mspohr
Well-Known Member
Really doesn't matter what I say. World has ignored the crisis. Will probably continue until we are all toast.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
Norbert
TSLA will win
Whoever holds the majority in the Senate should institute a CO2 tax.
Whoever is the President should do the opposite of what the current one does.
Or come up with your own idea. There are a thousand ways.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
How about nationalizing fossil fuels and shutting them off?
How about a Green New Deal to build renewable infrastructure?
d21mike
Active Member
If you personally believe as @mspohr does why would you "personally" not make every effort to "stop" immediately if only in your personal life. I propose that "every" person that agrees with @mspohr do the following:
1. Commit to never buy another ICE Car again. Could you see the affect if every person who believed strongly in climate change would do that? Car manufactures would have a scramble to move to electric going forward or go out of business.
2. Commit to install solar/battery if you own a home with a roof. How much do you believe in climate change?
Once these 2 things happen in a big way society will start to change very quickly.
California has a new law (I believe) that every NEW Home must have Solar to offset the owners usage. If NEW Home buyers would require that in states that do not demand it, it will start to be a common feature like 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms.
Merrill
Merrill
You can also get involved in organizations that are working toward advancing ways to help the environment.
d21mike
Active Member
My problem is that the organizations that I see publicly (that believe in climate change) all believe in "The Green New Deal" or some form of it which I am very much against. However, I was pretty happy to hear about the UK version of "The Green Deal". If the US climate change "leaders" would focus on that then I might change my mind. But I do not expect that to happen for obvious reasons.
Just in time... saw an article talking about Solar Roof being cheaper than roof + roof top solar!
Tesla ramps up Solarglass roof installations - Electrek
There are plenty of organizations that take a variety of approaches. I’m involved in some and not all of them are focused on things such as the Green New Deal. Some work merely to help entities measure their climate inventories to calculate the effect of legislation towards reaching goals. There is plenty of number and science driven work to be done. The Union of Concerned Scientists is a larger organization that may be of interest to you. I find local organizations to be more nimble, though, and they may give you an opportunity to be more impactful to your community as well.
I made this commitment back in 2012 when I bought my 1st EV. Since than, I have bought 2 more EVs so now we have 3 in the family.
I have self-installed my own roof-top solar in 2011 on my current house to save some cost. Unfortunately the shape of my roof is not ideal for solar, I could only fit 3.3kW south facing, which is not enough to fully cover my usage with the EV charging, furthermore heating is still provided by nat.gas. I have my new house designs completed now, construction to start in the spring. The new house will be Passive-Solar design, no fossil fuels at all. It will have 20kW solar + Tesla powerwalls so I should never need to use energy from the grid, although I will probably sell back some as I will produce more than I need even with 3 EV charging.
I do believe walking the walk myself matters more than just talking the talk. I was the first one in my street / neighborhood to install solar, but now there are 7 more houses with solar on them in the area and several of them came by and asked me about it before they got theirs installed. So you can lead by example!
Fortunately for me, the ROI never made sense and still did not. This is what happened in NV. I knew that the casino were trying to trick us into opening the market so they can disconnect without penalty, so voted to keep the NV monopoly going. Also voted for higher renewable goals... both passed and we are now benefiting from additional investment by NVE. Utility is buying solar at 1-2 cents a kWh, adding storage increase the cost by another penny. Roof top solar for me is about 12 cents a kWh (factoring in 3.4% interest).
Nevada Utility NV Energy Goes “Solar Plus Storage” in a Big Way
BTW, TOU non-peak year round and EV rate is 4-5 cents a kWh here, so buying an EV was a no brainer once the net price for a 200+ mile range Bolt EV got to about $30K (still eligible for $1875 tax credit for now).
mspohr
Well-Known Member
The problem is that you'll never see the benefit of 1-2 cents solar. The utility won't pass that savings on to you. If you're lucky, they won't raise your rates by much.Fortunately for me, the ROI never made sense and still did not. This is what happened in NV. I knew that the casino were trying to trick us into opening the market so they can disconnect without penalty, so voted to keep the NV monopoly going. Also voted for higher renewable goals... both passed and we are now benefiting from additional investment by NVE. Utility is buying solar at 1-2 cents a kWh, adding storage increase the cost by another penny. Roof top solar for me is about 12 cents a kWh (factoring in 3.4% interest).
Nevada Utility NV Energy Goes “Solar Plus Storage” in a Big Way
BTW, TOU non-peak year round and EV rate is 4-5 cents a kWh here, so buying an EV was a no brainer once the net price for a 200+ mile range Bolt EV got to about $30K (still eligible for $1875 tax credit for now).
Oh, I guess I should buy my own solar where my current long term rate would be like 11 cents a kWh. Are you a millionaire (who used to be a billionaire)? I am happy with my avg 6-7 cents a kWh over 12 months.
Norbert
TSLA will win
I meant to mention two steps that are no-brrainers. In general, I favor proposals that are convincingly practical. It's a big country and I think that is what "even" republicans could start with, to support. Green New Deal, sure if it gets the votes. I'd be afraid that rationalizing fuel, no problem for me personally, is something that too many people aren't ready to accept at this point. It would also be difficult to implement, I think. However a transition to ZEVs at fixed dates, different dates in different areas, might be more acceptable. At first regarding the introduction of new products, next regarding the sales of any new vehicles (maybe a few exceptions). From a "we need to" standpoint you'd ask and argue for more, but it might not help politically, except to highlight the seriousness of the situation. A different president could achieve much in the area of zero emission power plants, I think in this area zero emission technology is not yet as convincing as it is for zero emission vehicles. I like California's decision to switch government vehicles to ZEV, more states need to follow and the same could be done on the federal level.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Power to the people: Bernie calls for federal takeover of electricity production
Sanders has laid out a $16 trillion climate change plan that would transition U.S. electricity generation away from fossil fuels to renewable resources like wind, solar and hydropower by 2030. That’s far faster than any other Democratic candidate's target and sets a pace that rivals like former Vice President Joe Biden say is unrealistic.
The Sanders campaign has defended its plan as the only one that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions quickly enough to meaningfully combat climate change, and his allies have applauded his desire to take on the utility industry, which for decades resisted climate action.
“This threat is beyond ideology — it's a question of life and death," said Sanders' national policy director Josh Orton. “That's why [Bernie’s] plan is not only the most comprehensive, but is truly the only plan that makes the investments necessary to prevent irreversible damage to the planet.”
Sanders has laid out a $16 trillion climate change plan that would transition U.S. electricity generation away from fossil fuels to renewable resources like wind, solar and hydropower by 2030. That’s far faster than any other Democratic candidate's target and sets a pace that rivals like former Vice President Joe Biden say is unrealistic.
The Sanders campaign has defended its plan as the only one that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions quickly enough to meaningfully combat climate change, and his allies have applauded his desire to take on the utility industry, which for decades resisted climate action.
“This threat is beyond ideology — it's a question of life and death," said Sanders' national policy director Josh Orton. “That's why [Bernie’s] plan is not only the most comprehensive, but is truly the only plan that makes the investments necessary to prevent irreversible damage to the planet.”
Norbert
TSLA will win
LIke Daimler voluntarily (more or less) made the decision to stop developing gasoline engines, moving all R&D to electric. From a fixed date forward, no more new products that aren't zero emission. And no more advertising. That's gonna be scary. Especially the advertising part.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Truth decay: when uncertainty is weaponized
From tobacco to food and fuels, industries use denial, deceit and doubt to corrupt. By Felicity Lawrence.
The principles of scientific inquiry involve testing a hypothesis by exploring uncertainty around it until there is a sufficient weight of evidence to reach a reasonable conclusion. Proof can be much longer in coming, and consensus still longer. The product-defence industry subverts these principles, weaponizing the uncertainty inherent in the process. Its tricks include stressing dissent where little remains, cherry-picking data, reanalysing results to reach different conclusions and hiring people prepared to rig methodologies to produce funders’ desired results.
Michaels, no longer required to be a non-partisan government official, reserves special criticism for the Republican Party. He argues that corporate polluters and manufacturers of dangerous products have long depended on the party to neuter public-health and regulatory agencies with phoney rhetoric about liberty and free-market enterprise. He wants stronger regulation, not because he does not care about freedom, he says, but because we cannot be free without the state’s protection from harm.
From tobacco to food and fuels, industries use denial, deceit and doubt to corrupt. By Felicity Lawrence.
The principles of scientific inquiry involve testing a hypothesis by exploring uncertainty around it until there is a sufficient weight of evidence to reach a reasonable conclusion. Proof can be much longer in coming, and consensus still longer. The product-defence industry subverts these principles, weaponizing the uncertainty inherent in the process. Its tricks include stressing dissent where little remains, cherry-picking data, reanalysing results to reach different conclusions and hiring people prepared to rig methodologies to produce funders’ desired results.
Michaels, no longer required to be a non-partisan government official, reserves special criticism for the Republican Party. He argues that corporate polluters and manufacturers of dangerous products have long depended on the party to neuter public-health and regulatory agencies with phoney rhetoric about liberty and free-market enterprise. He wants stronger regulation, not because he does not care about freedom, he says, but because we cannot be free without the state’s protection from harm.
I was just headed here to post this piece. Definitely worth a read, though it won’t come as a huge surprise to most of the participants in this thread.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
It's time for California to take over PG&E, state lawmaker says
SACRAMENTO —
A state lawmaker is making a move to turn Pacific Gas & Electric into a public utility, a potentially dramatic shift that would end decades of corporate control over California’s largest power company.
“PG&E is a failed utility with a track record of prioritizing profits over safety,” Wiener said in a statement. “It’s time for a new start: A utility focused not on Wall Street and shareholder profits, but rather on safety, reliability, affordability, and ratepayers.”
SACRAMENTO —
A state lawmaker is making a move to turn Pacific Gas & Electric into a public utility, a potentially dramatic shift that would end decades of corporate control over California’s largest power company.
“PG&E is a failed utility with a track record of prioritizing profits over safety,” Wiener said in a statement. “It’s time for a new start: A utility focused not on Wall Street and shareholder profits, but rather on safety, reliability, affordability, and ratepayers.”
... or sell PG&E to Warren Buffet. After buying out NV Energy, seems the power prices have gone down and renewables have gone up significantly. Time of use rate 46 cents 1-7pm 4 mo of the year. Rest of the year, about 5 cents. EV rate about 4.5 cents. My annual power bill before EV, about $500. My expected annual bill after 1 EV, about $600.
Merrill
Merrill
Anyone could do a better job as long as they are not corrupt.... or sell PG&E to Warren Buffet. After buying out NV Energy, seems the power prices have gone down and renewables have gone up significantly. Time of use rate 46 cents 1-7pm 4 mo of the year. Rest of the year, about 5 cents. EV rate about 4.5 cents. My annual power bill before EV, about $500. My expected annual bill after 1 EV, about $600.
Similar threads
