JM

GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The missing Mach-E went to Norway

Ford Mustang Mach-E noted an impressive 1,384 new registrations (9.8% share in May), immediately jumping to the #11 best-selling model year-to-date.

https://insideevs.com/news/511280/norway-ev-sales-may-2021/

 

I am happy the Norway folks like that butt ugly car and buying em all up. Maybe them Swedish folks and Germans will like it too and keep them off the U.S. roads......

  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Actually their are times i believe Ford has a extremely self destructive nature. After they developed the ecoboost engine they let the tech just stagnate. The Ecoboost engine with it DI,VCT software developed for timing on the fly and its forged internals would be another one hit wonder going to propane. Propane is safely combusted in a engine @ 15:1 ratio's....That would mean diesel tourqe and high revving gas engine quality's...Absolutely unheard of power,economoy at greatly reduced emission waste...Its sad.

Energy density of propane verses Gasoline is why you get ~~~~ 25% less power.  Another reason is the volumetric ratio of propane to air is optimally 24: 1 if I recall correctly whereas gasoline is 15:1.  Therefore the volume air requiring compression is roughly 60% GREATER for propane compared to Gasoline, why when you convert gasoline to white gas(very light gasoline) you have to put a VERY VERY thick head gasket on the engine and severely retard ignition.  Propane is even worse in this regard.  Likewise Natural gas combusts at the pressure ratio's you describe, not propane is my recollection AND it has the energy density that of Diesel.  

Propane is crap to run engines on. Natural Gas is king, nearly equal to that of Diesel. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Propane is crap to run engines on. Natural Gas is king, nearly equal to that of Diesel. 

While I cannot refute your numbers...

Why is my Generac rated at 14 KW on propane, and only 13 KW on nat gas??

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

While I cannot refute your numbers...

Why is my Generac rated at 14 KW on propane, and only 13 KW on nat gas??

My guess: explosive pressure.  Injectors are same size, head Volume ratio is same, therefore since upgrading the engine block for low pressure Propane to higher compression ratio for NG, would require shaving the block, it is easier to alter the timing, and regulate less NG into the chambers. 

There are a lot more realities to engineering than theoretical numbers.  But if one ever designed from the outset an engine to run on NG... then you truly would see how poor Propane would function in same said engine... assuming one could even do so due to the pressure ratios involved.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

My guess: explosive pressure.  Injectors are same size, head Volume ratio is same, therefore since upgrading the engine block for low pressure Propane to higher compression ratio for NG, would require shaving the block, it is easier to alter the timing, and regulate less NG into the chambers. 

There are a lot more realities to engineering than theoretical numbers.  But if one ever designed from the outset an engine to run on NG... then you truly would see how poor Propane would function in same said engine... assuming one could even do so due to the pressure ratios involved.

The conversion from nat gas to propane is flipping one mechanical lever at the "carburetor", no timing adjustments made.  Perhaps a restiriction to air (or fuel)?

No anti-knock detectors (on my model) to enable adjusting timing.    Ignition is just a magneto, anyhow.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, turbguy said:

The conversion from nat gas to propane is flipping one mechanical lever at the "carburetor", no timing adjustments made.  Perhaps a restiriction to air (or fuel)?

No anti-knock detectors (on my model) to enable adjusting timing.    Ignition is just a magneto, anyhow.

There you go, no injectors, just limits amount of air/fuel allowed in carbureator probably via knock sensor and a MAP... << goes off internet search >> Ah, I see, yup, measures pressure at manifold on Carburator inlet as Propane/NG/Gasoline had different pressures can easily change... I would guess that the lever you throw chokes the fuel inlet is what it looks like and the air side stays the same.  Who knows what the burn efficiency is. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

There you go, no injectors, just limits amount of air/fuel allowed in carbureator probably via knock sensor and a MAP... << goes off internet search >> Ah, I see, yup, measures pressure at manifold on Carburator inlet as Propane/NG/Gasoline had different pressures can easily change... I would guess that the lever you throw chokes the fuel inlet is what it looks like and the air side stays the same.  Who knows what the burn efficiency is. 

Yeah, I think it just changes an orifice size.

Similar to a dual fuel gas grill.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Energy density of propane verses Gasoline is why you get ~~~~ 25% less power.  Another reason is the volumetric ratio of propane to air is optimally 24: 1 if I recall correctly whereas gasoline is 15:1.  Therefore the volume air requiring compression is roughly 60% GREATER for propane compared to Gasoline, why when you convert gasoline to white gas(very light gasoline) you have to put a VERY VERY thick head gasket on the engine and severely retard ignition.  Propane is even worse in this regard.  Likewise Natural gas combusts at the pressure ratio's you describe, not propane is my recollection AND it has the energy density that of Diesel.  

Propane is crap to run engines on. Natural Gas is king, nearly equal to that of Diesel. 

Well run NG, i can assure you I by no means claim any type of chemistry degree what so ever. Now hot rodding a engine and keep it reliable its game on...At 15:1 a 2.0 4  cylinder would probably dump around 350 hp..and squared with torque..350ftlbs..geared properly say 40 mpg and 50% less emissions..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2021 at 5:49 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

They will also be making power for general consumption but Ron was talking about natural gas vehicles. Unless it is green gas, NG vehicles ultimately fail the the carbon test and won't survive.

Whose "carbon test"? What does this "carbon test" consist of?  More dreamland stuff?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 6/1/2021 at 1:55 PM, Eyes Wide Open said:

Mr. Mckinsey Europe is not above nor below a Flash In The Pan...Frankly the EU depends heavily upon oil tax revenue to support there entire govt structure. I do believe when the lost revenues hit the electric fan...a new light will be cast upon Green Energy. The French population would be a very good example of a rebellion to such events, seeing their energy tax increase exponentially in electrical rates may well a watershed moment...Who know's i hope the population is delighted with there new toy's.

The people who get hit hard with heavy bills for the Green Dream are the poor people. These people march in the streets of Paris.

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2021 at 3:17 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

No, they are buying plug-ins.

May In France: Plugin Vehicle Sales At 17.3% Share — Up 2.3× Year On Year

May-2021-France-Passenger-Auto-Registrations-sq.png

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/06/01/france-may-plugin-ev-sales-at-17-3-share-up-2-3x-year-on-year/

"They" are not the poor people of France, who will get dry-gulched by the Green bills for over-hyped products. Then the poor people will march in Paris.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Green hydrogen?

"Green hydrogen exists today in only minute quantities. Its cost is at least twice that of fossil-based hydrogen. There is essentially no market for it. So it is still very early days for the industry. 

Today, approximately 10 million metric tons (Mt) of hydrogen are produced annually by industries in the United States, while approximately 120 Mt of hydrogen are produced globally (China is the largest producer country). Nearly all of this is produced with processes causing high carbon emissions. 

It has been estimated that to reach current US hydrogen production with renewable electricity would require 115GW of offshore wind power. The difficulty of doing that becomes obvious when one considers that the US is now officially striving to have 30GW of offshore wind power by the year 2030. 

IRENA, in its energy transition roadmap to 2050, estimates that global production of green hydrogen must reach approximately 400 Mt, which would require a total installed electrolyser capacity of 5 terawatts (TW) by 2050. Today, total installed electrolyser capacity worldwide is approximately 8GW. "

There are 1,000 GW to a TW. (a terawatt is a trillion watts). 

So this article is saying that the green dream requires electrolyser capacity of 5,000 GW, whereas total world capacity is only 8 GW, a mere drop in the proverbial bucket. Almost nothing.

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

There is another speed bump on the road to Green. Oil demand will remain stubbornly high, and probably get higher going forward.

People will still demand SUV's and air travel to visit other continents. Transitioning will be as slow as a snail, or slower.

And poor people will still drive gasoline automobiles, but will have to pay punitive taxes on them, fueling anger and rebellion.

Oil supplies will still get through in huge volumes, despite the desperate efforts of Green officials to choke them off.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Climate-Revolt-Against-Big-Oil-May-Lead-To-Surge-In-Crude-Prices.htm

"As much as environmentalists and activist shareholders want the major international oil firms to slash upstream investment further, the world’s energy system is not ready yet to deprive itself of the oil and gas resources that Big Oil is exploring and developing. As it stands, 80 percent of global energy is still being met by fossil fuels, and net-zero emission targets or not, the global transition to low-carbon sources of energy will take decades, not just years, and a shareholder meeting or two.  

Last week’s rebuke of Big Oil’s current strategic direction sets the stage for some unintended consequences that climate activists may have overlooked. 

These consequences include unintentionally giving OPEC even more control over the global oil market. National oil companies—in countries where environmental policies are much weaker than in the U.S. and Europe where the oil supermajors are based—will be all-too-eager to step up and fill in the supply gap."

"The more investors revolt against Big Oil, the more opportunities OPEC and its national oil companies will have to step up and say they need to pump more oil to keep the global energy supply and oil prices stable. 

Unlike in the United States, the UK, and the European Union, OPEC’s top producing firms are not pressured by government pledges for net-zero emissions or shareholder dissent over their strategic direction. For example, the top shareholder of the world’s biggest oil firm by any measure, Saudi Aramco, is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with more than 98 percent. While BP, Shell, and Total will be shrinking oil production, Aramco could see more opportunities to increase its own to fill in the gap. 

Big Oil firms could be constrained by shareholders, capital markets, and even courts in their investment in oil and gas while they pursue net-zero 2050 targets, paving the way for OPEC producers such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Venezuela to boost their market share."  

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Green hydrogen?

"Green hydrogen exists today in only minute quantities. Its cost is at least twice that of fossil-based hydrogen. There is essentially no market for it. So it is still very early days for the industry. 

Today, approximately 10 million metric tons (Mt) of hydrogen are produced annually by industries in the United States, while approximately 120 Mt of hydrogen are produced globally (China is the largest producer country). Nearly all of this is produced with processes causing high carbon emissions. 

It has been estimated that to reach current US hydrogen production with renewable electricity would require 115GW of offshore wind power. The difficulty of doing that becomes obvious when one considers that the US is now officially striving to have 30GW of offshore wind power by the year 2030. 

IRENA, in its energy transition roadmap to 2050, estimates that global production of green hydrogen must reach approximately 400 Mt, which would require a total installed electrolyser capacity of 5 terawatts (TW) by 2050. Today, total installed electrolyser capacity worldwide is approximately 8GW. "

There are 1,000 GW to a TW. (a terawatt is a trillion watts). 

So this article is saying that the green dream requires electrolyser capacity of 5,000 GW, whereas total world capacity is only 8 GW, a mere drop in the proverbial bucket. Almost nothing.

"Estimates of the green hydrogen pipeline are evolving very rapidly. In 2020, the pipeline for the next five years was estimated to be about 18  gigawatts  (GW), but that increased sharply a few months later. Estimates vary widely according to announcements made, between 33  GW (BNEF, 2021a) and above 90  GW (Hydrogen Council, 2021)."

5TW in 30 years won't be a problem.

Off-shore wind will also be in place in 30 years. Think about it. If we install 30GW over the next 10 years then that just leaves 85GW for the following two decades. Of course the wind industry will rapidly pick up speed of deployment as the technology advances and operations mature. 115GW of offshore wind won't be a problem for 2050, we will have much more than that by then. Europe already has over  100GW in the pipeline for 2030 and are planning on 300GW by 2050. No doubt the actual quantity will be far higher.

But of course we aren't limited to off shore wind, we also have solar and on shore wind. Australia and the Middle East are announcing solar powered green hydrogen projects at a prodigious rate. One company alone is working on 100 GW of solar hydrogen split between both locals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2021 at 2:52 PM, turbguy said:

While I cannot refute your numbers...

Why is my Generac rated at 14 KW on propane, and only 13 KW on nat gas??

There are a few varablies, the big one would flame propagation NG burns twice as fast as propane.. In short your genset is timed for gas or propane... 

Ignition timing is critical for optimum combustion efficiency...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

45 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

There is another speed bump on the road to Green. Oil demand will remain stubbornly high, and probably get higher going forward.

People will still demand SUV's and air travel to visit other continents. Transitioning will be as slow as a snail, or slower.

And poor people will still drive gasoline automobiles, but will have to pay punitive taxes on them, fueling anger and rebellion.

Oil supplies will still get through in huge volumes, despite the desperate efforts of Green officials to choke them off.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Climate-Revolt-Against-Big-Oil-May-Lead-To-Surge-In-Crude-Prices.htm

"As much as environmentalists and activist shareholders want the major international oil firms to slash upstream investment further, the world’s energy system is not ready yet to deprive itself of the oil and gas resources that Big Oil is exploring and developing. As it stands, 80 percent of global energy is still being met by fossil fuels, and net-zero emission targets or not, the global transition to low-carbon sources of energy will take decades, not just years, and a shareholder meeting or two.  

Last week’s rebuke of Big Oil’s current strategic direction sets the stage for some unintended consequences that climate activists may have overlooked. 

These consequences include unintentionally giving OPEC even more control over the global oil market. National oil companies—in countries where environmental policies are much weaker than in the U.S. and Europe where the oil supermajors are based—will be all-too-eager to step up and fill in the supply gap."

"The more investors revolt against Big Oil, the more opportunities OPEC and its national oil companies will have to step up and say they need to pump more oil to keep the global energy supply and oil prices stable. 

Unlike in the United States, the UK, and the European Union, OPEC’s top producing firms are not pressured by government pledges for net-zero emissions or shareholder dissent over their strategic direction. For example, the top shareholder of the world’s biggest oil firm by any measure, Saudi Aramco, is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with more than 98 percent. While BP, Shell, and Total will be shrinking oil production, Aramco could see more opportunities to increase its own to fill in the gap. 

Big Oil firms could be constrained by shareholders, capital markets, and even courts in their investment in oil and gas while they pursue net-zero 2050 targets, paving the way for OPEC producers such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Venezuela to boost their market share."  

EV's are falling in cost and in a few years will be less expensive than ICE.  Good example is the Chevy Bolt which was just updated to a much nicer vehicle and the price was reduced by $5.5K, it now starts at $32K. In a few more years it will be $25K and so on. 

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/2/2021 at 5:25 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Energy density of propane verses Gasoline is why you get ~~~~ 25% less power.  Another reason is the volumetric ratio of propane to air is optimally 24: 1 if I recall correctly whereas gasoline is 15:1.  Therefore the volume air requiring compression is roughly 60% GREATER for propane compared to Gasoline, why when you convert gasoline to white gas(very light gasoline) you have to put a VERY VERY thick head gasket on the engine and severely retard ignition.  Propane is even worse in this regard.  Likewise Natural gas combusts at the pressure ratio's you describe, not propane is my recollection AND it has the energy density that of Diesel.  

Propane is crap to run engines on. Natural Gas is king, nearly equal to that of Diesel. 

 

On 6/2/2021 at 8:29 AM, Eyes Wide Open said:

Well run NG, i can assure you I by no means claim any type of chemistry degree what so ever. Now hot rodding a engine and keep it reliable its game on...At 15:1 a 2.0 4  cylinder would probably dump around 350 hp..and squared with torque..350ftlbs..geared properly say 40 mpg and 50% less emissions..

Pardon me, I am confused...

natural gas = a mixture of methane ( CH4 ), and other gases

Liquid Petroleum Gas = propane, butane, etc?

how could a one carbon compound, methane, has equal power to diesel, a compound of 10 carbons?

All NLPG would be converted into CO2, water and heat, under complete combustion with sufficient air . What kind of carbon test we are directing it to fail? Must be CO2 emission? :o:(😵

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/23/2021 at 2:24 PM, JoMack said:

As Biden, the President of Climate Change, and Kerry, our fabulous Climate Czar, who just gave Japan the thumbs up to dump millions of tons of waste water from the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean, who then flies off in his private jet to Martha's Vineyard, decide to create a massive legislative boondoggle called the Green New Deal.  Now, they are not alone, they have the full throated backing from a bartender from Westchester NY, a socialist from Vermont, and other liberal climatoligists who get on twitter and tell us definitely that we're all going to all die in 10 years if we don't comply.  So, all of the climate crew are preparing to bring America into the dark ages. We have the new DOE Grishom, ex-Michigan Gov. who didn't meet a pipeline she didn't want to expunge (and Whitmer has now taken up the mantel on Line 5), and then we have Haaland, head of DOI, who didn't meet a drilling rig she didn't want to burn to the ground.  So, we have a group of thugs, pushing their agenda, and with no solutions, objectives,  science, economics, or the actual future of the U.S. in mind, so they press ahead with a monumental agenda where no one wins, expect them.

In 4 months, the U.S. production has dropped over 2 million barrels and the climate wizards are demanding that the U.S. drop its emissions by 50% by 2030.  WHOA!  How is that going to work?  Doesn't matter, just gut up and do it.  Overhauling the electric grid?  1/2 million charging stations?  refitting millions of buildings, transitioning all federal vehicles to EVs, etc.  It's such a lofty goal, but while being in Texas in February, I know for certain, that even 4 days without power, heat, communication and black ice, car dead, it's a pretty scary ordeal, and that's just 4 days.  So, just wondering just a bit about solar and wind, no one seems to be considering the problem of the massive renewable capacity that will be required to supply energy to the nation.  Not only the grid, but the vast swaths of land with new infrastructure at the same time that politicians and landowners from California to Vermont are fighting against the encroachment of large-scale renewable energy projects.

New York is shutting down its last nuclear plant at Indian Point and Gov. (in big trouble) Cuomo won't allow drilling or pipelines, so this should be pretty interesting to watch next winter, L.A. County banned large wind turbines and San Bernardino Co, Humboldt County, and Santa Barbara County rejected new wind turbines in their communities.  So as California, the big kahuna of renewable energy, between 2013 and 2019 California added less than 200MW of new wind energy capacity.  California as we know, will do anything to get to their goal of 30% lower emissions this year, so it's not much of a challenge to find some of the projects they have promoted in order to reach that standard.  Below is Ivanpah, with 350,000 garage size heliostats (mirrors) with 3 459' boiling towers costing $2.2B, backed by the U.S. taxpayers.  The facility has had more problems than Biden's thought process and the beams from the sun blind pilots going into LAX, scorch birds out of the sky (called streamers) - not sparrows by the way, covers 4000 feet of land in the Mojave Desert which "was" protected for wind burrow and the desert tortoise (but, it's for the good of the environment you idiots), and its capacity for all its cost and environmental issues it generates 342MW of power.  That would be 140,000 homes.  Yup, what a great project, and let's mot forget Crescent Dunes, another solar project that went bankrupt last year.  

 

So, we are going into a big giant mass of insanity with the Biden Administration going back into the Iran Nuclear Deal and handing them bucks and China is paying Iran with their cryptocurrency to a million+ bbls of oil.  So, the energy sector along with the country is in big trouble, and it's been 4 months.  We see the oil price moving about $5 bucks up and down every couple of weeks, and it's unsettling with banks lending on environmental risk and social justice risk.  Before the "Woke" came into play between energy and the lenders, risk was based on the proven reserves, developed and undeveloped, and now, how the hell do you calculate social justice risk?  But, wait, Exxon, BP, Shell, Conoco has been fighting failing states like NY, MA, CT, DE (Biden's home town BTW) CA, etc. (blue=disaster), for climate change disinformation.  As Biden says "Wreaked Havoc on Our Climate"! So, the Majors are now folding to the woke crowd, climate change will be the breakthrough for huge legal class actions, and the big question after all is said and done, will America survive?

While this issue is not resolved yet, another has popped up i.e.

India dumps corps of covid casualties  into the holy Ganges River. Some of the corps floated across the oceans and reached some other countries and polluted the fishery yield, seafood and whatever is in the sea......Has anyone discovered one or a few of those over the coast of European region or continent of America or Africa??....... O.o:o

Legal action is easy to break....... counter sue the government for not knowing enough to guide them properly...? 😈

image.png.27da93df1d42c8b5de419d61e95a5f65.png

 😈

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2021 at 4:25 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Energy density of propane verses Gasoline is why you get ~~~~ 25% less power.  Another reason is the volumetric ratio of propane to air is optimally 24: 1 if I recall correctly whereas gasoline is 15:1.  Therefore the volume air requiring compression is roughly 60% GREATER for propane compared to Gasoline, why when you convert gasoline to white gas(very light gasoline) you have to put a VERY VERY thick head gasket on the engine and severely retard ignition.  Propane is even worse in this regard.  Likewise Natural gas combusts at the pressure ratio's you describe, not propane is my recollection AND it has the energy density that of Diesel.  

Propane is crap to run engines on. Natural Gas is king, nearly equal to that of Diesel. 

I advocate for natural gas but propane is widely used also.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2021 at 7:05 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

There you go, no injectors, just limits amount of air/fuel allowed in carbureator probably via knock sensor and a MAP... << goes off internet search >> Ah, I see, yup, measures pressure at manifold on Carburator inlet as Propane/NG/Gasoline had different pressures can easily change... I would guess that the lever you throw chokes the fuel inlet is what it looks like and the air side stays the same.  Who knows what the burn efficiency is. 

My heating stove has a separate valve for propane. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Whose "carbon test"? What does this "carbon test" consist of?  More dreamland stuff?

I am all for RNG as a sales tool and using up waste of many kinds. That alone can go far in meeting fuel needs but I love Jay's reported technique of producing pure CO2 as a byproduct that is then marketed. I just read an Australian article touting how much natural gas has helped Australia meet pollution goals by replacing coal, just as America has. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

"Estimates of the green hydrogen pipeline are evolving very rapidly. In 2020, the pipeline for the next five years was estimated to be about 18  gigawatts  (GW), but that increased sharply a few months later. Estimates vary widely according to announcements made, between 33  GW (BNEF, 2021a) and above 90  GW (Hydrogen Council, 2021)."

5TW in 30 years won't be a problem.

Off-shore wind will also be in place in 30 years. Think about it. If we install 30GW over the next 10 years then that just leaves 85GW for the following two decades. Of course the wind industry will rapidly pick up speed of deployment as the technology advances and operations mature. 115GW of offshore wind won't be a problem for 2050, we will have much more than that by then. Europe already has over  100GW in the pipeline for 2030 and are planning on 300GW by 2050. No doubt the actual quantity will be far higher.

But of course we aren't limited to off shore wind, we also have solar and on shore wind. Australia and the Middle East are announcing solar powered green hydrogen projects at a prodigious rate. One company alone is working on 100 GW of solar hydrogen split between both locals.

Green dream requires 5,000GW....you are talking chump change again. As usual.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

EV's are falling in cost and in a few years will be less expensive than ICE.  Good example is the Chevy Bolt which was just updated to a much nicer vehicle and the price was reduced by $5.5K, it now starts at $32K. In a few more years it will be $25K and so on. 

Not relevant to this discussion above. Poor people will still cling to their ICE vehicles. Jay, you yourself are clinging to your own ICE vehicle and you have chosen not to invest in an EV. That makes sense for you, and for anyone. EV's are still just a toy for the well-off.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

The Russians are not stupid about oil and its future...Novak warns,

"If the world were to follow the International Energy Agency’s controversial road map, which said investment in new fields would have to stop immediately to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, "the price for oil will go to, what, $200? Gas prices will skyrocket," Novak said."

https://www.worldoil.com/news/2021/6/3/opec-leaders-mock-iea-s-la-la-land-2050-net-zero-roadmap

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Not relevant to this discussion above. Poor people will still cling to their ICE vehicles. Jay, you yourself are clinging to your own ICE vehicle and you have chosen not to invest in an EV. That makes sense for you, and for anyone. EV's are still just a toy for the well-off.

Evidence of decreasing EV costs certainly does undermine your position. Not surprising that you would call such evidence irrelevant. 

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.