPA has been contacted with a request for comment.

Yer frackin' stupid if you believe that crap!! Try to read and get educated before making retarted statements!!!!

EWO I get you dont like EV's , I get you dont like renewables, I get you dont like greenies, I get you dont believe in climate change. But please stay on topic and dont go off on tangents trying to defend your position with a totally different topic. Please then reference something, anything, that can back up your opinion on the topic being discussed. It would make you much more credible. Denying EV's are taking market share and on the rise is simply crazy, look at all the vehicle manufacturers that are stopping production totally of ICE in a few years. Either they have all made a huge gamble and are backing a white elephant that wont happen or you are wrong, its 1 or the other.

Just priced my domestic solar PV system I put in in 2022. Over a 25 year period (includes replacing the inverters* at some point and an allowance for panel decline) the cost per Kwh is about 11.5 cents (US) and thats in cloudy England. * The smaller inverters I have for my older small system are 16 years old and going fine.

LMAO You post this and state "for example below ends the entire green dream obsessions" and yet the very article itself says this "Energy prices had risen sharply in the Scandinavian country after the Finnish government banned electricity imports from neighboring Russia last year due to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine." Are you suggesting then that the power they were getting from Russia was renewables? and the switch to nuclear has reduced this, if so I cannot imagine a more stupid conclusion. Just explain to anyone on this site how your link has anything whatsoever to do with renewable energy generation. And then you get Footinmouth agreeing with you as he as has been shown before on this site that he cant read. If he could he would have read and understood it was NG from Russian imports. 🤡

the death of Fossil fuels....one nuclear plant at a time Finland Rocks Russia Sucks

This has nothing to do with renewables. The article itself explains the price spike was due to the fact Finland had banned the import of Russian electricity so was competing for supplies - largely from Sweden. The impact of the opening of this plant has knock on (pendulum) effects as described earlier. Finland no longer needs to import large amounts of electricity from Sweden which means its available for export into mainland Europe. Its also significantly reduced Finlands gas and coal burn. The opening of this plant couldn't have come at a better time and shakes the Russian energy yoke off Finlands back.

Great news isn't it. That's reduced European demand for gas by about 3200MW equivalent.

Jesus - do you have a passport? You every travelled outside of your state / county / farmstead? Europes quite densely populated. Most power is consumed within its country of production. The interconnectors simply allow for a proportion to be transferred. Spain and portugal are basically a cul de sac bar a small interconnector with Morocco as far as the electric grid goes. Why would they need an interconnector 3/4/5x their entire generating capacity? Even if they went 100% renewable they have about 22GW of Hydro plus biomass

Bucking the claimed trend on here my wife has just ordered a BMW IX3 (EV). Due for August delivery. That will move our household to one EV and one Hybrid (Toyota Corolla)

EWO sorry but this is utter BS! The ONLY reason Europe had sky high energy bills last winter was the ludicrously expensive NG because of the war in Ukraine, there was a lag from the massive cost hikes to the consumer of about 6 months. Renewables didnt just happen overnight weve had them for decades and didnt have sky rocketing energy bills, actually the opposite! See current chart and you'll see how NG prices are back to normal (although these reductions havent yet been fully passed to the average household) https://www.statista.com/statistics/1267500/eu-monthly-wholesale-electricity-price-country/ Funny how all the people on here from Europe say the same thing and people from other continents disagree, unbelievable! Your link is frankly incredibly lazy journalism by the WSJ and factually incorrect and misleading.

Hilarious Mr Magoo You post a link claiming 'Europe is struggling to keep its lights and the heat on this winter' which was written in November 2022. As of May 2023 Europe kept the lights on and weathered the situation to a point where gas prices are back to 2021 levels. Better still you post a link to a 2017 article to back your position up🤡. You may have heard, but probably not, that Russia invaded Ukraine in Feb 2022. Europe was purchasing approximately half its gas from Russia. It now purchases very little. That is the overwhelming reason why gas prices spiked in 2022 and dragged coal prices upwards too. 2017, as per your article link😅 was during the period that it was assumed that Europe would continue its cosy energy supply situation from Russia. Contrary to the talking heads on Fox / WSJ investment in wind / solar / other green energy sources / and end use efficiency have helped reduce vulnerability to supply shocks as Europe is a significant net importer of energy.

To put it in simple terms for you and Eyes wide shut the widespread interconnectors in Europe have a pendulum effect across the whole continent. A typical scenario Its really windy over the UK and Ireland. Wholesale prices fall (traded in 15 / 30 min blocks) and there is fair amount of predictability here anyway. Ireland backfills into the UK. French, Belgium, Dutch and Norwegian utilities take advantage and buy up power. Particularly in the case of France and Norway this allows them to idle / throttle back Hydro & charge up pump storage systems. This influx of electricity drops prices in their markets so it becomes attractive to buy by neighbouring countries - Germany, Italy who can throttle back gas and coal use (they are all generally net importers), idle Hydro. In Italy's case it has a direct interconnect with Greece so if the pricing is right Greece starts buying up power from Italy. Norway can flog that power back to UK or other European countries when prices are right You see similar patterns happen when solar / wind output in Spain and Germany are very high. You can see it all working here - virtually in real time Electricity Maps | Live 24/7 CO₂ emissions of electricity consumption

🤡 Sure in the same way we aren't directly interconnected to Armenia or Turkey, or Kazakstan..... Why on earth would you need to build a 200GW / 500GW interconnector between Spain and France. Spains entire generating capacity is 79GW (includes solar and wind). Frances is 130GW (34 of which is wind and solar). Peak demand is significant below those figures in both cases. In any case cross land border interconnectors are not expensive given the population density in Europe. The interconnector might be a couple of hundred meters of overhead pylons. Yesterday France was exporting >10GW to Italy with Spain backfilling about 2.8GW into France.

Thank you. If the most absurd science can have Ig Nobel Prize; the most absurd news could have Most absurd Media Award....... Can my King of Worthless BS be granted a crown, please? Thank you. There, you do not have anything better to say besides negating things you do not want to accept, for some reasons.

Good read, Meridith, You can pretty much count out The State of Florida, and New home insurance guidelines are you will not get a policy if you have Solar Panels on your roof. It seems that the hurricane seasons have shown that roofs with Solar Panels tend to have more wind damage because the Solar Panels mount in a way that grabs more surface air which puts more strain on the top of the roofs. What few Insurance Companies are left in Florida and the State-run Citizens is the insurer of the last resort, will not begin to cover homes with Solar Panels on the roofs.

🤡 You make it up as you go along don't you? There are occasionally short term curtailments in Scotland due to limits on transmission capacity but by and large it all gets used. When the wind blows hard: Pump storage goes into reverse (thats almost 4GW in the UK) Hydro near idles Gas plant throttles back, coal if its operating Biomass throttles back 7.4 GW of interconnection with mainland Europe and Scandinavia exports large amounts as the UK wholesale price falls below European mainland prices. Norway refills its pump storage using UK wind. There are about 2.5GW / 800 MWh of battery capacity Many large industrial users take advantage of low prices (Cold stores in particular)

and yet no problems in the UK..... stupid and short sided???? UK has built it and uses it with no problems.....with the 1st quarter of this year %33 percent of their electrical production met by wind and now they import less and less fossil fuels .....Which greatly adds to their economy and their national security can you post a recent blackout in the UK due to lack of wind????? no because they also have, as a backup,...... Pump storage...and building more....which is powered by excess wind production Gas Generating facilities...with gas storage which can accommodate up to 15 percent green hydrogen Battery Storage and building more.... building green Hydrogen production....which is powered by surplus wind energy production and the UK has 9GW of grid connects to 5 Countries to help import power if needed and they are building more.....

Looking over the whole of the UK (the windiest place in Europe) for this week the highest wind gusts are predicted to be around 36mph. Wind turbines can cope with gusts (by definition less than 20 seconds) well over 55mph due to their inertia

sustained 40 mph on the ground level means gusts of up to 60 mph 200 feet up

The "consensus" is always in a state of flux as new studies become available. Science is never static.

No Ron I dont know of any as that would be unsafe obviously, but then again above 55mph is a rareity in the North Sea! Please see statistics for the last 15 years in knots. https://www.windfinder.com/windstatistics/forties_north_sea_platform

Enriching the mix simply wipes out any supposed reduction on Co2 emission. On that I decided to use the alcohol free fuel. Its only about 12p a litre more expensive, doesn't absorb water like alcohol and you get more power from it.

I like to cruise, not race around and the last thing I want is a noisy engine. I like battery powered small boats. In the fifties I drove them on in MacArthur Park in California. They had a big lake with boats that reminded one of little Chris Crafts that had an awning and were named after Disney characters. Also a beautiful vintage boathouse, which is now gone. I think they have pedal boats now. I own one of those plus kayaks. https://totally-la.com/legacy-macarthur-park-los-angeles/

This seems crazy to me, NG surely is a key transition energy resource and is crucial to an economic and stable transition. In fact you could argue it should remain as a key energy resource for many many decades to come. New York State Successfully Passes Ban On Natural Gas Stoves https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/New-York-State-Successfully-Passes-Ban-On-Natural-Gas-Stoves.html @Ron Wagner I bet you would agree with me on this one Ron!

The data was for all of 2022! and the article was posted on oil price on 26th Jan 2023!! so yeah its 3 months old but thats NOT old data. In your own post you then confirm what I posted and said this:- "The energy crisis and policy actions sent global investment in low-carbon energy sources soaring to a record $1.1 trillion in 2022" I'll remind you the title of this post is "Investment in renewables is tanking" so you confirm like I do that they are in fact doing the opposite. Leave it with you

Not sure about a China Recession. Last I looked GDP grew 4.2% for the month. The US is not in a recession either. Wars, rumors of wars, attempted Coups and conflict in several countries is par for the course. The worlds economy keeps chugging along.

Yeah, I have always questioned the thermodynamics of that corn-based additive. It's better consumed when packaged in 750ml bottles.

Mark, Good read that said you're talking to a cement wall when you try to address greenies. Some of these people have been doing the “ sky is falling, the ozone is gone, the ice is melting “ since the 1970s If some people and groups can score free money, they will keep up with the end of the world tale. My thoughts are the earth will take care of itself. We have had science, ultimately, without doubt, about the “big bank theory” now that we are seeing deep images never seen before, and science and the scientific community have had their heads spinning. So if China continues to import coal and fire up several new coal furnaces a week, I don't think buying out Dutch farmers' land to stop their farming activities will make no difference. You get China and India to scale back their pollution activities, and that could be a good starting point to continue with this nonsense of stopping farmers, putting up these eyes soars bird-killing wind farms.

They have also mis-managed their refineries to the extent that SASOL have closed 5 out of the 6 major refineries in South Africa. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-17/sasol-outage-means-all-south-african-oil-refineries-are-now-shut An amazing country ruined in the last 5 years by corruption and mis-management. BEE has also been a disaster to their economy.

Let’s give a big shout out to the government of South Africa which has managed to completely mismanage the country’s state-owned power grid over many years to the point where power consumers are now enduring blackouts of up to 10 hours a day. Note that for once this power disaster is not due to renewables. There are no, or hardly any, renewable generators on the South African grid. The bulk of the country’s power comes from coal. However, the country’s plight is an object lesson in what can happen if the so-called transition to renewable generators is mismanaged, particularly if governments insist on throwing away all the fossil fuel backup to those renewables. In South Africa’s case the government seems to have largely ignored the problem of aging coal fired plants continually falling out of service for maintenance or because they have broken down, despite years of warnings. The government of President Cyril Ramaphosa has curried favour with western activists and governments by portraying the decay in the coal grid as a reduction in emissions but has done nothing about providing any replacement power. Two new, and quite big coal-fired plants came into service in 2015 and 2017 but they have proved grossly insufficient, especially with increases in demand. Among other issues, homes in the once-notorious apartheid era townships are getting connected to the grid at an increasing rate. Instead of building new generators to meet this demand the power utility, Eskom, is grappling with corruption and systematic theft on a large scale, as well as frequent sabotage of generating units. Why? It seems to be linked to the criminal activity, but there is no clear explanation of this, which is extraordinary as it also seems to have been going on for years. The government has finally woken up to the point of suggesting that scheduled closures for some coal plants might be deferred, to deploy army units to protect power plants and, wait for it, refer corruption allegations to the police! Way to go President Ramaphosa! Best not to do too much all at once, however. Die hard renewable energy enthusiasts please note. Adding intermittent, renewable energy units might just add to the chaos at this stage. A network using renewables requires balancing power units, perhaps open-cycle gas generators easily able to power up when the wind dies or clouds reduce sunlight. It should also have enough battery and pumped hydro storage to tide the grid over until the gas generators are up and, maybe even reduce the need for them. The South African government does not seem to have bothered with any of that stuff at all, apart from some pumped hydro. Otherwise business and homes have to have their own generators or go without. There is also no quick way out of this problem that I can see apart from installing a heap of large scale diesel generators (about $US100,000 per MW at a guess), which would be very expensive to run. Even installing solar panels and wind generators, at least enough to make any real difference, and a large battery would take time, and installations that large can’t just be placed anywhere. In the mean time the SA economy is being badly affected.

I cannot comment on the emissions from manufacturing and assembling Tesla Batteries. I can only reference a source. The amount of energy consumed to manufacture a Tesla car battery varies depending on the size of the battery and the manufacturing process used. A study by the University of Michigan found that it takes about 50-65 kWh of electricity to produce a kWh of battery capacity. For example, a Tesla Model 3 with a 75 kWh battery would require about 3,750 kWh of electricity to produce. A gallon of gasoline contains about 120,238 Btu. 1 Btu = 1055.056 joules, 1 watt-hour = 3600 joules Therefore, 1 Btu = 1055.056 / 3600 = 0.293 watt-hours And, 120,238 Btu = 120,238 * 0.293 = 35,238.279 watt-hours = about 35 KWh. OR, the equivalent of about 110 gallons of gasoline. The energy used to manufacture a Tesla car battery is offset by the energy savings that the car provides over its lifetime. A Tesla Model 3 will save about 15,000 gallons of gasoline over its lifetime, which is equivalent to about 500,000 kWh of electricity. In other words, the energy used to manufacture a Tesla car battery is a small fraction of the energy savings that the car provides over its lifetime. That said, I doubt that the authors included the emissions from "obtaining, manufacturing and transporting" the petroleum feedstock and refining of gasoline.

I'm on a tidal estuary with currents up to 2.5kts so definitely need some umph if the tides and wind against me and I don't want to spend the night anchored up as my mooring is dry for an hour either side of low water. Both petrol outboards 4 stroke. The larger one is a twin so fairly quiet. Only use sparingly anyway - its a sailing boat.