JM

GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

Recommended Posts

(edited)

20 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

The public debate was avoided, and it will not go away, Jay, until the alternative models are tested and the loser is discarded.

I think that the works I cited for you indicate which model will emerge the winner.

The public debate has been ongoing for years, the Paris Agreement was signed 6 years ago. No matter how many alt models are tested you will just keep claiming there are more. Now, if you watch very closely you can observe history discarding the loser in real time.

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Oil extraction does not interfere with surface use for agriculture, as I pointed out to you with respect to the Bakken area.

Unlike wind mills, which disrupt agriculture and livestock.

See attached. Picture of wind farm near Portland, Texas. Those sure look like plowed fields.

Most landowners in Texas try to milk everything they can from their real estate. Oil, Gas, Wind, Solar, Cows, Corn, Cotton, and Soybeans. A careful look at the picture shows some oil/gas wells as well as the turbines.

PortlandTexasWindTurbines.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The public debate has been ongoing for years, the Paris Agreement was signed 6 years ago. No matter how many alt models are tested you will just keep claiming there are more. Now, if you watch very closely you can observe history discarding the loser in real time.

If you follow the current scientific debate now ongoing, you will see the ultimate winner emerge. It will not take long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, surrept33 said:

That cost was just the baseline from the end of the Obama administration adjusted for inflation. There will be a public debate on what to set it to. I'm guessing higher to align with CO2 reduction goals. 

There is an argument that it should be set much higher because of uncertainty: https://www.ft.com/content/e144719e-0dcb-11e5-aa7b-00144feabdc0

There is a better argument that it should not place any "cost" on CO2, which is essential for agricultural productivity.

The link between atmospheric CO2 and climate change has been well-challenged in the past two years by solar cycle research, so that removes the "cost" element from the equation entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Ecocharger said:

If you follow the current scientific debate now ongoing, you will see the ultimate winner emerge. It will not take long.

All the people in power and all the people with the money aren't paying any attention. The decision has been made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Jay McKinsey said:

All the people in power and all the people with the money aren't paying any attention. The decision has been made.

No, the decision is not made nor will be made until these alternative models are tested in real time, which will not take very long.

You sound rather desperate, Jay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

No, the decision is not made nor will be made until these alternative models are tested in real time, which will not take very long.

You sound rather desperate, Jay. 

Ok, whatever. Meantime in the real world this debate has been going on for a very long time and the people in power have made the  decision to move onto the implementation stage of the transition. 

No matter how much you yell and stamp your feet, everyone is moving on. Your ultimatum that the decision hasn't been made and won't be made until all your claims are fully tested is utterly laughable. All you have done is cite a few inconclusive papers amongst thousands of papers written on the subject every year. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

6 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Ok, whatever. Meantime in the real world this debate has been going on for a very long time and the people in power have made the  decision to move onto the implementation stage of the transition. 

No matter how much you yell and stamp your feet, everyone is moving on. Your ultimatum that the decision hasn't been made and won't be made until all your claims are fully tested is utterly laughable. All you have done is cite a few inconclusive papers amongst thousands of papers written on the subject every year. 

 

Jay, bad science is bad science, and all the political hoopla will not change that.

Sure, liberal politicos have bought into some bad science, but the scientists have their own way of doing things, science will grind on and get to a conclusion regardless of the politicians, who are always the last ones to get wise.

The scientists I linked you to have formed a new school of climate studies whose results are well above the level of the discredited CO2 models which fueled the current climate change movement.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

Jay, bad science is bad science, and all the political hoopla will not change that.

Sure, liberal politicos have bought into some bad science, but the scientists have their own way of doing things, science will grind on and get to a conclusion regardless of the politicians, who are always the last ones to get wise.

The vast weight of science on the subject says you are wrong. It will be an immense endeavor to change that, nothing quick about it. But even if you do then you have to change all the laws and investments put into place in the meantime. By then the transition will be complete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Jay, bad science is bad science, and all the political hoopla will not change that.

Sure, liberal politicos have bought into some bad science, but the scientists have their own way of doing things, science will grind on and get to a conclusion regardless of the politicians, who are always the last ones to get wise.

The scientists I linked you to have formed a new school of climate studies whose results are well above the level of the discredited CO2 models which fueled the current climate change movement.

 Funded by Elon Musk and the Musk Foundation, this $100M competition is the largest incentive prize in history, an extraordinary milestone.‎

This four-year global competition invites innovators and teams from anywhere on the planet to create and demonstrate solutions that can pull carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere or oceans, and sequester it durably and sustainably. To win the grand prize, teams must demonstrate a working solution at a scale of at least 1000 tonnes removed per year; model their costs at a scale of 1 million tonnes per year; and show a pathway to achieving a scale of gigatonnes per year in future.

This four-year global competition invites innovators and teams from anywhere on the planet to create and demonstrate solutions that can pull carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere or oceans, and sequester it durably and sustainably. To win the grand prize, teams must demonstrate a working solution at a scale of at least 1000 tonnes removed per year; model their costs at a scale of 1 million tonnes per year; and show a pathway to achieving a scale of gigatonnes per year in future.

https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

9 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

See attached. Picture of wind farm near Portland, Texas. Those sure look like plowed fields.

Most landowners in Texas try to milk everything they can from their real estate. Oil, Gas, Wind, Solar, Cows, Corn, Cotton, and Soybeans. A careful look at the picture shows some oil/gas wells as well as the turbines.

PortlandTexasWindTurbines.jpg

And then there is this:

 

Railing Against the Wind

Biden cancels offshore projects amid local political opposition

By 
The Editorial Board
April 20, 2021 8:20 pm 
 
im-327814?width=620&size=1.5
 
 
 
 
 

Three wind turbines from the stand in the Atlantic Ocean off Block Island, R.I. 

PHOTO: MICHAEL DWYER/ASSOCIATION
3 minutes
1x
 
 
 

President Biden aims to build wind and solar farms from sea to shining sea to replace fossil fuels in the electricity grid by 2035. But his plans are already running aground off the coast of Long Island in New York, where his Administration last week canceled two offshore wind development zones. 

 
OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH
im-29353?height=120How Does Biden Plan to Halve Emissions by 2030?
 
 
00:00
1x
 
SUBSCRIBE

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management officials said the zones off the island’s coast raised problems with maritime traffic, marine life feeding areas, and concerns over visibility from South Shore beaches. In short, they were a nuisance to fishermen, shippers and gentry with homes in the tony Hamptons area full of Manhattanites during the summer.

The feds are portraying the wind rescission as no big deal since other offshore zones between New York and New Jersey are still under review. But these may run into similar problems. Residents in the town of Wainscott have already sued to prevent a transmission line connecting a wind farm off the coast of Montauk from coming ashore on their beach. 

None of this bodes well for the green energy agenda in New York or nationwide. Gov. Andrew Cuomo is forcing the Indian Point nuclear plant, which has historically provided a quarter of electricity for New York City and Westchester County, to shut down at the end of this month. Yet he’s blocked pipelines to deliver more natural gas to power plants.

 
 

So how does Mr. Cuomo plan to replace New York City’s nuclear power? Good question. The Governor has proposed building 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind and a 250-mile transmission line from upstate to power New York City with renewable energy. But these projects are sure to face opposition too and won’t be completed anytime soon.

Richard Dewey, the New York Independent System Operator CEO, says the state won’t face widespread power outages since natural gas plants can switch to burning oil in a demand-supply pinch. Many did so last winter amid gas shortages. In his fervor to purge natural gas, Mr. Cuomo has made New York City more dependent on dirtier oil.

The Long Island wind cancellations show that renewables are far from an energy panacea. A smart political class would be sure that it has replacements in place before it shuts down reliable energy sources, but that’s not who is running most of America’s governments tod

0:00 / 4:30
 
 
0:00thumbstrip.jpg
 
 
 
 
 
 
WSJ Opinion: An Infrastructure Bill to Tackle Racism?
WSJ 
Main Street: Pete Buttigieg’s definition of infrastructure is not what the American people think it means. Images: Bloomberg/AP/Getty Images Composite: Mark 
 
 
 
Edited by JoMack
too much dead space

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

See attached. Picture of wind farm near Portland, Texas. Those sure look like plowed fields.

Most landowners in Texas try to milk everything they can from their real estate. Oil, Gas, Wind, Solar, Cows, Corn, Cotton, and Soybeans. A careful look at the picture shows some oil/gas wells as well as the turbines.

PortlandTexasWindTurbines.jpg

 

 

President Biden aims to build wind and solar farms from sea to shining sea to replace fossil fuels in the electricity grid by 2035. But his plans are already running aground off the coast of Long Island in New York, where his Administration last week canceled two offshore wind development zones.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management officials said the zones off the island’s coast raised problems with maritime traffic, marine life feeding areas, and concerns over visibility from South Shore beaches. In short, they were a nuisance to fishermen, shippers and gentry with homes in the tony Hamptons area full of Manhattanites during the summer.

The feds are portraying the wind rescission as no big deal since other offshore zones between New York and New Jersey are still under review. But these may run into similar problems. Residents in the town of Wainscott have already sued to prevent a transmission line connecting a wind farm off the coast of Montauk from coming ashore on their beach.

None of this bodes well for the green energy agenda in New York or nationwide. Gov. Andrew Cuomo is forcing the Indian Point nuclear plant, which has historically provided a quarter of electricity for New York City and Westchester County, to shut down at the end of this month. Yet he’s blocked pipelines to deliver more natural gas to power plants.

So how does Mr. Cuomo plan to replace New York City’s nuclear power? Good question. The Governor has proposed building 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind and a 250-mile transmission line from upstate to power New York City with renewable energy. But these projects are sure to face opposition too and won’t be completed anytime soon.

Richard Dewey, the New York Independent System Operator CEO, says the state won’t face widespread power outages since natural gas plants can switch to burning oil in a demand-supply pinch. Many did so last winter amid gas shortages. In his fervor to purge natural gas, Mr. Cuomo has made New York City more dependent on dirtier oil.

The Long Island wind cancellations show that renewables are far from an energy panacea. A smart political class would be sure that it has replacements in place before it shuts down reliable energy sources, but that’s not who is running most of America’s governments today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parts of N.Y. and N.J. coast to be designated offshore wind zone  

Credit:  The Biden administration makes a swath of ocean between New York and New Jersey an offshore wind zone. | By Lisa Friedman and Brad Plumer | The New York Times | March 29, 2021 | www.nytimes.com ~~

 

The Biden administration announced a plan on Monday to vastly expand the use of offshore wind power along the East Coast, aiming to tap a potentially huge source of renewable energy that has so far struggled to gain a foothold in the United States.

The plan would designate an area between Long Island and New Jersey as a priority offshore wind zone and sets a goal of installing 30,000 megawatts of offshore wind turbines in coastal waters nationwide by 2030, generating enough clean electricity to power 10 million homes. To help meet that target, the administration said it would accelerate permitting for proposed wind projects off the Atlantic coast, offer $3 billion in federal loan guarantees for offshore wind projects and upgrade the nation’s ports to support wind construction.

The White House said on Monday that the plan would avoid 78 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

The moves come as President Biden prepares an approximately $3 trillion economic recovery plan that will focus heavily on infrastructure to tackle climate change, an effort he has framed as a jobs initiative. Officials made a similar case on Monday, saying offshore wind deployment would directly create 44,000 new jobs, such as building and installing turbines, and indirectly create another 33,000.

“The president recognizes that a thriving offshore wind industry will drive new jobs and economic opportunity up and down the Atlantic coast and the Gulf of Mexico and in Pacific waters,” Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said during a briefing on Monday.

Republicans said they were skeptical of Mr. Biden’s promise of millions of “green jobs.” They have criticized his earlier moves to suspend new oil and gas leases and revoke permits for the Keystone XL pipeline as responsible for killing well-paying jobs in their states.

Gina McCarthy, the White House national climate adviser, called offshore wind a “new, untapped industry” that “will create pathways to the middle class for people from all backgrounds.”

Last month, the Biden administration took a key step in approving the nation’s first large-scale offshore wind farm, off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts – a project that had stagnated under the Trump administration. The proposal for 84 large turbines with 800 megawatts of electric generating capacity is slated to come online by 2023.

Vineyard Wind is one of 13 offshore wind projects proposed along the East Coast, and the Interior Department has estimated that as many as 2,000 turbines could be rotating in the Atlantic Ocean by 2030.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Even a couple thousand turbines is a drop in the energy bucket but a start at growing offshore wind to scale. I still have hope for small modular nuclear if proven to be safe and cost competitive with future renewables. It’s a tech battle. 
Most of these conversations miss the big picture. Having fewer humans on the planet is the best choice. Humans equal consumption, resource depletion and pollution. Who knows the impact of how voluntary couples with the support of community could change the trajectory of consumption impact.

Edited by Boat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You still haven't provided any evidence to support your claim that wind turbines have a negative effect on agriculture. Thanks for staying true to form with your unsubstantiated claims.

Any energy infrastructure requires a footprint. Isn’t that obvious? Typically the land owner makes more money off the energy producer than crops or cattle or he wouldn’t have leased the land to begin with. Maybe I just don’t understand the conversation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Boat said:

Any energy infrastructure requires a footprint. Isn’t that obvious? Typically the land owner makes more money off the energy producer than crops or cattle or he wouldn’t have leased the land to begin with. Maybe I just don’t understand the conversation. 

it was in the context of wind turbines vs. oil production on the farm or ranch. He claimed wind was a big negative but not oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

it was in the context of wind turbines vs. oil production on the farm or ranch. He claimed wind was a big negative but not oil.

It’s a little difficult to run a plow over a drilling rig. You and Turbo have more patience than I with utter nonsense. However I respect your more muted decorum. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Green New Deal or Welfare For Green Manufacturing....Maybe just California.

How to Get a Tesla Model 3 for $25,000 (in California)

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/04/25/how-to-get-a-tesla-model-3-for-25000/amp/

 

 

 

California-Rebat-Table_1024x1024.png

Oops another slice a heaven, that 20,000 dollars in govt welfare.

Vehicle Make & Model Vehicle Type Full Credit Phase Out
50% 25%
Tesla vehicles purchased after 12/31/2019 are not eligible for these tax credits.
Tesla Motors   1/1/10 to 12/31/18 1/1/19 to 6/30/19 7/1/19 to 12/31/19
2012–20 Model S
Tesla Model S EV $7,500
$3,750
$1,875
2016–20 Model X
Tesla Model X EV $7,500
$3,750
$1,875
2020 Model 3 Standard Range
Tesla Model 3 Standard Range EV $7,500
$3,750
$1,875
2019–20 Model 3 Standard Range Plus
Tesla Model 3 Standard Range Plus EV $7,500
$3,750
$1,875
2017–20 Model 3 Long Range
Tesla Model 3 Long Range EV $7,500
$3,750
$1,875
2018–20 Model 3 Long Range AWD and AWD Performance
Tesla Model 3 Long Range AWD and AWD Performance EV $7,500
$3,750
$1,875
2018–20 Model 3 Mid Range
Tesla Model 3 Mid Range EV $7,500
$3,750
$1,875
2008–11 Roadster
Tesla Roadster EV $7,500
$3,750
$1,875

TBD = To be determined

Updated 4/26/2021

Qualified Plug-In Electric Drive Motor Vehicles (IRC 30D)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The vast weight of science on the subject says you are wrong. It will be an immense endeavor to change that, nothing quick about it. But even if you do then you have to change all the laws and investments put into place in the meantime. By then the transition will be complete.

No, Jay the science is showing that CO2 is not a significant factor in climate temperature change, the old models used by climate alarmists have been exposed as bad science. In science, these kind of errors are usually sorted out fairly quickly, and the two types of models here (solar vs. CO2) have drastically different predictive outcomes in the short term. That will decomplicate the task of scientific consensus building.

The transition will barely be off the ground before the scientific consensus has reformulated, investment flows change all the time, there is nothing new about that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

 Funded by Elon Musk and the Musk Foundation, this $100M competition is the largest incentive prize in history, an extraordinary milestone.‎

This four-year global competition invites innovators and teams from anywhere on the planet to create and demonstrate solutions that can pull carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere or oceans, and sequester it durably and sustainably. To win the grand prize, teams must demonstrate a working solution at a scale of at least 1000 tonnes removed per year; model their costs at a scale of 1 million tonnes per year; and show a pathway to achieving a scale of gigatonnes per year in future.

This four-year global competition invites innovators and teams from anywhere on the planet to create and demonstrate solutions that can pull carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere or oceans, and sequester it durably and sustainably. To win the grand prize, teams must demonstrate a working solution at a scale of at least 1000 tonnes removed per year; model their costs at a scale of 1 million tonnes per year; and show a pathway to achieving a scale of gigatonnes per year in future.

https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk

This is a risky business, if you pull too much CO2 out of the atmosphere, you risk reducing agricultural productivity and creating famines in many parts of the world. This is like drinking a glass of acidic brew, you do not know the results until it is into your system.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

See attached. Picture of wind farm near Portland, Texas. Those sure look like plowed fields.

Most landowners in Texas try to milk everything they can from their real estate. Oil, Gas, Wind, Solar, Cows, Corn, Cotton, and Soybeans. A careful look at the picture shows some oil/gas wells as well as the turbines.

PortlandTexasWindTurbines.jpg

Where are the acres of solar panels?  Don't see them here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Where are the acres of solar panels?  Don't see them here.

Solar and Sewage Treatment. Better together.

SolarAndSewerTreatmentBetterTogether.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

 

6 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Oops another slice a heaven, that 20,000 dollars in govt welfare.

Vehicle Make & Model Vehicle Type Full Credit Phase Out
50% 25%
Tesla vehicles purchased after 12/31/2019 are not eligible for these tax credits.
Tesla Motors   1/1/10 to 12/31/18 1/1/19 to 6/30/19 7/1/19 to 12/31/19
2012–20 Model S
Tesla Model S EV $7,500
$3,750
$1,875
2016–20 Model X
Tesla Model X EV $7,500
$3,750
$1,875
2020 Model 3 Standard Range
Tesla Model 3 Standard Range EV $7,500
$3,750
$1,875
2019–20 Model 3 Standard Range Plus
Tesla Model 3 Standard Range Plus EV $7,500
$3,750
$1,875
2017–20 Model 3 Long Range
Tesla Model 3 Long Range EV $7,500
$3,750
$1,875
2018–20 Model 3 Long Range AWD and AWD Performance
Tesla Model 3 Long Range AWD and AWD Performance EV $7,500
$3,750
$1,875
2018–20 Model 3 Mid Range
Tesla Model 3 Mid Range EV $7,500
$3,750
$1,875
2008–11 Roadster
Tesla Roadster EV $7,500
$3,750
$1,875

TBD = To be determined

Updated 4/26/2021

Qualified Plug-In Electric Drive Motor Vehicles (IRC 30D)

As to the CA subsidies what it has gotten us is a BEV maret share of 6% and growing (up from 2% in 4 years), a great start to cleaning our smoggy air. And if you think 6% doesn't sound like much then that means we also didn't spend much on the subsidies because they only apply to those 6% of purchases. And half of those subsidies are income driven and I bet the number of people who have used them is asymptotic to zero.

Tesla isn't eligible for the federal  tax credits (says so right at the top of the graphic) but if you count tax credits as welfare then you best be careful because the oil industry gets a lot of tax credits and deductions.

However if Biden gets his full EV rebate funding then we will certainly have a wild show to watch! 

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

6 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

No, Jay the science is showing that CO2 is not a significant factor in climate temperature change, the old models used by climate alarmists have been exposed as bad science. In science, these kind of errors are usually sorted out fairly quickly, and the two types of models here (solar vs. CO2) have drastically different predictive outcomes in the short term. That will decomplicate the task of scientific consensus building.

The transition will barely be off the ground before the scientific consensus has reformulated, investment flows change all the time, there is nothing new about that.

So where is this new school of climatology research centered? Can you provide some links to where this new climatology is being tested? I've lost track of whatever links you provided before. 

Because when I search the topic all I find is absolute conformity of research that CO2 is a major cause of climate change. Such as:

After 40 years, researchers finally see Earth’s climate destiny more clearly

By Paul VoosenJul. 22, 2020 , 10:00 AM

It seems like such a simple question: How hot is Earth going to get? Yet for 40 years, climate scientists have repeated the same unsatisfying answer: If humans double atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) from preindustrial levels, the planet will eventually warm between 1.5°C and 4.5°C—a temperature range that encompasses everything from a merely troubling rise to a catastrophic one.

Now, in a landmark effort, a team of 25 scientists has significantly narrowed the bounds on this critical factor, known as climate sensitivity. The assessment, conducted under the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) and publishing this week in Reviews of Geophysics, relies on three strands of evidence: trends indicated by contemporary warming, the latest understanding of the feedback effects that can slow or accelerate climate change, and lessons from ancient climates. They support a likely warming range of between 2.6°C and 3.9°C, says Steven Sherwood, one of the study’s lead authors and a climate scientist at the University of New South Wales. “This is the number that really controls how bad global warming is going to be.”

The new study is the payoff of decades of advances in climate science, says James Hansen, the famed retired NASA climate scientist who helped craft the first sensitivity range in 1979. “It is an impressive, comprehensive study, and I am not just saying that because I agree with the result. Whoever shepherded this deserves our gratitude.”

Edited by Jay McKinsey

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.