Brown (Moonbeam) signs carbon free bill by 2045
He said before signing it that he won't do it b/c the infrastructure is not ready for it. But apparently he changed his mind. The only question is: where will the power come from which is needed to "Plug cars" into?
At this point he probably does not care. He is leaving soon and he wanted this to be his legacy, next to the high speed train. The left are legacy minded like Hussein. Never mind that legacy is pushing many people into poverty.
At this point he probably does not care. He is leaving soon and he wanted this to be his legacy, next to the high speed train. The left are legacy minded like Hussein. Never mind that legacy is pushing many people into poverty.
Me dino bets that by 2045 that whole silly libtarded state goes under without having "The Big One" to blame.
California would need to install more than 200 times as much energy-storage capacity than it has now to make up for the loss of gas plants, according to the Clean Air Task Force, a Boston-based energy-policy nonprofit.
China leads the world in the development of battery gigafactories, which are expected to reduce battery storage costs through increasing economies of scale (Figure 15). As of 2018, 25 large battery factories are active worldwide, and 36 are in development. By 2023, China is expected to have 52 percent of worldwide lithium-ion battery capacity, with Europe at 17 percent, the rest of Asia at 17 percent, and North America at 14 percent.
But, like wind generators, they have the sense not to use those contraptions themselves but sell them to the rest of us helping to weaken our economies.
China has 300 up-to-date technology coal power stations under construction. They have twenty-one nuclear reactors under construction, thirty-eight more are planned.
We could start with first asking why people gravitate so strongly to collectivism, before we try to convince them to give it up in favor of individualism. Flat out appeals to reason havent seemed to work very well.
Maybe Maduro should consider what HIS legacy is going to be for handling the end game of socialism in his country.
"Climate science" can only be approached by climate scientists. If the skeptical dare touch the shrine they had better bow deeply.
Moonbeam has signaled that he is a believer.
Why am I even saying these things? Some novelist covered it all in 1957.
I don't understand why California, with 700 miles of shoreline, hasn't invested in tidal power. The technology is proven, but then the environmentalists probably have some kind of marine fauna that needs protecting.
Tidal power is established technology but requires a large sea-level range to be economic / to get significant power even with the usual subsides. Does the Cal coast have that range?
More likely, there would be lobbying from the industry. Wind generation can work with off-the-shelf units and is big business.
Protecting flora and fauna- such arguments are used by the enviro lobby only to stop fossil and nuclear power generation.
But the real solution will come from entrepreneurs when there's a structure to make people pay for their mess. I make the mess without paying when I heat my home, and I pay for the mess when after historic flooding Madison property insurance rates rose 30%. And even now, I cannot draw a direct causal line between global warming and the flooding. It's a signal with loads of Gaussian noise on it. It's very hard to pull out. I cannot attribute any outlier day or weather event, but we know global warming is a very real signal hidden under the Gaussian noise, and we know it's mostly (not sure exactly how much) caused by human activities. I think we're fools to wait to address it. It's as if there were a bunch of small asteroids on a probably collision course with Earth, yet we still engage in denial and wishful thinking. We rightly say global warming and the Holocene mass extinction event can't kill us all. That's right. But it can cost our heirs a bunch of value, as surly as estate taxes. So I'm grateful for people who will do anything, even if it's not the most efficient approach, to deal with greenhouse gasses and the global warming they will cause.
People pointing to current events and saying "See, it's global warming" are demonstrating that it's just a political ploy.
Of course all these temperature numbers have been heavily massaged to from the raw readings so I don't entirely trust them.
No, because of the nature of stochastic systems. The same thing is true for explaining an individual set of ADC values in a communications receiver.
Really? And just how do you know that? Global warming is one thing (it happened several times during the history of the Earth), but man-made global warming? It has been disproved scientifically. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
I know. Nuclear scary if you don't have the facts. Burning things causes slow, costly changes to the environment; which isn't scary on a visceral way. It's irrational behavior. If people were left alone to use whatever power they wanted so long as the cleaned up the costs to others' property, nuclear would be a clear winner. Just burning stuff with no attempt to put the carbon back in the earth or to mitigate global warming in some other way would be expensive.
Ihttps://http://news.nationalgeographic.com/20...
And
https://principia-scientific.org/rapi...
The same can be said for plastic debris polluting the oceans. The U.S. contributes less than 10%, even though we're the biggest plastic consumer. Part of it is better waste management, and part is serious recycling efforts.
US is great.
I dont like the fact its politicized and made into a collectivist tool which will impact ME right now, rather than some etherial warming of the planet that might happen in 50 years.
Yes. My understanding is a significant portion of it is not related to humans. Also, we may head back toward a period of glaciation. I don't know much about that, but I know you're right that global warming is not 100% caused by human activities.