• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Renewable Energy and Electric Cars Pressure Oil Economically as Well as Environmentally

[h=2]The Green New Deal[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on February 4, 2020 by tonyheller[/FONT]

It is 792 miles from Paris to Madrid. The trip would cost about $350 and require the battery be recharged at least five times. That is 50 hours of recharge time, meaning the trip would require at least five days.
​
Another option would be to take an airplane for $67, and arrive in less than three hours.
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]The Green New Deal[/h][FONT="]Posted on [URL="https://realclimatescience.com/2020/02/the-green-new-deal/"]February 4, 2020[/URL] by tonyheller[/FONT]
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Image114.jpg
It is 792 miles from Paris to Madrid. The trip would cost about $350 and require the battery be recharged at least five times. That is 50 hours of recharge time, meaning the trip would require at least five days.
Click to expand...

Easyjet also flys from Madrid to Paris but lands a CDG, I think it is a better choice!
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]The Green New Deal[/h][FONT="]Posted on [URL="https://realclimatescience.com/2020/02/the-green-new-deal/"]February 4, 2020[/URL] by tonyheller[/FONT]

It is 792 miles from Paris to Madrid. The trip would cost about $350 and require the battery be recharged at least five times. That is 50 hours of recharge time, meaning the trip would require at least five days.
​
Another option would be to take an airplane for $67, and arrive in less than three hours.
Click to expand...

Typical marketing.

Get people to commit to something, then raise the costs.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Typical marketing.

Get people to commit to something, then raise the costs.
Click to expand...

That just one of operators of charging station in Europe, that other like Tesla are a lot cheaper also you can get a lower prices if you subscribe. Also that particular operator is own by car companies that mostly make fossil fuel cars. That at the same time you only need supercharger for long trips that most of time you can charge you car at home.

Then it comes to the time for the trip between Paris and Madrid it would barely be any slower with a Tesla compared to a fossil fuel car. Because of battery capacity and charging time and the fact that you can combine charging the car with meal breaks and other breaks.

Report: Tesla Model Y can now go 315 miles per charge - EV Car Scene

Tesla juices European Superchargers to 150 kilowatts - Roadshow
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]The Green New Deal[/h][FONT="]Posted on [URL="https://realclimatescience.com/2020/02/the-green-new-deal/"]February 4, 2020[/URL] by tonyheller[/FONT]

It is 792 miles from Paris to Madrid. The trip would cost about $350 and require the battery be recharged at least five times. That is 50 hours of recharge time, meaning the trip would require at least five days.
​
Another option would be to take an airplane for $67, and arrive in less than three hours.
Click to expand...

Or take the train. Europe has got a good public transport system.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
That just one of operators of charging station in Europe, that other like Tesla are a lot cheaper also you can get a lower prices if you subscribe. Also that particular operator is own by car companies that mostly make fossil fuel cars. That at the same time you only need supercharger for long trips that most of time you can charge you car at home.

Then it comes to the time for the trip between Paris and Madrid it would barely be any slower with a Tesla compared to a fossil fuel car. Because of battery capacity and charging time and the fact that you can combine charging the car with meal breaks and other breaks.

Report: Tesla Model Y can now go 315 miles per charge - EV Car Scene

Tesla juices European Superchargers to 150 kilowatts - Roadshow
Click to expand...

So you did not look at the article!
The article says they are raising their prices to something near what the Tesla stations are charging, and like the Tesla stations charging per kWh instead of a flat rate!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
longview said:
So you did not look at the article!
The article says they are raising their prices to something near what the Tesla stations are charging, and like the Tesla stations charging per kWh instead of a flat rate!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Busted!
 
[FONT=&quot]Paris Climate Accord[/FONT]
[h=1]The World Just Missed a Five Year Paris Agreement Deadline to Raise Climate Ambition[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest essay by Eric Worrall h/t Dr. Willie Soon; Further evidence that the Paris Agreement is so dead, most countries can’t be bothered to even pretend to care, even nations which expect to receive climate aid. World misses symbolic February deadline to ratchet up climate action before Cop26 Published on 07/02/2020, 7:00am The 2015 Paris Agreement…
[/FONT]
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Breaking down the last decade of climate change in 7 charts[/h][FONT=&quot]This article on Grist (h/t to James Taylor, The Heartland Institute) tries to point out how “terrible” the last decade was due to “climate change”. They write: As this hottest-on-record, godforsaken decade draws to a close, it’s clear that global warming is no longer a problem for future generations but one that’s already displacing communities, costing…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
longview said:
So you did not look at the article!
The article says they are raising their prices to something near what the Tesla stations are charging, and like the Tesla stations charging per kWh instead of a flat rate!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:
Busted!
Click to expand...
,
According to your link Jack Hays,the cost for charging at IONITY was €0.79 per kWh compared to €0.24 per kWh at Tesla Superchargers in France and €0.33 at Tesla Superchargers in Germany. While also that IONITY have a subscription service where you pay monthly to get a discounted price per kWh. It can also be good to remember that the source explains that the IONITY charging network is owned by car companies that mostly produce fossil fuel cars.

IONITY to increase electric vehicle charging prices 500% - Electrek
 
Last edited:
Bergslagstroll said:
,
According to your link Jack Hays,the cost for charging at IONITY was €0.79 per kWh compared to €0.24 per kWh at Tesla Superchargers in France and €0.33 at Tesla Superchargers in Germany. While also that IONITY have a subscription service where you pay monthly to get a discounted price per kWh. It can also be good to remember that the source explains that the charging network is owned by car companies that mostly produce fossil fuel cars.

IONITY to increase electric vehicle charging prices 500% - Electrek
Click to expand...

Looks like you misread. Previous IONITY cost was E0.13 per kWh.
 
Jack Hays said:
Looks like you misread. Previous IONITY cost was E0.13 per kWh.
Click to expand...

Yes so it seems like the fossil car companies tried to make the service seem very attractive by having a price of 0.13 per kWh that was lower that the cost of electricity and the cost at Tesla's charging station. While then dramatically increased the price to a cost that was two, three times higher than Tesla's, if you didn't get a subscription.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Yes so it seems like the fossil car companies tried to make the service seem very attractive by having a price of 0.13 per kWh that was lower that the cost of electricity and the cost at Tesla's charging station. While then dramatically increased the price to a cost that was two, three times higher than Tesla's, if you didn't get a subscription.
Click to expand...

Now let's see what Tesla does.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
,
According to your link Jack Hays,the cost for charging at IONITY was €0.79 per kWh compared to €0.24 per kWh at Tesla Superchargers in France and €0.33 at Tesla Superchargers in Germany. While also that IONITY have a subscription service where you pay monthly to get a discounted price per kWh. It can also be good to remember that the source explains that the IONITY charging network is owned by car companies that mostly produce fossil fuel cars.

IONITY to increase electric vehicle charging prices 500% - Electrek
Click to expand...

Again you did not read the article.
The old cost was flat 8 euro, no Matter how much electricity was used, the new rate will be by the kWh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Jack Hays said:
Now let's see what Tesla does.
Click to expand...

Tesla's main business is to make electric cars while the owners of IONITY's man business is selling fossil fuel cars. Also electric cars you can charge at home and you can also get your own electricity from solar panels. Employers, restaurant and shopping malls are also offering charging stations.

While with a fossil fuel cars you are forced to go gas stations owned by a few big corporations. There you always have the risk of a new war in the Middle East that will lead to spiking oil prices.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Tesla's main business is to make electric cars while the owners of IONITY's man business is selling fossil fuel cars. Also electric cars you can charge at home and you can also get your own electricity from solar panels. Employers, restaurant and shopping malls are also offering charging stations.

While with a fossil fuel cars you are forced to go gas stations owned by a few big corporations. There you always have the risk of a new war in the Middle East that will lead to spiking oil prices.
Click to expand...

Got anything besides propaganda boilerplate?
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Tesla's main business is to make electric cars while the owners of IONITY's man business is selling fossil fuel cars. Also electric cars you can charge at home and you can also get your own electricity from solar panels. Employers, restaurant and shopping malls are also offering charging stations.

While with a fossil fuel cars you are forced to go gas stations owned by a few big corporations. There you always have the risk of a new war in the Middle East that will lead to spiking oil prices.
Click to expand...

Businesses offer charging stations as a way to lure customers in. I have no idea how effective it is. I rarely ever see an electric on any of those areas. At least they have a start for when electrics start to take of in larger sales.
 

Shocker: study finds global warming may be net beneficial for the global economy

This recent study (h/t to Jim Simpson) comes from Australia and was published in late 2019. It studies the impacts of global warming on the U.S. economy. What the authors have done is used one the climate models (the FUND model) to look ahead at the impacts warming would have on other economic sectors besides…
Continue reading →

[FONT=&quot]This recent study (h/t to Jim Simpson) comes from Australia and was published in late 2019. It studies the impacts of global warming on the U.S. economy. What the authors have done is used one the climate models (the FUND model) to look ahead at the impacts warming would have on other economic sectors besides energy. Now that the “worst-case scenario” RCP8.5 model has been put out of favor by a recent paper, the 3.0°C warming scenario they used is more in-line with the RCP6 and RCP 4.5 models that remain. The work replicates and improves upon earlier work done by Dr. Richard Tol in 2009 in The Economic Effects of Climate Change.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What they found is surprising; the overall economic impact of 3.0°C global warming would be beneficial nor just for the United States, but the entire global economy. . . . [/FONT]

 
Germans On Course To Permanently Ruining Remaining Forests – To Protect The Climate

By P Gosselin on 9. February 2020
Of good trees and bad trees: an unimaginable story

By Die kalte Sonne
(Text translated by P Gosselin)
We have already reported about the very different views on trees in this blog. Perhaps this phenomenon has something to do with the fact that the words environmental protection and nature conservation are slowly but surely disappearing from our language and being displaced by climate protection. Everything has to subordinate itself to this, also environmental and nature protection. Sometimes this has has had disastrous consequences.
The value of trees is in the eye of the observer or his agenda . . .

Of course, trees are protected, sometimes with drastic means such as in the Hambach Forest. There, however, not for CO2 storage reasons but because the activists want to prevent lignite mining. Such actions are spectacular and get through the media. So this is about good trees.
Much less attention is paid to protests by residents of Grünheide in Brandenburg, who are mobilizing against the deforestation of an area the size of 420 football pitches, which are to make way for Tesla’s new megafactory. Here too, nature is losing carbon stores, and no activist is really itching because they are bad trees. Or were there demos of Fridays For Future (FFF) or Extinction Rebellion in Grünheide?
Weird swaps in Scotland
Just as little interest in Scotland. There it has now been discovered that almost 14 million trees have had to be felled since 2000 to build wind turbines (WTGs). According to the above calculation, Scotland has thus “given up” 175,000 tonnes of CO2 reduction per year in order to save the climate. Even planting 100,000 trees, as in Scotland, is of little use, as they only replace the lost capacity to a very limited extent. Trees simply need time until they are stately and can absorb the above-mentioned amount of CO2 annually.
Foundations and access
The areas for the foundations are still the least of the evils, although in Schleswig Holstein alone, a sealed area of 3 million square meters was assumed in 2018. Approximately 1300 cubic meters of concrete and 180 tons of steel disappear in such foundations.
image003-1024x655.jpg

Image: By Mussklprozz (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0 )],via Wikimedia Commons​
It is not even clear how such colossuses are to be removed from the forest later on, or how they can be removed at all. Anyone who has ever spent a holiday in France on the Atlantic Ocean knows that concrete remains, i.e. bunkers, of the 3rd Reich bunkers stubbornly refuse to decay on the coasts. Ina 1000 years probably only the bunkers of the Nazis or the foundations of wind turbines will remain.
Access to wind turbines is much more serious than the foundations, which only cover a relatively small area. Wind turbines are getting ever taller and the rotors ever bigger. The radius that the special transport vehicles now is so large that a massive quantities of trees have to make way for access roads. And since the wind turbines only have a limited lifetime, the access roads have to remain, because at some point they will have to be dismantled or maintained. The forest at this point is lost and chopped up. . . .

 
Jack Hays said:
Germans On Course To Permanently Ruining Remaining Forests – To Protect The Climate

By P Gosselin on 9. February 2020
Of good trees and bad trees: an unimaginable story

By Die kalte Sonne
(Text translated by P Gosselin)
We have already reported about the very different views on trees in this blog. Perhaps this phenomenon has something to do with the fact that the words environmental protection and nature conservation are slowly but surely disappearing from our language and being displaced by climate protection. Everything has to subordinate itself to this, also environmental and nature protection. Sometimes this has has had disastrous consequences.
The value of trees is in the eye of the observer or his agenda . . .

Of course, trees are protected, sometimes with drastic means such as in the Hambach Forest. There, however, not for CO2 storage reasons but because the activists want to prevent lignite mining. Such actions are spectacular and get through the media. So this is about good trees.
Much less attention is paid to protests by residents of Grünheide in Brandenburg, who are mobilizing against the deforestation of an area the size of 420 football pitches, which are to make way for Tesla’s new megafactory. Here too, nature is losing carbon stores, and no activist is really itching because they are bad trees. Or were there demos of Fridays For Future (FFF) or Extinction Rebellion in Grünheide?
Weird swaps in Scotland
Just as little interest in Scotland. There it has now been discovered that almost 14 million trees have had to be felled since 2000 to build wind turbines (WTGs). According to the above calculation, Scotland has thus “given up” 175,000 tonnes of CO2 reduction per year in order to save the climate. Even planting 100,000 trees, as in Scotland, is of little use, as they only replace the lost capacity to a very limited extent. Trees simply need time until they are stately and can absorb the above-mentioned amount of CO2 annually.
Foundations and access
The areas for the foundations are still the least of the evils, although in Schleswig Holstein alone, a sealed area of 3 million square meters was assumed in 2018. Approximately 1300 cubic meters of concrete and 180 tons of steel disappear in such foundations.
image003-1024x655.jpg

Image: By Mussklprozz (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0 )],via Wikimedia Commons​
It is not even clear how such colossuses are to be removed from the forest later on, or how they can be removed at all. Anyone who has ever spent a holiday in France on the Atlantic Ocean knows that concrete remains, i.e. bunkers, of the 3rd Reich bunkers stubbornly refuse to decay on the coasts. Ina 1000 years probably only the bunkers of the Nazis or the foundations of wind turbines will remain.
Access to wind turbines is much more serious than the foundations, which only cover a relatively small area. Wind turbines are getting ever taller and the rotors ever bigger. The radius that the special transport vehicles now is so large that a massive quantities of trees have to make way for access roads. And since the wind turbines only have a limited lifetime, the access roads have to remain, because at some point they will have to be dismantled or maintained. The forest at this point is lost and chopped up. . . .

Click to expand...

OMG...

The CO2 emitted to make that much CO2 and steel...

The CO2 sequestration lost by lost vegetation...
 
[h=2]Germany’s Green New Deal Begins To Deliver: Industry Sees “Horrible Numbers”, A “Disaster”![/h]By P Gosselin on 11. February 2020
Germany’s onslaught on its famed automotive and production industries appears to be taking an economic toll as the country pushes ahead to go green by phasing out internal combustion engines and coal power plants.
Recently we reported how electricity prices are again slated to increase this year, and thus will continue to make German power among the most expensive worldwide.
A wave of green activism has led to tighter regulations against the internal combustion engines and to a planned phase-out of coal-fired power plants.
Teetering on recession
Just recently German online business daily Handelsblatt reported here that there are “new concerns about an economic slump in Germany” as “surprisingly weak figures are fueling new worries about a downturn”.
“Horrible numbers”…a “disaster”
“Experts spoke of ‘horrible numbers’, a ‘disaster’. Industry, construction, and energy providers produced a full 3.5 percent less in December than in the previous month,” the Handelsblatt reports.

December production plummets 6.8%
The economic bloodbath was even worse in the production sector which “fell even more sharply, with output falling by 6.8 percent – the sharpest drop since the end of 2009,” writes the Handelsblatt. “Concerns are growing again that the German economy may be in more difficult waters than expected.”
For Germany, “2019 was not only the worst year for industrial orders since 2008, it was also the first time since 2002 that German order books shrank for two years in a row,” reports Yahoo here.
Massive automotive layoffs
The German auto sector has been hard hit. For example, car maker Opel recently announced 2,100 job cuts in Germany. Late last year Daimler, owner of Mercedes Benz, announced plans “to ax at least 10,000 jobs,” Volkswagen’s Audi said “it would slash up to 9,500 jobs or one in ten staff by 2025 and car suppliers Continental and Osram announced staff and cost cuts.”
The Financial Times reported today that Daimler suffered its “worst results in decade” and that its earnings “plunged 60% in 2019 amid ‘Dieselgate’ woes.” Daimler also “refused to deny reports” that an additional 5,000 jobs could be cut.
The Financial Times adds: “Daimler is being forced to spend heavily on electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids in order to avoid fines from Brussels for breaching new emissions regulations.”
Other reasons cited for the poor German economic results are the ongoing global trade disputes. Figures are expected to come under even greater pressure due to the spreading corona virus in China.
 
[FONT=&quot]Opinion[/FONT]
[h=1]Americans reluctant to join the EV train[/h][FONT=&quot]By Ronald Stein Founder and Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure of PTS Advance, headquartered in Irvine, California We’re constantly being bombarded with the EV movement, but Americans must have a multitude of subconscious reasons for not buying into one of the major movements to save the world from itself as they are showing their lack…
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/11/americans-reluctant-to-join-the-ev-train/"]
clip_image002-3.png
[/URL]Opinion[/FONT]
[h=1]Americans reluctant to join the EV train[/h][FONT="]By Ronald Stein Founder and Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure of PTS Advance, headquartered in Irvine, California We’re constantly being bombarded with the EV movement, but Americans must have a multitude of subconscious reasons for not buying into one of the major movements to save the world from itself as they are showing their lack…
[/FONT]
Click to expand...
If they truly want people to slow down use of fossil fuels, the Governments of the world should be promoting
research into carbon neutral man made fuels, the market is already there, as well as the distribution infrastructure.
If the fuel were the lowest price one at the pump, people will buy it.
Some slight changes to car computer engine timing might be necessary, as the processes so far can only make premium.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Oil Production On Federal Land Topped 1 Billion Barrels, Reducing Impact OPEC Has On Markets[/h][FONT=&quot]From The Daily Caller Chris White Tech Reporter February 12, 2020 10:27 AM ET Oil production on federal lands topped 1 billion barrels in 2019, marking a 29% increase from the Obama administration, Department of the Interior officials announced Tuesday. Technological advancements over the last decade in hydraulic fracturing helped drive the increase, as did…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom