San Fran bans NG in new construction

pageyjim · Nov 15, 2020

stumpdigger said:
:Here is one of my objections to the green energy camp. How about UPS forcing their drivers to turn off their diesel engines every time that they make a stop? ARRGH: 1; diesel engines are designed to idle (2; turning off an engine for 20 seconds while the driver runs to my door emits almost no emmisions. (3; restarting a diesel puts out ten to twenty times more crap in the air than idling. (4; constantly starting a diesel engine wears out the starter and lead acid battery.
Who exactly figured out how much BROWN energy it takes to: build new starters? (steel plants, wire plants, precise CNC milling plants for shafts and gears, plastic plants for wire insulation, the list goes on and on) oops, forgot all of those dead lead acid batteries.
This country is run by brain dead morons that have no skills whatsoever, none at all, no clue how things work, they could not survive for 8 days and they are making laws. I would tell Biden to go hang himself but it would not do any good, 47 years in government, he would not be able to tie a knot that wouldn't fail.

The bulk of idling research to date has focused on the effects of heavyand medium-duty diesel vehicle idling.

CONCLUSION

"Idling for more than 10 seconds uses more fuel and emits more CO2 than engine restarting"

https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/which_is_greener.pdf

UPS is a company driven by profit and efficiency. They basically know what their driver is doing or not doing down to the second. They engineer routes to almost totally eliminate left hand turns among other things. It seems they know what they are doing and are making a market based business decision.

szw21 · Nov 15, 2020

Poodle Head Mikey said:
I am just noting that among people with a 'not even all that high' net worth - those above a million dollars - are moving out of California and have been for decades. The net-flow of people with that description has been net-loss - so more of them move out than move in.

So if the population of California is growing - it seems reasonable to project that the people who have moved into the state have a lower net worth.

I am not suggesting that California isn't vibrant. And maybe a poorer population is better in some way. I was just looking for places to invest my own money and putting into an area that wealthy people are leaving seems like it would be a less productive place for it.

One thing I think you are assuming is that people's wealth is static. There are many high paying jobs for example in STEM and so many people do become wealthy during their time here - especially if they join a startup that goes public. I know many in that situation. I cannot say how many are in that situation but it's not insignificant.

pageyjim · Nov 15, 2020

2sac said:
The issue I have with "green" technology is it hasn't been perfected and it isn't financially feasible at this time. Why punish Americans with taxes and regulations? Let's perfect the technology and make it affordable before we regulate out fossil fuels. Personally, I think our focus should be less on saving the planet and more on saving human life. Money would be better spent developing technology to desalinate water inexpensively than on carbon emissions. Using the logic of the politicians, we should tax California for doing nothing to prevent the fires from happening.
Nuclear power is really the answer for the tree huggers because there are zero carbon emissions. The tree huggers want electric this and electric that. Electric cars require batteries and mining nickel and lithium are much more harmful to the environment and the miners than the media would like us to believe.

Addressing climate change is about saving lives. Earth will survive just fine but humans will feel its impact.

Virtually every govt on earth disagrees with you regarding addressing climate change.

California has the biggest desalination plant in the US with more on the way. Maybe they should win the walk and chew gum award.

CA owns app 2% of the forests in CA while the federal govt owns 57% of it. CA uses controlled burning of app 125,000 acres /year. They have tried to do more but local communities stopped them from doing it. Including some communities that have burned to the ground. Maybe you should also be looking to the federal govt to be doing more?

As far as taxing people for not addressing a problem properly that sounds great. What could we call it? Maybe a carbon tax?

stumpdigger · Nov 15, 2020

pageyjim said:
The bulk of idling research to date has focused on the effects of heavyand medium-duty diesel vehicle idling.

CONCLUSION

"Idling for more than 10 seconds uses more fuel and emits more CO2 than engine restarting"

https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/which_is_greener.pdf

UPS is a company driven by profit and efficiency. They basically know what their driver is doing or not doing down to the second. They engineer routes to almost totally eliminate left hand turns among other things. It seems they know what they are doing and are making a market based business decision.

Makes me wonder if you ever saw all of the black unburned diesel coming out of the exhaust pipe on startup. #1 complaint of UPS drivers: their starters going out all the time. (my poll)

heatingman · Nov 15, 2020

stumpdigger said:
Makes me wonder if you ever saw all of the black unburned diesel coming out of the exhaust pipe on startup. #1 complaint of UPS drivers: their starters going out all the time. (my poll)

Technically thats Carbon and CO. Obviously not of concern to nature.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2sac · Nov 15, 2020

pageyjim said:
Addressing climate change is about saving lives. Earth will survive just fine but humans will feel its impact.

Virtually every govt on earth disagrees with you regarding addressing climate change.

California has the biggest desalination plant in the US with more on the way. Maybe they should win the walk and chew gum award.

CA owns app 2% of the forests in CA while the federal govt owns 57% of it. CA uses controlled burning of app 125,000 acres /year. They have tried to do more but local communities stopped them from doing it. Including some communities that have burned to the ground. Maybe you should also be looking to the federal govt to be doing more?

As far as taxing people for not addressing a problem properly that sounds great. What could we call it? Maybe a carbon tax?

Humans should be focused on adapting to what the earth is or isn't doing rather than trying to change the trajectory. In the U.S. we have less emissions today than at any other time after the industrial revolution.

Desalinating water still costs 2-3 times what it costs to process fresh water. We should reward those who come up with innovation to reduce costs rather than have the end user taxed for it. Same with emissions. We currently have an inexpensive and efficient way to power the earth with fossil fuels. Rather than punish big oil and natural gas, incentivize alternative innovation...Who am I kidding? Big oil and natural gas lobbyists are in the back pocket of Washington and modus operandi will never change.
The possibly new administration wants to stop fossil fuel production in the states to save the planet yet we will still be dependent on fossil fuels. We will again become dependent on other nations to provide us with oil. Hypocritical? I think so. Their agenda takes the "global" out of global warming. It's ok for Russia and the middle east to produce oil for us to buy, just not ok for the U.S. to produce our own.
The almighty dollar runs the world. We're just pawns in the game of the ruling class.

pageyjim · Nov 15, 2020

2sac said:
Humans should be focused on adapting to what the earth is or isn't doing rather than trying to change the trajectory. In the U.S. we have less emissions today than at any other time after the industrial revolution.

As previously said virtually every nation on earth disagrees with you.

Where do you get info like we have less emissions today than any time since 1760?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/

2sac · Nov 15, 2020

pageyjim said:
As previously said virtually every nation on earth disagrees with you.

Where do you get info like we have less emissions today than any time since 1760?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/

I guess I need to be more literal and less figurative. Maybe we should just resort back to the stone age. The U.S. emissions have been declining for the last 20 years or so. That is a fact. Global warming continues to rise even though our emissions are down. Why is that?

stumpdigger · Nov 15, 2020

heatingman said:
Technically thats Carbon and CO. Obviously not of concern to nature.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

HC too (hydro carbons)

pageyjim · Nov 15, 2020

2sac said:
I guess I need to be more literal and less figurative. Maybe we should just resort back to the stone age. The U.S. emissions have been declining for the last 20 years or so. That is a fact. Global warming continues to rise even though our emissions are down. Why is that?

No just tell the truth and don't be misleading.

No reason to resort back to the stone age. Who is saying that except for people making fallacious arguments?

Emissions are cumulative. We have emitted more than anyone else. The worlds population is growing and more people living a middle class lifestyle. It is a problem that the world has to address at this point. Which it is trying to even though you deny the need to.

2sac · Nov 15, 2020

pageyjim said:
No just tell the truth and don't be misleading.

No reason to resort back to the stone age. Who is saying that except for people making fallacious arguments?

Emissions are cumulative. We have emitted more than anyone else. The worlds population is growing and more people living a middle class lifestyle. It is a problem that the world has to address at this point. Which it is trying to even though you deny the need to.

I don't make decisions based on guilt. We have done more towards reduction of co2 emissions than any other country.

pageyjim · Nov 15, 2020

2sac said:
I don't make decisions based on guilt. We have done more towards reduction of co2 emissions than any other country.

I don't know what you mean by guilt.

We have reduced the most carbon emissions but many industrialized nations have done much more on a percentage basis.

Again we have contributed the most overall.

pageyjim · Nov 15, 2020

2sac said:
Global warming continues to rise even though our emissions are down. Why is that?

Everybody of course can have an opinion but with questions like that you should realize it is hard to have an informed opinion. That makes sense doesn't it?

pageyjim · Nov 15, 2020

2sac said:
The issue I have with "green" technology is it hasn't been perfected and it isn't financially feasible at this time. Why punish Americans with taxes and regulations? Let's perfect the technology and make it affordable before we regulate out fossil fuels. Personally, I think our focus should be less on saving the planet and more on saving human life. Money would be better spent developing technology to desalinate water inexpensively than on carbon emissions. Using the logic of the politicians, we should tax California for doing nothing to prevent the fires from happening.
Nuclear power is really the answer for the tree huggers because there are zero carbon emissions. The tree huggers want electric this and electric that. Electric cars require batteries and mining nickel and lithium are much more harmful to the environment and the miners than the media would like us to believe.

Fossil fuels are still subsidized today. Fossil fuels and nuclear power have been subsidized as much or more than renewables.

pageyjim · Nov 15, 2020

2sac said:
Humans should be focused on adapting to what the earth is or isn't doing rather than trying to change the trajectory. In the U.S. we have less emissions today than at any other time after the industrial revolution.

Desalinating water still costs 2-3 times what it costs to process fresh water. We should reward those who come up with innovation to reduce costs rather than have the end user taxed for it. Same with emissions. We currently have an inexpensive and efficient way to power the earth with fossil fuels. Rather than punish big oil and natural gas, incentivize alternative innovation...Who am I kidding? Big oil and natural gas lobbyists are in the back pocket of Washington and modus operandi will never change.
The possibly new administration wants to stop fossil fuel production in the states to save the planet yet we will still be dependent on fossil fuels. We will again become dependent on other nations to provide us with oil. Hypocritical? I think so. Their agenda takes the "global" out of global warming. It's ok for Russia and the middle east to produce oil for us to buy, just not ok for the U.S. to produce our own.
The almighty dollar runs the world. We're just pawns in the game of the ruling class.

There is research into desalination including rewards for improving current techniques. I am amazed that you thought different.

2sac · Nov 16, 2020

pageyjim said:
I don't know what you mean by guilt.

We have reduced the most carbon emissions but many industrialized nations have done much more on a percentage basis.

Again we have contributed the most overall.

Based on your statement. Because I am middle class, it's my fault. I am and/or those of a similar class are the key contributor to the problem.

2sac · Nov 16, 2020

pageyjim said:
Fossil fuels are still subsidized today. Fossil fuels and nuclear power have been subsidized as much or more than renewables.

Fossil fuels are being subsidized because of lobbyists. Nuclear power has been torn apart and plants dismantled. Corn has been subsidized and while it all sounds fine and dandy, it takes a lot of fossil fuel energy to turn corn into useful energy. There is no savings. While people may or may not be starving around the world, we subsidize farmers to produce corn for energy rather than food. Why are we not pushing subsidies for hydrogen powered vehicles? Why are we not pushing subsidies for nuclear powered electricity?

pageyjim · Nov 16, 2020

2sac said:
Fossil fuels are being subsidized because of lobbyists. Nuclear power has been torn apart and plants dismantled. Corn has been subsidized and while it all sounds fine and dandy, it takes a lot of fossil fuel energy to turn corn into useful energy. There is no savings. While people may or may not be starving around the world, we subsidize farmers to produce corn for energy rather than food. Why are we not pushing subsidies for hydrogen powered vehicles? Why are we not pushing subsidies for nuclear powered electricity?

Subsidies for hydrogen power match that of solar and wind.

There are hydrogen powered vehicles. Some are in test areas which is the same way EV's were.

UPS which has been a topic here have vehicles with power cells also. I am sure there are others.

There is research into hydrogen power. I again am surprised that you question this and everything else stated above.

Another topic of conversation in this thread is the power plant in Utah that is operated by the City of Los Angeles. It will be running on hydrogen power.

There are tax credits to buy hydrogen cell powered vehicles.

I am happy to be your personal secretary explaining things that are so obvious but so surprising to you.

pageyjim · Nov 16, 2020

2sac said:
Fossil fuels are being subsidized because of lobbyists. Nuclear power has been torn apart and plants dismantled. Corn has been subsidized and while it all sounds fine and dandy, it takes a lot of fossil fuel energy to turn corn into useful energy. There is no savings. While people may or may not be starving around the world, we subsidize farmers to produce corn for energy rather than food. Why are we not pushing subsidies for hydrogen powered vehicles? Why are we not pushing subsidies for nuclear powered electricity?

Nuclear power has been and is subsidized.

Nuclear power plants require significant subsidies to keep operating, experts say

https://dc.medill.northwestern.edu/...quire-significant-subsidies-to-keep-operating-experts-say/#sthash.rkHQ01HD.dpbs

I know I have seen where solar and wind subsidies were less than half of what nuclear power received over a lengthy time period.

2sac · Nov 16, 2020

pageyjim said:
There is research into desalination including rewards for improving current techniques. I am amazed that you thought different.

I live 20 miles from Lake Michigan. There is enough water to last me until I die. Enough water for me to drink, enough water for me to bathe, enough water for me to flush the toilet twice after a huge dump. That's not necessarily true for the rest of the U.S. or the world. From a selfish standpoint, I am not concerned one bit. I do have a heart though and desalinization and the usage of dehumidification to remove water from air are 2 things I have thought about more than once. I'm no engineer, but I'm in a trade that creates water as a byproduct. Why are we not able to make such a thing affordable?

10-20 years ago my ol' lady's grandmother was a Florida resident. We'd fly down there at least once a year, if not more. I recall they were talking about redoing the cities (St. Petersburg) sewage plumbing. They were going to use, for lack of a better term, un processed grey water(shower and sink water), for watering landscape.

Florida's humidity levels should be enough to provide fresh water for something(I don't know what) as a byproduct of hvac. We should harness what the earth gives us and we should figure out how to do it at a low cost.

San Fran bans NG in new construction

pageyjim

szw21

pageyjim

stumpdigger

heatingman

2sac

pageyjim

2sac

stumpdigger

pageyjim

2sac

pageyjim

pageyjim

pageyjim

pageyjim

2sac

2sac

pageyjim

pageyjim

2sac

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities