GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

7 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Notice, the numbers do not suggest a linear downward trend to zero growth.  R^2 is much higher for a levelling off in sale growth.

 

The growth rate is already below zero as of late last year for monthly year on year rates.

Edited April 16 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

7 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

That is not an exponential growth curve, that is a declining growth curve asymptotic to a low rate.

 

You said it yourself asymptotic to a low growth rate. Low growth is still growth.

It is not my job to plot new curves.  I showed you math using the numbers you provided. If you can do better feel free!

 

Edited April 16 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

The growth rate is already below zero as of late last year for monthly year on year rates.

No, you just provided numbers showing positive growth year after year.

Do you understand that 50 - 30 = 20?  Is 20 a positive number? There is no "negative growth" in those numbers.

I could attempt to explain derivatives but for now we will stick with addition level math.

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

Do further clarify, you can never have negative sale growth.

As a thought experiment imagine a world where all EV sales stop instantly.  Not a single EV is ever sold again.  What would be the EV sales growth that year?  The answer would be zero growth - not negative.

[notsonice + 1,255]

10 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Do further clarify, you can never have negative sale growth.

As a thought experiment imagine a world where all EV sales stop instantly.  Not a single EV is ever sold again.  What would be the EV sales growth that year?  The answer would be zero growth - not negative.

expansion in sales....contraction in sales....

you 2 are arguing about how to gauge growth???? as positive or if a negative can occur????

Debating if a dead horse is just not a live horse is all you 2 have ??????

Ugghhhhhhhhhh

 

did you argue like this when you were employed in Government????

Life is too short

Edited April 16 by notsonice

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

23 minutes ago, notsonice said:

did you argue like this when you were employed in Government????

Yes. 

I worked in a ISO certified laboratory environment writing lots of technical documents; you become pedantic by necessity. 

Occasionally you need to argue with colleagues about edits to formal documents.  Exact wording and math matters.  You can't write "should" when "must" is better.  You can't say "about 1mL" - you have to say "1.0mL +/- 0.1 mL."

Edited April 16 by TailingsPond

[notsonice + 1,255]

1 minute ago, TailingsPond said:

Yes. 

I worked in a ISO certified laboratory environment writing lots of technical documents; you become pedantic by necessity. 

Occasionally you need to argue with colleagues about edits to formal documents.  Exact wording and math matters.  You can't write "should" when "must" is better.  You can't say "about 1mL" - you have to say "1.0mL +/- 0.1 mL."

pedantic by necessity???? count me out

Good Beer is a necessity

 

Good Food (well I covered this under Beer) is a necessity

A good roof over your head is a necessity

Good air is a necessity

Good water (well I covered this under Beer) is a necessity

 

arguing about negative growth...........like a big hemorrhoid ...avoid avoid avoid

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

9 minutes ago, notsonice said:

pedantic by necessity???? count me out

 

Occasionally it is fun; but I agree life is too short for this nonsense.

[turbguy + 1,544]

Even ten years ago, there were legitimate climatologists who had rational doubts about climate change, including whether it was caused almost entirely by human activity.

However, in that period of time, the science got better and no one, I mean no one in the field believes that warming is not happening and it’s due to climate activity. The meta-study done that showed 97% of papers supported man-made global warming was done by someone who was a skeptic. He stopped being a skeptic after that.

The same has happened in many fields.

Evolution wasn’t widely accepted in biology until well after Darwin’s death.

The expanding universe theory had several serious opponents right up until the early 1970s.

The belief that ulcers were caused by stress lasted into this millennium.

The evidence of all of these things is now crystal clear. There are no serious scientists who are published in the field that believe otherwise.

Right now, if you don’t think human caused warming is a thing, you’re not just in the minority of people in the field, you’re all alone.

You’re ignoring evidence.

You’re calling into question studies that have been confirmed and re-confirmed.

You’re ignoring models from 30 years ago that were actually optimistic. It turned out reality was worse.

You’re raising arguments that have already been dealt with over and over and over again.

In other words, you’re Fred Hoyle:

Fred Hoyle was an expanding universe denier. By 1970 it was clear to anyone with a brain that the theory Hoyle dubbed “The Big Bang” was correct in every important detail.

Despite this, Hoyle worked out a theory that made it look like the universe was expanding, but wasn’t. He presented his initial findings (pre-publication) to an audience in London. A young graduate student pointed out his calculations were flawed and his theory couldn’t possibly be right  (that young graduate student was Stephen Hawking).

Anyone who doesn’t believe the theory that the world is getting warmer and it’s our fault isn’t a “skeptic” or “outsider” or “maverick” or “free thinker”, they’re just denying the evidence.

Man-made global warming is as certain as the spherical nature of the earth or the fact that cigarettes immensely increase your risk of lung cancer and heart attack.

Anyone who tells you anything different is trying to sell something. Most likely oil or coal.

Edited April 16 by turbguy

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

36 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Even ten years ago, there were legitimate climatologists who had rational doubts about climate change, including whether it was caused almost entirely by human activity.

However, in that period of time, the science got better and no one, I mean no one in the field believes that warming is not happening and it’s due to climate activity. The meta-study done that showed 97% of papers supported man-made global warming was done by someone who was a skeptic. He stopped being a skeptic after that.

The same has happened in many fields.

Evolution wasn’t widely accepted in biology until well after Darwin’s death.

The expanding universe theory had several serious opponents right up until the early 1970s.

The belief that ulcers were caused by stress lasted into this millennium.

The evidence of all of these things is now crystal clear. There are no serious scientists who are published in the field that believe otherwise.

Right now, if you don’t think human caused warming is a thing, you’re not just in the minority of people in the field, you’re all alone.

You’re ignoring evidence.

You’re calling into question studies that have been confirmed and re-confirmed.

You’re ignoring models from 30 years ago that were actually optimistic. It turned out reality was worse.

You’re raising arguments that have already been dealt with over and over and over again.

In other words, you’re Fred Hoyle:

Fred Hoyle was an expanding universe denier. By 1970 it was clear to anyone with a brain that the theory Hoyle dubbed “The Big Bang” was correct in every important detail.

Despite this, Hoyle worked out a theory that made it look like the universe was expanding, but wasn’t. He presented his initial findings (pre-publication) to an audience in London. A young graduate student pointed out his calculations were flawed and his theory couldn’t possibly be right  (that young graduate student was Stephen Hawking).

Anyone who doesn’t believe the theory that the world is getting warmer and it’s our fault isn’t a “skeptic” or “outsider” or “maverick” or “free thinker”, they’re just denying the evidence.

Man-made global warming is as certain as the spherical nature of the earth or the fact that cigarettes immensely increase your risk of lung cancer and heart attack.

Anyone who tells you anything different is trying to sell something. Most likely oil or coal.

None of which is a scientific argument...which makes me suspicious that the supporters of the CO2 theory have no clue what they are talking about.

Science is not a consensus, that has nothing to do with scientific method. Science is a methodology of testing hypotheses, and there are no sacred cows or free lunches for political hobby horses.

We have already seen that CO2 does not make a significant difference in terms of greenhouse gas effect, so that theory is seriously in trouble.

We know that methane and other trace gases have miniscule greenhouse effects. So that idea is now toast.

We know that H2O is the predominant greenhouse gas, even NASA admits that, reluctantly.

So that leaves us with a search for another theory, and many scientists are turning to the idea of particulate changes to explain temperature change.

That idea has been well accepted by many, including one Nobel winning physicist, who suggested the idea to President Biden when he was invited to the White House on winning the award.

Biden's response? "Sounds like right-wing science."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/11/16/john-clauser-nobel-climate-denial/

This is all about politics, not science.

 

Edited April 16 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

3 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

You said it yourself asymptotic to a low growth rate. Low growth is still growth.

It is not my job to plot new curves.  I showed you math using the numbers you provided. If you can do better feel free!

 

Growth is not "negative growth", negative growth is a decline.

That is what we see now, growth rates below zero.

Your graph is out of date.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

54 minutes ago, turbguy said:

However, in that period of time, the science got better and no one, I mean no one in the field believes that warming is not happening and it’s due to climate activity. The meta-study done that showed 97% of papers supported man-made global warming was done by someone who was a skeptic. He stopped being a skeptic after that.

There are times you simply astound me. You once stated your credentials if memory serves me correctly you have a vast depth in coal power generation. 

The technology and engineering that has been implemented in those plants to create a stable power output is stunning. Simply so that generated power can be safely distributed into a power grid designed to operate/ distribute that power with safe and stable continuity.

Then you advocate for the most unstable form of mass power generation ever conceived to be dumped into the said power grid. How does that square Turbguy...how does that work?

Edited April 16 by Eyes Wide Open

[turbguy + 1,544]

32 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

There are times you simply astound me. You once stated your credentials if memory serves me correctly you have a vast depth in coal power generation. 

The technology and engineering that has been implemented in those plants to create a stable power output is stunning. Simply so that generated power can be safely distributed into a power grid designed to operate/ distribute that power with safe and stable continuity.

Then you advocate for the most unstable form of mass power generation ever conceived to be dumped into the said power grid. How does that square Turbguy...how does that work?

You are used to the way things work using old technology, continuously "tuned" to the market.

I have more than enough experience to know that coal is just plain filthy!

Have ever stood near a coking unit?  I suggest you avoid that "opportunity".

Have you ever strolled on the upper stories of an operating pressurized coal-fired furnace?  HINT: don't use the elevator unless you have portable breathing apparatus.

Do you even know what a sootblower does?  Or, where it's "operating product" goes?

With regards to "stability" of renewable power, we ain't seen nothin' yet.  We haven't even begun to integrate AI into the market. 

Can renewable generation match and fully displace fossil-fired generation?  Certainly, not at this time. It's gonna take decades. 

One close acquaintance was an early adopter of small wind generation on his ranch.  After several years of that, he initially said that if he were to do it all over again, he would buy a diesel generator instead. 

He switched to solar generation (re-using some of the pre-existing interconnection and other equipment).

Last month's electric bill for his ranch was NEGATIVE! 

And the wind generator tower is now a GREAT flagpole with a HUGE, well-lit American Flag.

Remain astounded.

Edited April 17 by turbguy

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

42 minutes ago, turbguy said:

You are used to the way things work using old technology, continuously "tuned" to the market.

I have more than enough experience to know that coal is just plain filthy!

Have ever stood near a coking unit?  I suggest you avoid that "opportunity".

Have you ever strolled on the upper stories of an operating pressurized coal-fired furnace?  HINT: don't use the elevator unless you have portable breathing apparatus.

Do you even know what a sootblower does?  Or, where it's "operating product" goes?

With regards to "stability" of renewable power, we ain't seen nothin' yet.  We haven't even begun to integrate AI into the market. 

Can renewable generation match and fully displace fossil-fired generation?  Certainly, not at this time. It's gonna take decades. 

One close acquaintance was an early adopter of small wind generation on his ranch.  After several years of that, he initially said that if he were to do it all over again, he would buy a diesel generator instead. 

He switched to solar generation (re-using some of the pre-existing interconnection and other equipment).

Last month's electric bill for his ranch was NEGATIVE! 

And the wind generator tower is now a GREAT flagpole with a HUGE, well-lit American Flag.

Remain astounded.

Interesting I inquired into interfacing  technology and a political diatribe would be the reply?

Such is life. 

[turbguy + 1,544]

7 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Interesting I inquired into interfacing  technology and a political diatribe would be the reply?

Such is life. 

Yes, it currently is (although I am unsure of any political "philippic" in my response).

Edited April 17 by turbguy

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

Oh look a big energy transmission project gets approval.  It is so much easier to get approval to build power lines than pipelines.

US court rejects a request by tribes to block $10B energy transmission project in Arizona (msn.com)

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Your graph is out of date.

I only plotted the data you provided.  So in a way it is your graph.

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

33 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Interesting I inquired into interfacing  technology and a political diatribe would be the reply?

Such is life. 

He did not mention politics at all. 

Edited April 17 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Science is a methodology of testing hypotheses, and there are no sacred cows or free lunches for political hobby horses.

We have already seen that CO2 does not make a significant difference in terms of greenhouse gas effect, so that theory is seriously in trouble.

We know that methane and other trace gases have miniscule greenhouse effects. So that idea is now toast.

 

You have not seen any experimental results showing the effects of CO2 or methane on the environment.  We do not know anything.

You have seen the results of a simplified model and assume it is truth.

 

Edited April 17 by TailingsPond

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

12 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Rob, read the official data. Shake the Green dust out of your eyes for once.

Here is what the current report from the EPA states,

"In 2022, 83.0 percent of the energy used in the United States on a Btu basis was produced through the combustion of fossil fuels. The remaining 17.0 percent came from other energy sources such as hydropower, biomass, nuclear, wind, and solar energy,” 

The bigger picture shows that

"Central Asian states have doubled their coal-based power generation capacity over the past decade, with plans for further expansion."

"The IEA estimates that China's coal-fired power generation increased by almost 7% in 2023."

"Last year, global operating coal capacity increased by 2% as the world added a total of 69.5 gigawatts of coal fired power.

Worldwide, coal-fired power plant retirements were only 21.1 GW in 2023—the lowest capacity retired since 2011."

Haha you say current and then quote data from 2022.

Ive been over this once and already called you out for re-posting the same garbage over and over again without putting back a counter argument when we prove you wrong.

You need help!

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

13 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Then why were you so confused about the numbers? You really need to check your posts.

Here was your confusion, which is very strange. "Wow which is it Eco 7% or 1.5% "

How could you be confused, Rob^

"The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that coal-fired power generation grew by 1.5% (158TWh) in 2023", which obviously refers to world coal-fired generation.

"The IEA estimates that China's coal-fired power generation increased by almost 7% in 2023."

"Last year, GLOBAL operating coal capacity increased by 2% as the WORLD added a total of 69.5 gigawatts of coal fired power."

Where you have serious problems, Rob, is explaining why sales of EVs is rapidly reducing to an actual negative growth rate.

EVs are stalling and going quietly into decline.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/global-ev-sales-expected-to-only-increase-by-21-in-2024-as-ev-market-cools-but-chargers-and-range-arent-to-blame-302112559.html

"Sales problems in the U.S. can be attributed to an unsustainable reliance on Tesla, which is faltering as the supply of early adopters dwindles..."

 "The latest forecasts from global technology intelligence firm ABI Research find that global Electric Vehicle (EV) sales are expected to grow by 21% in 2024 and 19% in 2025. This represents a significant decline from growth rates of 31% in 2023 and 60% in 2022."

So we have a clear downward trend, 60% - 31% - 21% - 19%...disaster, meltdown.

 

Youre cherry picking now to try to justify your failure with the figures.

Ive already called you out on this one too, go back and re-read my post as youve clearly forgotten already, I even highlighted the 2% for you! remember now?

And yes of course growth of 19% in any industry is a disaster isnt it, Good grief man!

Hint 19% growth is exceptional growth.

Edited April 17 by Rob Plant

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

12 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

I already explained how that is not a downward trend. +60, +31, +21, +19.  Very clear, sustainable growth.

He either doesnt understand or refuses to accept, its one or the other, hopefully for him its the latter or he will struggle through life with a low IQ

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

12 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

That is not an exponential growth curve, that is a declining growth curve asymptotic to a low rate.

Furthermore, the rate of growth since last November is negative year on year, which pulls your curve below the zero point. Your curve needs to be adjusted.

Either way, there will not be a path to a position of replacing fossil fuel transportation with EV.

We werent discussing EV's we were discussing coal fired powergen and its rapid decline!

Stay on topic and stop defelecting!

[specinho + 470]

16 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Very next post

Wow which is it Eco 7% or 1.5% 

Maybe its actually this as China accounted for 95% of all the coal fired generation increase globally.

In China, 47.4GW of coal power capacity came online in 2023, GEM says. This increase accounted for two-thirds of the global rise in operating coal power capacity, which climbed 2% to 2,130GW

Once the mega renewable projects come on stream these coal plants will  be stranded assets.

There is a kind of  entertainment programme in china. It invites two teams of a few celebrities to compete while helping out in remote areas where progresses have been made. One of the series shown setting up solar system,  irrigation system, planting trees to reduce the speed of desertification in probably mongolia or xin jiang.

It is a hassle to clean dust and sand off those panels daily. They have only the old to do the work. 

But the other two shows prominent result. An effort of 20 years from persistency of a single person in charged to reduce the speed and impact of desertification... And an ability to harvest self sustaining amount of agricultural products, like potatoes, in the desert due to irrigation system. 

Another episode shown amazing transformation of a coal mining town. 

The town council used 20+ years to transform it from a polluted, lack of all facilities and vegetation, into eye catchy- green- ecotourism town. Basic sanitation system installed, beautiful and green landscaping set up at the right place.

 

These two examples show that 

1. If there is advantage, there will be disadvantage.

a) although convenient, maintaining solar system is a lot of work. If the sun shines brighter, temperature gets hotter, efficiency and lifespan of panels would be affected.

b) although filthy, cheap, dangerous and in need of hard labouring, coal mining can actually be purified to become something green, provides economic energy that keeps inflation low, provide side incomes when done correctly.

2. Therefore, there might be no need to phase out one over the other but improvise to improve flaw respectively... 

[specinho + 470]

14 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Some countries experimented with road closures to vehicles on certain streets and the public loves it.

Sure it is mostly pretty streets or areas with cultural significance but it is still a growing trend worldwide.  People are noticing that making cities unwalkable degrades cultural activities.  Watch for more holiday celebrations, farmers markets, festivals, street performers taking back the roads!   The reverse of "they paved paradise and put up a parking lot."

https://www.familinparis.fr/en/champs-elysees-pedestrian-day/

https://www.familinparis.fr/en/car-free-day/

Other places you can only drive on alternate days, people with plates ending in even numbers drive on some days, odd number the others.

 

It is in fact not a bad idea to have no or minimum car on the street on off days. Some places have indeed put more cultural things on the street e.g. flea market on empty parking lot in Bremen; open air philharmonic performance in a park Bremen; open air movie theater China; cultural walk in Penang; Morning farmers' market on empty parking lot Muar, Segamat; night market on specific street on certain day etc... 

 

Used to cycle here and there freely while breathing in fresh air when i was a kid in a village. Now, the vehicles are getting too much to cycle without interference for a distance of 5 min. I needed to get down and push the bike for safety reason. Trees are gone. Each breath has more hot waste gas than refreshing air. Some rivers dried off, others nearly dried off. No more big belly/ pregnant fish and colourful tail fish catching for fun. 

 

With changes, new incomers are brought in. They change the safety, habit etc of the village. Once a wild place, we never experienced street robbery, houses broken in, past mid night motoring, past 1a.m. loud gathering without purpose; past 1a.m. firework during celebration. It was a self ruling yet protective town. New comers brought in are dangerous, inconsiderate, ignorant about cultural meaning of firework etc who are doing all of those.

If these are happening at your place, how do you balance inclusion or globalization and old settings?? 

Nostalgic... 

Edited April 17 by specinho