# Ban on small engines in California



## SmithDoor

Any reading on new Ban in California 

Ban on sales of gas power engines under 25 horse power in California
This includes generators , Lawn mowers and the list goes on.



			https://b95forlife.iheart.com/conten...awn-equipment/
		


Just think of pushing to cut your grass or a rake for your yard.
I wonder how long can battery keeps your food cold

Just remember California always have petitions to stop nuts

Stop California To Ban Gas Propane Engines









						Sign the Petition
					

California to Ban Gas engines on (Propane Generators) for emergencies Let's stop the ban




					chng.it
				




Dave


----------



## gbritnell

When they had the opportunity to recall the idiot governor they let him slide so they deserve everything they get. Ghee dear the power went out I'll plug in the electric generator. PG&E has problems with power now I wonder what they're going to do when everything is electric!


----------



## SmithDoor

It simple plug in to your electric car or buy a gas hogging 25 horse power generator. 

Dave 




gbritnell said:


> When they had the opportunity to recall the idiot governor they let him slide so they deserve everything they get. Ghee dear the power went out I'll plug in the electric generator. PG&E has problems with power now I wonder what they're going to do when everything is electric!


----------



## vederstein

Will steam engines now make a come back?


----------



## rklopp

Instead of whining about someone else's solution to air pollution and global warming, what is YOUR proposed solution? California banned me from locating my septic tank on the riverbank and spraying DDT all over my yard, too. I've gotten over it.


----------



## SmithDoor

rklopp said:


> Instead of whining about someone else's solution to air pollution and global warming, what is YOUR proposed solution? California banned me from locating my septic tank on the riverbank and spraying DDT all over my yard, too. I've gotten over it.


California want to cows for air pollution.
Sounds like gas to me.

Dave


----------



## Ken I

They have also banned trucks from the road built before 2011 or have an engine built before 2010.
They have also banned owner operated rigs.
Non-compliant trucks are not allowed into California.
As a result some 60 to 80 thousand trucks and truckers have left the state - that's why the container docks are not coping. Not that the
MSM would report that.
Big rigs have an average life expectancy of 18 year and are mostly costed over 20 - but since California has passed a law outlawing your trucking business in 2035 you've only got 13 or so years left.
Would you invest in any new trucks ? Or in a business the state has vowed to destroy.
Are California’s Strict Emission Laws Causing US Supply Chain Chaos?
Trucking companies have taken to swopping rigs or trans-shipping loads at the boarder. This is nuts.
There is currently an injunction against the legislation but the state is still issuing fines which the state has vowed fall due if the injunction is lifted or appeals against the law fail. ???
As I recall from reading the Federalist papers - the intention of the US Constitution was to not allow trans-state border taxes or other obstacles to free trade.
California is foremost amongst states in passing legislation which which would clearly be an anathema to the framers and the authors of the Federalist Papers - Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison.
They deserve the misfortune they are heaping on themselves.
Regards, Ken


----------



## davidyat

I lived in California since 1949. 50's, greatest time to be a kid. 60's, greatest time to be a young adult. In the early 80's, I saw the political winds starting to change direction. Made my decision to get out of Dodge in 2012. Finally moved to Indianapolis in 2017. Best decision I ever made. The stupidity and lack of common sense in that state is mind boggling. Look this up if you're skeptical, a few years back, Sacramento was CONSIDERING legislation to regulate cow farts because the methane messes up the atmosphere!!! People are leaving that place. The number one reason? Housing cost. In California, 60% of all houses there are over 500 thousand in cost, in Texas only 6% of houses are valued over 500 thousand. Now you see why people are flocking to Texas from there!
Grasshopper


----------



## mohamer51

I see some problems with Lithium Pollution...


----------



## vederstein

The dumbest part of this law is he banning of small power generators.  Any common idiot should have seen that as an issue and carved out an exemption for generators.  (Perhaps there actually is a carve out, but I'm unaware of it).

I'm seeing a California with some seriously souped up power equipment.

I know that Harbor Freight sells a two cylinder V-twin that people hop up to around 70 horsepower.  Imagine that on a push mower!

If something like this actually happens with power equipment becoming grossly overpowered, pollution will increase because of the larger than necessary engines.

Remember, all rules, regulations, laws have unintended consequences resulting in the requirement for more rules, regulations, and laws to mitigate those unintended consequences.  Eventually we find ourselves in totalitarian state.  And remember, it was all done for the "greater good."

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

...Ved.


----------



## CFLBob

Nobody asked the obvious question, so I will.

Does the law outlaw our little internal combustion engine models?  

It doesn't affect me, I'm in Florida, but if all ICEs are outlawed that includes our little engines.  I've seen many people showing big engines they've built.


----------



## lohring

I was just in California racing RC boats.  We use model airplane style nitro motors, industrial style gasoline motors and electric motors.  I doubt that the ban includes model or any motors used for hobbies or racing, but I haven't read the actual law.  The interesting thing was the LA County fire helicopters that showed up on two days to get water from the lake to put out fires.  One fire was so close that ash rained down on our race site.  





Just like the IC engine solved the problem of pollution caused by horses, electric power will help solve the pollution caused by burning fossil fuels.  Tesla is now the best selling (not just electric car) car in California and in several other countries.  They are more than doubling their capacity with two new plants.  Other manufacturers' sales are dropping and their profit margins are around 1/3 of Tesla's in the last quarter.   

Welcome to the 21st century.

Lohring Miller


----------



## SmithDoor

CFLBob said:


> Nobody asked the obvious question, so I will.
> 
> Does the law outlaw our little internal combustion engine models?
> 
> It doesn't affect me, I'm in Florida, but if all ICEs are outlawed that includes our little engines.  I've seen many people showing big engines they've built.


No one knows.
The law is not clear
Try this one construction equipment uses same engines. The question are they ban too. Nothing on rebuilding and parts.

Dave

FYI California wants ban cows too. 
Sounds like a gas to me


----------



## elcid

lohring said:


> I was just in California racing RC boats.  We use model airplane style nitro motors, industrial style gasoline motors and electric motors.  I doubt that the ban includes model or any motors used for hobbies or racing, but I haven't read the actual law.  The interesting thing was the LA County fire helicopters that showed up on two days to get water from the lake to put out fires.  One fire was so close that ash rained down on our race site.
> 
> View attachment 130248
> 
> 
> Just like the IC engine solved the problem of pollution caused by horses, electric power will help solve the pollution caused by burning fossil fuels.  Tesla is now the best selling (not just electric car) car in California and in several other countries.  They are more than doubling their capacity with two new plants.  Other manufacturers' sales are dropping and their profit margins are around 1/3 of Tesla's in the last quarter.
> 
> Welcome to the 21st century.
> 
> Lohring Miller


If house prices are hitting $500,000 dollars I don't think the price of Tesla's cars will be a worry, the real worry is the up and coming COP 26, people jetting into Glasgow from around the world, followed by all their clingons, but telling the Scots, 5.4 million of them if they get on their bikes they will become carbon neutral by 2030  and of course they will be saving the planet.
Climate change may be a fact, but it could be natural combined with help from mankind but nonsense like COP26 will do nothing to change billions of lives on this planet, China and India have, between them, around 3500 coal fired power stations in the pipe line.
Billions still live in poverty, when will they get their Tesla's or even electric scooters, or clean water.
This planet is walking blind into a humanitarian apocalypse, migrants from Mexico and migrants from Africa and Asia into Europe are already placing pressure on the countries where they end up.
California's actions sound and read like knee jerk reactions from those in control but who aren't really in control.
Perhaps it IS too late.


----------



## kvom

At least electric lawnmowers are pretty effective for normal lawns.


----------



## Thommo

There is something seriously wrong with the leftist weirdos in California, or all the blue states actually. Banning home generators?? What drugs are these idiots on. The whole climate change thing is a joke. They had to change the name from global warming to climate change when they realised that the earth is in a cooling cycle. There’s absolutely no evidence that the CO2 generated by human activity has any affect on climate. It’s all about politics imho.


----------



## Steamchick

Funny how much politics have found their way into a machining website? As very few of us use coal boilers steam  engines and line shafting to power our workshops, maybe it isn't affecting our machining pleasure, just the use of the models we make? How about running engines on home-brewed alcohol instead of ground sourced oil products? Diesels will run on vegetable oils, milk is a usable lubricating coolant, though with a short life before it goes off! Etc. Etc.!
Sorry to hear how the legislators are upsetting you, but you elected them...?
Whether political or real, the changing world is "of our making" so get on and move with the times, as we all have to live with what the "ignorant and uninformed" will do whatever we would want for our world.
Any real issues for machining or models here?
Stay happy,
K2


----------



## Steamchick

lohring said:


> I was just in California racing RC boats.  We use model airplane style nitro motors, industrial style gasoline motors and electric motors.  I doubt that the ban includes model or any motors used for hobbies or racing, but I haven't read the actual law.  The interesting thing was the LA County fire helicopters that showed up on two days to get water from the lake to put out fires.  One fire was so close that ash rained down on our race site.
> 
> View attachment 130248
> 
> 
> Just like the IC engine solved the problem of pollution caused by horses, electric power will help solve the pollution caused by burning fossil fuels.  Tesla is now the best selling (not just electric car) car in California and in several other countries.  They are more than doubling their capacity with two new plants.  Other manufacturers' sales are dropping and their profit margins are around 1/3 of Tesla's in the last quarter.
> 
> Welcome to the 21st century.
> 
> Lohring Miller


In London, in Victorian times, battery electric lorries replaced horse drawn wagons by the thousand, before the infernal combustion engine became practical, and forced the need for cheap oil fuels. But most of the pollution wasn't  horse dung, but human, and the air was thick with coal smoke...! The coal has gone, the horses too, and the human dung is processed and mostly recycled..... so this isn't a 21st. Century problem of change, just a part of a long process.
But it is a pity that governments representing more than 2/3rd of the global population are not attending the COP event.... Rightly or not, the minority will be battling against a large majority whatever they decide "we all should do".
K2


----------



## Steamchick

mohamer51 said:


> I see some problems with Lithium Pollution...


If most of the lithium comes from the sea, surely we can recycle it for now, or put it back into the sea when we find a reason to ban it?
They will ban stuff made from hydrogen and oxygen next.... like "people"?
Who said "We are star dust"... Mommas  and Poppas?
"Ashes to ashes",  was Mr. Bowie....
K2


----------



## davidyat

*When was the climate on Earth NOT changing? Geologists say at one time, the surface of the Earth was molten lava. Then the surface was all ice. So to me, the climate on Earth is ALWAYS changing. Stupid humans are changing Earth, just faster.
Grasshopper*


----------



## Ken I

I know we have gone somewhat off topic but I feel I must toss in my 10c worth........

I too believe climate change is real – my problem is that I believe it is almost entirely natural – it has never been static – and I can’t believe that man is the cause or can control the climate with the magic molecule CO2 which is :-

Only 0.04% Of the atmosphere
Has 99.99% of it’s CO2 infra-Red absorption spectra already saturated
And man’s output is 4% of mother nature’s natural cycle. (All facts you can and should check.)

Multiply that out to 0.000000016 and you want to control the climate with that factor ? – pull the other leg it’s got bells on.

That’s excluding volcanos – which because of uncertainties might reduce that by a factor of up to 20 times less (we don’t know) - the most likely value is about five times.

_"Anyone who goes around and says that CO2 is responsible for most of the global warming in the 20th century has not looked at the basic numbers."_…Professor Patrick Michaels, Dept. of Environment Sciences, University of Virginia.

Calculations by van Wijngaarten and Happer across the many absorption frequencies by H2O, CO2, CH4 (methane) and N2O (nitrous oxides) yield exceptionally good agreement with satellite-based temperature measurements. They showed that absorption by CH4 and N2O are both completely negligible, regardless of the fictional calculations of “Global Warming Potential” (GWP.)







Prof. William Happer. Professor of Physics at Princeton University

The difference between the black and red line is the difference between current 400ppm CO2 and the “catastrophic” effect of “doubling” to 800ppm CO2

Hard to see a difference that is cause for any concern.

Review or download the paper at Cornell University :-

[2006.03098] Dependence of Earth's Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases

Also an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275–364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X

[0707.1161] Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics 

Cornell University – Falsification of the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture.

Both peer reviewed scientific papers based on repeatable empirical, experimental and observed data - not the fanciful multiple order "modeling" which is often touted as "Data" turning centuries of science on its head.

Certainly temperatures are well correlated to CO2 but then again so are flying saucer sightings – correlation without causation.

Before we go wrecking the global economy to ward off a largely imaginary problem you need to be sure of your facts.

Don’t believe me or anyone else – and particularly not the alarmism touting, scientifically ignorant mainstream media.

I have been studying this for over 15 years and remain solidly unconvinced in the validity of almost all of this farrago. My "notes" on this run to over 220000 words - which I have as a 17Mb MSword document file - if you would like a copy send me a PM.

I'm not a "denialist" but I am a skeptic - which should be the default mode for any scientist - not belief or fashionable grant seeking dogmas so prevalent amongst academics over this, the latest doomsday cult to inflict itself on mankind.

Regards,  Ken


----------



## SmithDoor

davidyat said:


> *When was the climate on Earth NOT changing? Geologists say at one time, the surface of the Earth was molten lava. Then the surface was all ice. So to me, the climate on Earth is ALWAYS changing. Stupid humans are changing Earth, just faster.
> Grasshopper*


It was cooler lava.
Today do to man we have hot lava. 
There in no smog from forest fire.
Makes sense to green movement.  

Most of pollution where live is from forest fires

Dave


----------



## vederstein

Two topics here:

*1. The global warming/climate change discussion:*

I've always been amused with the call "Save the Planet!"

The planet doesn't give a rat's ass about us.  It's going to be around long long after we've evolved into many other species or died out completely.

World conflicts are usually over resources.  If a population gets sufficient resources their want to take those resources from someone else greatly diminish.  Access to cheap, abundant, reliable power allows a population to acquire many of the other items they lack (think desalination plants or electrolsys to create hydrogen to power portable equipment).

If the Greenies were serious about their cause, they would embrace nuclear power.  It creates huge amount energy with tiny (but really nasty) quantities waste.  Many will bring up that nuclear can be used to create bombs.  Two facets to this.  If enough power is created, the want to take other peoples stuff is diminished.   With Thorium reactors, the fissionable material created is far from suitable for bombs.

Also with Thorium, the waste (fission products) is safe in about 400 years.  Thorium reactors create essentially no transuranic elements (elements heavier than uranium).  The transuranics are what last 26,000 years and _are_  created with the types of commercial reactors used today (uranium fueled).

The Chinese and Indians are actively working on commercial thorium power plants.  The Western world is going to get left in the dust.

*2. The California small engine ban.*

Ok, California is phasing out small (less than 25 hp) equipment with internal combustion engines.  Obviously they are expecting the existing fleet of equipment to be replaced with equipment powered by electricity (or grazing farm animals).  California already has an electric supply problem and their electric grid is old, under capacity, and failing.

Is the state going to upgrade their electric grid to accommodate the power equipment and eventually millions of cars?

That is all

...Ved.


----------



## dnalot

The climate here in Washington State is changing as I write this. I just looked out my window to see the trees are losing their leaves.

Mark T


----------



## William May

The order bans the FURTHER SALE OF INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES. 
It DOES NOT affect engines currently in use, any used engine sales,
(including current vehicles) and the use of vehicles that are currently used. It also DOES NOT BAN TRUCKS OR CARS FROM OTHER STATES FROM ENTERING CALIFORNIA.

Pull your pants down, get your undies OUT of the big bundle they are in, and put your pants back on.  

There has NEVER BEEN A SUCCESSFUL THORIUM REACTOR BUILT. 
(They are NOT practical, and probably never will be.)


----------



## SmithDoor

This state is still using equipment from the 1930's.

California is only upgrading after some happen.
Today the upgrade is natural gas generators.  What is the difference from a 7 hp and a 100,000 hp engine. Maybe if you can afford a 26hp  generator that is ok

If power lines goes down the only thing left is is your 7hp generators to run your refrigerator and charging CPAC and or other medicine equipment

Dave

The photo below is the new green



vederstein said:


> Two topics here:
> 
> *1. The global warming/climate change discussion:*
> 
> I've always been amused with the call "Save the Planet!"
> 
> The planet doesn't give a rat's ass about us.  It's going to be around long long after we've evolved into many other species or died out completely.
> 
> World conflicts are usually over resources.  If a population gets sufficient resources their want to take those resources from someone else greatly diminish.  Access to cheap, abundant, reliable power allows a population to acquire many of the other items they lack (think desalination plants or electrolsys to create hydrogen to power portable equipment).
> 
> If the Greenies were serious about their cause, they would embrace nuclear power.  It creates huge amount energy with tiny (but really nasty) quantities waste.  Many will bring up that nuclear can be used to create bombs.  Two facets to this.  If enough power is created, the want to take other peoples stuff is diminished.   With Thorium reactors, the fissionable material created is far from suitable for bombs.
> 
> Also with Thorium, the waste (fission products) is safe in about 400 years.  Thorium reactors create essentially no transuranic elements (elements heavier than uranium).  The transuranics are what last 26,000 years and _are_  created with the types of commercial reactors used today (uranium fueled).
> 
> The Chinese and Indians are actively working on commercial thorium power plants.  The Western world is going to get left in the dust.
> 
> *2. The California small engine ban.*
> 
> Ok, California is phasing out small (less than 25 hp) equipment with internal combustion engines.  Obviously they are expecting the existing fleet of equipment to be replaced with equipment powered by electricity (or grazing farm animals).  California already has an electric supply problem and their electric grid is old, under capacity, and failing.
> 
> Is the state going to upgrade their electric grid to accommodate the power equipment and eventually millions of cars?
> 
> That is all
> 
> ...Ved.


----------



## lohring

Re warming - Dilbert - Daily Strip Email

Lohring Miller


----------



## Ken I

Recharging the Australian way (Nullarbor)




You can't make this stuff up.
Regards, Ken


----------



## SmithDoor

Ken I said:


> Recharging the Australian way (Nullarbor)
> View attachment 130260
> 
> You can't make this stuff up.
> Regards, Ken


But car is on battery per green people that ok. The generator is over 25 hp and no pollution diesel too.

Dave


----------



## vederstein

William May said:


> There has NEVER BEEN A SUCCESSFUL THORIUM REACTOR BUILT.
> (They are NOT practical, and probably never will be.)



This is true. Thorium technology is evolving and is very much still in development.  In the '60s there was the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) in Tennessee which ran successfully for six years until funding was pulled and the project was cancelled.  It was never filled with thorium to become a true thorium breeder reactor.  I believe it at one point it was running on man made uranium 232, which is what thorium eventually trans-mutates to after being bombarded with neutrons.

The MSRE was cancelled about fifty years ago in favor of uranium breeder reactors.  The U.S. wanted both energy and bombs.  Breeders can do this.  Thorium reactors cannot. Uranium breeders use liquid sodium as a heat transfer fluid and though some reactors have been built they've always had major maintenance issues.  (Remember sodium loves to react with water _and_ molten sodium is not transparent).

I'm not saying thorium reactors are fully developed.  Far from it. But to say they aren't practical, we don't know yet.  Nobody has designed and built a full scale LFTR  (liquid fluoride thorium reactor) which uses fluoride salts as both the fuel and the heat transfer fluid.  LFTR's are also intrinsically safe.  If they overheat a freeze plug melts and the fuel is dumped into vats without a neutron moderator and fission stops.

In the late '40s and early '50s the U.S. had many uranium fueled reactors developing the technology.  Most were located in Idaho.  Hymen Rickover's team developed the nuclear powered Nautilus submarine which was christened (I think) in 1955.  The reactor in the Nautilus became the template for nearly all Western commercial nuclear power stations: the light water reactor.

All technologies start at "there's never been one built."  Eventually they are.  Newcomen took about 10 years developing his engine before an accident showed him the way.  Watt had the idea for the separate condenser, but he had to wait until the machining technology existed to make his ideas possible.  Trevithick paved the way for high pressure steam engines which Watt thought were too dangerous.  In the late 1800s, there was serious talk of dismantling the US patent office because they seriously thought everything was discovered.  Babbage designed a computer 100 years before technology was able to catch up with his ideas.

In the 1960's the group running the MSRE realized that using  fluoride salts in the reactor would have problematic corrosion issues.  A metal alloy (I think Iconel) was developed to mitigate the corrosion issue.

Yes, there has never been a successful reactor built.  To be honest about, the Western world never really tried.  The Chinese and Indians are actively pursuing the technology.  I still feel that the Western world is going to be left in dust once China has limitless power.

...Ved.


----------



## Zeb

My state doesn't even have boiler codes (for small steam engines  ). Pretty soon you'll need several licenses to own a Sherline set in California when they realize firearms aren't actually made from 3D printers. There goes the small engine machining hobbyists.

A friend of mine successfully ran his gas generator for 30 minutes on coal (hydrogen and carbon monoxide). I think loosing fuel refineries altogether might bring back some interesting technology, but tinkerers shall continue to suffer from tinkeritis.


----------



## Nerd1000

Ken I said:


> Recharging the Australian way (Nullarbor)
> View attachment 130260
> 
> You can't make this stuff up.
> Regards, Ken


This isn't on the Nullarbor, it was a test run staged to determine the efficiency of charging an ev on diesel. Funnily enough, the results were no worse (in terms of CO2) than a conventional car. Full story here:









						Using diesel to charge EVs in the outback is greener than you think
					

A group of EV drivers test out using an EV charger powered by a diesel generator as a solution for outback roadhouses, and the results are promising.




					www.google.com


----------



## John Rus

Let me set the record straight.

This has NOTHING to do with clean air. EVERYTHING has an environmental foot print. Everything. Just how do you want to go about it.

And the issue is not pollution as everyone wants to point out, nobody likes breathing smog. This is not the issue. The supposed issue is CO2, a inert gas that is harmless and not poisonous and plants use. We pump this stuff to make plants grow faster.

It's all politics, they have been preaching this dooms day stuff for 60 years. It's a broken record at this point. Every 10 or 15 years, the sky is falling. Yet nothing happens. All Gore said by the 20'teens polar bears would be extinct from the wild. Not only are they are around they are thriving and not even endangered. Thanks to conservation, which oddly enough is funded by legal hunting.....

There are shores that are at the same level for the last 100 years! No rising sea levels.

And I can go on and on. It's all about politics, making a big issue about something that galvanizes a group of people on one issue so they can get reelected. Nothing practical ever gets done. It just political games.

And electric cars are about as wasteful as it comes, only way they are even remotely viable is if/when we develop nuclear power as our primary power source. That's it, if you want to talk about which is better, gas and diesel are way better. It is a much more efficient use of natural resources. This is not an issue that can be compared to horse drawn buggies and the car. This about a down grade in every way as long as you are using fossil fuels as your power source.

And this is conveniently ignoring the MASSIVE logicstal problems faced trying to force a switch to all electric way to soon. It simply won't happen in the crazy short time they want.

One thing is to let electric vehicles and electric alternatives evolve and let market demand for them naturally come about. Something that won't take trillions of dollars we don't have. VS trying to force things to soon.

This is the issue in a nut shell.

And please read everything before you respond (You'd be surprised how many don't), else you are just starting controversy for nothing. And make sure you come up with hard facts and be thorough and logical. Because when you do, you will realize I'm right and there won't be a mud flinging contest.

If you don't, I'll refuse to reply to you. If you try to make me do all the footwork, I'll just say no. You won't belive it unless you do the homework anyway, research it for yourself and answer your own questions. Besides that I don't got the time to spoon feed everyone or argue with everyone.

These are the facts, try and disprove them for yourself. You ain't gonna change my mind on the matter so don't even bother trying.


----------



## L98fiero

Ken I said:


> I know we have gone somewhat off topic but I feel I must toss in my 10c worth........
> 
> I too believe climate change is real – my problem is that I believe it is almost entirely natural – it has never been static – and I can’t believe that man is the cause or can control the climate with the magic molecule CO2 which is :-
> 
> Only 0.04% Of the atmosphere
> Has 99.99% of it’s CO2 infra-Red absorption spectra already saturated
> And man’s output is 4% of mother nature’s natural cycle. (All facts you can and should check.)
> 
> Multiply that out to 0.000000016 and you want to control the climate with that factor ? – pull the other leg it’s got bells on.
> 
> That’s excluding volcanos – which because of uncertainties might reduce that by a factor of up to 20 times less (we don’t know) - the most likely value is about five times.
> 
> _"Anyone who goes around and says that CO2 is responsible for most of the global warming in the 20th century has not looked at the basic numbers."_…Professor Patrick Michaels, Dept. of Environment Sciences, University of Virginia.
> 
> Calculations by van Wijngaarten and Happer across the many absorption frequencies by H2O, CO2, CH4 (methane) and N2O (nitrous oxides) yield exceptionally good agreement with satellite-based temperature measurements. They showed that absorption by CH4 and N2O are both completely negligible, regardless of the fictional calculations of “Global Warming Potential” (GWP.)
> View attachment 130257
> 
> 
> 
> Prof. William Happer. Professor of Physics at Princeton University
> 
> The difference between the black and red line is the difference between current 400ppm CO2 and the “catastrophic” effect of “doubling” to 800ppm CO2
> 
> Hard to see a difference that is cause for any concern.
> 
> Review or download the paper at Cornell University :-
> 
> [2006.03098] Dependence of Earth's Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases
> 
> Also an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275–364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X
> 
> [0707.1161] Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
> 
> Cornell University – Falsification of the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture.
> 
> Both peer reviewed scientific papers based on repeatable empirical, experimental and observed data - not the fanciful multiple order "modeling" which is often touted as "Data" turning centuries of science on its head.
> 
> Certainly temperatures are well correlated to CO2 but then again so are flying saucer sightings – correlation without causation.
> 
> Before we go wrecking the global economy to ward off a largely imaginary problem you need to be sure of your facts.
> 
> Don’t believe me or anyone else – and particularly not the alarmism touting, scientifically ignorant mainstream media.
> 
> I have been studying this for over 15 years and remain solidly unconvinced in the validity of almost all of this farrago. My "notes" on this run to over 220000 words - which I have as a 17Mb MSword document file - if you would like a copy send me a PM.
> 
> I'm not a "denialist" but I am a skeptic - which should be the default mode for any scientist - not belief or fashionable grant seeking dogmas so prevalent amongst academics over this, the latest doomsday cult to inflict itself on mankind.
> 
> Regards,  Ken


And yet, after all that, climatologists, people that made a career out of assessing all the factors that go into and have gone into climate change in the past, not engineers and physicist, disagree with those few that say it's not a problem. My perspective is this, considering the consequences of being wrong, who do you believe, the 99.9999% that say it's a problem or the 0.0001% that say it isn't, would you bet an engineering design on the same criteria and what's the downside of not cleaning up?
BTW, this topic should be stopped by the moderators, it's somewhere between politics and religion, facts just don't seem to matter much and it will create hard feelings between factions, it always does.


----------



## davidyat

In 1965 in a college Physics lab, I learned electrolysis by separating water into Hydrogen and Oxygen with a car battery and a bucket of water. HHMMM, I wonder if I could run my car on water? The Hindenburg showed me that Hydrogen burns. I even bought a DIY instruction on how to build it but burned out during the build. And John above reminded me that politics and corporate money get in the way. And you cannot change things overnight. If you could run your car on water tomorrow, think about how many people would be out of work instantly? This would probably shock the world economy into a REAL depression. I'm told these days, extracting Hydrogen out of water is too costly. And I'm saying, when the last drop of fossil fuel is coming out of the ground, the oil companies will say the next day, "Look, we just discovered how to get Hydrogen out of water efficiently". And if you discover how to do it, the minute you apply for a patent, someone will be at your front door with a 10 million dollar check for the patent and put it on a back shelf. If you don't sell, Corporate money will tie you up in court until the day you die. Look back through human history and tell me when money DIDN'T run the world.


----------



## SmithDoor

This group can rebuild the engine and if no parts make them on spot. 

Dave


----------



## Nerd1000

davidyat said:


> In 1965 in a college Physics lab, I learned electrolysis by separating water into Hydrogen and Oxygen with a car battery and a bucket of water. HHMMM, I wonder if I could run my car on water? The Hindenburg showed me that Hydrogen burns. I even bought a DIY instruction on how to build it but burned out during the build. And John above reminded me that politics and corporate money get in the way. And you cannot change things overnight. If you could run your car on water tomorrow, think about how many people would be out of work instantly? This would probably shock the world economy into a REAL depression. I'm told these days, extracting Hydrogen out of water is too costly. And I'm saying, when the last drop of fossil fuel is coming out of the ground, the oil companies will say the next day, "Look, we just discovered how to get Hydrogen out of water efficiently". And if you discover how to do it, the minute you apply for a patent, someone will be at your front door with a 10 million dollar check for the patent and put it on a back shelf. If you don't sell, Corporate money will tie you up in court until the day you die. Look back through human history and tell me when money DIDN'T run the world.


People are still working on hydrogen. Splitting it from water is only about 50% efficient, but that is totally fine if your energy source is free (like the wind or sun).

The main issue is the difficulty of storing and transporting the stuff. It's the lightest known gas, and is actually very low in density even when liquid (and getting it to be a liquid requires insanely low temperatures). Hydrogen fuel cell powered cars have so far stored it as a gas under extreme pressure, the tanks are made of carbon fiber with very thick walls. I can't imagine a tanker truck built this way, probably they'd have to store it as a liquid. Hydrogen is also notorious for its explosion hazard when it leaks, the range between upper and lower explosive limits is very wide, ignition energy is low and it can undergo a 'deflagration to detonation transition' when burning near irregularly shaped objects.

You can of course run a combustion engine on hydrogen, but it's a bit less efficient than a fuel cell. No CO2, but the high flame temperatures will create NOx pollutants so a SCR aftertreatment system would be needed like in a diesel.


----------



## almega

> Tesla is now the best selling (not just electric car) car in California and in several other countries.


It would be good if you would check your facts (or provide citations) before you post. In 2020, there were 145,009 EV vehicles (not just Tesla but all EVs) sold in California while there were approximately 1.9 million new personal vehicles total that were registered in California.


----------



## SmithDoor

Let's see how electric car do when need a new battery pack.
The electric car maybe like electric forklifts in junk yard needing a battery's

Dave



almega said:


> It would be good if you would check your facts (or provide citations) before you post. In 2020, there were 145,009 EV vehicles (not just Tesla but all EVs) sold in California while there were approximately 1.9 million new personal vehicles total that were registered in California.


----------



## djswain1

SmithDoor said:


> Let's see how electric car do when need a new battery pack.
> The electric car maybe like electric forklifts in junk yard needing a battery's
> 
> Dave


Certainly at today battery prices  I suppose it depends on the cost of the replacement in the future when the batteries are dead or capacity drastically reduced. I imagine companies will pop up doing refurbed battery packs etc once the demand is high enough.


----------



## aarggh

Good, healthy discussions on "green" energy and pollution are always interesting, in OZ we had a ban come in that got rid of the free "bio-degradable" shopping bags in all supermarkets, with the view that customers would use their own bags. What happened of course is that the estimates were that the supermarkets would save around $400m p/year by not providing bags, and make around $600-800m p/year selling the new very thick plastic (non bio-degradable) bags we all use that break after a couple of uses depending on what you fill them with. Then of course everyone also started to have to buy actual garbage bags as well as almost every houses bin was designed to re-use the old bags for garbage bags.

Then of course you've got the whole incandescent vs CFL globes and the manufacturing and disposal issues there.

But this short video by Jordan Peterson responding to a question about climate change is an absolute beauty, whether you like him or not, you have to admit he is one of the most well read and educated blokes in the world, the breadth of his knowledge is amazing, he doesn't just spout garbage like many do:


----------



## L98fiero

aarggh said:


> Good, healthy discussions on "green" energy and pollution are always interesting, in OZ we had a ban come in that got rid of the free "bio-degradable" shopping bags in all supermarkets, with the view that customers would use their own bags. What happened of course is that the estimates were that the supermarkets would save around $400m p/year by not providing bags, and make around $600-800m p/year selling the new very thick plastic (non bio-degradable) bags we all use that break after a couple of uses depending on what you fill them with. Then of course everyone also started to have to buy actual garbage bags as well as almost every houses bin was designed to re-use the old bags for garbage bags.
> 
> Then of course you've got the whole incandescent vs CFL globes and the manufacturing and disposal issues there.
> 
> But this short video by Jordan Peterson responding to a question about climate change is an absolute beauty, whether you like him or not, you have to admit he is one of the most well read and educated blokes in the world, the breadth of his knowledge is amazing, he doesn't just spout garbage like many do:



I agree that getting rid of single use plastic bags was a good idea and was accepted by retailers because it saved them money but replaceing them with a different plastic that falls apart wasn't that great an idea, here in Ontario most stores sell reusable cloth bags that are good for years.

For lights in my home and shop, I've almost completely switched to LEDs, might have to change them one more time in my lifetime just like the metal roofing we installed instead of the cheaper asphalt shingles.

As for Peterson, he's really good at rationalizing why, because we aren't 100% sure of what to do we should do nothing, that isn't really a plan.


----------



## mu38&Bg#

Ah the CFL scam became the LED scam. I fell for CFL, none had a reasonable life. Went LED, and except for a few bulbs, all of those ALSO failed long before the claimed 50,000 hours. Poor design, poor execution. If you want good LED bulbs do not buy no-nane ChinaCo. Buy real established name brand for a better chance at seeing rated life, don't chase lumen ratings. The only LED bulbs still going are some fairly low rated Phillips Edison base. The CREE all died within two years. I think one fo the replacements already failed. Sure they warranteed them, but real costs were still incurred. I really expected Cree to be top tier. Hyperikon, 60% dead, and the company is bankrupt... Cheaper brands drive the LED diodes too hard, and they die early. I thought the drivers were failing, but it wasn't the case. Some research showed poor design.

Are LED better? Certainly. Do they live up to the claims? Only if you pay for premium brands.


----------



## lohring

Sales information is about the future.  It will take years to replace the current IC vehicles, but it's starting to happen.  There are several countries where electric car sales share is high lead by Norway at around 75%.  It's already over 10% in Europe.  I believe Tesla sold more cars in California in September than any other brand.  Electric pickups and semis haven't been available, but are coming.  I think low operating costs will make them a no brainer for commercial users.  

Plug in electric mowers have been available a long time.  Batteries are just starting to replace power cords.  Do you want to trade your electric washing machine for a gas powered one?  That conversion happened in the last half of the 20th century.  It won't be long before the same thing happens with most small gasoline powered tools.  That will leave a lot of junk engines for people to invent things with just like the Maytag gas washing machine engines. We've already started that trend in our model race boas with weedeater type engines. However, battery electric power is starting to take off even there.

Lohring Miller


----------



## roncohudd

Ken I said:


> I know we have gone somewhat off topic but I feel I must toss in my 10c worth........
> 
> I too believe climate change is real – my problem is that I believe it is almost entirely natural – it has never been static – and I can’t believe that man is the cause or can control the climate with the magic molecule CO2 which is :-
> 
> Only 0.04% Of the atmosphere
> Has 99.99% of it’s CO2 infra-Red absorption spectra already saturated
> And man’s output is 4% of mother nature’s natural cycle. (All facts you can and should check.)
> 
> Multiply that out to 0.000000016 and you want to control the climate with that factor ? – pull the other leg it’s got bells on.
> 
> That’s excluding volcanos – which because of uncertainties might reduce that by a factor of up to 20 times less (we don’t know) - the most likely value is about five times.
> 
> _"Anyone who goes around and says that CO2 is responsible for most of the global warming in the 20th century has not looked at the basic numbers."_…Professor Patrick Michaels, Dept. of Environment Sciences, University of Virginia.
> 
> Calculations by van Wijngaarten and Happer across the many absorption frequencies by H2O, CO2, CH4 (methane) and N2O (nitrous oxides) yield exceptionally good agreement with satellite-based temperature measurements. They showed that absorption by CH4 and N2O are both completely negligible, regardless of the fictional calculations of “Global Warming Potential” (GWP.)
> View attachment 130257
> 
> 
> 
> Prof. William Happer. Professor of Physics at Princeton University
> 
> The difference between the black and red line is the difference between current 400ppm CO2 and the “catastrophic” effect of “doubling” to 800ppm CO2
> 
> Hard to see a difference that is cause for any concern.
> 
> Review or download the paper at Cornell University :-
> 
> [2006.03098] Dependence of Earth's Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases
> 
> Also an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275–364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X
> 
> [0707.1161] Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
> 
> Cornell University – Falsification of the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture.
> 
> Both peer reviewed scientific papers based on repeatable empirical, experimental and observed data - not the fanciful multiple order "modeling" which is often touted as "Data" turning centuries of science on its head.
> 
> Certainly temperatures are well correlated to CO2 but then again so are flying saucer sightings – correlation without causation.
> 
> Before we go wrecking the global economy to ward off a largely imaginary problem you need to be sure of your facts.
> 
> Don’t believe me or anyone else – and particularly not the alarmism touting, scientifically ignorant mainstream media.
> 
> I have been studying this for over 15 years and remain solidly unconvinced in the validity of almost all of this farrago. My "notes" on this run to over 220000 words - which I have as a 17Mb MSword document file - if you would like a copy send me a PM.
> 
> I'm not a "denialist" but I am a skeptic - which should be the default mode for any scientist - not belief or fashionable grant seeking dogmas so prevalent amongst academics over this, the latest doomsday cult to inflict itself on mankind.
> 
> Regards,  Ken


This climate change or global warming discussion is futal. If you really want to know about it look at the Bible in. Second Peter chapter 3 verse 8-13.


----------



## H. K. Barrows

Simple I"m just going too rate my engines 20 HP and build bigger model boats


----------



## CFLBob

lohring said:


> Sales information is about the future.  It will take years to replace the current IC vehicles, but it's starting to happen.  There are several countries where electric car sales share is high lead by Norway at around 75%.  It's already over 10% in Europe.  I believe Tesla sold more cars in California in September than any other brand.  Electric pickups and semis haven't been available, but are coming.  I think low operating costs will make them a no brainer for commercial users.
> 
> Plug in electric mowers have been available a long time.  Batteries are just starting to replace power cords.  Do you want to trade your electric washing machine for a gas powered one?  That conversion happened in the last half of the 20th century.  It won't be long before the same thing happens with most small gasoline powered tools.  That will leave a lot of junk engines for people to invent things with just like the Maytag gas washing machine engines. We've already started that trend in our model race boas with weedeater type engines. However, battery electric power is starting to take off even there.
> 
> Lohring Miller



Gas washing machine?  Haven't seen one.

I've been converting major appliances to gas power over the last decade.   While my electric costs have gone down, my gas bill went up but nowhere near as much as the electric came down.  My total energy costs have gone down.  

There's absolutely zero reason to think that a modern gas-powered washer would look anything like the one in that Popular Mechanics link.  My gas stove, gas oven, water heater or clothes drier sure don't belch visible exhaust like that and I'd be surprised if there were any washers in the world that did (that aren't that old).  

Common sense (and physical law - conservation of energy) says you don't get something for nothing.  If everyone converts to electric cars, we'll have to increase the electric grid capacity by somewhere between doubling and tripling generation.  

In the US, the power grid steps down to the final transformers that feed three to four houses.  Those transformers are rated 25kW.  Each house is rated somewhere near 15 kW.  How does 3x15 or 45 kW work on a 25 or 30 kW transformer?  The same way the phone companies got away with 10% of the number of subscribers as the number of phone lines to install.  They expect that not everyone will be using them at the same time.  Remember in the old days when the phone system overloaded on Mother's Day?  That's why.

What happens when all three houses plug in their electric cars for the next day? What if everyone was charging cars overnight?  They'll need to increase power to every home, which means every transformer needs to get bigger.   And that's every step of the way back to the power plants getting bigger.  I know this will take years to get to, but it's as predictable as pure math.

Both the presidents of Toyota and of Tesla have been honest enough to say this publicly.


----------



## chrsbrbnk

wow,  really brings them out


----------



## Vietti

I've heard that if everyone went with electric vehicles it would double the electric demand, which can't keep up on a hot day now.

I wonder what happens to an EV when it's -30 outside and you want to keep the car heated and drive a few miles?


----------



## dazz

Nerd1000 said:


> People are still working on hydrogen. Splitting it from water is only about 50% efficient, but that is totally fine if your energy source is free (like the wind or sun).



That isn't quite the whole story. The energy source might be free but harvesting it is not.  There is a relationship between energy density and the cost of steel and concrete to extract it.   

Something like natural gas (free in the ground) burning in a gas turbine has a high energy density and a small light engine can generate a large amount of power.  
Something like wave energy requires much larger structures (=$$$cost) to extract energy.    Maintenance and operating costs are also high.

I worked for a power company and looked at a wide range of generation options.


----------



## dazz

Vietti said:


> I've heard that if everyone went with electric vehicles it would double the electric demand, which can't keep up on a hot day now.
> 
> I wonder what happens to an EV when it's -30 outside and you want to keep the car heated and drive a few miles?



Most EVs should only need to be charged overnight.    It is not unusual for power stations to offer electricity to the market at a zero or negative rate overnight.  It does depend on the climate and season.  It can be cheaper to give away free power than to shut down a power station each night.


----------



## L98fiero

dazz said:


> That isn't quite the whole story. The energy source might be free but harvesting it is not.  There is a relationship between energy density and the cost of steel and concrete to extract it.
> 
> Something like natural gas (free in the ground) burning in a gas turbine has a high energy density and a small light engine can generate a large amount of power.
> Something like wave energy requires much larger structures (=$$$cost) to extract energy.    Maintenance and operating costs are also high.
> 
> I worked for a power company and looked at a wide range of generation options.


The problem with the gas though is the downstream costs which are never taken into consideration.

Same with plastic, they are less expensive to produce but only if you don't consider that they are essentially non-recyclable and some have a 'half life' of hundreds of years, in Canada, and I'd assume the US is about the same, regardless of all the places that have recyling bins, less than 10% is recycled. In Ontario the soda manufacturers give the provincial government a few million so they don't have to have deposits on plastic bottles, it saves them a lot of money and the government then has recycling depots to separate the plastic which is then bundled and 90% is dumped in landfills.


----------



## dazz

L98fiero said:


> The problem with the gas though is the downstream costs which are never taken into consideration.
> ...


My point wasn't to defend or promote any particular technology.  My point is that the economics are complex and not what might seem to be obvious.  
The science supports the view that we are wrecking the planet.


----------



## lohring

My point is that change is comming.  It's a Kodak (you still buy their film, right?) moment for fossil fuels.  How many of you still have land lines connected to rotary phones?  In our area the phone company won't run new lines to new construction leaving cable or cell phones as the choice.  I (78 years old), and most young people use cell phones only.  

After centuries of use, horse drawn vehicles were replaced by IC engine powered ones in around 20 years.  Why?  Because they were lower cost and easier to use.  It took a little longer for the infrastructure to catch up.  The same is becoming true for electric power in mobile applications.  Large boats and aircraft are tough with today's technology, but lower power applications are starting to happen.  

I think people are barely starting to realize that electric cars cost less to operate than IC cars.  My experience was around $100 lower cost per month 3 years ago.  Gasoline prices have been increasing since then while electricity in my area has stayed the same.  There is no maintenance except for window wiper and washer fluid and tire replacement.  That's why Hertz paid list price for a fleet of electric rental cars.  

Lohring Miller


----------



## SmithDoor

A horses is renewable power just take that downtown in most cities.  My city let's horse come to town
I have land line most do not know most cell towers have 4 hour battery. Even my internet has battery backup for about 24 hours. After that start the generator and recharge the battery.

Dave



lohring said:


> My point is that change is comming.  It's a Kodak (you still buy their film, right?) moment for fossil fuels.  How many of you still have land lines connected to rotary phones?  In our area the phone company won't run new lines to new construction leaving cable or cell phones as the choice.  I (78 years old), and most young people use cell phones only.
> 
> After centuries of use, horse drawn vehicles were replaced by IC engine powered ones in around 20 years.  Why?  Because they were lower cost and easier to use.  It took a little longer for the infrastructure to catch up.  The same is becoming true for electric power in mobile applications.  Large boats and aircraft are tough with today's technology, but lower power applications are starting to happen.
> 
> I think people are barely starting to realize that electric cars cost less to operate than IC cars.  My experience was around $100 lower cost per month 3 years ago.  Gasoline prices have been increasing since then while electricity in my area has stayed the same.  There is no maintenance except for window wiper and washer fluid and tire replacement.  That's why Hertz paid list price for a fleet of electric rental cars.
> 
> Lohring Miller


----------



## Nerd1000

dazz said:


> That isn't quite the whole story. The energy source might be free but harvesting it is not.  There is a relationship between energy density and the cost of steel and concrete to extract it.
> 
> Something like natural gas (free in the ground) burning in a gas turbine has a high energy density and a small light engine can generate a large amount of power.
> Something like wave energy requires much larger structures (=$$$cost) to extract energy.    Maintenance and operating costs are also high.
> 
> I worked for a power company and looked at a wide range of generation options.


Aye but in a lot of cases the solar or wind farm already exists, what we want to do is store the excess capacity when conditions make it possible to produce too much power (otherwise we have to 'abate' the renewables to avoid disruption of the grid, and their capacity is wasted). Of course pumped hydro or batteries are more efficient, but if there is significant demand for hydrogen it might be worthwhile.


----------



## GrahamJTaylor49

The Scottish government have purchased 20 Teslas for transporting the delegates from their hotel at Gleneagles to the conference center for the COP26 conference. The price of the cars is £100k each. Having bought the vehicles the idiots have found that there are no charging points anywhere near the facilities and have had to bring in a bloody great diesel generator to charge the vehicles. So much for climate change and saving the planet, and the Chinese, the largest contaminators on the planet, won't be attending. What a waste of resources. God bless the Scottish government.


----------



## JLaning427

GrahamJTaylor49 said:


> The Scottish government have purchased 20 Teslas for transporting the delegates from their hotel at Gleneagles to the conference center for the COP26 conference. The price of the cars is £100k each. Having bought the vehicles the idiots have found that there are no charging points anywhere near the facilities and have had to bring in a bloody great diesel generator to charge the vehicles.


I haven't verified the accuracy of your claim regarding no charging stations.

However thinking about charging Tesla's from a diesel generator, I don't think it is as bad as IC cars would be.

Think about how a car operates.  You have a pretty powerful engine (well over 100hp available in any situation) that you throttle down to make the power you actually need.  But to do so, you give up huge efficiency.  And all that heat we reject to the air from the radiator and exhaust is all wasted energy too.

Electric cars are much more efficient at using the power they have available to them.

And a turbocharged diesel generator running at or near full load will be pretty efficient at converting the input btu's into output kw's.  Not as clean as running the thing on Nat Gas, mind you, but....

Overall, I think it likely that this scenario of 20 electric cars and one generator is likely more fuel efficient and less polluting than 20 IC cars.  But not as good as plugging the cars into some kind of existing reasonably clean electric infrastructure.


And yes any discussion that doesn't fully involve the world's 2nd superpower and biggest polluter, is a fools errand.  We cannot fix global issues without addressing the emissions from China.  No possible solution exists without their active involvement, IMHO.


Someone mentioned gas washing machines earlier, but didn't clarify the gas was gasoline, not natural gas   Not something that I want in my house.  A nat gas washing machine?  Maybe.


This is a very interesting thread, and has covered much more ground than I would have thought, but has made me think.  Certainly makes me wonder about where things are going.  I wonder what the CA market for used gasoline lawnmowers and generators will look like in 2 years.  Especially with rolling blackouts and the like already happening, and the load on their electric utilities getting worse.  Might be able to buy a generator in AZ, put oil in it and run it for a couple hours, and sell it in CA for a profit.....

But I don't see CA banning building air conditioning, which is likely one of the biggest user / consumer of electric power in residential and commercial applications these days..  Can you imagine working in most high rises if they were 105° F inside?  Or warmer?  Nope.  Not going to happen until the grid fails, even if they have to burn coal to do it.

James


----------



## L98fiero

JLaning427 said:


> I haven't verified the accuracy of your claim regarding no charging stations.
> 
> However thinking about charging Tesla's from a diesel generator, I don't think it is as bad as IC cars would be.
> 
> Think about how a car operates.  You have a pretty powerful engine (well over 100hp available in any situation) that you throttle down to make the power you actually need.  But to do so, you give up huge efficiency.  And all that heat we reject to the air from the radiator and exhaust is all wasted energy too.
> 
> Electric cars are much more efficient at using the power they have available to them.
> 
> And a turbocharged diesel generator running at or near full load will be pretty efficient at converting the input btu's into output kw's.  Not as clean as running the thing on Nat Gas, mind you, but....
> 
> Overall, I think it likely that this scenario of 20 electric cars and one generator is likely more fuel efficient and less polluting than 20 IC cars.  But not as good as plugging the cars into some kind of existing reasonably clean electric infrastructure.
> 
> 
> And yes any discussion that doesn't fully involve the world's 2nd superpower and biggest polluter, is a fools errand.  We cannot fix global issues without addressing the emissions from China.  No possible solution exists without their active involvement, IMHO.
> 
> 
> Someone mentioned gas washing machines earlier, but didn't clarify the gas was gasoline, not natural gas   Not something that I want in my house.  A nat gas washing machine?  Maybe.
> 
> 
> This is a very interesting thread, and has covered much more ground than I would have thought, but has made me think.  Certainly makes me wonder about where things are going.  I wonder what the CA market for used gasoline lawnmowers and generators will look like in 2 years.  Especially with rolling blackouts and the like already happening, and the load on their electric utilities getting worse.  Might be able to buy a generator in AZ, put oil in it and run it for a couple hours, and sell it in CA for a profit.....
> 
> But I don't see CA banning building air conditioning, which 8s likelybonebof the biggest user / consumer of electric power in residential and commercial applications these days..  Can you imagine working in most high rises if they were 105° F inside?  Or warmer?  Nope.  Not going to happen until the grid fails, even if they have to burn coal to do it.
> 
> James


Sounds not so much like an electric vehicle or air conditioning problem as an infrastructure problem.


----------



## davidyat

AAHH, the human being. Ask the question, "Why is there air?" and thousands of humans will chime in with their opinion on why it's needed and why we don't need it. And remember, opinions are like arm pits, everyone has them and they all stink, even mine. My opinion, the problem is too many humans. We screw up everything. Nature was doing just fine until humans came along. I've seen my life go from rather simple to excruciating complicated. I've likened my life like a strand of spaghetti. At 5, I could follow my strand. Pretty simple. Then it split into 2 choices. OK, I can follow it. Then 2 split into 4, then 4 into 8, etc. Today, it's like you take 200 pounds of cooked spaghetti and dump it on a table. I see my one strand going into the pile and I have no idea where it comes out. Life is complicated, why do we humans make it MORE complicated?


----------



## ajoeiam

lohring said:


> Sales information is about the future.  It will take years to replace the current IC vehicles, but it's starting to happen.  There are several countries where electric car sales share is high lead by Norway at around 75%.  It's already over 10% in Europe.  I believe Tesla sold more cars in California in September than any other brand.  Electric pickups and semis haven't been available, but are coming.  I think low operating costs will make them a no brainer for commercial users.
> 
> Plug in electric mowers have been available a long time.  Batteries are just starting to replace power cords.  Do you want to trade your electric washing machine for a gas powered one?  That conversion happened in the last half of the 20th century.  It won't be long before the same thing happens with most small gasoline powered tools.  That will leave a lot of junk engines for people to invent things with just like the Maytag gas washing machine engines. We've already started that trend in our model race boas with weedeater type engines. However, battery electric power is starting to take off even there.
> 
> Lohring Miller



Hmmmm - - - - I'm a self confessing efficiency nerd (seriously anal about it - - - - I've been logging fuel consumption since my first car and things haven't gotten better - - - only worse!

Battery power is incredibly inefficient!
Not so you say - - - - please calculate:
1. your charging efficiency. 
2. your in use efficiency. 
3. actual cost of energy 

Then there is the power transmission efficiency to worry about (hint - - - - it sucks!!!!!!!!!!) and then there's your actual power generation efficiency (where even solar isn't that hot except in a very very narrow range of situations). 

Re: electric auto sales - - - - Norway uses hydro-electric power for about 98% of their power (funny - - - -its NOT 100% - - - those pesky outages!!!) so there are some seriously wonderful advantages for their power company (state owned) in the mandating of electric vehicles. 

Both electric pickups and semis are available but imo (notice the imo please) neither those nor electric cars really make sense. 
From an efficiency standpoint I can't really purchase a comparable use vehicle (yes I've checked!!!!) until the price premium for the vehicle is at least 60% and more often 100% that's for cars. For a semi - - - haven't seen any pricing yet but for low usage (only for my own stuff) I have an older unit and it would take likely 100s of years of FREE electricity and use to amortize the added costs. So at this point electric cars are wonderful for those who only look at spending money - - - - but - - - - for those of us who try very very hard NOT to spend money - - - - electric vehicles are a wonderful dream and not at all a realistic option. Now if you wish to GIVE me an electric vehicle is have some minimum specs! The car needs to be able to travel 225 miles (350 km) per charge in temperatures of -40 (same in both F and C) with me comfortable in the cabin. The semi - - - - need at least 1000 km of range and the pickup I would live with only 500 km  (375 miles) of range.  Any less - - - - I just can't use toys you see.


----------



## ajoeiam

CFLBob said:


> Gas washing machine?  Haven't seen one.
> snip



We had one - - - quite a few years ago.


----------



## ajoeiam

lohring said:


> My point is that change is comming.  It's a Kodak (you still buy their film, right?) moment for fossil fuels.  How many of you still have land lines connected to rotary phones?  In our area the phone company won't run new lines to new construction leaving cable or cell phones as the choice.  I (78 years old), and most young people use cell phones only.
> 
> After centuries of use, horse drawn vehicles were replaced by IC engine powered ones in around 20 years.  Why?  Because they were lower cost and easier to use.  It took a little longer for the infrastructure to catch up.  The same is becoming true for electric power in mobile applications.  Large boats and aircraft are tough with today's technology, but lower power applications are starting to happen.
> 
> I think people are barely starting to realize that electric cars cost less to operate than IC cars.  My experience was around $100 lower cost per month 3 years ago.  Gasoline prices have been increasing since then while electricity in my area has stayed the same.  There is no maintenance except for window wiper and washer fluid and tire replacement.  That's why Hertz paid list price for a fleet of electric rental cars.
> 
> Lohring Miller



Re: stupid phones - - - - -if only we actually had access - - - - my comment is that from my location cell phone access is somewhat akin to my finding honest politicians - - - nuff said! 

Except electric vehicles are NOT more reasonable in price. 
There were electric cars at or even slightly before there were IC engine cars. 
There have been diesel electric heavy equipment for many years - - - - its a more complex system so most companies no longer offer that. 
Heavy large equipment driven using electricity - - - control is more challenging - - - look into it if you think I'm out too lunch. 

If you look at the TCO (total cost of ownership) I think you will find that except for premium brands - - - IC cars still win. 

Now if all you're trying to do is look green - - - - well then buy away - - - - - but don't you dare try to force me to do the same unless you're prepared to pay for me to do it - - - - - I'm quite tired of all the do gooders who think they know how to do what I do and do it whilst blowing money like it has no value - - - - governments are doing this and have for the last 18 months or so - - - - when that butcher's bill comes due -- - - - well things are going to get very very very ugly!!!


----------



## ajoeiam

davidyat said:


> AAHH, the human being. Ask the question, "Why is there air?" and thousands of humans will chime in with their opinion on why it's needed and why we don't need it. And remember, opinions are like arm pits, everyone has them and they all stink, even mine. My opinion, the problem is too many humans. We screw up everything. Nature was doing just fine until humans came along. I've seen my life go from rather simple to excruciating complicated. I've likened my life like a strand of spaghetti. At 5, I could follow my strand. Pretty simple. Then it split into 2 choices. OK, I can follow it. Then 2 split into 4, then 4 into 8, etc. Today, it's like you take 200 pounds of cooked spaghetti and dump it on a table. I see my one strand going into the pile and I have no idea where it comes out. Life is complicated, why do we humans make it MORE complicated?



Well - - - -you did insist on buying all the stuff that you own - - - - you likely didn't 'have to' buy most of it.


----------



## JLaning427

ajoeiam said:


> Battery power is incredibly inefficient!
> Not so you say - - - - please calculate:
> 1. your charging efficiency.
> 2. your in use efficiency.
> 3. actual cost of energy
> 
> Then there is the power transmission efficiency to worry about (hint - - - - it sucks!!!!!!!!!!) and then there's your actual power generation efficiency (where even solar isn't that hot except in a very very narrow range of situations).



There's where the the math gets really messy, right?

To look at the efficiency of electric cars, do we need to get all the way back to sunlight, natural gas, oil, or coal?  If so, do we need to go further back, to when it was in the ground, sky, etc?  And do we need to do the same comparison with gasoline cars?  What energy is required to refine gasoline?  And emissions generated by the refining process?  Or do we only need to look solely at the amount of energy put into the battery (consumed from the charger, including charger losses) versus miles driven?  We wouldn't likely look at the pipeline or transportation losses that gasoline would encounter during it's trip to the pump, would we?  So why consider it for electricity?  

Somebody mentioned the total cost of ownership.  And that really is the right metric to be using for many things.  I used to work for a 1st tier supplier for a certain big yellow and black tool manufacturer.  And that manufacturer changed the sourcing of a bunch of component parts from the USA / Mexico to China, because the part cost was cheaper.  But a couple of years later they were moving it back to the USA and Mexico.  Y'know why?  Because the overall cost was higher.  The parts were marginally cheaper, but with shipping going up and up, they basically got back to break even.  And the killer was warranty returns for defective parts went for the moon.  They couldn't afford to keep sourcing certain parts in China.

Thinking about this thread, the concept of TCO still applies.  And maybe we need to apply it to emissions / green-ness.  For example, oil production isn't exactly a clean business.  But how clean is mining and refining lithium and the various rare earth elements used in today's electric cars?  The good part (for CA) is that minimizing oil usage through mandating electric vehicles might help minimize oil related pollution in their state (they have a bunch of oil wells, but will they get shut down or will the production just get shipped to China).  And move the production pollution to somebody else's backyard, as I don't think the USA has much in the way of lithium or rare earth reserves.  Overall win for CA, right?  But what is the overall global difference in environmental impact of building an electric car vs a gasoline one?  I don't know, and I'm not sure that too many people do. 

BTW, I'm a died in the wool IC guy and don't have any plans to buy an electric car.  But I've got an acquaintance of mine who has a Tesla, and he has a pretty detailed spreadsheet of costs that he developed prior to purchasing his (he's an engineer too) and for his usage (probably 300 miles a week) the math worked out in favor of the electric car.  It costs him less overall than the IC cars (US Hondas and Toyotas) that he looked at.  Something to think about.

James


----------



## JLaning427

BTW, the discussions of electric cars seems way off the topic of the CA SORE ban, but is somewhat relevant since CA has a plan to migrate to all electric vehicles by 2035 or so.  And quite a bunch of US states will follow CA's lead.  Some won't follow ever (ever heard the expression I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire?  I think Texas feels that way about CA).  I'm in Maryland, and we're (sadly) likely to follow CA's lead at some point.  I just wish we'd evaluate whether CA's choices worked or not before implementing them....


----------



## lohring

I bet no one on this forum has actually driven a Tesla.  I bought mine for its performance, not its efficiency.  However the energy in the battery is equivalent to around 2 gallons of gasoline.  I can go 200 miles on 80% of that if I drive reasonably.  But what fun is that when you can go from 50 mph to 90 in seconds.

Lohring Miller


----------



## Rocket Man

SmithDoor said:


> Any reading on new Ban in California
> 
> Ban on sales of gas power engines under 25 horse power in California
> This includes generators , Lawn mowers and the list goes on.
> 
> 
> 
> https://b95forlife.iheart.com/conten...awn-equipment/
> 
> 
> 
> Just think of pushing to cut your grass or a rake for your yard.
> I wonder how long can battery keeps your food cold
> 
> Just remember California always have petitions to stop nuts
> 
> Stop California To Ban Gas Propane Engines
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sign the Petition
> 
> 
> California to Ban Gas engines on (Propane Generators) for emergencies Let's stop the ban
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chng.it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dave



When DATE did this start?

WHY does forum posts have NO dates?


----------



## Scott_M

In the upper left hand corner of each post in the blue bar. All posts have dates. this one was started last Fri. 22nd at 2:45pm.

Scott


----------



## Rocket Man

John Rus said:


> Let me set the record straight.
> 
> This has NOTHING to do with clean air. EVERYTHING has an environmental foot print. Everything. Just how do you want to go about it.
> 
> And the issue is not pollution as everyone wants to point out, nobody likes breathing smog. This is not the issue. The supposed issue is CO2, a inert gas that is harmless and not poisonous and plants use. We pump this stuff to make plants grow faster.
> 
> It's all politics, they have been preaching this dooms day stuff for 60 years. It's a broken record at this point. Every 10 or 15 years, the sky is falling. Yet nothing happens. All Gore said by the 20'teens polar bears would be extinct from the wild. Not only are they are around they are thriving and not even endangered. Thanks to conservation, which oddly enough is funded by legal hunting.....
> 
> There are shores that are at the same level for the last 100 years! No rising sea levels.
> 
> And I can go on and on. It's all about politics, making a big issue about something that galvanizes a group of people on one issue so they can get reelected. Nothing practical ever gets done. It just political games.
> 
> And electric cars are about as wasteful as it comes, only way they are even remotely viable is if/when we develop nuclear power as our primary power source. That's it, if you want to talk about which is better, gas and diesel are way better. It is a much more efficient use of natural resources. This is not an issue that can be compared to horse drawn buggies and the car. This about a down grade in every way as long as you are using fossil fuels as your power source.
> 
> And this is conveniently ignoring the MASSIVE logicstal problems faced trying to force a switch to all electric way to soon. It simply won't happen in the crazy short time they want.
> 
> One thing is to let electric vehicles and electric alternatives evolve and let market demand for them naturally come about. Something that won't take trillions of dollars we don't have. VS trying to force things to soon.
> 
> This is the issue in a nut shell.
> 
> And please read everything before you respond (You'd be surprised how many don't), else you are just starting controversy for nothing. And make sure you come up with hard facts and be thorough and logical. Because when you do, you will realize I'm right and there won't be a mud flinging contest.
> 
> If you don't, I'll refuse to reply to you. If you try to make me do all the footwork, I'll just say no. You won't belive it unless you do the homework anyway, research it for yourself and answer your own questions. Besides that I don't got the time to spoon feed everyone or argue with everyone.
> 
> These are the facts, try and disprove them for yourself. You ain't gonna change my mind on the matter so don't even bother trying.




Technology is available for to force all vehicles to drive the speed limit in town and all highways.   Technology is available to force red light runner to stop at all traffic light.  Technology is available to prevent people from punching the gas peddle to the floor and driving like a race car.  1000s of gallons of fuel can be saved every day.  1000s of lives can be saves too, there has been 3742 people killed in our State this year from RED LIGHT runners.  Police records show we have an average of 39 accidents in our town every day from people that refuse to stop at red lights.   I had 2 electric lawn mowers both are such a pain in the #$% I got rid of both.  Battery lawn mower has limited power & battery is dead when 12% of the grass is cut.  If I charge battery every day and mow grass every day I can not keep up.  200 ft of extension cord makes it very hard to mow grass with the other mower.  Electric garden tiller will be a nightmare.   I will NEVER buy an electric vehicle.


----------



## Rocket Man

Scott_M said:


> In the upper left hand corner of each post in the blue bar. All posts have dates. this one was started last Fri. 22nd at 2:45pm.
> 
> Scott



My computer shows no date???


----------



## John Rus

L98fiero said:


> And yet, after all that, climatologists, people that made a career out of assessing all the factors that go into and have gone into climate change in the past, not engineers and physicist, disagree with those few that say it's not a problem. My perspective is this, considering the consequences of being wrong, who do you believe, the 99.9999% that say it's a problem or the 0.0001% that say it isn't, would you bet an engineering design on the same criteria and what's the downside of not cleaning up?
> BTW, this topic should be stopped by the moderators, it's somewhere between politics and religion, facts just don't seem to matter much and it will create hard feelings between factions, it always does.



Again, as I have posted before. You provide no evidence or even a compelling argument.

Most people in the know do not think global warming, how it is promoted today, is even as drastic as they want to make or or man mad.

Second, science is not based consensus. It's based on observable evidence that is repeatable. Global warming is a theory, nothing more. There is no evidence to back it up as the previous poster did a fantastic job with his  explanation with hard numbers. Not just, "Well most scientists agree!". It's not a valid argument and certainly not a compelling one. And the problem is that's not even true. Most do not hold that view.


----------



## JLaning427

The SORE ban has not taken effect yet.  It was just recently signed into law.  I believe it is set to go into effect by 2024 or whenever CARB determines is feasible.

James


----------



## Scott_M

Rocket Man said:


> My computer shows no date???



In your screen shot where it says " " minutes ago is where it is. If you look back at the first page it says Last Fri.. If the post is more than a week old it will show a date




Scott


----------



## Ken I

Norway is often held up as a shining example of a successful “green revolution” in that it has the highest percentage of electric vehicles (18%) on its roads.

That is wonderful – but why ?

In Norway fuel burning cars are exceedingly heavily taxed – high taxes on cars, luxury items, road tax vs fuel consumption, massive fuel taxes, congestion taxes in cities etc. etc.

If you buy an electric car it not only has no taxes on it – not even VAT, it has subsidies. You don’t have to pay for recharging – anywhere – all charge points are free – your home charge point is unmetered (that’s free fuel ?).

You don’t pay license fees & taxes, you don’t pay parking fees (all roadside and state parking), you don’t pay to use state ferries (Norway is crisscrossed by fiords and has hundreds of ferry crossings), you don’t pay congestion tax to enter controlled cities, you can drive in “bus only” lanes and you get personal tax breaks on your running expense including insurance.

With the deck stacked that heavily against the fuel burning car I’m surprised that 82% of the vehicles are still fuel burners.

Wow – if I lived there I’d dump my M3 and buy a Tesla right now.

Here’s my problem – who is paying for all that subsidisation, tax breaks and free goods and services ?

That’s right – you or me again (the only two sources of tax). Mostly it is foisted onto the “fuel burning” motorists.

This is likely to provoke a sudden “tipping point” move to electric cars as fuel burning cars will be taxed to death.

What happens when everybody is switched to electric cars ? – they can’t all get to drive in the bus lane and get all those goods, services and tax breaks for free.

It will all be revoked (obviously incrementally rather than in one fell swoop) and you will eventually find you have a car on your hands that might now provoke buyers remorse.

(By 2017 this “tipping point” appears to be closer with 52% of all new vehicles sales being electric and the discovery that 80% of the vehicles in the bus lanes are private cars of wealthy individuals who own multiple cars and can switch to fuel powered at will.

The Norwegian government has therefore cancelled the free pass to the bus lane and now makes all electric cars pay half of the taxes from which they were previously exempt. Needless to say this has caused an uproar.)

I'm not sure how much this has changed since 2017 when I first wrote this - based on these references :-.

Denmark Is Killing Tesla (and Other Electric Cars)

Denmark To Phase Out Electric Car Tax Breaks - Price Of Tesla Model S To Almost Triple

Similarly Tesla sales “fell off a cliff” when the subsidy (our tax dollars) was removed.

Tesla´s Hong Kong sales fall off a cliff

Regards, Ken


----------



## mu38&Bg#

18% of Norway's GPD is oil production which makes up 62% of exports. They are doing their part in regard to oil......... and are increasing output after forecasts 10-20 years ago cast doubt on the future of oil there.


----------



## aarggh

If you really want to see the effects of extreme "green" proposals, just google "solar freakin roadways" by an electronics engineer by the name of Dave from eevblog. He's a brilliant engineer and actually crunches the real numbers and shows the ROI in the most positive and delusional sense is around a 1000 years!

Great for a laugh on a stupid project, but a very sad indictment on the fact that a lot of renewable initiatives aren't borne out of any common sense at all, but politics and propaganda. It's beyond laughable how many countries have poured many billions of dollars into this idiotic idea.

Then have a search at the solution Korea came up with when they installed their solar initiatives for a dose of simple common sense.


----------



## Thommo

GrahamJTaylor49 said:


> The Scottish government have purchased 20 Teslas for transporting the delegates from their hotel at Gleneagles to the conference center for the COP26 conference. The price of the cars is £100k each. Having bought the vehicles the idiots have found that there are no charging points anywhere near the facilities and have had to bring in a bloody great diesel generator to charge the vehicles. So much for climate change and saving the planet, and the Chinese, the largest contaminators on the planet, won't be attending. What a waste of resources. God bless the Scottish government.




Sounds like something the Irish would do


----------



## skyline1

From the comments on here it would appear that CA already has an underpowered electrical supply network. So the idea of of banning the sale of small I.C. engines seems at the very least a doubtful and not well thought out idea.

It would have the effect of throwing the load of all those myriad, Generators, Lawn mowers, Small construction tools and too many other items to list, onto an already ailing electrical supply.

Until you consider why governments, be they local or national, make strange decisions like this. MONEY !  Someone, somewhere with "close connections" to the State's government is going to get "stinking rich" over this possibly the politicians themselves.

As for Electric cars I think all the previous doubts expressed are valid but we may be missing an important "Elephant in the room", that of safety, in particular fire risk.

Petroleum fuels are highly flammable in fact under the right conditions, explosive (good job they are) but petroleum fires can be extinguished far more easily than Lithium fires.

There have been some very serious fires with Electric cars already and there are not that many of them about yet. All Lithium batteries can be dangerous in this respect but the huge ones in Electric cars particularly so as they have the added potential of colliding at high speed.

I don't relish the idea of driving around strapped to a 1200 Lb mobile incendiary bomb ! 

The Charging points fiasco at COP26 sounds fairly typical of us Brits but it will all be O.K. as long as transport problems don't stop the tea supply. That really would be a national disaster !

Best Regards Mark


----------



## Manorfarmer

False. There is no evidence the Scottish Government has bought 20 Tesla cars ahead of COP26. Jaguar Land Rover was announced in September as an official transport partner for COP26 and is providing over 200 electric vehicles for use at the summit.

This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our fact-checking work here .


----------



## Ken I

There appears to be a political cognetive dissonance between what they are claiming to want to accomplish and the budgets required to achieve them.

If all transport and heating go electric, the national grid would need to be at least doubled and maybe as much as quadrupled.

The loud chorus of alarmists keep on insisting that we can move to a renewable energy powered future – I’m guessing these people are stymied by any mathematics that extends beyond counting on their fingers – otherwise they would realize this is impossible.

As an engineer, the basic math's tells me why this is quite simply impossible when you actually consider the magnitude of the problem vis :-

1.) A barrel if oil is approximately 1.7MWh energy equivalent –  

Ref:  Barrel of oil equivalent - Wikipedia

2.) The world consumes 100 million barrels of oil per day or times 365 days for barrels of oil a year. Ref:   List of countries by oil consumption - Wikipedia

3.) Therefore the world consumes 100,000,000 x 365 x 1.7 MWh of energy equivalent from oil.

4.) The world currently generates 25,000 x 1,000,000 MWh of electricity per year.

Ref:  Electricity facts

5.) Approximately 92% of crude oil production is used for energy (fuels etc.) and 8% other products (plastics, chemicals etc.)

6.) Therefore we can divide 3.) by 4.) to find how much additional energy we need relative to what we currently generate – less the 8% non-fuels use.

100,000,000 x 365 x 1.7 x 0.92 MWh
———————————
25,000,000,000 MWh

Cancel out the zeros and we get the ratio.

570÷250=2.28

But 80% of the 250 is generated by fossil fuels (so that’s double accounting) so we get 250x80%= 200 which we can subtract from the 570 giving us :-

370÷250 = 1.48

But that’s just for crude oil – allowing for natural gas and coal as well (without going into the calculations – see following graphic) that comes to a further 138 million barrels of oil equivalent per day which adds a further 570 x (138 ÷ 100) = 786.6 MWh equivalent.

(We have already discounted the fossil fuels used for electricity generation as oil equivalent – so this figure needs no further adjustment)

This then brings our ratio up to :-

(786.6+370) ÷ 250 = 4.62

±4.6 times what we currently generate 460% extra electrical generation – by weather dependent energy (renewables) ?

So we need an increase of 4.62 times what we currently generate plus what we currently generate to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, assuming of course 100% efficiency everywhere.

Electric cars are overall – more efficient measured from source to output but heating via electrically generated power is far less efficient than direct heating – comparing fossil fuels to renewables. So for a quick and dirty approximation, efficiency can be ignored.







Do you really believe that we can grow our existing electrical generation and supply infrastructure by an additional 462% via “renewables” when it has taken 30 years of massive subsidies and monumentally wasteful expenditure to get renewables up to just 1% of world energy supply ? And that was whilst using fossil fuels to provide the colossal amount of energy needed to manufacture the renewable generators (mining, processing, fabrication and construction etc. etc.)

And the Greens want us to accomplish this whilst simultaneously eliminating nuclear and hydro by 2050 !

In 2019 nuclear in the USA was only 9% of installed “nameplate” generating capacity – yet provided 20% of all USA’s electricity – clearly the most efficient.

Battery storage is quite another matter. Consider Tesla, the world’s best-known battery maker: $200,000 worth of Tesla batteries, which collectively weigh over 20,000 pounds, are needed to store the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil. A barrel of oil, meanwhile, weighs 300 pounds and can be stored in a $20 tank (which can be refilled also). Those are the realities of today’s lithium batteries. Even a 200% improvement in underlying battery economics and technology won’t close such a gap.

Batteries are costly, it would take approximately 4000 completely free recharges of that battery to finally equal the energy you can buy for the price of a single barrel of oil. So if you used that battery for 11 years, draining and completely filling (again – filling for free), every single day, you’d finally break even. It is unlikely with that much use, that a Tesla battery will last more than 6-8 years.

A 500kg battery requires the mining of 500000kg of earth – its ecological footprint is huge, uneconomical and completely ignored.

Put another way a battery that could store the energy equivalent of a barrel of oil, requires 100 barrels of oil to construct the battery. Now even if it was charged from renewable (weather dependent) energy it will never repay its debt to the ecology. Since currently weather dependent energy is only providing 1% of total world energy demand – then it is obvious that batteries are a colossal waste of scarce resources.

The Dirty Secrets of “Clean” Electric Vehicles

Beleive it or not I'm all for an all electric future - but there are serious problems that cannot just be wished away - but politicos are pledging our future in the belief that these problems can be solved by political diktat - colour me skeptical,

Regards, Ken


----------



## vederstein

lohring said:


> Do you want to trade your electric washing machine for a gas powered one?



I think the issue here compared with the past is that the market came up with something better and the consumers purchased the better product.

In this case of the California small engine phase out,  the phase out is dictated by government and people, generally, don't want to be controlled.  Right now the performance of gas powered equipment is generally superior to that of electric (particularly battery powered) equipment.  That doesn't mean that electric powered equipment will always have inferior performance.  Once they do, the consumers will voluntarily transition.

A good example is the electric cars.  Right now just about any gas powered car will go over 300 miles and can be refueled in less than 10 minutes.  Technology just hasn't yet been developed for electric cars to meet or exceed that expected capability.  Meet those minimum requirements with a similar price point and the public will flock to electrics.

Let the market dictate when a technology goes obsolete, not government controls.

...Ved.


----------



## ajoeiam

JLaning427 said:


> There's where the the math gets really messy, right?
> 
> To look at the efficiency of electric cars, do we need to get all the way back to sunlight, natural gas, oil, or coal?  If so, do we need to go further back, to when it was in the ground, sky, etc?  And do we need to do the same comparison with gasoline cars?  What energy is required to refine gasoline?  And emissions generated by the refining process?  Or do we only need to look solely at the amount of energy put into the battery (consumed from the charger, including charger losses) versus miles driven?  We wouldn't likely look at the pipeline or transportation losses that gasoline would encounter during it's trip to the pump, would we?  So why consider it for electricity?
> 
> Somebody mentioned the total cost of ownership.  And that really is the right metric to be using for many things.  I used to work for a 1st tier supplier for a certain big yellow and black tool manufacturer.  And that manufacturer changed the sourcing of a bunch of component parts from the USA / Mexico to China, because the part cost was cheaper.  But a couple of years later they were moving it back to the USA and Mexico.  Y'know why?  Because the overall cost was higher.  The parts were marginally cheaper, but with shipping going up and up, they basically got back to break even.  And the killer was warranty returns for defective parts went for the moon.  They couldn't afford to keep sourcing certain parts in China.
> 
> Thinking about this thread, the concept of TCO still applies.  And maybe we need to apply it to emissions / green-ness.  For example, oil production isn't exactly a clean business.  But how clean is mining and refining lithium and the various rare earth elements used in today's electric cars?  The good part (for CA) is that minimizing oil usage through mandating electric vehicles might help minimize oil related pollution in their state (they have a bunch of oil wells, but will they get shut down or will the production just get shipped to China).  And move the production pollution to somebody else's backyard, as I don't think the USA has much in the way of lithium or rare earth reserves.  Overall win for CA, right?  But what is the overall global difference in environmental impact of building an electric car vs a gasoline one?  I don't know, and I'm not sure that too many people do.
> 
> BTW, I'm a died in the wool IC guy and don't have any plans to buy an electric car.  But I've got an acquaintance of mine who has a Tesla, and he has a pretty detailed spreadsheet of costs that he developed prior to purchasing his (he's an engineer too) and for his usage (probably 300 miles a week) the math worked out in favor of the electric car.  It costs him less overall than the IC cars (US Hondas and Toyotas) that he looked at.  Something to think about.
> 
> James



Well ----------- my efficiency bent is something I really haven't been able to unpack in a very long time. 
The north american auto market has dictated that one of the most important factors in driving in acceleration capacity and overall power. 
This is because few people seem to understand how to use an on ramp or a merge lane - - - this is based on observation - - - OK?
Then there is the ever increasing need of bling that is needed - - - - does one really have to have 10" (25 cm) wide tires on a 'car'?
Nor really - - - - at least the majority of the time I'd be willing to be that a reasonable tie that would be 6" (15 cm) wide would fully get the job done. 
Except - - - - dat der scrawny tire donna look sexy - - - ja know. 
And there we have the crux of the issue!
The consumer has been hood winked into believing all the advertising BS and then given the over the top me me me me attitude - - - well 
a car just MUST have all kinds of junk attached and available. So that's how we get to 6000# (2500 kg) vehicles that are primarily status symbols and have the longevity of a gnat!

Now we get to electric cars - - - - they are supposedly so efficient - - - except well - - - - if you're looking for basic transportation for the process of getting from point a to point b - - - - well - - - - those electric cars are designed to compete with the top end IC vehicles. 
I've owned or own diesel pickups, single axle trucks, tandem axle straight trucks and even semis and then everything from a 78' Honda Civic to a 80' Rabbit Diesel. Dunno if you've noticed the trend - - - - I buy things for use - - - - not for status - - - I buy for application - - - - not to keep some advertising developed urges under control. 

You engineer buddy - - - - he was NOT comparing looking at a mode of transportation - - - - he was comparing looking at status first (comparable vehicle) and then at use.

I can tell you within a few percentage points of what it costs to drive every vehicle I've got on the place - - - and that's on a per unit driven TCO. (This includes repairs, depreciation, insurance besides fuel and lube - - - it helps that I do most of my own work.) I looked at a Chevy Bolt (IIRC the model), Nissan's Leaf and Huydai's electric car this spring. The lowest markup moving from IC to electric was 60% - - - and up to 100%. I couldn't get the low cost of operation to even put a dent in the TCO until I was looking past 30 year minimum ownership - - - - - that's quite unrealistic given the way new vehicles are built. New vehicles are built to force exchange in a maximum of 6 to 8 years. Socially one is considered a dead beat driving a 12 year old vehicle. I wish I could have kept my 68' Mercedes 220D - - - I think I could have taken that thing to its 75th birthday! I could get 40 mpg (Imp) at 50 mph with that tank.   
Could you please explain again what I'm gaining by moving to a new electric vehicle?


----------



## TR5T

Manorfarmer said:


> False. There is no evidence the Scottish Government has bought 20 Tesla cars ahead of COP26. Jaguar Land Rover was announced in September as an official transport partner for COP26 and is providing over 200 electric vehicles for use at the summit.
> 
> This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our fact-checking work here .




You are correct.  Thank you for setting the record straight.

It is a pity that people like GrahamJTaylor49 abuse the trust of this forum to spread politically motivated disinformation.


----------



## JLaning427

ajoeiam said:


> You engineer buddy - - - - he was NOT comparing looking at a mode of transportation - - - - he was comparing looking at status first (comparable vehicle) and then at use.



In my friends case, and this was 2 years ago, and he did run the numbers. 

But you are correct, he was comparing new cars.  Old cars likely have a lower total cost of ownership, but only when they're in good condition.  Those older vehicles are much more likely to need expensive maintenance at the most inopportune times.  After all, the people getting rid of that car likely did so for a reason.  Sometimes that reason is "this car seats 4, and I need one that seats 5" or "the ashtray is full" (common line from the 50's right?).  But other times it is "this car is costing me too much" or "it's in the shop too often and I can't rely on it" which are related thoughts, usually.  And having (2) 15 year old cars to try to ensure availability is not a solid investment.  Additionally a 15 year old car will not have some of the newer safety features.  I'm kinda happy that my 75 year old dad's 2018 Hyundai has adaptive cruise and lane keeping assistance, as it helps keep him out of trouble.

But if we're comparing new cars, the math works out as nearly a wash, at least in my friends case it did. 
New 2022 Toyota Camry V6 = $35k.  Or $630 a month on a 60 month loan.
New 2022 Tesla 3 = $42k.  Or $750 a month on a 60 month loan.
Assuming we drive 300 miles a week and the Toyota gets 26mpg, we're looking at fuel costs of about $150 a month at ~$3 a gallon.
My friend teaches at several campuses of a State college.  Benny is that he gets free electric vehicle charging.  He rarely charges at a Tesla charger or at home. 
I don't know how insurance rates compare between the 2, but I'll assume they're similar.  But you know what assuming does.
And I don't know what the projected maintenance costs are for each of them over 5 years.  But the Camry will at least need regular oil changes.  Don't have a clue what the Tesla needs.
And what are the residual values after 5 years and 80,000 miles?  And is that the right time to sell?  Or keep it until the wheels fall off, then put them back on again and drive them for another 100,000 miles?  


The point of the rambling here is that comparing new cars, the electric car isn't 60% or 100% more expensive (and there are reasons to pick a new car over a 15 year old car that aren't strictly keeping up with the Jones').  Cost to operate is likely to be close, or maybe in favor of the electric car.  Could you buy a less expensive new car?  Absolutely.  But you could also compare against a significantly more expensive car, if you're looking to match performance (again, not necessary, but that doesn't mean it isn't desirable).  Comparing the Tesla to a new MB or BMW would probably have the Tesla costing significantly less.

James


----------



## L98fiero

deleted


----------



## lohring

"I think the issue here compared with the past is that the market came up with something better and the consumers purchased the better product. "

The market has come up with something better in cars, you just haven't realized it yet.  Try owning a Tesla for three years.  Starting in November you could rent one from Hertz for a few days for a taste.  Like I said. it took 20 years for the transition out of horses and you could argue that it took a lot longer for the infrastructure to catch up.  Gas stations and decent roads weren't available outside urban areas intill well after WW II.  The same is true for electric vehicles today.  Let's check back in 2030 (if I'm still around) and revisit this topic.

Lohring Miller


----------



## Ken I

Man this is getting to be a fun post as long as we keep the exchange real and avoid ad-hominem slanging.

I prefer to stick with the numbers (links provided) rather than opinion but here goes.....

Ignoring all the possible subsidies and tax breaks etc.  (which as per Norway mentioned in post #75 above make a huge difference). I’m going to look at just the “fuel” costs in U$ per km. as viewed from a European perspective.

A Polestar 2 EV uses ±37kWhr per 100 km and at average European electricity price in 2021 =  ±U$0.2571 per kWhr you get U$0.095c per km.

Considering that against an ICE car with similar performance say around 7.5l per 100 km at an average fuel price of U$1.08 per litre we calculate our ICE engine car costs U$0.084c per kilometre just for fuel.

So on just the energy cost, there is not a lot in it.

Next point - an EV requires a lot less maintenance (apart from tire wear which is higher because they're heavy) – at least until the battery packs up in 8 to 10 years at which point the car is generally scrapped – no seriously – consider a 2013 Nissan Leaf (purchase price U$30000) which in 2021 has a value of U$2400 to U$6000 – entirely dependent on the condition of the battery – because a new battery in 2021 will cost you $5500 pretty much more than the car is worth.

That would cover an awful lot of the supposed “higher maintenance costs” of an ICE vehicle

And if all that isn’t bad enough, as weather dependent energy (renewables) intrude further into the grid and older reliable plants are retired – there are going to be ongoing abnormally high cost escalations in the price of electricity as well as electricity rationing (which will euphemistically be called “demand side management”).

E-car chargers will turn off to prevent blackouts

Typically this will take the form of turning off non-essential use to shed load – so when you wake up in the morning and find your car isn’t charged and your hot water is cold because it was turned off by the utility company during the night to protect the grid – then don’t tell me I didn’t warn you!

How much does it cost to buy, own, and run an EV? It’s not as much as you think

Average European electricity price 2021 = €0.2134 = ±U$0.2571 (as of 5th May 2021)

Electricity prices around the world | GlobalPetrolPrices.com

Electric vehicles have been hyped as the “future” for over 120 years




And in spite of that have made little real progress – even in California where you can get $7000 worth of subsidies and tax breaks, EV’s still only make up 6% of sales, mostly to people with double the average household income. (EV’s make up just 2% of US passenger vehicle sales overall.)

Unplugging The Hype Over Electric Vehicles - Climate Change Dispatch

Besides that – where is all the electricity going to come from ? I don't see budgets that cover even a fraction of the requirements.

From the above article “Indeed, attempting to electrify transportation makes little sense given the ongoing fragilization of our electric grid.”

Oh Dear !

Regards, Ken


----------



## Robert Simons

I read a post here referring to China not attending the climate meeting in Scottland.

It seems to me that if the rest of the world decides to reduce emissions to nett 0 by 2050,
At a high cost to their economies, and China stays on their path.....
Then eventually they will be the richest, and strongest economicly, and power, super power on this earth.
And with their fingers in ownership of may major areas of other countries fields of economic growth,.....???!!.
I feel that this is all for nothing. Infact plays in to the hands of communist powers.


----------



## Zeb

I don't really see the ban affecting the small engine hobby per se. Very few (PM research) can scrape a living competing with Chinese engines and the ban is basically affecting those who sell them. Californians can decide how they want to vote (in exchange for staying out of my business). 

Once the cheap stuff stops flowing from Asia (which could possibly happen), prices will go way up on items we were purchasing for nothing. Who knows, maybe people who can work with their hands (small engine tinkerers) will start gaining more return for their labor. I could see something similar in California, where there'd be more emphasis to clean carbs contaminated with that subsidized ethanol crap (hehe) instead of throwing entire engines away. It'll be interesting to see how it all works out.


----------



## Bazzer

I just want to say that this is one of the most interesting message threads I have ever seen, keep up the good work.


----------



## vederstein

Ken I said:


> Norway is often held up as a shining example of a successful “green revolution” in that it has the highest percentage of electric vehicles (18%) on its roads.



That's funny to me because oil and gas is a huge portion of Norways economy (about half of all their exports).  I guess they prefer to sell it than use it.

...Ved.


----------



## vederstein

ajoeiam said:


> does one really have to have 10" (25 cm) wide tires on a 'car'?



This is speaking as an American rube:

WE DON"T WANT TO BE TOLD WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DO!!

That's why this CA small engine phase out is so annoying.  That's why mask requirements are so annoying.  That's why mandatory vaccines are so annoying.  That's why any mandate or law restricting what we can do pisses us off!!!

Watch the movie "The World's End".  It's British, but the sentiment is the same.  We want to do what we want to do when we want to do it.

The U.S. 19th amendment outlawed the sales and transport of alcoholic beverages (prohibition).  Because of this, alcohol consumption went up, now down.  Only in 1933 did the amendment get repealed.

Let the market and the people decide what is good or bad for them.  We don't need busy body controlling types to force "goodness" on us.

...Ved.


----------



## davidyat

vederstein said:


> This is speaking as an American rube:
> 
> WE DON"T WANT TO BE TOLD WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DO!!
> 
> That's why this CA small engine phase out is so annoying.  That's why mask requirements are so annoying.  That's why mandatory vaccines are so annoying.  That's why any mandate or law restricting what we can do pisses us off!!!
> 
> Watch the movie "The World's End".  It's British, but the sentiment is the same.  We want to do what we want to do when we want to do it.
> 
> The U.S. 19th amendment outlawed the sales and transport of alcoholic beverages (prohibition).  Because of this, alcohol consumption went up, now down.  Only in 1933 did the amendment get repealed.
> 
> Let the market and the people decide what is good or bad for them.  We don't need busy body controlling types to force "goodness" on us.
> 
> ...Ved.


I learned this a long time ago, "You can't legislate morality".


----------



## Steamchick

Comparing Norway and California is as useful as comparing Nevarda or Sahara with Alaska or Siberia... Surely they don't compare? Likewise comparing China with Russia or the USA.
But it strikes me very clearly, that if Mankind can change the global climate (for better or worse) then it will take a united strategy by ALL countries to do so. To ignore anyone will make any strategy futile.
In the 1960s, my Geography teacher taught me that electricity was "King"... except it isn't a fundamental power source, just a means of transporting power from where it is generated to where it is used. Carboniferous fuels, nuclear fuels, solar, wind, hydro (gravity) and tidal are sources of energy....
So we should exploit all sources within reasonable safety and practical limits. E.g. It isn't practical to make a dam in the desert where there is no water... or have a nuclear reactor in every house. And we cannot stop the roving tribes from burning camel dung for cooking and night-time heat in their tents. But would you want to do that?
But maybe the "global" taxman can make it cost effective to pursuad us to not waste fuel - especially on gas-guzzling vehicles - as did OPEC  in 1974....??
Then the customer can decide how to make his living and on what to spend his dollars....
Or maybe the next pandemic will be far more destructive than the recent COVID, and we won't  worry anyway....?
I'm not contributing anything useful here.....
K2


----------



## OrangeAlpine

Instead of talking about freedom, how about responsibility?  Social responsibility.  Like not driving as fast as you want when/where you want.  Not driving drunk.  Not polluting.  Not carrying a preventable disease.  Usually complying with  what you are told to do is best for society and in your best interest in order to avoid being segregated (read "jailed") from  society.
Bill


----------



## ajoeiam

JLaning427 said:


> In my friends case, and this was 2 years ago, and he did run the numbers.
> 
> But you are correct, he was comparing new cars.  Old cars likely have a lower total cost of ownership, but only when they're in good condition.  Those older vehicles are much more likely to need expensive maintenance at the most inopportune times.  After all, the people getting rid of that car likely did so for a reason.  Sometimes that reason is "this car seats 4, and I need one that seats 5" or "the ashtray is full" (common line from the 50's right?).  But other times it is "this car is costing me too much" or "it's in the shop too often and I can't rely on it" which are related thoughts, usually.  And having (2) 15 year old cars to try to ensure availability is not a solid investment.  Additionally a 15 year old car will not have some of the newer safety features.  I'm kinda happy that my 75 year old dad's 2018 Hyundai has adaptive cruise and lane keeping assistance, as it helps keep him out of trouble.
> 
> But if we're comparing new cars, the math works out as nearly a wash, at least in my friends case it did.
> New 2022 Toyota Camry V6 = $35k.  Or $630 a month on a 60 month loan.
> New 2022 Tesla 3 = $42k.  Or $750 a month on a 60 month loan.
> Assuming we drive 300 miles a week and the Toyota gets 26mpg, we're looking at fuel costs of about $150 a month at ~$3 a gallon.
> My friend teaches at several campuses of a State college.  Benny is that he gets free electric vehicle charging.  He rarely charges at a Tesla charger or at home.
> I don't know how insurance rates compare between the 2, but I'll assume they're similar.  But you know what assuming does.
> And I don't know what the projected maintenance costs are for each of them over 5 years.  But the Camry will at least need regular oil changes.  Don't have a clue what the Tesla needs.
> And what are the residual values after 5 years and 80,000 miles?  And is that the right time to sell?  Or keep it until the wheels fall off, then put them back on again and drive them for another 100,000 miles?
> 
> 
> The point of the rambling here is that comparing new cars, the electric car isn't 60% or 100% more expensive (and there are reasons to pick a new car over a 15 year old car that aren't strictly keeping up with the Jones').  Cost to operate is likely to be close, or maybe in favor of the electric car.  Could you buy a less expensive new car?  Absolutely.  But you could also compare against a significantly more expensive car, if you're looking to match performance (again, not necessary, but that doesn't mean it isn't desirable).  Comparing the Tesla to a new MB or BMW would probably have the Tesla costing significantly less.
> 
> James



Your friend's criteria are still for luxury transport. 
What about a Corolla? Yaris? Does he really NEED the v6 (like he's towing a boat regularly or something)?
With that change we're down to the low $20k. 
Financing on websites - - - - down to very low $400/month. 

Tesla takes very regular software updates/upgrades and from I hear they're not cheap. 

Well - - -  if you're only comparing on performance - - - - electric will work. 
Now if your comparing based on TCO per unit traveled - - - - electric still isn't even close!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Especially if you want to pick up more than 2 hand totes of groceries - - - grin!)


----------



## ajoeiam

vederstein said:


> This is speaking as an American rube:
> 
> WE DON"T WANT TO BE TOLD WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DO!!
> 
> That's why this CA small engine phase out is so annoying.  That's why mask requirements are so annoying.  That's why mandatory vaccines are so annoying.  That's why any mandate or law restricting what we can do pisses us off!!!
> 
> Watch the movie "The World's End".  It's British, but the sentiment is the same.  We want to do what we want to do when we want to do it.
> 
> The U.S. 19th amendment outlawed the sales and transport of alcoholic beverages (prohibition).  Because of this, alcohol consumption went up, now down.  Only in 1933 did the amendment get repealed.
> 
> Let the market and the people decide what is good or bad for them.  We don't need busy body controlling types to force "goodness" on us.
> 
> ...Ved.




I agree with your exclaimed statement - - - - except - - - - I'm expecting you to all be responsible for any and all outcomes of ALL of your actions. 

My experience has been that most everyone wants not to be told anything. 
Yet the most common expectation is that the 'gooberment' must protect me (even from my own less than good actions). 

I for one am tired of paying for other people's (bluntly put) bloody stupid actions! 

So if you're as willing to cover the consequences of your actions as you are to want the right to do them - - - - well fly at 'er. 

If not - - - - well then you don't have the right to do what ever it is that you want to do that requires me to pay for it - - - doesn't matter what it is!

Hmmmmmmmmmm - - - if mandatory vaccines really bug you then I have a suggestion for you. 
1. refuse ALL vaccines (M3 (mumps measles and rubella IIRC)), diphtheria, polio, smallpox, tetanus, whooping cough are ones that come to mind)
2. your kids will also get a 10 to 30 day holiday when those vaccines are administered
3. if you or your kids get sick as a result of not being vaccinated - - - - well - - - you carry 100% of the cost burden
4. if anyone else gets sick because of #3 - - - you are also responsible for their costs (100% of them - - - including funeral costs if it comes to that - - - I'd allow you to welsh on the lost opportunity costs so no legal costs) 
5. you and your family also no longer get access to any antibiotics - - - for any reason

Now if you like all them apples - - - - why - - - - fly at 'er.

(I hope you hate at least some of those results - - - - hopefully enough to understand that there is some really lousy logic at work in the position of anti-vaccination!)


----------



## ajoeiam

OrangeAlpine said:


> Instead of talking about freedom, how about responsibility?  Social responsibility.  Like not driving as fast as you want when/where you want.  Not driving drunk.  Not polluting.  Not carrying a preventable disease.  Usually complying with  what you are told to do is best for society and in your best interest in order to avoid being segregated (read "jailed") from  society.
> Bill



If you ever look at food production the standards for not carrying a disease are a LOT tougher!


----------



## Zeb

But this is about small engines. I'd like to build small engines someday that could pay for the hobby. I could sell across the (state) border. Sort of like how folks go to reservations for fireworks. Probably the only illegal trade I'd participate in. ha

Are there options, solutions, implications when it comes to building and operating engines _after_ laws like these pass? Maybe the _before_ could be discussed on facebook.

As for the climate, I fear for us....


----------



## lohring

Lets look at another example.  I got an eletcric drill as a high school graduation present.  It was a very high end Black & Decker with two speeds and an aluminum case.  It survived decades of projects.  A few years ago I bought a Sears battery powered drill.  I never use the old plug in drill, even though I still have it.  The battery operated drill is much easier to use.  

The same thing is coming with more and more powered tools.  They will be adapted because they're are a better all around product, not because they are green.  The same will be true for cars and larger vehicles as the battery technology improves.  Yesterday my car used a little less than 30 kilowatt hours per 100 miles  That's equivalent to 122 miles per gallon.  To get the EPA range of 310 miles it would need to only use around 25 watt hours per 100 miles or 146 miles per gallon.  That's never going to happen with my driving style.  At $0.115 per kilowatt hour that means it costs $0.00345 per mile.  A 30 mile per gallon car will cost $0.12 per mile with $3.60 per gallon gasoline.

Lohring Miller


----------



## Zeb

Maybe we'll be winding our own coils someday. Here's a small 10 watt dynamo kit meant to be operated on the little steam engines they sell.





						Dynamo Generator | PM Research
					






					www.pmmodelengines.com


----------



## Ken I

lohring said:


> I got an eletcric drill as a high school graduation present.  It was a very high end Black & Decker with two speeds and an aluminum case.


Me too - in 1968 and apart from one rebuild and nearly shocking myself senseless on the aluminium case (and accidentally contacting a live wire with the other hand) - I still have it and it still works. In the meantime I've lost count of the number of cordless drills I've scrapped off - by the time the batteries die off, they no longer make that model or carry any spares.
Yes they are convenient and I currently have two but they are a lot more "disposable" than the old school stuff.
Regards, Ken


----------



## SmithDoor

Sounds like population control too. 
The gasoline is more explosive that the LoPo batteries per pound. 
But LoPo heats up first the electrolyte then explosives. 
Propane is just as bad .

My self I store gasoline and Propaneo in building on fence line. 

Dave 

FYI  The electrolyte in most LoPo batteries is same fluid used in oil foundry sand.



skyline1 said:


> From the comments on here it would appear that CA already has an underpowered electrical supply network. So the idea of of banning the sale of small I.C. engines seems at the very least a doubtful and not well thought out idea.
> 
> It would have the effect of throwing the load of all those myriad, Generators, Lawn mowers, Small construction tools and too many other items to list, onto an already ailing electrical supply.
> 
> Until you consider why governments, be they local or national, make strange decisions like this. MONEY !  Someone, somewhere with "close connections" to the State's government is going to get "stinking rich" over this possibly the politicians themselves.
> 
> As for Electric cars I think all the previous doubts expressed are valid but we may be missing an important "Elephant in the room", that of safety, in particular fire risk.
> 
> Petroleum fuels are highly flammable in fact under the right conditions, explosive (good job they are) but petroleum fires can be extinguished far more easily than Lithium fires.
> 
> There have been some very serious fires with Electric cars already and there are not that many of them about yet. All Lithium batteries can be dangerous in this respect but the huge ones in Electric cars particularly so as they have the added potential of colliding at high speed.
> 
> I don't relish the idea of driving around strapped to a 1200 Lb mobile incendiary bomb !
> 
> The Charging points fiasco at COP26 sounds fairly typical of us Brits but it will all be O.K. as long as transport problems don't stop the tea supply. That really would be a national disaster !
> 
> Best Regards Mark


----------



## timothysielbeck

OrangeAlpine said:


> Instead of talking about freedom, how about responsibility?  Social responsibility.  Like not driving as fast as you want when/where you want.  Not driving drunk.  Not polluting.  Not carrying a preventable disease.  Usually complying with  what you are told to do is best for society and in your best interest in order to avoid being segregated (read "jailed") from  society.
> Bill



How about your "social responsibility" to not infringe on the rights of others?  This countries government was set up to protect the rights of individuals, not for the majority to impose its will on the minority.  I have no responsibilities to "society." I am only responsible to myself and the commitments that I take upon myself, and any action I may take that directly harms another.

If you feel it is your responsibility to not "carry a preventable disease" may I respectfully request that you cease all contact with any other persons, places or things and move into a hermetically sealed bubble so that you have no possibility to acquire "a preventable disease," and hence, no way to spread any such that you may already have.


----------



## vederstein

timothysielbeck said:


> How about your "social responsibility" to not infringe on the rights of others?



You state the point.  I have the natural rights to do what I believe is right.  Yet, my rights end where others' rights begin.  This is no different than Jesus's  2nd commandment: Do unto others that you would want done to you.

The world is big.   It's bigger than any individual.  It's bigger than the impact that any individual can have on the world.

Although, If enough people blindly folllow the beliefs of one individual, then real havoc can happen and mess up the world.  (Think WWII) .

Do not be led in the direction of an individual messiah.  That messiah may lead you to ruin.

Trust yourself and what is best for your without directly screwing your fellow man.

If we can live be that ideal, we'll be ok.

...Ved.


----------



## Richard Hed

timothysielbeck said:


> How about your "social responsibility" to not infringe on the rights of others?  This countries government was set up to protect the rights of individuals, not for the majority to impose its will on the minority.  I have no responsibilities to "society." I am only responsible to myself and the commitments that I take upon myself, and any action I may take that directly harms another.
> 
> If you feel it is your responsibility to not "carry a preventable disease" may I respectfully request that you cease all contact with any other persons, places or things and move into a hermetically sealed bubble so that you have no possibility to acquire "a preventable disease," and hence, no way to spread any such that you may already have.


This is correct to a degree, but do you forget about the pollution of the 70's?  Nixon's EPA was definitely a good thing.  Rivers used to be white not blue and poison due to industries dumping ther toxins directly into the streams.  The cities were so polluted you couldn't walk in them without choking. There is a balance that must be maintained.  You DO indeed have certain responsibilites toward society.  When you drive your vehicle, after all, you don't drive on the wrong side of the road just because it's "your rite" as an idividual.  When you are out hunting, you don't shoot towards someone's buildings just because it's your right as an individual.  You cannot forget that the other people have the same rights as yourself and if we all acted without any social concience, we would simply be at war with each other.


----------



## ku4qb1

It's a standard attitude of the liberal left to believe that they, and only they are right. All others must submit. I call it "social narcissism", with all the standard traits and behaviors you can expect from an individual narcissist.


----------



## awake

ku4qb1 said:


> It's a standard attitude of the liberal left to believe that they, and only they are right. All others must submit. I call it "social narcissism", with all the standard traits and behaviors you can expect from an individual narcissist.


Oddly enough, I have seen that attitude on all sides of the spectrum, right, left, and center. Conversely, I have occasionally and refreshingly encountered folks on all sides of the spectrum who are secure enough to own their own beliefs without dismissing or denigrating others.


----------



## lohring

None of you get building permits, car licenses, drivers licenses, or all the government required things that infringe on your personal liberty but allow us to live safely in large communities.  Now there are enough of us that we need to start thinking about the effects on the whole world.  Most of the same kinds of arguments were made about seat belts.  I never understood why my late father hated car seat belts but wore a full belt and shoulder harness as a pilot.

Lohring Miller


----------



## Richard Hed

ku4qb1 said:


> It's a standard attitude of the liberal left to believe that they, and only they are right. All others must submit. I call it "social narcissism", with all the standard traits and behaviors you can expect from an individual narcissist.


I call it "pseudoliberal" because I am a liberal and what they are preaching doesn't seem to me to be anything near what I consider "liberal".  Frankly the r-words make me very ill but the pseudos frighten the hell out of me.  I consider them to be velvet gloved Stalinists.  Yeah yeah, velvet gloved for the time being but under every velvet glove is a fist of hard rock just waiting for the time to strike.  I mean when we are "required" to bow our heads to all the lgbtq or whatever, then that is when the gloves come off.  right?  I could care less if someone is lgbtq--I just don't want stuff like that _shoved down my throat--_get the point?  and I don't want my children or my children's children to have it shoved up their a$$ in the schools either.

On the other hand, I have to mention that I believe this whole thing is a conspiracy of the banksters who control the whole world.  (Should I get on this subject?  Sheesh, I don't know.)  And BOTH the left and the right are doing their bidding.  lgbtq, the banksters realize (rockefeller foundation pushes this), is a very good birthcontrol in an overpopulated world.


----------



## Richard Hed

Ken I said:


> Me too - in 1968 and apart from one rebuild and nearly shocking myself senseless on the aluminium case (and accidentally contacting a live wire with the other hand) - I still have it and it still works. In the meantime I've lost count of the number of cordless drills I've scrapped off - by the time the batteries die off, they no longer make that model or carry any spares.
> Yes they are convenient and I currently have two but they are a lot more "disposable" than the old school stuff.
> Regards, Ken


My personal experience is that the batteries don't hold a charge long enough to do seriuos work.


----------



## timothysielbeck

Richard Hed said:


> This is correct to a degree, but do you forget about the pollution of the 70's?  Nixon's EPA was definitely a good thing. Rivers used to be white not blue and poison due to industries dumping ther(sic) toxins directly into the streams.  The cities were so polluted you couldn't walk in them without choking. There is a balance that must be maintained.



With rights comes responsibilities.  While I have rights I still must not act in a way that infringes the rights of others.  I have always used the pollution you mention as one of the most egregious abuses of other peoples' rights by a group exercising their rights with total disregard for how it would affect others.



Richard Hed said:


> You DO indeed have certain responsibilites(sic) toward society.



I have _NO_ responsibilities towards society.  "Society" is a legal fiction created by some in order to restrain the rights of individuals.  "Society" is not mentioned in the constitution as having any rights at all. 



Richard Hed said:


> When you drive your vehicle, after all, you don't drive on the wrong side of the road just because it's "your rite(sic)" as an idividual(sic).  When you are out hunting, you don't shoot towards someone's buildings just because it's your right as an individual.



You are conflating a privilege with a constitutional right.  Driving is a privilege.  In order to avail myself of this privilege I agree, to the best of my ability, to conform to the expected standards of conduct in order to exercise that privilege without bringing upon myself the repercussions that come with violating those standards which are anything from fines, jail time, and loss of that privilege.  When hunting I feel no compunction of shooting at a target that has a building behind it if I am confident that my shot has no chance of hitting said building even if I should miss my intended target (such as my target were 100yrds away and the building was a mile away and I was shooting with negative elevation).



Richard Hed said:


> You cannot forget that the other people have the same rights as yourself and if we all acted without any social concience(sic), we would simply be at war with each other.



I know other people have the same rights (in this country) that I do and I have enough respect for the Constitution, and them, that I do my best to not infringe upon their rights (I am a fallible human so sometimes I fail).  I have no "social conscience." I do not believe it is necessary.  If we had respect for one another there would be no wars.  With a "social conscience" controlled by "society" people can be convinced to do heinous things in the name of that society.


----------



## timothysielbeck

lohring said:


> None of you get building permits, car licenses, drivers licenses, or all the government required things that infringe on your personal liberty but allow us to live safely in large communities.  Now there are enough of us that we need to start thinking about the effects on the whole world.  Most of the same kinds of arguments were made about seat belts.  I never understood why my late father hated car seat belts but wore a full belt and shoulder harness as a pilot.
> 
> Lohring Miller



Another example of misconstruing a right with a privilege.  I can have a car without having either type of licenses and drive it all over my personal property all I want.  If I want to have the "privilege" of using it on public roads then I must get it, and myself, licensed.  I see no infringement of my liberties in doing so.  As for safety in large communities?  That depends more on the respect everyone has for everyone else.  If your community requires many laws to ensure safety then nobody has enough respect for those around them.  If everyone had absolute respect for everyone else there would be no need for laws.

Seat belts, on the other hand, are a different kettle of fish.  They are a prime example of government intrusion into a persons daily life by deciding how a person should behave to protect themselves.  When I was stationed in Germany in late 1981 all newcomers were told of the German seatbelt law.  Roughly, if you were in an accident that was another's fault the judge could reduce any monetary award you might receive in the case because you didn't take all precautions to mitigate your injuries.  Money grubbing governments in the US have decided that it is an easy way to increase the non-tax revenue coming into the coffers by just making it a fine.  They do this under the guise of making you safe from yourself despite the fact that safety belts really only help if your car is struck from almost directly in the front and can cause an otherwise nonfatal accident to be fatal if a car is T-boned and a person is held in the seat adjacent to the impact area (as almost happened to a childhood friend of mine and the investigating officer said he would have been killed if he had been wearing his seat belt because of the door intrusion into the drivers sitting place).  Belts in an aircraft are meant to hold a person in their seat so that control can be maintained is situations such as strong turbulence or maneuvers that would otherwise remove the pilot from the pilot's seat.  Situations like that rarely happen when driving a car in a rational manner.


----------



## Richard Hed

timothysielbeck said:


> With rights comes responsibilities.  While I have rights I still must not act in a way that infringes the rights of others.  I have always used the pollution you mention as one of the most egregious abuses of other peoples' rights by a group exercising their rights with total disregard for how it would affect others.
> 
> 
> 
> I have _NO_ responsibilities towards society.  "Society" is a legal fiction created by some in order to restrain the rights of individuals.  "Society" is not mentioned in the constitution as having any rights at all.
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating a privilege with a constitutional right.  Driving is a privilege.  In order to avail myself of this privilege I agree, to the best of my ability, to conform to the expected standards of conduct in order to exercise that privilege without bringing upon myself the repercussions that come with violating those standards which are anything from fines, jail time, and loss of that privilege.  When hunting I feel no compunction of shooting at a target that has a building behind it if I am confident that my shot has no chance of hitting said building even if I should miss my intended target (such as my target were 100yrds away and the building was a mile away and I was shooting with negative elevation).
> 
> 
> 
> I know other people have the same rights (in this country) that I do and I have enough respect for the Constitution, and them, that I do my best to not infringe upon their rights (I am a fallible human so sometimes I fail).  I have no "social conscience." I do not believe it is necessary.  If we had respect for one another there would be no wars.  With a "social conscience" controlled by "society" people can be convinced to do heinous things in the name of that society.


We certainly agree on a lot of things, but I thimpfk you are splitting hairs on the subject of society.  Regardless of the constitution (which it seems the pseudoliberals have forgotten and the far rightists wish would go away), we all live with other people.  That is what society is:  a group of people, probably large enough that we don't know all of them.  I disagree with you on the 'privilege' of driving.  Driving is a necessity, therefore it is a right unless taken away by legal means, such as DWI or what eaver.   I pay taxes for those roads we drive on, so it certainly is more than a privelege.  Society, indeed, needs those roads to make it possible and easy to travel for commerce, work, even for pleasure, which society agrees to build and maintain with tax money.  What you call "respect for one another" is just another way of saying social conscience.


----------



## Zeb

lohring said:


> I never understood why my late father hated car seat belts but wore a full belt and shoulder harness as a pilot.


For aerobatics purposes! I was happy to have mine on during a loop in a Stearman. My friend knew a guy that would open the canopy on his ercoupe and stand in t-pose using his arms to fly the plane.

I'm still not seeing anything substantive to how this specific law affects the home model engine hobby.


----------



## Dan

I’m sure glad our hobby forum has turned into another political b-fest. The international members of HMM can certainly see American exceptionalism at its best.

I think not the place, enough already.


----------



## Richard Carlstedt

OrangeAlpine said:


> Instead of talking about freedom, how about responsibility?  Social responsibility.  Like not driving as fast as you want when/where you want.  Not driving drunk.  Not polluting.  Not carrying a preventable disease.  Usually complying with  what you are told to do is best for society and in your best interest in order to avoid being segregated (read "jailed") from  society.
> Bill


Our Country was founded on the Basis of Freedom of the individual as a retort to 'Social Responsibility" (SR)
"Social Responsibility" is a political concept. You gave your earnings to the King- That was a social responsibility.  And in modern day times you see " You can only have one child"  - WHo determines SR ? Certainly not you, so that allows for the loss of Freedom and from history we know eventually results in serfdom- The impetus for 1776. 
For example , take an African Village where Lions eat people . Some villagers want to kill the Lions so they don't eat people and other villagers say "You are killing the environment" if they do ?  Whose is right ?
In either case , both parties feel the other is wrong. 
Rich


----------



## GreenTwin

I find it rather alarming when states or whoever begin to outlaw one thing in favor of another.
It doesn't necessarily mean that one thing is better than another, but just means that some politician probably got paid to say/support something.

I find it further alarming when an open discussion is not allowed to take place, like is happening across much of the internet.
The only way to come up with solutions is to have an open discussion, let all opinions be heard, and then make a decision based on something rational and realistic, and something that does not bankrupt half of the country overnight.

Now days, anyone with an opinion that does not follow the "narrative" is simply beat up online and elsewhere by the most vocal and agressive types.
Respectful discussions are dead.
Its all ad-hominen attacks now, to win the day, regardless of any rational facts or evidence.

We need to regain some sort of civility in discussions, and re-learn that we can agree to disagree.

The truth and reality is never found on the far left or the far right, but rather somewhere towards the center.
Having people carry ID cards concerning your supposed private health information is Orwellian to say the least.
Your health choices are not for other's to make, because where would that end?
What if someone else's choice for your health resulted in your death?
Who would be responsible?  The answer is "Nobody".  They make your health choices, and you suffer the consequences.

It would not stop with a health ID card.
You would (and maybe will be) required to carry a card to do anything/everthing.  It is not a farfetched idea.
Very much a slippery slope when you start turning over your individual decisions to groupthink.
Groupthink changes, and what is accepted today may be an abomination in years later, and we have many examples of this in the last 100 years.

.


----------



## Richard Hed

GreenTwin said:


> I find it rather alarming when states or whoever begin to outlaw one thing in favor of another.
> It doesn't necessarily mean that one thing is better than another, but just means that some politician probably got paid to say/support something.
> 
> I find it further alarming when an open discussion is not allowed to take place, like is happening across much of the internet.
> The only way to come up with solutions is to have an open discussion, let all opinions be heard, and then make a decision based on something rational and realistic, and something that does not bankrupt half of the country overnight.
> 
> Now days, anyone with an opinion that does not follow the "narrative" is simply beat up online and elsewhere by the most vocal and agressive types.
> Respectful discussions are dead.
> Its all ad-hominen attacks now, to win the day, regardless of any rational facts or evidence.
> 
> We need to regain some sort of civility in discussions, and re-learn that we can agree to disagree.
> 
> The truth and reality is never found on the far left or the far right, but rather somewhere towards the center.
> Having people carry ID cards concerning your supposed private health information is Orwellian to say the least.
> Your health choices are not for other's to make, because where would that end?
> What if someone else's choice for your health resulted in your death?
> Who would be responsible?  The answer is "Nobody".  They make your health choices, and you suffer the consequences.
> 
> It would not stop with a health ID card.
> You would (and maybe will be) required to carry a card to do anything/everthing.  It is not a farfetched idea.
> Very much a slippery slope when you start turning over your individual decisions to groupthink.
> Groupthink changes, and what is accepted today may be an abomination in years later, and we have many examples of this in the last 100 years.
> 
> .


Whatever do you mean?  In my not so humble opinion, it's already like that.  have you read "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion"?  It says things that have indeed already happened.  A great deal of people say it is a hoax, but the things it says 'will' happen have already taken place.  Plus the Kennedy conspiracy, the 1987 savings and loan scandal and 9/11 and many others that we nevfer hear about have all been nicely covered up.  The present covid affair very well may be another hoax to control the majority.


----------



## GreenTwin

I guess what I am saying is that in the old days (not too long ago, but I remember those days), Jim would express his idea, Bob would add his two cents worth, Jerry would offer a counter opinion, Bill would add a few overlooked but important points, and everyone would pretty much get along.
We generally ageed to disagree, knowing that no one person holds the truths for all of society.

Now days, if you say the wrong thing, and basically everything idea theses days is the "wrong idea", then your eyes get gouged out, you may lose your job, your family may be attacked, you may be locked/isolated in your home, your rights may evaoporate overnight,etc.

Heaven forbid that you point out why solar or electric cars don't and won't really solve any problems in the long run.
People obtain a certain mindset (I call it brainwashing by the MSM), and then no other opinions are allowed.
You could be in a car headed for a cliff, and the hydraulics go out, and you yell "use the hand brake !!!", and the others in the car say "that may be bad for the environment because there may be some residual asbestos in those lingings", and so off the cliff you all go.........

There is no logic or rational to discussions these days.
It is all about emotions and feelings, and those dominate everyone elses rights.

Contentious stuff here, so I will leave it at that.
The idea is not to rile anyone up, but rather to encourage respectful and courteous discussions.

.


----------



## Richard Hed

GreenTwin said:


> I guess what I am saying is that in the old days (not too long ago, but I remember those days), Jim would express his idea, Bob would add his two cents worth, Jerry would offer a counter opinion, Bill would add a few overlooked but important points, and everyone would pretty much get along.
> We generally ageed to disagree, knowing that no one person holds the truths for all of society.
> 
> Now days, if you say the wrong thing, and basically everything idea theses days is the "wrong idea", then your eyes get gouged out, you may lose your job, your family may be attacked, you may be locked/isolated in your home, your rights may evaoporate overnight,etc.
> 
> Heaven forbid that you point out why solar or electric cars don't and won't really solve any problems in the long run.
> People obtain a certain mindset (I call it brainwashing by the MSM), and then no other opinions are allowed.
> You could be in a car headed for a cliff, and the hydraulics go out, and you yell "use the hand brake !!!", and the others in the car say "that may be bad for the environment because there may be some residual asbestos in those lingings", and so off the cliff you all go.........
> 
> There is no logic or rational to discussions these days.
> It is all about emotions and feelings, and those dominate everyone elses rights.
> 
> Contentious stuff here, so I will leave it at that.
> The idea is not to rile anyone up, but rather to encourage respectful and courteous discussions.
> 
> .


Sometimes, just the writing itself might make it seem that someone is speaking "violently" agaist you.  After all, we cannot see if someone is joking, or how their vocal inflections might moderate the speach or how their facial expressions might accompany the words.  If we try to not take umbrage to words being written, that should help.  

However, I truly believe the MSM is in a conspiracy with the great deamon banksters who control the media, the police, the teachers, the book publising, the military, the politicians, etc. etc. etc.  Movies often are ridiculed as too silly or unreal but it is true that many movies portray exactly how things progress in the world today.  My friends call me CT (conspiracy  . . . ).  How else can I read the world?  it is pretty obvious to me that we are being herded like cattle to believe what ht e media prints and if we express disagreement, we are often shouted down.  

I like to point out that the world if over populated.  An aquaintance ridicules that idea.  Howeveer, I have a sort of proof that it is true.  The sardines off the coast of California were wiped out by the canneries in the 1930s.  The Salmon on the west coast are barely holding their own even with the weak help being given them.  Of course, this is all due to the greed of many people from the fishing boats with mile long nets to the canneriers, to the distributors, to the owners of the name brands.  Also to those of us who consume those delicious salmon.  ANd believe it or not, there are many solutions even tho' we are indeed overpopulated.  (You should see SE Asia if you thimpfk WE have a problem.  A 10th or so of the land mass has nearly half the population of earth.)

If you take a look at the so called Georgia guide stones, you might be convinced the conspirators intend to kill most of us in some way.  Is covid, HIV, the deadly African virus' practice to kill us?  You better consider it.  For one, I do not trust my government, the liar media, teachers, police or anyone I haven't known for  five years or so.


----------



## Richard Hed

GreenTwin said:


> I guess what I am saying is that in the old days (not too long ago, but I remember those days), Jim would express his idea, Bob would add his two cents worth, Jerry would offer a counter opinion, Bill would add a few overlooked but important points, and everyone would pretty much get along.
> We generally ageed to disagree, knowing that no one person holds the truths for all of society.
> 
> Now days, if you say the wrong thing, and basically everything idea theses days is the "wrong idea", then your eyes get gouged out, you may lose your job, your family may be attacked, you may be locked/isolated in your home, your rights may evaoporate overnight,etc.
> 
> Heaven forbid that you point out why solar or electric cars don't and won't really solve any problems in the long run.
> People obtain a certain mindset (I call it brainwashing by the MSM), and then no other opinions are allowed.
> You could be in a car headed for a cliff, and the hydraulics go out, and you yell "use the hand brake !!!", and the others in the car say "that may be bad for the environment because there may be some residual asbestos in those lingings", and so off the cliff you all go.........
> 
> There is no logic or rational to discussions these days.
> It is all about emotions and feelings, and those dominate everyone elses rights.
> 
> Contentious stuff here, so I will leave it at that.
> The idea is not to rile anyone up, but rather to encourage respectful and courteous discussions.
> 
> .


I am a fan of Ulysses.  During his time people of different persuasions would gather at the country store and discuss the haps over a game of checkers and a smoke.  Everyone read newspapers--they bought the newspaper that favored their views but the newspapers were passed around till they wore out.  Rarely did they actually get in physical fights, more arguments where they wouldn't talk to each other sometimes upt to years.


----------



## Foozer

As it Says . . .


----------



## Bazzer

To get back on topic to a degree, Say what you like about California environmental controls but the state has made massive strides in *reversing* pollution.

I live in the UK and I occasionally visit California (about once every two decades) the pollution/smog levels are dramatically/visibly less now than they were in the mid 1980's, without knowing the numbers I would also suggest that this has been done with an increasing population giving further pressures on pollution.

I am probably not aligned politically with California but credit where credit is due.


----------



## Ken I

Getting back on topic - CO2 is not a pollutant - it's plant food.

The demonization of it as a long lived pollutant is complete nonsense.

I am all for pollution reduction - eliminating CO2 from the atmosphere will cause the extinction of all living things.

*The History Of The Earth’s Atmosphere*

The early Earth’s atmosphere contained no free Oxygen and more than 10000ppm CO2 and the Earth did not become like Venus even when all the carbon was to be found in the atmosphere.

Early life on Earth was blue green algae which thrived in this CO2 rich atmosphere – liberating vast quantities of Oxygen.

Note: Free Oxygen does not exist on planets as it is highly reactive and forms metal oxides which sequestrate it into solid carbonates and oxides – so much so that cosmologists searching for exoplanets [planets outside of our solar system] look specifically for the tell-tale spectrographic signature of Oxygen as an indication of life existing on those planets – thus far nothing has shown up.

This oxygen made the air toxic to the algae – remnants of such species can be found in the class of “anerobic” organisms.

New species evolved to use the oxygen which also allowed more energy intensive biology – eventually leading us to where we are today.

So the first successful species were the megaflora – so successful they “polluted” their atmosphere with Oxygen and were extinguished at the end of the Carboniferous period – which laid down the Carbon that is the basis of all today’s fossil fuels.

The Oxygen rich (±35%) atmosphere gave rise to the mega fauna – Dinosaurs and such – have you ever noticed that dinosaurs have relatively small chests ? If we brought a T-Rex into being (A’La Jurassic Park) it would stand there wheezing – gasping for breath in our Oxygen depleted (21%) atmosphere.

You should also note there is a symbiotic relationship between volcanic action and the Earth’s carbon based life forms (that’s you, me and most every living thing). Without volcanic CO2, all the Carbon would eventually become sequestered into limestone and life as we know it would slowly come to an end. Life on Earth requires volcanic and tectonic action to “reprocess” the sequestered CO2 In the rocks and release it back into the atmosphere.

However for the last couple of hundred million years volcanic activity has been spiralling downwards resulting in diminished atmospheric CO2 – you and all the species on Earth today evolved in a 2000+ppm CO2 environment, not the paltry and dangerously low 280ppm just prior to the industrial revolution.

CO2 is essential to life on our planet – it does not “control” the climate in any significant way.

Prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 was trending dangerously downwards.

Prof. William Happer states that we are currently living in a severe Carbon Dioxide Drought!






Had it not been for the industrial revolution and all the benefits and knowledge that came with it we would currently be living “nasty, brutish and short” lives and our ignorance would not have informed us that we were rapidly headed towards extinction.

It’s Easy to be Fooled by a Climate Alarmist

Our production of CO2 is saving the planet not destroying it !

Regards, Ken


----------



## Bazzer

Ken

I don't know if you are writing about my California pollution observation, but the 1980's pollution levels around LA were not viable to continue with, no matter what it's composition.

I doubt any pollution controls will eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere, so this is a non story.

B.


----------



## davidyat

Bazzer said:


> To get back on topic to a degree, Say what you like about California environmental controls but the state has made massive strides in *reversing* pollution.
> 
> I live in the UK and I occasionally visit California (about once every two decades) the pollution/smog levels are dramatically/visibly less now than they were in the mid 1980's, without knowing the numbers I would also suggest that this has been done with an increasing population giving further pressures on pollution.
> 
> I am probably not aligned politically with California but credit where credit is due.


I suggest that the next time you visit California, stay there about 5 or 6 months, then tell me you like California. It is a group of the most stupid, insane, illogical, no common sense idiotic bozos. I grew up in the 50's and 60's there, Greatest time to be a kid and a young adult. Then the liberals took over. When I was beating a path out of there in 2017, I read that Brown signed a bill, SB 179, that would possibly give jail time to health care workers if they persistently kept calling patients by the "wrong pronoun" but there was no jail time if a person "knowingly" transmitted HIV.









						California: Jail For Using Wrong Pronouns, But Not For Spreading HIV
					

Authorities in California are now jailing people who use the wrong pronouns, while letting those who knowingly transmit HIV walk free.



					newspunch.com


----------



## Bazzer

David

I was merely pointing out that they had got a grip on reducing pollution not that it was a place that I would like to live, I am aware of some of the vagaries of how Californians can behave and in particular some of the political elite.

B.


----------



## aarggh

davidyat said:


> I read that Brown signed a bill, SB 179, that would possibly give jail time to health care workers if they persistently kept calling patients by the "wrong pronoun" but there was no jail time if a person "knowingly" transmitted HIV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California: Jail For Using Wrong Pronouns, But Not For Spreading HIV
> 
> 
> Authorities in California are now jailing people who use the wrong pronouns, while letting those who knowingly transmit HIV walk free.
> 
> 
> 
> newspunch.com



Really, there's only 78 different gender pronouns, how hard can it be? ;-)


----------



## OrangeAlpine

While it may be true that the Constitution does not mention Society, it mentions General Welfare in the preamble.  Try reading it.








						U.S. Constitution - The Preamble | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
					

The original text of The Preamble of the Constitution of the United States.




					constitution.congress.gov
				



Bill


----------



## davidyat

Bazzer said:


> David
> 
> I was merely pointing out that they had got a grip on reducing pollution not that it was a place that I would like to live, I am aware of some of the vagaries of how Californians can behave and in particular some of the political elite.
> 
> B.


The world is 196.9 million square miles. CA is 163,696 square miles, 0.083% of the earth's surface. You think that little amount is going to make a difference if other countries give the rest of the world the middle finger on pollution?


----------



## Ken I

Bazzer, I grew up in Liverpool where the pollution was so bad the sparrows woke up coughing - soot literally rained down from the sky, rain dirtied up a newly washed car - the photochemical smog was so thick you could barely see a streetlight whilst standing underneath it. If you breathed through your scarf it quickly turned a dirty yellow-brown. It was very very bad.
The downtown sandstone buildings were Jet black - which to my surprise as a teenager when they cleaned them up in the mid-sixties were actually nearly white.
Similarly the real pollution of LA had to be cleaned up, that's what the clean air act was for - and I'm all for it.
But - and this is a big but - CO2 is not a pollutant.
With all the hoopla surrounding COP 26 the news channels are persistently showing power station cooling towers as examples of "man's pollution" - I'm sure everyone on this site recognizes that as steam from the cooling towers which is in no way a pollutant.
They never show the chimneys (at least for western plants) as all that comes out them is invisible CO2 - any particulate pollutants have been removed electrostatically and gaseous pollutants such as SO2 have been removed by scrubbers. Nothing to see here folks  - boring - so just show something else to the ignorant masses under a banner of climate crisis etc. etc. This is deliberate misinformation. Recognize that for what it is.
Once you realize that your are being hoodwinked and propagandized, look objectively at both viewpoint (and data) on this subject and come to an informed conclusion. Don't believe anybody - me included.
Regards, Ken


----------



## OrangeAlpine

Ken, is something lost when information crosses an ocean?  NO BODY us suggesting that CO2 is being regulated because of its human toxicity.  To think that mankind cannot have an impact on the environment is short sighted.  Do not compare human related CO2 emissions to nature's. Add it.
  Bill


----------



## SmithDoor

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. 
The last time SF band leaf blower's the court over rule the law.
Now picking on the lawnmowers again using smog instead of noise.

Odds are when power fails they do not like the sound of generator in background for medical or keeping food cold.

Dave   



OrangeAlpine said:


> While it may be true that the Constitution does not mention Society, it mentions General Welfare in the preamble.  Try reading it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Constitution - The Preamble | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
> 
> 
> The original text of The Preamble of the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> constitution.congress.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill


----------



## davidyat

Mother nature is ALWAYS in charge. When we humans REALLY screw up everything, she will slap us down in an instant unless we have gone to another planet to screw that one up.


----------



## timothysielbeck

OrangeAlpine said:


> While it may be true that the Constitution does not mention Society, it mentions General Welfare in the preamble.  Try reading it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Constitution - The Preamble | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
> 
> 
> The original text of The Preamble of the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> constitution.congress.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill


I have read it many times.  Promoting the general welfare is not an excuse to infringe on the enumerated rights ALSO written into the Constitution.  Remember that none of the states were going to pass the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was included.


----------



## Ken I

OrangeAlpine said:


> NO BODY us suggesting that CO2 is being regulated because of its human toxicity.


So why call it a pollutant when its not ?
Regards, Ken


----------



## Richard Carlstedt

Bazzer said:


> To get back on topic to a degree, Say what you like about California environmental controls but the state has made massive strides in *reversing* pollution.   I live in the UK and I occasionally visit California (about once every two decades) the pollution/smog levels are dramatically/visibly less now than they were in the mid 1980's, without knowing the numbers I would also suggest that this has been done with an increasing population giving further pressures on pollution.   I am probably not aligned politically with California but credit where credit is due.


There is no doubt that 'solid Particulate " has been reduced in LA over the last 40 years , but that is not to be confused with CO2 --but the whole drive of the CO2 folks is total control over society and they couple it to Solid Particulate and call it a threat..remember, you can still buy cigarettes in California.
Rich


----------



## ozzie46

davidyat said:


> Mother nature is ALWAYS in charge. When we humans REALLY screw up everything, she will slap us down in an instant unless we have gone to another planet to screw that one up.


God is always in charge and the earth and everything in it belong to God. No such thing as mother nature.
Man cannot do any thing to catastrophically effect the planet to the degree the sky is falling nay sayers say. 
The Bible tells us that when mans sin is so bad that God decides to destroy the earth, that it will be destroyed by fiery apocalypse. Nothing will happen until then.

Ron


----------



## davidyat

ozzie46 said:


> God is always in charge and the earth and everything in it belong to God. No such thing as mother nature.
> Man cannot do any thing to catastrophically effect the planet to the degree the sky is falling nay sayers say.
> The Bible tells us that when mans sin is so bad that God decides to destroy the earth, that it will be destroyed by fiery apocalypse. Nothing will happen until then.
> 
> Ron


How do you know Mother Nature isn't God? From a book written by human men?


----------



## vederstein

I'm glad I stopped posting on this thread...

(****!! I did it again!!!)

...Ved.


----------



## ozzie46

davidyat said:


> How do you know Mother Nature isn't God? From a book written by human men?



Bible was written by men under the unction of the Holy Spirit not on their own initiative.  If you had studied the Bible you would know that

Several scientist and atheist set out to prove the Bible fiction but came to the realization that it was FACT.

Ron


----------



## L98fiero

ozzie46 said:


> God is always in charge and the earth and everything in it belong to God. No such thing as mother nature.
> Man cannot do any thing to catastrophically effect the planet to the degree the sky is falling nay sayers say.
> The Bible tells us that when mans sin is so bad that God decides to destroy the earth, that it will be destroyed by fiery apocalypse. Nothing will happen until then.
> 
> Ron


If you go back you'll read in one of my posts I said this should be stopped because the opinions are a combination of politics and religion, congratulations, you've now brought religion into it too! And NO, the bible isn't fact apart from locations of cities and the like, NONE of the religion in it can be proven more than it's an 'abridged' version of several Mesopotamian religions.


----------



## Richard Hed

L98fiero said:


> If you go back you'll read in one of my posts I said this should be stopped because the opinions are a combination of politics and religion, congratulations, you've now brought religion into it too! And NO, the bible isn't fact apart from locations of cities and the like, NONE of the religion in it can be proven more than it's an 'abridged' version of several Mesopotamian religions.


When I was a youngster (last week), my mother told us never to discuss sex, politics or religion.  Of course, being an American Brat we found those were the only fun things worth discussing (besides electronics, nuclear physics, calculus, cosmology, anthropology, astronomy, chemistry, books--particularly porn, and machining).  I added drugs to that list which some may wish to view as a substitute for all the rest, esp. sex.

In actuality, I love discussing religion--key word here: _discussing_.  Just like the lgbqt stuff--I don't like religion being shoved down my throat or stuffed up my children's a$$ at school.  I have a very religious friend at work with whom I can discuss religion without either of us getting upset or insisting that 'our' beliefs are the only true  beliefs.  (I mean come on, who here doesn't believe the true godz are Wotan, Thor and Freya?)  If you want to read a mostly speculative book about history since and including Moses, you might wish to pick up the book "
*The Secret Society of Moses: The Mosaic Bloodline and a Conspiracy Spanning Three Millennia*
*by Flavio Barbiero".  *

This is not a book on religion, it is a book on HISTORY, really, it's speculative history, as the author is a former Admiral in the Italian Navy.  He has speculated all the way from the Children of Moses to the present day with good historical reasoning.  It is a shocking speculation that rings with at least SOME truth to it.  I however, disagree with the author on the origins of Moses himself.  It is my personal beliefe that Moses was the great grandson (or thereabouts) of Akhenaton which would have put Moses as Pharoah NOT Rameses.  This is the origin of their argument.  Moses was trying to get what he thot was rightfully his, while Rameses was basically a sitting Pharoah, and what sitting Pharoah is ever going to give up his kingdom without a fight?  Interesting as this is, I thimpfk it is really a subject I would like to discuss on another forum.  However, that other forum is likely to be a religiouis forum and I have no interest in religious forums as they are most likely to take a christian view and SHOVE it up ur  . . .  I mean, down ur throat!


----------



## Steamchick

I seem to be missing the Engineering and Machining here...? More like Phylosophy...? (or is that the history of Philistines?).
I'll go and calculate some engine pulley sizes for a generator.....
K2


----------



## Richard Hed

Steamchick said:


> I seem to be missing the Engineering and Machining here...? More like Phylosophy...? (or is that the history of Philistines?).
> I'll go and calculate some engine pulley sizes for a generator.....
> K2


You're no fun.  I was thimpfking of the pyramids and how everyone has obviously missed the fact that they are giant steam engines that broke down and no longer work.  Or did I fail to explain that?

BTW, I am trying to draw up a 6" rotary table and I have come up against two problems:  1), the bearing.  I have seen one home made, a four inch, I thimpfk someone's on this forum, which was pressed into the top plate of the rotary table.  I'm thimpfking that this should have a lower lip to stop the bearing from moving.  Does anyone have any advice?

2).  This part actualy has two parts in itself.  The gear and the screw that runs the gear need to be closely matched.  I thimpfk that the screw should be either 10 TPI or 8.  I'm leaning toward 8 but am very willing to listen to other advice.  Then the number to teeth on the gear need to be carefully cut to match the screw.  Having kept up with other people's builds, I'm thimpfking that 90 teeth schould be cut.  My problem (one of many) is that I'm sure there is an exact formulation for the size of the two parts, that is, the screw and the gear.  I'm thimpfking that if I call the gear radius to the middle of the tooth, where the average force is applied, I'll call that R; and the radius of the screw, again to the middle of the screw thread where the average force is and call that r, then I should be able to eventually come up with an exact formulation for the sizes of the gear and the screw.  Anybody got advice?  Is this the wrong place to ask?  Is there a ban of home made small rotary tables in California?


----------



## Steamchick

I AM sure that has crossed wires with time? It is fairly well known that the Egyptians used condensing steam "atmospheric" engines to operate doors to the temples.... the real first motive steam engines! But the pyramids (according to my grand-father's studies) were geometrically aligned to certain stars so the souls of pharaohs could be transmitted back to the god's home... (Valhalla   in a modern distortion by the Vikings).
Any suggestion that the pyramids are ancient boilers misses the fact that the Welsh had not begun exporting good steam coal back then!
But they did have plenty of dried camel dung... the precursor of tobacco.
Have another puff... it is inspiring!
K2


----------



## Richard Hed

Steamchick said:


> I AM sure that has crossed wires with time? It is fairly well known that the Egyptians used condensing steam "atmospheric" engines to operate doors to the temples.... the real first motive steam engines! But the pyramids (according to my grand-father's studies) were geometrically aligned to certain stars so the souls of pharaohs could be transmitted back to the god's home... (Valhalla   in a modern distortion by the Vikings).
> Any suggestion that the pyramids are ancient boilers misses the fact that the Welsh had not begun exporting good steam coal back then!
> But they did have plenty of dried camel dung... the precursor of tobacco.
> Have another puff... it is inspiring!
> K2


Har har, that is good!  Have any ideas about the gear/screw problem?

PS.  I didn't know Newcastle was in Wales.


----------



## Steamchick

In the 70s I wore the gear, but in the 60s my Grandfather taught me to screw.... (On his watchmaker's lathe of course).
K2


----------



## ozzie46

Perfect example of living in a fallen world.
Ron


----------



## Steamchick

Richard Hed said:


> PS.  I didn't know Newcastle was in Wales.


Hi Richard, closer than you think?
Richard Trevethick (That forgotten Cornishman - the Steam Locomotive pioneer!)
Trevithick was immersed in mining and engineering from an early age. He was an early pioneer of steam-powered road and rail transport, and his most significant contributions were *the development of the first high-pressure steam engine and the first working railway steam locomotive.*[2] The world's first locomotive-hauled railway journey took place on 21 February 1804, when Trevithick's unnamed steam locomotive hauled a train along the tramway of the Penydarren Ironworks, in Merthyr Tydfil, *Wales*.[3][4]
(Incidentally, this was where the best Steam Coal was mined).

*"Pen-y-Darren" locomotive*



Trevithick's 1804 locomotive. This full-scale reconstruction is in the National Waterfront Museum, Swansea.
In 1802 Trevithick built one of his high-pressure steam engines to drive a hammer at the Pen-y-Darren Ironworks in Merthyr Tydfil, Mid Glamorgan. With the assistance of Rees Jones, an employee of the iron works and under the supervision of Samuel Homfray, the proprietor, he mounted the engine on wheels and turned it into a locomotive. In 1803, Trevithick sold the patents for his locomotives to Samuel Homfray.
Trevithick's steam locomotive could haul ten tons of iron along the Merthyr Tydfil Tramroad from Penydarren (51°45′03″N 3°22′33″W) to Abercynon (51°38′44″N 3°19′27″W), a distance of 9.75 miles (15.69 km). Amid great interest from the public, on 21 February 1804 it successfully carried 10 tons of iron, 5 wagons and 70 men the full distance in 4 hours and 5 minutes, an average speed of approximately 2.4 mph (3.9 km/h).[21]

*"Newcastle" locomotive*
Christopher Blackett, proprietor of the Wylam colliery near Newcastle, heard of the success in Wales and wrote to Trevithick asking for locomotive designs. These were sent to John Whitfield at Gateshead, Trevithick's agent, who in 1804 built what was probably the first locomotive to have flanged wheels.[26]
Ten years later: 1814, George Stephenson built about 16 locos for Newcastle mine  coal hauling, then a decade further on George and son Robert Stevenson built the first passenger hauling railway from Stockton to Darlington.  (I am a direct descendant of Robert Chicken who was a loco Engine-man (driver) on that line, following his father who worked for George at the Engine works in North Shields, having come from the next village to George, as an engine man at various coal pits at the same time as George... My Chicken family line ran along the same lines that Robert Stephenson built to London, then Swindon, and on to Liverpool and North Wales...
But while we remember the names of the great "Engines" that drove industry, there were thousands of "coal trucks and rails" that carried the loads behind them...
K2


----------



## maybach_man

just watched the video of Bidens 30 car convoy leaving COP26 and getting loaded onto 2 C5 Galaxy,s and support aircraft. and then him getting into Airforce 1 to fly back to the States, followed by 400 private jets carrying Bezos, Gates and co..... don't think i'm going to be worrying about the environment anytime soon.....


----------



## davidyat

*ozzie46, since you're a Bible thumper, something for you to think about. Take a seed and put it on a table. You can do anything to it except put water on it. Pretty much just sits there. Put water on it and it sprouts. Most people consider this to be life. Is it possible, water is God? According to your Bible, we are made in the image of God. We are about 80% WATER. You go on a long trip, you make sure your canteen is full of WATER. What's the first thing we are looking for on Mars, WATER. No water, no life. Make up your own mind.*


----------



## ozzie46

Will happen in Gods time not ours.

Oh and thanks for the Bible thumper compliment.


----------



## davidyat

*You're welcome. Ya gotta love living in the USA where you can believe whatever you want to.*


----------



## mcostello

As opposed to living elsewhere where You believe what You are told? Not that "They" are not trying to do that here.


----------



## skyline1

maybach_man said:


> just watched the video of Bidens 30 car convoy leaving COP26 and getting loaded onto 2 C5 Galaxy,s and support aircraft. and then him getting into Airforce 1 to fly back to the States, followed by 400 private jets carrying Bezos, Gates and co.....



Sounds about par for the course and after this vast expulsion of CO2 laden hot air, both metaphorically and it seems, quite literally, have we made any real progress on a problem which may be mainly beyond the control of mankind anyway.

Make your own minds up but personally I think very little. We have merely given rise to more like this bizarre California decision on small engines and  the U.Ks idea of banning the sale of new Diesel and Petrol cars entirely within 10 years.

"it'll never get off the ground" used to be the derisory expression, in a few years time nor will anything else !

O.K. Rant over I'm off to machine a drive shaft for a recycling shredder, something that might actually do some good in a tiny way, unlike Messrs, Johnson, Biden and Co

Best Regards Mark


----------



## Peter Twissell

Caution - politics ahead...

It is my opinion that while the majority of the world remains capitalist, we will never do what we need to do to limit the effects of our excessive consumption.
All the 'solutions' offered by our illustrious leaders involve more and more consumption, all of which makes profit, which is the single motive behind capitalism.
I don't pretend to know what sort of political/economic system we need in order to address our consumption addiction, but it doesn't take much to see that capitalism is not the answer.
Pete.


----------



## Ken I

See the following video of the great economist Milton Friedman – made in 1978 but is as valid today as it was then. His point is that we cannot predict the future – we have habitually failed to do so in the past and that the price / market relationship will sort things out as it has always done in the past. Market forces not political interventionism (and its handmaiden coercion) is the only way forward.



It is startlingly prescient – do watch it







Right now we have Western governments playing merry hell with the energy market - punitive taxes - denial of licensing - denial of funding - consistent promises to destroy such businesses as soon as possible. Whilst squandering trillions on weather dependent energy which is non-dispatchable and a nett-destabilizer of the grid.
They are hurling hand grenades into a jigsaw puzzle while they have no idea how it all fits together and even less idea on how to put it back together again.
But they will blame it all on global warming and therefore we are to blame - and will simply double down on their policy failures until the glaringly obvious begins to drive the average joe to the poorhouse and they vote for the sensible party (currently there aren't any but I presume they will emerge sooner rather than later.) The coming Northern Hemisphere winter is going to be very hard on the poor.
Regards, Ken


----------



## deverett

Steamchick said:


> But they did have plenty of dried camel dung... the precursor of tobacco.
> Have another puff... it is inspiring!
> K2



There used to be a cigarette manufacturer that had the picture of its product producer on the packet.

Dave
The Emerald Isle


----------



## Richard Hed

x


----------



## Gordon

The biggest problem in the US is that half of the public does not believe that climate change is even happening. That is premaritally a political problem and a media source problem. Also many of the objections are because no one solution is going to solve the problem. Gasoline powered cars were not practical until we developed refineries and delivery points. If we had not allowed those developments we would still all be driving horses. We need a variety of solutions. If I want to loose 30 pounds and by cutting out doughnuts only will make me loose 10 pounds that does not mean that I should not cut out doughnuts. Maybe I have to also cut soft drinks and potato chips and big macs.


----------



## maybach_man

Peter Twissell said:


> Caution - politics ahead...
> 
> It is my opinion that while the majority of the world remains capitalist, we will never do what we need to do to limit the effects of our excessive consumption.
> All the 'solutions' offered by our illustrious leaders involve more and more consumption, all of which makes profit, which is the single motive behind capitalism.
> I don't pretend to know what sort of political/economic system we need in order to address our consumption addiction, but it doesn't take much to see that capitalism is not the answer.
> Pete.


Interesting then, that most of the biggest polluters are communist, or dictatorships.......


----------



## Steamchick

deverett said:


> There used to be a cigarette manufacturer that had the picture of its product producer on the packet.
> Dave



Camel cigarettes?


----------



## Zeb

I found this rather amusing article from the BBC on flying a Cessna Slowtation (Citation to some hehe):
"If we were to consider the journey from Rome to Glasgow on a private jet - a journey that some of the G20 leaders made to get to COP 26 - that would take around two hours and 45 minutes, requiring 2,356 litres of jet fuel.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) says 2.52kg of carbon dioxide is emitted for every litre of aviation turbine fuel burned. Therefore this flight would produce 5.9 tonnes of CO2."

I think I burn about 4 gallons of fuel a year max for my mower, weed-wacker, and slowblower combined. That's around 34 kg a year (per EIA). For sixty years, I will have unleashed 2000kgs of CO2 from my small engines. The tree in my yard is very large, larger than average, so it's safe to say it averages to absorb 21kg of CO2 a year (first number that came up on Google-fu, whatever folks). I have several other trees. I would now like to virtue signal my carbon supremacy.


----------



## rpf

?


----------



## Peter Twissell

maybach_man said:


> Interesting then, that most of the biggest polluters are communist, or dictatorships.......


As I said, I don't pretend to know what the answer is.
I certainly don't think it's dictatorship or communism.
Pete.


----------



## Charles Lamont

At the risk of trying to take over the moderators' job - steady on, people. This is a model engine forum. Please read this:





						Heres the rules
					

Here's the rules  HMEM Basic Internet Forum Etiquette  1) Lurk before you leap. Browse though the forum and see what we are about. If you have a question search and see if the topic has come up before.  2 ) Post an introduction . Please post a thread in the welcome section Tell us about yourself...




					www.homemodelenginemachinist.com


----------



## CFLBob

Charles Lamont said:


> At the risk of trying to take over the moderators' job - steady on, people. This is a model engine forum. Please read this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heres the rules
> 
> 
> Here's the rules  HMEM Basic Internet Forum Etiquette  1) Lurk before you leap. Browse though the forum and see what we are about. If you have a question search and see if the topic has come up before.  2 ) Post an introduction . Please post a thread in the welcome section Tell us about yourself...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.homemodelenginemachinist.com



While this thread has taken some turns that have gone too far at times (IMO, of course), it's also relevant to a model engine forum.  

If small IC engines are outlawed, doesn't that outlaw our model IC engines, too?  I asked pages and pages ago, and the answer I got is that nobody knows.  Which means all it takes is for a neighbor or someone else to complain to the authorities who then arrest you and charge you with breaking that law.  Then either you pay some penalty and give up the hobby, or you put your life's savings into cases that wind their way through the courts until some decision comes down one way or the other.  I think it was a fictional cop in California (Dirty Harry) who said, "do you feel lucky?"


----------



## SmithDoor

CFLBob said:


> While this thread has taken some turns that have gone too far at times (IMO, of course), it's also relevant to a model engine forum.
> 
> If small IC engines are outlawed, doesn't that outlaw our model IC engines, too?  I asked pages and pages ago, and the answer I got is that nobody knows.  Which means all it takes is for a neighbor or someone else to complain to the authorities who then arrest you and charge you with breaking that law.  Then either you pay some penalty and give up the hobby, or you put your life's savings into cases that wind their way through the courts until some decision comes down one way or the other.  I think it was a fictional cop in California (Dirty Harry) who said, "do you feel lucky?"


This history of California smog laws.
The president that gave California the right to control the smog Laws is RR the twist most do not know.
This only history please keep history . 

Dave


----------



## Richard Carlstedt

Sorry Dave , but California had SMOG laws long before he was president
I know, I moved there and my PU truck could not comply
remember Air injectors ?
Rich


----------



## JLaning427

Yes, the Clean Air Act of 1963 and the 1955 Air Pollution Control Act both preceed Reagan's presidency by a fair bit.  And the EPA was created in 1970, under Reorganization Plan No 3 submitted to congress by Tricky Dick, also a fair bit before Ronnie's time in the oval office.  And Ronnie was Governor of CA, but that didn't start until Jan 2, 1967 and emissions controls for vehicles started for the 1966 model year (so Sept 1965).  Again before RR time.  However, Ronnie did sign the Mulford-Carrell Act, which created CARB during the time he was Governor.  So, he had a part in the current issue, but smog laws obviously started in CA before hand.


As for model engine applicability of the new SORE law (AB1346), the law will apply to engines produced on or after Jan 1 2024 or as soon as CARB determines is feasible, whichever is later.  And the law specifically prohibits engine exhaust and evaporative emissions of those engines.

What is not clear is exactly what language the CARB will draft in their regulations and what potential exclusions or exceptions may be included, to accommodate emergency generators (and hobbyist equipment although this is likely not on their radar).  There will certainly be restrictions on what you can buy new in the State marketplace.  Will those restrictions include purchased RC glow engines?  Likely, again unless an exception is granted.  How about home built stuff?  That may be tough to say, Unless you make it easy for the governing agency to determine when you built the engine.  If you sign and date it, or have a build blog showing it being constructed in 2025, then you might be subject to legal action, especially if you are annoying your neighbors.

James


----------



## Kasey

THEY COULD TRY BANNING CIGARTES ,PIPES AND CIGARS AS WELL!


----------



## timothysielbeck

What!?!?!?  And not get the tax revenue from them??? NEVER!!!


----------



## justisla

I have not read the entire thread - I have a life to live but would comment
With the development of such good electric motors, the loss of liquid fuelled models should not be so detrimental to our hobby. I was at the field yesterday when a member turned up, plugged in his battery & was flying within 6 minutes of arrival- We had joked about it & timed him.
In that time I was still unloading fuel, starter, cleaner, rags etc. & all the ancilliary bits  from my van. But somehow I much preferred my gas guzzler.

To digress from the thread I would rather the authorities would concentrate their minds on cleaning our rivers of chemicals, the rubbish dumped in them, that reaches the sea (one only has to see films of the clogged estuaries in places like Indonesia). This would cost far less. Would show immediate effect to the people, benefit nature, in particular the fish stocks ( less plastic in the ocean cannot be bad for us all) & would not saddle our young with huge debts due to decisions that WE made that ( in my mind at least) may not even be right. It would allow us to live in comfort. Future generations can deal with their situation & who is to say it will be worse than ours as technology developes. They will have far more difficult problems to overcome- One cannot rule out nuclear war, & that would waste everyones efforts. It is not in the media- at least in the UK- but it still poses a possibility.
Bear in mind that in my part of the world (the UK) the temperature was as high in Roman times as it is in the Mediterranean now. Climate change is cyclical & you cannot say that the Romans caused global warming in their reign. In the dark ages that followed the temperature plumeted. Do we thank the Huns that conquered Europe for that? I think not

So banning small engines is not really necessary. I do not know about the USA but here in the UK we cannot buy small 2 stroke engines, such as outboards, mowers etc. (does not affect our flying hobby engines). We can live with that as 4 stroke are very good, quiet & light. They are cleaner & quieter.
However, if the USA starts banning hobby engines it will follow that the UK will do the same- eventually- because that is what we always seem to do. That concerns me & that is why I want you hobbyists in the USA to kick back against such legislation if it ever came to fruition
If I have missed something & got it all wrong then, sorry, I will go away & cry in my beer


----------



## Ken I

justisla said:


> To digress from the thread I would rather the authorities would concentrate their minds on cleaning our rivers of chemicals, the rubbish dumped in them, that reaches the sea (one only has to see films of the clogged estuaries in places like Indonesia). This would cost far less. Would show immediate effect to the people, benefit nature


That is absolutely what clean air, rivers and nature is all about - I wholeheartedly agree.

My digression is that CO2 is not a pollutant - The EPA by sleight of its own hand declared CO2 to be within its purview - thus giving them self appointed power to act against it.
CO2 is the "gas of life" - the EPA can now act against anything it might perceive as an infraction.

That can lead anywhere and I recognize the thin end of a wedge when I see one.

Where do we go from here ? Lets look at a few suggestions :-

Banning all non-essential burning of fossil fuels - end all motor racing, power boating and air shows.

Since the "carbon footprint" of spectators to and from major sporting events is equally massive we should terminate attendance - mandatory watching on TV instead.

I didn't even make those up, I have seen them mooted - I have pages of such hare brained ideas on how to save the world which I won't bore you with here.

The EPA and CARB have overstepped their mandate - thankfully I don't live there and when it all ends in tears, it will be hard not to gloat.

You have created a bureaucratic monster that is going to inflict the flagellation you apparently so desire.

So yes it is relevant to our hobby when the law is an invitation to meddling busybodies to report their neighbor's for running their model engines.





Poster from the fabulous Red Dwarf episode "Back To Reality"

Regard - Ken


----------



## SmithDoor

California is trying redesign cows so do not produce pollution.

The electric cars are great till you need a new battery. Now you have a $40,000 object in front yard. But you are on feet again in the fresh air getting your new transportation system aka buss.

I think will know what everyone here would do , build a engine for object in front yard. On the road again. 
Now your wife is happy for your hobby as she drives to store in AC or heat  again.

Dave


----------



## lohring

Below is a quote from Ford's CEO Jim Farley to Ford employees:


> _"If Ford was a trillion-dollar company, our stock would be worth about $250 a share. Think about the value creation of Tesla right now. And they have resources, smart people, the Model 3 is now the bestselling vehicle in Europe. Not electric. Flat out. It was the bestselling vehicle in the UK. Most months, it’s the bestselling vehicle in California. Not just electric, but overall. If we’re going to succeed, we can’t ignore this competition anymore._
> 
> _"Look at Tesla, why are they doing what they're doing and what can we learn from them. First, they have a direct model ... There’s no one in between. They make it so easy. Three or four clicks configuring the vehicle with not a lot of complexity to delivering it to the customer. Simple, non-negotiated pricing. A large reservation system as well as remote service._
> 
> _"Second, Tesla maximizes use of electrons in the vehicle. No one does it better than they do. Their customers pay less for a better battery..."_
> 
> _"Third, the product itself is highly differentiated from the rest of the ICE field and complexity is tiny, compared to OEMs."_


That's why you are going to switch to electric power; not because it's green but because it's better.

Lohring Miller


----------



## CFLBob

lohring said:


> That's why you are going to switch to electric power; not because it's green but because it's better.
> 
> Lohring Miller



The fact that a brand is selling well is an indication that the brand is popular, not that what it's selling is the best solution to every problem.  That could be due to any number of reasons, the simplest being simply that it's trendy.  

When I was a new grad engineer, an old graybeard told me, "Engineering is the art of compromise.  There is no one perfect solution for every situation.  If there was, nobody would pay an engineer to design the solution."  Examples are all around us.  At the moment, there are too many situations in which electric cars aren't better and the barriers to exclusive use of electric cars are too high (quadrupling the worldwide power grid, for example).  

A quote from engineering trade magazine Design News, May of '17.

"No one was ever more forthright about this matter than Sergio Marchionne, the refreshingly honest chief executive of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. Talking about his company’s all-electric Fiat 500e in 2014,  he said , “I hope you don’t buy it because every time I sell one it costs me $14,000.” "

We tend to buy our cars for the expected uses even if the hardest use isn't very often.  People expect to be able to get in a car and drive across the country - or a shorter trip of just a couple of days - even if it's once a year or every other year.  This comes "for free" with a gasoline powered internal combustion engine.  Gasoline or diesel are tremendously better at energy storage than batteries.  While battery makers desperately try to figure out how to reach a specific energy of 450 Wh/kg (Watt*hours per kilogram), gasoline already offers 12,000 Wh/kg.


----------



## Gordon

What was the goal of the California law? Reduce smog and pollution or reduce greenhouse gasses? This discussion seems to treat them both as equal. They are two different problems with different solutions.


----------



## Zeb

In the unlikely, but plausible event which takes out just a handful of chip makers along with our strained electric grids, many will be clamoring for help. All those engineers suffering from tinkeritis on our forums will be replaced with young graduates who don't know how to use a hand file.
There is little return on investment for banning the small engine hobby, mainly as a result of unintended consequences (surprise). I think though that renewed interest in induction would be great. Coil winding, wax/enamel vacuum processes, casting stators, are all very interesting and much a part of our hobby. I'd love to get my hands on a Tesla motor, strip it of its bloatware, and make an analog diesel-electric F7 that I can ride on at a local club. hehe


----------



## Richard Hed

Every solution comes with side effects, just like the drugs you oldsters have to buy.  Even so, there are actually MANY solutions that seemingly have no relation to the problem.  Two problems that would seem to be a side issue are the shi^^y educations our children are getting and the overharvest of the salmon on the Pacific.  The crappy educations are due to the international banksters wanting our children for factory workers--that is, they do no want any upstarts to become trillionaires like themselves and have any control on world events which would cut into their profits.  (BTW, that is why Kennedy was killt dead--he began to print USA notes--that is United States paper money over federal reserve notes which are a private bank note which wold have cut the feds profits by 100s of billions).  That is why kids are now taught to 'socialize' not know where S. Africa or S. America is.  Kids coming out of schools now cannot do basic arithmetic, can't form a coherent idea, but they seem to accept everyone who is 'different'.

That is certainly an oversimplification, it would take a book to explain it in detail.

Ever since the small tree harvesting companies in the 1880's started raping our left coast forests, the salmon have started dwindling.  When the large tree harvesting companies took over the rape, the salmon dropped precipitously.  There is not necessarily a correlation, hoever, I'm telling you that it is at least half the problem--the other being overharvest of the salmon.    The rape of the forests causes several problems:  1) flooding of mud from the hills into the rivers.  The mud comes because the forests have no roots to hold the soil.  And mud smothers the eggs.  2.) the shade trees on the edges of the rivers have been cut or lost in some other way.   The shade is necessary to keep the salmon eggs cool enough.  3.)  when floating the logs back in the old days was legal, that method filled the rivers with tree bark which has natural poisons in it (natural insecticides).  This killt the eggs and smolt.  4).  Log jams destroy egg laying areas.

Naturally, the large tree harvesting companies take no responsibility for this, -- it 'isn't" Weyerhauser's fault, nor Georgia Pacific, nor Simpson, nor any other large corporation's fault--according to THEM!  However, in reality, they know perfectly well that they have a heavy hand in this.  Weyerhauser, in the 1960's killed the NW buzzards by using insecticides in their forests which made the buzzards sick and they died.  (My dad workt in the forests and one day he brought a buzzard home--we tried to feed it but it would not eat and after a few days, it died.  It was 40 years before I learned what happened.)  Truthfully, no one seemed to notice that the buzzards disappeared.

So, this comes along with the shi^^y educations our children get.  If you were to read one of John Taylor Gatto's books on this subject, I'm sure hyou would end up sharpening hyour guns, and loading your pitchforks.  Gatto explains very credibly how the new schools work (or do not work), in that they are made to train factory workers, not people who form their own small businesses, nor people who know how to thimpfk for themselves.  I mean really, have you ever seen a highschool which teaches students how to start a business?!  NAUGHT!  Gatto explains carefully that students are stopped from learning how to DO THINGS with their hands and that all the learning is herded toward 'reading' type of education.  (At one time, the educational theory was to even remove the windows in the school rooms as the outside world was a distraction--this theory WILDLY backfired.  )

Lastly, we can all see how this most likely has at least SOME relationship to pollutions and CO2 buildup.  There is a way to help, at least make an experiment, to bring back the over harvested salmon and many other Pacific fish.  The Pacific Ocean is a HUGE salten lake that is largely unable to produce anything at all.  the major portion of the Ocean is empty--and I mean empty of fish, plankton, anything other that salty water.  The reason is simply that there is no fertilizing agents in the ocean.  Plankton need nitrogen based fertilizers and one of th eother fertilizers (phosphorus or the other 'p'word--can't thimpfk of it now).  We could try at test to simply spray fertilizer in a big 100 mile long 'X' along with some seed plankton to see what happens.  If it is successful, it will provide fish food and use up CO2.  If it is successful, the solution then would be to stir up some ocean sediments to the surface.  The most productive section of the oceans is in the Northern hemisphere where the tides stir the bottom continuously.

All this is IMNSHO.  We would have to see wha tthe side effects of fertilizing the Pacific would be.  I'm sure there would be some problem created.  It also would hopefully mitigate some of the 'pollution' problem.  OK OK, time for me to pollute--pollute the air and pollute my own lungs--cigarette time.  Anybody object to that?

PS, I forgot to mention that we send the school kids out to repair the damage caused by other people, that is, plant trees on the river sides, help to get rid of the log jams, create better spawning areas, and get fertilized eggs from the hatcheries and plant them in efvery stream, estuary, river and back yard pond.  THAT is a better education than the crap they are recieving now.  they can still read a book too.


----------



## Richard Hed

Zeb said:


> In the unlikely, but plausible event which takes out just a handful of chip makers along with our strained electric grids, many will be clamoring for help. All those engineers suffering from tinkeritis on our forums will be replaced with young graduates who don't know how to use a hand file.
> There is little return on investment for banning the small engine hobby, mainly as a result of unintended consequences (surprise). I think though that renewed interest in induction would be great. Coil winding, wax/enamel vacuum processes, casting stators, are all very interesting and much a part of our hobby. I'd love to get my hands on a Tesla motor, strip it of its bloatware, and make an analog diesel-electric F7 that I can ride on at a local club. hehe


When the NWO gets it's way, you oldsters will simply be killt off.  Some peeps thimpfk that this covid, HIV, the other deadly African virus' are all practice for the killing of the world (see about the so called Georgia Guide Stones).

Even tho' I do not consider those peeps on this forum as 'useless eaters', a term the nwo uses, and I understand why, I know such people, they really are useless and worthless--they produce nothing but are capable of at least picking up garbage or mowing lawns, but they won't as society picks up their tab and they don't need to do anything.  Even so, the nwo is very likely to believe that anyone without a job, even tho' they have their pensions from work, are useless eaters and are to be eliminated as a drag on all the resources.  Once robots are able to pick fruit, build houses, and do all the other labor, you and I will no longer be needed.  This is NOT science fiction.


----------



## djswain1

In the UK & EU emissions for this sort of engine  (NRNM) Non Road Mobile Machinery are regulated by EU Type approval EU 2016/1628 (now Stage V).
Since BREXIT this has been a retained regulation until 01/01/2022 at the earliest.
These regulations apply only to items "placed on the market" I.e. sold for commercial gain. It does not affect us hobbiests. I would be surprised if the situation was not simlar with CARB and EPA.


----------



## Henry K

Politicians write laws like this one. They are mostly lawyers and they rely on experts in various fields to generate the specifics of what has to be done to accomplish their general plan. They cannot be experts in all fields. They cannot design new bridges, inspect old bridges, determine who can be a licensed engineer, MD, plumber, electrician, etc. They wisely pass the details to experts in various fields to accomplish the goal of the law without creating bigger problems. They also have to balance the resources of the state with the benefits to its society. People will be safer if a maned fire truck is parked in front of everyone's home - cost considerations say this is ridiculous. Any enforcement actions have to be balanced by the reasonably available resources and benefits to the state. Nobody will arrest you for running your 10cc engine 20 minutes a year -that is ridiculous and the politicians and CARB people know this. The law might be 10 pages, the CARB regulations on this will probably be in excess of 1,000 pages.
 Remember the song, "Don't worry - be Happy" - make chips.


----------



## Richard Hed

Henry K said:


> Politicians write laws like this one. They are mostly lawyers and they rely on experts in various fields to generate the specifics of what has to be done to accomplish their general plan. They cannot be experts in all fields. They cannot design new bridges, inspect old bridges, determine who can be a licensed engineer, MD, plumber, electrician, etc. They wisely pass the details to experts in various fields to accomplish the goal of the law without creating bigger problems. They also have to balance the resources of the state with the benefits to its society. People will be safer if a maned fire truck is parked in front of everyone's home - cost considerations say this is ridiculous. Any enforcement actions have to be balanced by the reasonably available resources and benefits to the state. Nobody will arrest you for running your 10cc engine 20 minutes a year -that is ridiculous and the politicians and CARB people know this. The law might be 10 pages, the CARB regulations on this will probably be in excess of 1,000 pages.
> Remember the song, "Don't worry - be Happy" - make chips.


about 5 years ago congress passed a law with 9000 pages.  Believe me that law was filled with gobbledy gook in order so that you and I could not know what it qwas about, but no doubt giving pork to specific corporations.  A reporter asked nancy pelosi what was in the bill before it was passed.  Her reply was, "We won't know untill it is passed".  Sorry ladies, but that creature must be an alien reptar from outer space.


----------



## SmithDoor

I agree
In California is producing electricity from gas and oil.

What difference of using fuel in car or making electricity from fuel  and then charging a car.

Dave



lohring said:


> Below is a quote from Ford's CEO Jim Farley to Ford employees:
> 
> That's why you are going to switch to electric power; not because it's green but because it's better.
> 
> Lohring Miller


----------



## Richard Hed

vederstein said:


> Will steam engines now make a come back?


Absolutely.  Just thimpfk, a steam generator can heat your drinking and hot water needs, cook your food, heat your house and power your electric needs.  If done correctly, there is virtually no pollution from the system.  Now, do you thimpfk for one moment that the power companies are going to allow such systems?  NOt if they can help it.  However, necessity is necessity is the muther of invention.


----------



## Richard Hed

SmithDoor said:


> I agree
> In California is producing electricity from gas and oil.
> 
> What difference of using fuel in car or making electricity from fuel  and then charging a car.
> 
> Dave


Dave,
 a whole lot of Califonia's electricity comes from the Soviet of Washington.  We have excess production which we sell all over the west.  Oddly, these are PUDs.  You would thimpfk WE would be getting really good electric prices, but we are not.  The PUDs are OWNED by the local publics.


----------



## SmithDoor

Steam from the sun is great.
Each square yard will produce about 750 watts or 2,500 BTU'S.

I can more in the future. 

Dave 




Richard Hed said:


> Absolutely.  Just thimpfk, a steam generator can heat your drinking and hot water needs, cook your food, heat your house and power your electric needs.  If done correctly, there is virtually no pollution from the system.  Now, do you thimpfk for one moment that the power companies are going to allow such systems?  NOt if they can help it.  However, necessity is necessity is the muther of invention.


----------



## Richard Hed

SmithDoor said:


> California is trying redesign cows so do not produce pollution.
> 
> The electric cars are great till you need a new battery. Now you have a $40,000 object in front yard. But you are on feet again in the fresh air getting your new transportation system aka buss.
> 
> I think will know what everyone here would do , build a engine for object in front yard. On the road again.
> Now your wife is happy for your hobby as she drives to store in AC or heat  again.
> 
> Dave


California should pass a law requiring farm animals to wear clothes.  and once that is in place, they can require all the wild animals to wear at least pajamas.  Don't ou agree?


----------



## Ken I

Henry K said:


> They also have to balance the resources of the state with the benefits to its society. People will be safer if a maned fire truck is parked in front of everyone's home - cost considerations say this is ridiculous.



As Shakespeare said: "Therein lies the Rub!"

When last did you see an alarmist even attempt to quantify the benefits of Carbon ? (Answer: They almost never do!)

*The Social Cost Of Carbon*

We have various think tanks of Thermogeddonists calculating the “social cost of carbon dioxide” and that this should be the basis of various forms of mooted carbon taxes or cap and trade deals.

All of this is nonsense economics since they only consider the costs of CO2 but never the benefits.

So a cost benefit analysis that ignores the benefits is clearly arrant nonsense.

_“Mitigation strategies that are inexpensive enough to be affordable will be ineffective; strategies that are expensive enough to be effective will be unaffordable.”_ Lord Lionel Monkton of Brenchley

The Social Benefit Of Carbon

Which shows the benefits can be conservatively estimated at U$4000 per tonne or if you are stupid enough to go for energy impoverishment of the planet as a solution to a non-existent problem you will destroy wealth to the tune of U$3960 for each tonne of carbon “saved”. (Based on the UN calculated “Social Cost of Carbon” as U$40 per tonne.)

And

Where Have All The Disasters Gone?

Commentary on another estimate of U$68 per tonne for the social cost of carbon.

Without going into the calculations that would amount to U$98 Trillion dollars in costs – based on our consumption of fossil fuels since 1950.

But if you add all the recorded climate catastrophes together (for the same period) with their costs as listed in Wikipedia,
then you get a total of on U$2 Trillion ?

As a crude approximation let us assume all the smaller catastrophes add up to as much again and additionally make a gross assumption that CO2 was “responsible” for as much as 10% of this, then we get a social cost of carbon of only U$0.28c per tonne.

Once again showing how out of whack alarmist calculations are with reality. If not outright lying it is at least over exaggerated to the point of falsehood

Even the IPCC reports calculate that the “do nothing” scenario will wipe out 2% of GDP by 2070 – but fails to reconcile that against other UN agencies calculating we will all be 365% richer by then.

You would not have to do much damage to the economy to wipe out “all” you have saved – and in all likelihood, do very much worse.

As I point out frequently this is not just economic suicide – people will die in very large numbers if we continue down this lunatic pathway.

William Nordhaus (Yale) co-recipient of the 2018 Nobel prize for economics – for his work on the societal cost of carbon – he recommends a carbon tax to deal with (his perceived) market failure to combat climate change – but in spite of this comes to the conclusion that the IPCC recommendations will be far more costly than the “do nothing” scenario – and somewhat sheepishly admitted that even under the “do nothing” scenario there would be nett benefits up to 4°C – which is where his “break even point” occurs.

William Nordhaus versus the United Nations on Climate Change Economics - Econlib

However there are other studies which suggest that carbon is a nett benefit rather than a cost and therefore the “social cost of carbon” is in fact a boon to society.

On Externalities, Integrated Assessment Models, and UK climate policies

Social Cost of Carbon

Since 4°C is at the upper end of the unlikely high end scenarios of the IPCC the only conclusion I can come to is that the “do nothing” scenario is the best option.

The correct response to a non-problem is to do nothing in any case.

_”Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught falsehoods in school. And the person that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool”._ ~ Plato.

_“We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth. We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, scorn, and the like, towards those who disagree with us.”_– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924).

_“Politics is the art of Authority without Merit.” _— PJ O’Rourke

Regards, Ken


----------



## GrahamJTaylor49

Ken I said:


> That is absolutely what clean air, rivers and nature is all about - I wholeheartedly agree.
> 
> My digression is that CO2 is not a pollutant - The EPA by sleight of its own hand declared CO2 to be within its purview - thus giving them self appointed power to act against it.
> CO2 is the "gas of life" - the EPA can now act against anything it might perceive as an infraction.
> 
> That can lead anywhere and I recognize the thin end of wedge when I see one.
> 
> Where do we go from here ? Lets look at a few suggestions :-
> 
> Banning all non-essential burning of fossil fuels - end all motor racing, power boating and air shows.
> 
> Since the "carbon footprint" of spectators to and from major sporting events is equally massive we should terminate attendance - mandatory watching on TV instead.
> 
> I didn't even make those up, I have seen them mooted - I have pages of such hare brained ideas on how to save the world which I won't bore you with here.
> 
> The EPA and CARB have overstepped their mandate - thankfully I don't live there and when it all ends in tears, it will be hard not to gloat.
> 
> You have created a bureaucratic monster that is going to inflict the flagellation you apparently so desire.
> 
> So yes it is relevant to our hobby when the law is an invitation to meddling busybodies to report their neighbor's for running their model engines.
> View attachment 130724
> 
> Poster from the fabulous Red Dwarf episode "Back To The Reality"
> 
> Regard - Ken


Sounds a bit like "1984". George Orwell.


----------



## Ken I

George Orwell is often quoted with respect to this subject:-

_Failing scientific evidence to support their case, advocates of the dangerous manmade global warming hypothesis have turned to the “Precautionary Principle,” which argues that uncertainty—ignorance about the situation—requires immediate action. That is a political principle, not a scientific principle, and the appropriate citation for it is George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four._

or Canada’s Orwellian sounding “Climate Change Ministry” has produced reports (for policy makers) with 100 years of past climate data omitted and replaced with modelled historic data (which they freely admit).

Specifically this was done to eliminate all temperatures that were higher than current maxima – they are lying their donkeys off!

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act !" - George Orwell

Regards, Ken


----------



## ajoeiam

lohring said:


> Below is a quote from Ford's CEO Jim Farley to Ford employees:
> 
> That's why you are going to switch to electric power; not because it's green but because it's better.
> 
> Lohring Miller




Right now new vehicles in general are only good an siphoning dollars from my pocket for UNNEEDED and UNWANTED complexities. 
Rather than spending a pile of $$$$ on infotainment - - - a way to link a stupid phone would suffice for one. 
I actually prefer a manual transmission and due to knowledge experience and skill there are a lot of times when I can better any automatic transmission I've ever run into. (But then I'm not an average driver! There are only a small number of vehicles that I'm not licensed to operate.) 
I had occasion to rent a vehicle for a trip - - - - I was wishing I could shut off the modern 'assists' within an hour or driving. Even the parking assist was a pain. 
When I back into a parking stall I want my rear tires to hit the curb - - - - nope had to be away from the curb - - - dunno why - - - except some idiot software team thinks that's good parking - - - - I won't go on but - -  better - - - - I'd be quite happy to run vehicles from the 80s without all the 'better' hung onto them always costing more and delivering little at best!


----------



## ajoeiam

Ken I said:


> George Orwell is often quoted with respect to this subject:-
> 
> _Failing scientific evidence to support their case, advocates of the dangerous manmade global warming hypothesis have turned to the “Precautionary Principle,” which argues that uncertainty—ignorance about the situation—requires immediate action. That is a political principle, not a scientific principle, and the appropriate citation for it is George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four._
> 
> or Canada’s Orwellian sounding “Climate Change Ministry” has produced reports (for policy makers) with 100 years of past climate data omitted and replaced with modelled historic data (which they freely admit).
> 
> Specifically this was done to eliminate all temperatures that were higher than current maxima – they are lying their donkeys off!
> 
> "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act !" - George Orwell
> 
> Regards, Ken




Messieurs Orwell and Huxley were rather prescient it would seem.


----------



## RM-MN

SmithDoor said:


> I agree
> In California is producing electricity from gas and oil.
> 
> What difference of using fuel in car or making electricity from fuel  and then charging a car.
> 
> Dave


Using fuel in a car has varying efficiencies.  Best efficiency come from a wide open throttle but most cars have so much excess horsepower that that condition rarely applies.  On the other hand, a power station is run to be the most efficient it can as that maximizes the profit.  A car going down the road has only a catalytic converter to more completely burn the fuel while a power station has all kinds of filters to remove the pollutants from the exhaust stream.  That's why there is a difference.


----------



## RM-MN

ajoeiam said:


> Right now new vehicles in general are only good an siphoning dollars from my pocket for UNNEEDED and UNWANTED complexities.
> Rather than spending a pile of $$$$ on infotainment - - - a way to link a stupid phone would suffice for one.
> I actually prefer a manual transmission and due to knowledge experience and skill there are a lot of times when I can better any automatic transmission I've ever run into. (But then I'm not an average driver! There are only a small number of vehicles that I'm not licensed to operate.)
> I had occasion to rent a vehicle for a trip - - - - I was wishing I could shut off the modern 'assists' within an hour or driving. Even the parking assist was a pain.
> When I back into a parking stall I want my rear tires to hit the curb - - - - nope had to be away from the curb - - - dunno why - - - except some idiot software team thinks that's good parking - - - - I won't go on but - -  better - - - - I'd be quite happy to run vehicles from the 80s without all the 'better' hung onto them always costing more and delivering little at best!


I agree that new vehicle have unneeded complexities and I don't need a cell phone connected to the car but along with that complexity come things like anti-knock sensors to increase the engine efficiency, fuel injection that give the precise amount of fuel for combustion, and minor things like tire pressure sensors that notify you of under-inflation that takes extra fuel.


----------



## SmithDoor

They want to put gas mask on there butts.
This state that has blackouts due to lack of power wanting everyone to use batteries. That will fix the problem. 

I am glad I can build engines even they run on 200 prof 

Dave 



Richard Hed said:


> California should pass a law requiring farm animals to wear clothes.  and once that is in place, they can require all the wild animals to wear at least pajamas.  Don't ou agree?


----------



## SmithDoor

Most use natural gas with a low cost cost catalytic converter. 

Other that solar/geothermal/wind/wave everything has pollution.

We just need to build a solar engine. This was done in 1900 but low cost oil from  USA  made so could have electricity all night too.

Dave 



RM-MN said:


> Using fuel in a car has varying efficiencies.  Best efficiency come from a wide open throttle but most cars have so much excess horsepower that that condition rarely applies.  On the other hand, a power station is run to be the most efficient it can as that maximizes the profit.  A car going down the road has only a catalytic converter to more completely burn the fuel while a power station has all kinds of filters to remove the pollutants from the exhaust stream.  That's why there is a difference.


----------



## lohring

OK, I give up.  All you electric car haters need this Tesla.  It made it to SEMA and attracted an interesting crowd.

Lohring Miller


----------



## SmithDoor

I am pro electric car by right now they still making adjustments. 
It may take 20 years to get all bugs out and filling stations aka place to charge the battery. 

Dave 



lohring said:


> OK, I give up.  All you electric car haters need this Tesla.  It made it to SEMA and attracted an interesting crowd.
> 
> Lohring Miller


----------



## ajoeiam

RM-MN said:


> I agree that new vehicle have unneeded complexities and I don't need a cell phone connected to the car but along with that complexity come things like anti-knock sensors to increase the engine efficiency, fuel injection that give the precise amount of fuel for combustion, and minor things like tire pressure sensors that notify you of under-inflation that takes extra fuel.


Hmmmmmmmmmmmm - - - - and why is it that in 1980 I could buy a vehicle where I could get 63+ mpg (imp) over the life of the vehicle and today I dunno if I can find one that gets anything over 50 - - - - - this is improvement (imo that 1980 vehicle drove and rode very similarly to the present circa 50 mpg present version)?
If one learns how to use one's eyeballs anything more than 10% variation in inflation is more than somewhat visible. 
Contrary to what the experts say I can get perhaps even closer on tires rated to be inflated at 100 psi. 

Any other 'improvements' you would like to proffer?


----------



## ajoeiam

SmithDoor said:


> Most use natural gas with a low cost cost catalytic converter.
> 
> Other that solar/geothermal/wind/wave everything has pollution.
> 
> We just need to build a solar engine. This was done in 1900 but low cost oil from  USA  made so could have electricity all night too.
> 
> Dave



Hmmmmmmmm - - - - there is even pollution in the manufacture of the solar panels (and other components), geothermal, wind and wave systems. 
Even dying creates pollution!


----------



## CFLBob

SmithDoor said:


> Other that solar/geothermal/wind/wave everything has pollution.



Solar and wind in particular have horrible pollution, it's just that most of it is where you don't see it - at the factories and in the waste stream.  Ever seen what gets done to wind turbine blades when they wear out?  There's no known, good way to recycle fiberglass reinforced plastics.  I've seen Denmark repurpose them for bicycle shelters, but mostly they just go into the landfill.  With solar, the process to make the silicon wafers is the issue.  I'm not as familiar with geothermal and wave power.

How about how wind and solar power kill birds and wildlife in huge numbers?  I've seen the downstream effects of wind turbine farms on weather radars.  It's not small.  After all, if the wind turbines were 100% effective at taking energy from the wind, there would be no wind left after them and it would radically change the weather.  Thankfully, 100% effectiveness just isn't going to happen, but I don't know that they aren't modifying weather now.

I think there are no exceptions to your statement that everything pollutes to some degree.   The vast majority of the time, "pollution" means, "a resource in the wrong place."  Back in the 1970s, detergents with phosphates were banned because of water pollution.  Phosphates are fertilizers (the P in NPK fertilizers) that people pay good money for.  Because sewage systems didn't get it out of waste water, it was fertilizing rivers and canals, causing overgrowth of plants.  CO2 is plant food.


----------



## vederstein

The U.S. Clean Air Act was enacted into law in 1970.  It's been 51 years under this law.

The issue now is that the law has done what it was meant to do.  All the low hanging fruit is gone.  No more leaded paint.  No more leaded gas.  No more casual dumping. etc.

But bureaucracies never die.  They never ever die.  They have to find new items to regulate to continue their existence.

So now we have carbon emissions.  Carbon dioxide and water are the byproducts of perfect combustion.  To label CO2 as a pollutant is asinine.  It's what you want when burning something.

I'm still at the same point.  Let the market dictate what technologies we adopt and when we adopt them.  People don't want to be told what to do.  There will always be smoother transition when an individual chooses to make the change.

...VEd.


----------



## davidyat

God, I love my 1967 VW. I can actually work on it. WHAT, you’re saying in the future I can’t drive it in California?


----------



## Ken I

davidyat said:


> God, I love my 1967 VW. I can actually work on it. WHAT, you’re saying in the future I can’t drive it in California?


I doubt you can license it there now - it will fail the annual emissions test (It might be exempt on account of it's pre-CAT age - but I doubt it).
As a visitor you might fail a spot check and be removed from the road.
You can probably get an After Market (AM) CAT replacement which has so little catalyst that it will only "work" for a few hours - but long enough to pass your annual emissions test.
I worked in the CAT industry (and to some extent still do - they are now customers) one of the things that puzzled us was how After Market units sold for less than "our" catalyst content.
The scam works like this - when your CAT dies after say 10 years - you fail your annual test - so you fit a U$4000 Original Equipment (OE) system.
Cool - but unfortunately your now old engine is pushing out more unburned fuel and lube oil smoke than a new vehicle and will poison your CAT within the year.
So you fail your next test anyways.
Solution buy a U$400 system every year - it will last long enough to drive to the test centre and get your clean air certificate. Just hope you don't get pulled up in a spot check tomorrow.
Regards, Ken


----------



## SmithDoor

davidyat said:


> God, I love my 1967 VW. I can actually work on it. WHAT, you’re saying in the future I can’t drive it in California?View attachment 130745


Just what we need a car built before 1975. No smog check and a classic  

Dave


----------



## mfrick

So I have only one question,  Where are we going to get all the Electracy to charge all the batterie powered equipment and cars since the move is on to dismantle power plants and tear down dams.

Mike


----------



## timothysielbeck

SmithDoor said:


> Just what we need a car built before 1975. No smog check and a classic
> 
> Dave


'78 Honda Accords would work, too.  It was the last make/model that had no requirement for any anti-pollution stuff on the engine.  Wish I still had one.


----------



## davidyat

*Now everyone knows why I got out of that God forsaken piece of $hit state.*


----------



## MRA

To give a little UK perspective - we are currently legislating against older (pre 2016) diesels in cities, owing to concerns about particulate pollution.  I understand that, but it's a shame, because the kind of small diesels we were getting from 2000-ish onwards are capable of really remarkable mpg, and hence low CO2.  By driving like a loony - which I mean 55mph for 200 miles down to see my mum, rolling down all the hills, pootling along behind slow artics - the best I have done (with 4 of us in the car and a little luggage) is 95 mpg (UK) - it's a 3 cyl VW 1.4 TDi.  That's not much less than what I used to get out of a 125 motorbike, albeit I was 17 and nailing it.  I changed a wheel bearing on the car once - they come in a (fairly cheap - about 30 quid) package already in the cast-iron hub with an abs sensor.  No more opposed taper-rollers - I was frustrated by this at the time, but they don't half roll off-power for a long time with very small losses.


----------



## GreenTwin

Richard Hed said:


> California should pass a law requiring farm animals to wear clothes.  and once that is in place, they can require all the wild animals to wear at least pajamas.  Don't ou agree?


Well yes, that would be a good idea, but they would never be able to agree as to what clothing would be non-offensive to someone/something else.
In an era where everything apparently offends someone, and any activity triggers supposedly more global warming, then it would never get figured out.
And then throw PETA into the mix, and I would pay good money to see the fights it would cause (if someone made a video of it).
Oh the possibilities........LOL.
.


----------



## SmithDoor

GreenTwin said:


> Well yes, that would be a good idea, but they would never be able to agree as to what clothing would be non-offensive to someone/something else.
> In an era where everything apparently offends someone, and any activity triggers supposedly more global warming, then it would never get figured out.
> And then throw PETA into the mix, and I would pay good money to see the fights it would cause (if someone made a video of it).
> Oh the possibilities........LOL.
> .


Lets see PETA drive car or fly holding to there standards.
PETA has good points but they take there points  to far for me.
 I like give the cows a job.

Dave


----------



## lohring

This is my definition of better.  This is a real all American car with the best performance in the world that still gets the equivalent of more than 100 mpg.  

Lohring Miller


----------



## GreenTwin

This is my dream car, and if I live long enough, I will make one of these, but perhaps powered with a Frisco Standard style engine.
There is something very visually appealing about this car.


----------



## GreenTwin

davidyat said:


> God, I love my 1967 VW. I can actually work on it. WHAT, you’re saying in the future I can’t drive it in California?View attachment 130745


That was a great year for the VW, and the best year in my opinion.
The Super Beetle was not an improvement on this year.
I had one of those, but had to let it go.
I could work on all of it, which is the reason I had it.
There were no electronics to go bad and stop the car from running.

.


----------



## Steamchick

I know German cars have a lot of fans, particularly the super expensive cars. But having worked 30 odd years in car manufacturing, German production isn't always the most reliable. But VW advertising saying it is "the most reliable thing you'll ever own" is typical advertising of "selected (limited) truth".  J D Powers surveys always rate Asian manufacturers  much higher, and when I have asked random "breakdown mechanics", I hear much the same comments. American cars are now becoming very good all around, but until the 90s were pretty poor on global standards, but excellent for their market. I'll not say who I think are "best", as the judgement criteria vary from person to person.
Enjoy what you like!
K2


----------



## ajoeiam

GreenTwin said:


> This is my dream car, and if I live long enough, I will make one of these, but perhaps powered with a Frisco Standard style engine.
> There is something very visually appealing about this car.




I like the car - - -just - - - - when its real cold and the snow is blowing here - - - - I think the wife would want something different.

Dunno if I'd want to travel any serious distance either. 
(Not that long ago we traveled some well over 3000 km (read 2000 miles) in 4 days - - - wouldn't even think of trying that on this girl!!)


----------



## KellisRJ

vederstein said:


> Let the market dictate what technologies we adopt and when we adopt them.
> ...VEd.


My experience is that many people in the market act like wolves and will do anything they can get away with. Don't trust them and and don't believe they can simply be wished into not cheating every chance they get. Too many believe "If I can think up a way to make money, it's ethical." Why do I believe this? Watch how most people drive. Stop signs don't matter, "Avoid crossing" white lines don't matter, turn signals are for others. Too many in business have zero morality. There's a down side to everything. But trust them? Nope.


----------



## Ken I

And that's why we have "wolves" selling wind and solar unscrupulously to customers, promising them "they'll never pay for electricity again".
A marketplace needs equitable rules that apply to everyone that's the role of politicians acting on behalf of the electorate.
It's not the role of politics to tell you what to buy and what not to buy or when and how. You have every right to be circumspect but you do want to have free choice.
“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.”
P. J. O’Rourke

Regards, Ken


----------



## SmithDoor

The odds are this will be in court 
I have a generator and I rebuild the generator and engine. 

Dave 



Ken I said:


> And that's why we have "wolves" selling wind and solar unscrupulously to customers, promising them "they'll never pay for electricity again".
> A marketplace needs equitable rules that apply to everyone that's the role of politicians acting on behalf of the electorate.
> It's not the role of politics to tell you what to buy and what not to buy.
> “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.”
> P. J. O’Rourke
> 
> Regards, Ken


----------



## JLaning427

KellisRJ said:


> My experience is that many people in the market act like wolves and will do anything they can get away with. Don't trust them and and don't believe they can simply be wished into not cheating every chance they get. Too many believe "If I can think up a way to make money, it's ethical." Why do I believe this? Watch how most people drive. Stop signs don't matter, "Avoid crossing" white lines don't matter, turn signals are for others. Too many in business have zero morality. There's a down side to everything. But trust them? Nope.


Gee, that sounds an awful lot like my "favorite" German automaker's 2.0L diesel engines from 2011 to 2016.  It was pretty clever cheating, but cheating none the less.

James


----------



## SmithDoor

Just think of bootlegging covert electric cars to the gasoline again. 

Here we just build a engine and install in a car and or generator. 
The last 15 year my leaf blower has cord before it was a airgun off hobby shop air compressor 

Dave 



JLaning427 said:


> Gee, that sounds an awful lot like my "favorite" German automaker's 2.0L diesel engines from 2011 to 2016.  It was pretty clever cheating, but cheating none the less.
> 
> James


----------



## Zeb

GreenTwin said:


> That was a great year for the VW, and the best year in my opinion.
> The Super Beetle was not an improvement on this year.
> I had one of those, but had to let it go.
> I could work on all of it, which is the reason I had it.
> There were no electronics to go bad and stop the car from running.


I used to maintain a Grob 109 with a dual ignition VW engine. It was an odd little engine with rough castings, but very reliable and easy to work on. You ran it to altitude, then feathered the prop with a mechanical pull lever.   We ran the thing on 100LL (shh, don't tell the commies we still happily burn leaded gas).


----------



## Nerd1000

Zeb said:


> I used to maintain a Grob 109 with a dual ignition VW engine. It was an odd little engine with rough castings, but very reliable and easy to work on. You ran it to altitude, then feathered the prop with a mechanical pull lever.   We ran the thing on 100LL (shh, don't tell the commies we still happily burn leaded gas).


Light aviation isn't a big polluter because there's not many people who do it. Also the pollution is made far above the ground, rather than six feet from your breathing hole, so the health impacts are somewhat less.

People have been trying to kill 100LL for decades, but so far nobody has come up with a viable alternative. It would be better for all concerned if we could get rid of the lead, not just because of the pollution but also because it's hazardous to the ground crew. Unfortunately for various reasons that hasn't happened.


----------



## GreenTwin

Zeb said:


> I used to maintain a Grob 109 with a dual ignition VW engine. It was an odd little engine with rough castings, but very reliable and easy to work on. You ran it to altitude, then feathered the prop with a mechanical pull lever.   We ran the thing on 100LL (shh, don't tell the commies we still happily burn leaded gas).


I had to look that one up.
What a great little plane (touring motor glider they call it in one place).
Seems like a good safety backup, since it will glide without the motor running, with a very respectable glide slope.

I need one of those.
Adding it to my list, if I can find the end of the list.
.


----------



## Ken I

Nerd1000 said:


> People have been trying to kill 100LL for decades, but so far nobody has come up with a viable alternative. It would be better for all concerned if we could get rid of the lead, not just because of the pollution but also because it's hazardous to the ground crew. Unfortunately for various reasons that hasn't happened.


Wholeheartedly agree - if someone suddenly discovered that adding lead boosted octane ratings we would almost all say "have you completely lost your mind!" but we still use it.
However, I grew up in a house with lead plumbing (perhap that might explain a lot!).
It is possible for refineries to pack their crackers to produce higher octane distilates and some very expensive high octane fuels without organo-metal additives are available but market forces and legislation have typically driven octane ratings down.
As an aside I have attached a compilation of articles on octane ratings, performance, pre-ignition, autoigniton, detonation and engine design tips on avoiding these issues - although it is mostly about racing engines, it might be of interest to model engine builders.
Regards, Ken


----------



## Richard Hed

Ken I said:


> And that's why we have "wolves" selling wind and solar unscrupulously to customers, promising them "they'll never pay for electricity again".
> A marketplace needs equitable rules that apply to everyone that's the role of politicians acting on behalf of the electorate.
> It's not the role of politics to tell you what to buy and what not to buy or when and how. You have every right to be circumspect but you do want to have free choice.
> “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.”
> P. J. O’Rourke
> 
> Regards, Ken


I have some "wind" I just made that I can sell you.


----------



## Thommo

GreenTwin said:


> This is my dream car, and if I live long enough, I will make one of these, but perhaps powered with a Frisco Standard style engine.
> There is something very visually appealing about this car.




A very nice car mate, as long as you aren’t planning any interstate trips


----------



## mnay

concerning the solar panels, I have thought it interesting that you pay for the panels for 20 yrs and their warranty is for 20 years.  Do I pay them or  the power company that supplies us from hydro electric power.  
Mike


----------



## Richard Hed

mnay said:


> concerning the solar panels, I have thought it interesting that you pay for the panels for 20 yrs and their warranty is for 20 years.  Do I pay them or  the power company that supplies us from hydro electric power.
> Mike


The price should have dropt by now


----------



## CFLBob

Richard Hed said:


> The price should have dropt by now



There was an interesting article in MIT Technology Review a few months ago. The point was that solar panel adoption is likely to slow down because the more solar that gets added to the grid, the less valuable it becomes. They say some academics have been warning this is coming for years. They call it solar value deflation.

"The problem is that solar panels generate lots of electricity in the middle of sunny days, frequently more than what’s required, driving down prices—sometimes even into negative territory.

Unlike a natural gas plant, solar plant operators can’t easily throttle electricity up and down as needed, or space generation out through the day, night and dark winter. It’s available when it’s available, which is when the sun is shining. And that’s when all the other solar plants are cranking out electricity at maximum levels as well."

The price of solar electricity to sell to the grid has actually gone negative in California already, which means that (theoretically) they'd have to pay other power companies to take their solar output.  I would guess they could open the switch connecting the solar panel farm to the grid.  If there are such switches.

"The state’s average solar wholesale prices have fallen 37% relative to the average electricity prices for other sources since 2014, according to the Breakthrough Institute analysis, which will be published on July 14.  In other words, utilities are increasingly paying solar plants less than other sources overall, due to their fluctuating generation patterns.  "


----------



## KellisRJ

Ken I said:


> And that's why we have "wolves" selling wind and solar unscrupulously to customers, promising them "they'll never pay for electricity again".
> A marketplace needs equitable rules that apply to everyone that's the role of politicians acting on behalf of the electorate.
> It's not the role of politics to tell you what to buy and what not to buy or when and how. You have every right to be circumspect but you do want to have free choice.
> “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.”
> P. J. O’Rourke
> 
> Regards, Ken





Ken I said:


> And that's why we have "wolves" selling wind and solar unscrupulously to customers, promising them "they'll never pay for electricity again".


We agree on that.
[QUOTE="Ken I, post: 368149, member: 5072"“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.”
P. J. O’Rourke[/QUOTE]
Sound bite. Great for TV IMHO, not for complex issue. Just my $.02.

In 2008 I honestly couldn't see the difference between a shell game on the corner we outlaw, and mortgage brokers being allowed to rip off anyone they could in the name of a "free market." What did that get us? I put that right up there with NAFTA. Briefs will. Reality is different.

To me the two real questions, and yes despite what I said about sound bites this part is pretty simple. 
Do you believe the stuff we put in the air, ground, water, etc. kills people?
If not, then we don't have common ground.
If you do, is it acceptable for any legislature in a representative democracy to pass Public Law you disagree with?


----------



## vederstein

KellisRJ said:


> Do you believe the stuff we put in the air, ground, water, etc. kills people?



Everything we do has in environmental impact.  If you don't want to have any environmental impact, then cease to exist.

This whole "Save the Earth" slogan is crap.  The earth is going to be here with or without us.  The earth doesn't care.  It's a rock.  The earth has been a boiling cauldron of lava.  It's twice been a global snowball.  It once had so much oxygen that insects were measured in feet, not inches.

I don't want to save the earth.  I want to make the tiny bit of it that I control livable for me.

Am I callous?  Absolutely.  I don't want to be told what I can and cannot do.  The only caveat is that if we'd all just follow The Golden Rule, we'll be ok.

Here's another way to look at.  Environmental types always want government controls to stop whatever topic they're pushing at that time.  Their solution is ALWAYS MORE GOVERNMENT AND LESS INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.  If they would push an agenda that requires less government, less control, and still meets their goals, then I'd be more open to their solutions.

...Ved.


----------



## GreenTwin

The cost/benefit analysis should always be done prior to issuing far reaching environmental regulations.
If the regulations shut down most of a country's industry, then peple will starve to death from lack of money/food/jobs (but at least they will starve to death breathing clean air, thank goodness......I am being sarcastic).

There is no arguement about needing clean air, it is just a matter of how clean, and at what cost.
Do you bankrupt a country in order to achieve a slight amount of air quality?

The guy below did a good job of tracing the path of how all the environmental pimp stuff started.
There was a symposium I think in California, and I think Al Gore attended it, where they said there may be some global warming.
Al Gore created an industry around phony global warming data, and got super rich in the process, while having one of the highest carbon footprints of any person in the world.

Even the guy who held the original global warming seminar eventually admitted that there may not be any global warming at all, or if there was, it may not have an effect on anything.
It was too late though, the global warming scam industry was unstopable, since it turned into a political thing.

So unfortunately the Al Gore's of the world just jet around the world in their luxury jets, living a life of luxury that few on this earth will ever seen, and they accomplish little or nothing from their chicken-little approach, other than getting filthy rich, and dumping massive amounts of pollution into the atmosphere.

So this is what chaps me about the global warming and other "environmental change" crusades; they become money generators for a few savy political types, and poor schmucks like you and I pay for it all.
Nothing practical ever gets done to solve any real problems; it just allows the rich to get richer.


----------



## Richard Hed

GreenTwin said:


> The cost/benefit analysis should always be done prior to issuing far reaching environmental regulations.
> If the regulations shut down most of a country's industry, then peple will starve to death from lack of money/food/jobs (but at least they will starve to death breathing clean air, thank goodness......I am being sarcastic).
> 
> There is no arguement about needing clean air, it is just a matter of how clean, and at what cost.
> Do you bankrupt a country in order to achieve a slight amount of air quality?
> 
> The guy below did a good job of tracing the path of how all the environmental pimp stuff started.
> There was a symposium I think in California, and I think Al Gore attended it, where they said there may be some global warming.
> Al Gore created an industry around phony global warming data, and got supper rich in the process, while having one of the highest carbon footprints of any person in the world.
> 
> Even the guy who held the original global warming seminar eventually admitted that there may not be any global warming at all, or if there was, it may not have an effect on anything.
> It was too late though, the global warming scam industry was unstopable, since it turned into a political thing.
> 
> So unfortunately the Al Gore's of the world just jet around the world in their luxury jets, living a life of luxury that few on this earth will ever seen, and they accomplish little or nothing from their chicken-little approach, other than getting filthy rich, and dumping massive amounts of pollution into the atmosphere.
> 
> So this is what chaps me about the global warming and other "environmental change" crusades; they become money generators for a few savy political types, and poor schmucks like you and I pay for it all.
> Nothing practical ever gets done to solve any real problems; it just allows the rich to get richer.



Bastards are always manipulating the market.  hyou must remember that half the people in the world have IQ's less than 100.  People with IQ's above 111 immediately get a concept with out having to have it explained in detail.  That is about 2/3's of all people have to have everythign explained in detail.  These people are the ones whom are so easily trikt and manipulated.  

If you will remember the 1980's (before I was born), news articles hit the propaganda sheets about butter being bad for you because of cholesterol.  Thing is, human kind has been using milk products including butter for more than 10,000 years.  It is thot that 750 years (or thereabouts) for a human culture to acclimate to new situation.  What that means is those who cannot tolerate butter, die out and don't reproduce.  Quite simple.  Well, point is, that a mere twenty years later, the tables have turned ande now margarine is bad for you.  

Didded I ever tell you how margarine was created?  during the war (WWII), industry was looking for plastics made from plant material.  They found a lot of interesting things and one was this greasy material called ole or oleo.  They couldn't find a use for it so they said "let's try feeding it to chickens".  the Chickens wouldn't eat it.  So they said, "Let's feed it to pigs, they'll eat anything".  The pigs wouldn't eat it.  So, they said, "Let's feed it to cattle, it's just down their line."  Cattle wouldn't touch it.  So Who do you thimpfk they ended up feeding it to?  The dumbest animal on earth.  they said, "Let's feed it to people who can't afford butter.  We can convince these idiots of anything!"  Guess what kind of manipulations continue day to day in the modern way?

BTW, just so you know, the average IQ of machinists is 125--that is, our IQ's are generally higher than that idiot king george bush II


----------



## Ken I

There is no planetary emergency!

At least not as far as CO2 goes – there are plenty of environmental problems that need our attention – conflating the two is just part of the smoke and mirrors. Worse its distracting our attention and funding away from much more pressing environmental issues.

How about this comment by Fritz Vahrenholt – the co-founder of the German Green party (don’t come much greener than that!).

He says that the current behaviour of climate activists is “hysterical” and there is no “climate crisis”. He also states that many of the current proposals will be severely damaging to prosperity, longevity and general wellbeing.

Or     “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,”

2014 Testimony to the US Congress by co-founder & past President of Greenpeace, Dr. Patrick Moore a man whose environmental credentials are beyond reproach.

In June 2020 Michael Shellenberger – a lifelong activist and deeply green environmentalist (and still is) has spoken out by publishing a book “Apocalyse – Never” subtitled “why climate alarmism hurts us all”.

Or James Lovelock – the father of the Gaia Hypothesis and among the founding alarmists at the very first Earth Day

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,”.

Sorry to burst your bubble but in spite of the barrage of nonsense by the scientifically ignorant mainstream media - the science certainly isn't settled.

Regards, Ken


----------



## GreenTwin

_If you will remember the 1980's (before I was born) ..................._

LOL, my "spring chicken" alarm just went off.......I guess that dates me a bit.
When I started college, we had IBM punch cards, and a big mainframe over in the corner, with a giant line printer.
There were no screens, mice, or other niceties.  FORTRAN ruled the world.

We had a black and white TV until I was perhaps 8 years old, and many of the TV programs were still in B-W, even during the 60's.
The soap operas back then were gosh awful (worse than today if you can imagine such a thing).
They had like one camera set up in front of a big stage, and the people just walked around talking.
The housewives sat around lapping this stuff up, weeping at every turn of the script, and gosh forbid you would interrupt your mom while she was watching "Days of Our Lives".

"Special effects" in TV shows and movies meant a little spacecraft hung on a string, which they bounced across the screen, with a little smoke trailing out the rear.  People have no idea how gosh awful the old TV shows and movies were (although they were not politically correct, so there was sort of a silver lining to them).

Its all good, just blogging this morning till the coffee kicks in fully.

.


----------



## Richard Hed

GreenTwin said:


> _If you will remember the 1980's (before I was born) ..................._
> 
> LOL, my "spring chicken" alarm just went off.......I guess that dates me a bit.
> When I started college, we had IBM punch cards, and a big mainframe over in the corner, with a giant line printer.
> There were no screens, mice, or other niceties.  FORTRAN ruled the world.
> 
> We had a black and white TV until I was perhaps 8 years old, and many of the TV programs were still in B-W, even during the 60's.
> The soap operas back then were gosh awful (worse than today if you can imagine such a thing).
> They had like one camera set up in front of a big stage, and the people just walked around talking.
> The housewives sat around lapping this stuff up, weeping at every turn of the script, and gosh forbid you would interrupt your mom while she was watching "Days of Our Lives".
> 
> "Special effects" in TV shows and movies meant a little spacecraft hung on a string, which they bounced across the screen, with a little smoke trailing out the rear.  People have no idea gosh awful the old TV shows and movies were (although they were not politically correct, so there was sort of a silver lining to them).
> 
> Its all good, just blogging this morning till the coffee kicks in fully.
> 
> .


Har har har.  Yes, this dates you as an old coot.  I'm a spring chicken.  But my parents told me about the dark ages before cruise control and the internet.  We had a B&W tv that lasted 20 years, bought in 1954.  But that was in the daze of a thing called tubes (valves to you Brits), where when one burnt out, you could replace it.  Ever heard of such a thing?  Replace a part?  Hell, now we just throw it in the garbage bin and get a new one.


----------



## GreenTwin

_Yes, this dates you as an old coot. _

Yes, this is a pretty accurate description.
I bought a cane about two years ago, and sometimes hobble around on it when the knees give problems.
I am looking for a good law chair to purchase, so I can put it on the front porch, and when the neighborhood kids walk by, I can raise a clenched fist and yell loudly "GET OFF MY LAWN !!!".
Just kidding, I would never yell at the neighborhood kids; I use use the hose on them; they run much faster with that. 

I feel lucky that I have been able to somewhat keep up with technology, but it has required a lot of work.
I am required to take 12 hours of continuing education every year by the State, and so to some extent that forces me to learn new things/techniques.

I always told my dad "You need to get a computer and learn CAD; you would be a natural".
He would always say "I don't need no %!!^&$^[email protected]@&*(^&*% computer in this house"; he was an old-schooler's old-schooler, and he remembered when the family lumber mill was run by two large steam engines, when he started working there.

My dad's nickname (created by his buddies, not by me) was "Lo-Tech".  LOL.

I am forced to be high-tech because otherwise I can't provide the services that my clients want.
For years, I did power distribution design only, and so many people wanted PLC/controls work that I basically was forced learned how to design that.
And all the power systems that I do these days have integrated monitoring for the internal components, connected to SCADA via ethernet.
Everything can be watched in real time; sort of a Big Brother for power systems, so to speak.

One of my first labs in college had analog computers, which were a big box of resistors, capacitors, and inductors.
The front was covered with dials to allow adjustment of the values of each component.
There are no transistors in an analog computer, and they are quite crude, but very accurate as far as telling you how a system will react, assuming you had an accurate mathematical model for the system you were studying.
It seems like we used an oscilliscope to view the input and output of the analog computer.

It should be noted that the indicator used to measure steam engine cylinder pressures was an early form of analog computer or I guess pressure indicator, and all sorts of things could be determimed by studying the printout of an indicator.
An indictor used a pencil that wrote on paper on a drum.  Most ingeneous device for the 1800's.

And if you research how Hewlett Packard got started, they began the company in a garage.
The genius of HP was not a garage, but was in the minds of the two guys who started it.
They could have started HP in the middle of a grassy field, or in a cave, and still got the same results.

For my foundry, I have a hoist and a pouring cart for the larger iron pours (pours using a crucible over #10 in size), and so that removes the heavy lifting requirement.
My first iron pour used a hand-poured #30 crucible, but I was considerably stronger 10 years ago than I am now.

Most people I talk to assume that we have had modern electrical systems and lighting forever, and I have to remind them that modern electrical systems are a very new development that basically started in about 1896 with the Westinghouse 3-phase system.

One of my bosses, who was a certified "old-coot" use to brag about having to wind his own inductors, and make his own capacitors, etc., which is the electrical equivalent of having to walk 20 miles in the snow to school every day.
I told him "that is all good, but today's electronics is integrated, and it is all about how you integrate and use it".

When I started at an engineering firm in 1985, all drawings were hand drawn on vellum, using either pencil, or Indian ink.
There was no such thing as CAD.  CAD was a pencil in your hand, and the sheet of paper in front of you.
It seems wild that we have come so far with regards to CAD in such a short period of time, but here we are.

If you look at old photos of engineering design rooms, there were drafting tables everywhere, and you basically stood all day in front of the drafting table, since it was not really practical to sit and draw very easily.

But the fact remains that we went to the moon using drafting tables, vellum and pencil/ink, and FORTRAN, and so what seems apparent is that the power of creativity is in the mind of the creator, not in some computer or computer program.
A computer program is only as good as the person who programmed it.

I truly love Solidworks (except for the functions that don't always work as intended), but I pulled out a lot of hair learning 3D modeling.
The problem with learning 3D modeling for me was much like learning machining, which was where/how do you start, and how do you progress through any given part/engine/assembly.
If someone had explained that to me clearly at the beginning of me learning 3D, it would have saved me perhaps a year in the learning curve.

3D modeling I think is as important as the creation of the wheel, the mastery of fire, or some other critical turningpoint in history (in my opinion).
With 3D modeling, I can basically virtually machine a part as I am designing it, assemble an entire engine, have the software check for inteferences, and run the engine virtually to verify function.
I can also analyze the valve gear events using the motion study part of Solidworks, and freeze the motion at any time, and zoom in to see exactly what is happening with the valve and ports.

But in the end, it is like one guy told me, software is like an airplane; its all about how you fly it to a great extent.

If I get too old, I will have to change my signature to read "wheelchairs with scissors".
Whatever it takes I guess.  I am not going to slow down until I am in the grave.  There is much to be done yet.

Edit:
LOL, good thing I am not drifting off topic here......LOL.  Sorry about the drift.


----------



## Richard Carlstedt

Very simple question to Global warming folks, and one they cannot answer.
But of course , GW is a religious experience to them and they do not use their brains
So here is the question , very simple, and I want you to think about it ......

_What would happen tomorrow if that glowing yellow ball in the sky did not come up ? _

Simple , yes ? but they will stutter... and maybe say a few unrelated comments
And then I say
_Isn't it strange, that the greatest factor in warming the earth is NOT factored into 
any of the GW statistics or calculations or charts !_

Then I say  (using GW logic  !)
More pedestrians were killed on paved streets last year than were killed on Grass...so
Lets remove all the macadam and concrete from roads and plant grass instead--We will almost stop all
pedestrians fatalities  !............................ Same GW logic..or should I say ...Lack there of

Rich


----------



## Richard Hed

Richard Carlstedt said:


> Very simple question to Global warming folks, and one they cannot answer.
> But of course , GW is a religious experience to them and they do not use their brains
> So here is the question , very simple, and I want you to think about it ......
> 
> _What would happen tomorrow if that glowing yellow ball in the sky did not come up ? _
> 
> Simple , yes ? but they will stutter... and maybe say a few unrelated comments
> And then I say
> _Isn't it strange, that the greatest factor in warming the earth is NOT factored into
> any of the GW statistics or calculations or charts !_
> 
> Then I say  (using GW logic  !)
> More pedestrians were killed on paved streets last year than were killed on Grass...so
> Lets remove all the macadam and concrete from roads and plant grass instead--We will almost stop all
> pedestrians fatalities  !............................ Same GW logic..or should I say ...Lack there of
> 
> Rich


Thanx for that.  However, it is not the sun that keeps the earth warm, it is radioactive decay inside the earth.  The sun does, however, heat the surface thru summer and winter.  But if it were not for radioactive decay, earth would be like the moon.

Lots of peeps thimpfk that the greatest human creation is the great wall of China, or the large dams like Grand Coulee or the Chinese one on the Yellow, or what ever.  But that is not correct.  The largest creation due to mankind is the USA interstate hiway system.  It has somethng like 9000X as much concrete in it as the Grand Coulee.  it's total length is tens of thousands of miles.  It's one of those forgotten things, or people never knew to begin with, like our sewer systems.  Without something like our sewer systems, we probably would not have the great civilization that we have.  Usually we think it is electricity and running water, but the sewage system is at least that important too.  Same with the interstate system.  So, just for you, we can plant the interstate system with trees and grass--that should teach the tree huggers.  you thimpfk?


----------



## Richard Hed

GreenTwin said:


> _Yes, this dates you as an old coot. _
> 
> Yes, this is a pretty accurate description.
> I bought a cane about two years ago, and sometimes hobble around on it when the knees give problems.
> I am looking for a good law chair to purchase, so I can put it on the front porch, and when the neighborhood kids walk by, I can raise a clenched fist and yell loudly "GET OFF MY LAWN !!!".
> Just kidding, I would never yell at the neighborhood kids; I use use the hose on them; they run much faster with that.
> 
> I feel lucky that I have been able to somewhat keep up with technology, but it has required a lot of work.
> I am required to take 12 hours of continuing education every year by the State, and so to some extent that forces me to learn new things/techniques.
> 
> I always told my dad "You need to get a computer and learn CAD; you would be a natural".
> He would always say "I don't need no %!!^&$^[email protected]@&*(^&*% computer in this house"; he was an old-schooler's old-schooler, and he remembered when the family lumber mill was run by two large steam engines, when he started working there.
> 
> My dad's nickname (created by his buddies, not by me) was "Lo-Tech".  LOL.
> 
> I am forced to be high-tech because otherwise I can't provide the services that my clients want.
> For years, I did power distribution design only, and so many people wanted PLC/controls work that I basically was forced learned how to design that.
> And all the power systems that I do these days have integrated monitoring for the internal components, connected to SCADA via ethernet.
> Everything can be watched in real time; sort of a Big Brother for power systems, so to speak.
> 
> One of my first labs in college had analog computers, which were a big box of resistors, capacitors, and inductors.
> The front was covered with dials to allow adjustment of the values of each component.
> There are no transistors in an analog computer, and they are quite crude, but very accurate as far as telling you how a system will react, assuming you had an accurate mathematical model for the system you were studying.
> It seems like we used an oscilliscope to view the input and output of the analog computer.
> 
> It should be noted that the indicator used to measure steam engine cylinder pressures was an early form of analog computer or I guess pressure indicator, and all sorts of things could be determimed by studying the printout of an indicator.
> An indictor used a pencil that wrote on paper on a drum.  Most ingeneous device for the 1800's.
> 
> And if you research how Hewlett Packard got started, they began the company in a garage.
> The genius of HP was not a garage, but was in the minds of the two guys who started it.
> They could have started HP in the middle of a grassy field, or in a cave, and still got the same results.
> 
> For my foundry, I have a hoist and a pouring cart for the larger iron pours (pours using a crucible over #10 in size), and so that removes the heavy lifting requirement.
> My first iron pour used a hand-poured #30 crucible, but I was considerably stronger 10 years ago than I am now.
> 
> Most people I talk to assume that we have had modern electrical systems and lighting forever, and I have to remind them that modern electrical systems are a very new development that basically started in about 1896 with the Westinghouse 3-phase system.
> 
> One of my bosses, who was a certified "old-coot" use to brag about having to wind his own inductors, and make his own capacitors, etc., which is the electrical equivalent of having to walk 20 miles in the snow to school every day.
> I told him "that is all good, but today's electronics is integrated, and it is all about how you integrate and use it".
> 
> When I started at an engineering firm in 1985, all drawings were hand drawn on vellum, using either pencil, or Indian ink.
> There was no such thing as CAD.  CAD was a pencil in your hand, and the sheet of paper in front of you.
> It seems wild that we have come so far with regards to CAD in such a short period of time, but here we are.
> 
> If you look at old photos of engineering design rooms, there were drafting tables everywhere, and you basically stood all day in front of the drafting table, since it was not really practical to sit and draw very easily.
> 
> But the fact remains that we went to the moon using drafting tables, vellum and pencil/ink, and FORTRAN, and so what seems apparent is that the power of creativity is in the mind of the creator, not in some computer or computer program.
> A computer program is only as good as the person who programmed it.
> 
> I truly love Solidworks (except for the functions that don't always work as intended), but I pulled out a lot of hair learning 3D modeling.
> The problem with learning 3D modeling for me was much like learning machining, which was where/how do you start, and how do you progress through any given part/engine/assembly.
> If someone had explained that to me clearly at the beginning of me learning 3D, it would have saved me perhaps a year in the learning curve.
> 
> 3D modeling I think is as important as the creation of the wheel, the mastery of fire, or some other critical turningpoint in history (in my opinion).
> With 3D modeling, I can basically virtually machine a part as I am designing it, assemble an entire engine, have the software check for inteferences, and run the engine virtually to verify function.
> I can also analyze the valve gear events using the motion study part of Solidworks, and freeze the motion at any time, and zoom in to see exactly what is happening with the valve and ports.
> 
> But in the end, it is like one guy told me, software is like an airplane; its all about how you fly it to a great extent.
> 
> If I get too old, I will have to change my signature to read "wheelchairs with scissors".
> Whatever it takes I guess.  I am not going to slow down until I am in the grave.  There is much to be done yet.
> 
> Edit:
> LOL, good thing I am not drifting off topic here......LOL.  Sorry about the drift.


Could I ask you, is that a "digital" cane?  Is it global warming proof?


----------



## Scott_M

Richard

Why do you *always* spell "Think " wrong ?

Is it some new slang ? Is your keyboard broken ?

There must be a reason



Richard Hed said:


> that should teach the tree huggers.  you thimpfk?





Richard Hed said:


> Absolutely.  Just thimpfk,





Richard Hed said:


> Interesting as this is, I thimpfk it is




Scott


----------



## Richard Hed

Scott_M said:


> Richard
> 
> Why do you *always* spell "Think " wrong ?
> 
> Is it some new slang ? Is your keyboard broken ?
> 
> There must be a reason
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott


Geez  I didn't know anyone noticed.  It's a joke.  Just thimpfk how difficult this is to pronounce.  How ridiculous can it be?  You might call this the "French spelling".  Kernel-colonel, and all that where nothing is spelled how we would pronounce it in Engrish.  -- Oh excuse me, that was Japanese.


----------



## GreenTwin

Richard Hed said:


> Could I ask you, is that a "digital" cane?  Is it global warming proof?


I probably need to cast a cane in gray iron, since the "steampunk look" is all the rage these days.

The "global warming" thing is right out of the Saul Alinsky handbook.
RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

They use it for whatever "crisis of the week" that they come up with.

I was watching a herd dog herding some sheep the other day, and the herd dog never actually bites or harms the sheep, but it is the threat of a bite, and the fear that is so effective at getting the sheep to do whatever one wants.

Its an elaborate political 3-ring circus that is effectively used to control many/most of the sheep-type people in society today.

"Today's crisis" morphs as needed by the politicians and political players.
When global warming was debunked, and all of our cities turned out not to be underwater (surprise, surprise, who would have thought?), then they morphed "global warming" into "climate change", so as to obscure the real agenda in many layers of murky "pseudo-science".

LOL, the climate has been changing from hot to cold since the earth began (I know, I am old enough to remember when the earth began.....just kidding).
Just ask any dinosaur you meet (not me) about cold snaps.

And then there was a warm snap, and the ocean was actually almost at the center of the United States, and you can see that in the fossil record, and in the fossils found near this area, which are all ocean-going creatures.
Climate like probably anything else, is cyclic, and it swings one way, and then the other.

Politicians make excellent use of the chicken little effect.

The only thing that alarms me about anything in the world these days is how naïve the general population worldwide is, even as we enter the 21st Century.
All the gains in electronics and communication have not improved human intelligence one iota (in my opinion), and as a matter of fact, there seems to be a direct correlation between gains in electronics/communications and the seemingly endless increase in the stupidity of the general public.

I call it the Jim Jones syndrome on steroids.
I believe that if the MSM told everyone that flinging themselves off of tall cliffs would help mankind (politically correct "personkind"), then you would not want to be lingering around under any cliffs due to the massive raining down of highly enthusiastic falling folks, all convinced they are saving the planet, and saving the whale too! (a two-fer as they say), all with a huge grin on their face.

Such is life; human nature will remain human nature.
People should put forth the effort to educate themselves, not act like sheep, and not do sheep things at the beck and will of politicians.

Edit:
As the saying goes, you can always tell when a politician and the main stream media (they are actually the same entity) is lying, because their lips are moving.

Edit2:
Critical thinking has morphed into criticizing/attacking anyone who comes up with logic and hard facts which disprove the official political narritive of the day.  We have literally gone down the Alice and Wonderland rabbit hole; not to be all pessimistic and such.
If things get too bad, I hope to dig a big rabbit hole, move my shop down there, and continue making engines as the policical/cultural wars rage above me.
.


----------



## Richard Hed

GreenTwin said:


> I probably need to cast a cane in gray iron, since the "steampunk look" is all the rage these days.
> 
> The "global warming" thing is right out of the Saul Alinsky handbook.
> RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
> 
> They use it for whatever "crisis of the week" that they come up with.
> 
> I was watching a herd dog herding some sheep the other day, and the herd dog never actually bites or harms the sheep, but it is the threat of a bite, and the fear that is so effective at getting the sheep to do whatever one wants.
> 
> Its an elaborate political 3-ring circus that is effectively used to control many/most of the sheep-type people in society today.
> 
> "Today's crisis" morphs as needed by the politicians and political players.
> When global warming was debunked, and all of our cities turned out not to be underwater (surprise, surprise, who would have thought?), then they morphed "global warming" into "climate change", so as to obscure the real agenda in many layers of murky "pseudo-science".
> 
> LOL, the climate has been changing from hot to cold since the earth began (I know, I am old enough to remember when the earth began.....just kidding).
> Just ask any dinosaur you meet (not me) about cold snaps.
> 
> And then there was a warm snap, and the ocean was actually almost at the center of the United States, and you can see that in the fossil record, and in the fossils found near this area, which are all ocean-going creatures.
> Climate like probably anything else, is cyclic, and it swings one way, and then the other.
> 
> Politicians make excellent use of the chicken little effect.
> 
> The only thing that alarms me about anything in the world these days is how naïve the general population worldwide is, even as we enter the 21st Century.
> All the gains in electronics and communication have not improved human intelligence one iota (in my opinion), and as a matter of fact, there seems to be a direct correlation between gains in electronics/communications and the seemingly endless increase in the stupidity of the general public.
> 
> I call it the Jim Jones syndrome on steroids.
> I believe that if the MSM told everyone that flinging themselves off of tall cliffs would help mankind (politically correct "personkind"), then you would not want to be lingering around under any cliffs due to the massive raining down of highly enthusiastic falling folks, all convinced they are saving the planet, and saving the whale too! (a two-fer as they say), all with a huge grin on their face.
> 
> Such is life; human nature will remain human nature.
> People should put forth the effort to educate themselves, not act like sheep, and not do sheep things at the beck and will of politicians.
> 
> .


Yess, yes, remember the 90'?  ( I wasn't born yet).  It wasn't global warming, it was "global cooling".  Really!  This week's crisis, that's what I call the "pandemic"--this weeks virus (or whatever).

Honestly (since I am a nut-job conspiracy "theorist"), I believe that the international banksters are behind all this.  That is, they already have trillions of $$ and immense power, but they want MORE!  They want it ALL!  And part of that is to robotize all that can be robotized, and then they won't need us slaves so that they can kill us all.  This isn't a joke either.  last year, I workt in the harvest driving a corn harvester.  I said to one of the ladies that in 20 years, this will all be done by AI.  She replied that it will never happen.  Yet, they already have seeding done by GPS, and have developed the harvesters to follow GPS.  They are working on a method to move the picking cones left and right to go down the rows withou having to turn the steering wheels.  Everything is being developed by the year.  There is alrady a robot that can build a house without human ever touching any part. 

Check ut the so called "georgia guidesstones".  They intend to have only 500 million people.  It is my belief that the virus's that keep popping up (out of Africa where they can practice and nobody cares) are tests being run.  It is also that they can develop remedies and save themselves or save those they consider worthy.  I may be wrong, but then who trusts their government or the corporations?  The global banksters are worse than any of them.

I tell my kids that you could get some people to do anyting at all including volunteer for the firing squad.


----------



## GreenTwin

You can be certain that as technology evolves, politicians and others will leveage that to do their bidding, and that bidding probably is not in the best interst of society.

Robotics have replace many workers in factories, and that trend will continue as long as it is a cost-effective solution.
It begs the question thought about when automation builds everything, what do the workers do for a living?
The answer for many (including one of my relatives who at one time worked in a tire plant) is to go back to school and get an automation degree, and work in the automation field.  Someone has to install and maintain all that automation, not to mention program it all.
"Roll with the flow" as they say.

For me, I try to stay focused on model engine design/building, and not worry too much about things that will happen regardless of what I do.
I do try and support the right of folks to make free and educated choices about it all, and not let some bureaucrat dictate reality.
It is one thing for politicians to make bad decisions, and entirely another thing for politicians to strip you of all your rights to object to their bad decisions.  Right now we are in the "strip" phase.
.


----------



## Scott_M

Richard Hed said:


> Geez  I didn't know anyone noticed.  It's a joke.  Just thimpfk how difficult this is to pronounce.  How ridiculous can it be?  You might call this the "French spelling".  Kernel-colonel, and all that where nothing is spelled how we would pronounce it in Engrish.  -- Oh excuse me, that was Japanese.



Misspelled words bother me, I am a terrible speller and rely on spell check a lot because I think that a misspelled word shows a lack of intelligence. Now days everything has spell check and to not use it is just lazy, and to misspell on purpose, I just don't get it.
Sorry I don't see the humor
This is just my opinion, but thought I would explain why I asked.

Scott

Edit
I may not be smart enough to spell well but , at least I am smart enough to use spell check


----------



## GreenTwin

Scott_M said:


> Misspelled words bother me, I am a terrible speller and rely on spell check a lot because I think that a misspelled word shows a lack of intelligence. Now days everything has spell check and to not use it is just lazy, and to misspell on purpose, I just don't get it.
> Sorry I don't see the humor
> This is just my opinion, but thought I would explain why I asked.
> 
> Scott
> 
> Edit
> I may not be smart enough to spell well but , at least I am smart enough to use spell check


I know some folks here (I won't mention any names) who type quickly, make lots of mistakes, and it is a one-time deal.
They never come back and correct numerous typos.
But I know for a fact that they are highly skilled, highly intelligent folks, and so I think it is a matter of having limited time to post, and caring more about content than exact correctness.

I have had people correct my spelling, and I must say I don't like to make spelling/grammar errors, that is just not where I am at.....
LOL "not where I am at" is a joke....get it.....bad grammar.

Edit:
Who was it said "I appreciate your honesty, but not nearly as much as I resent it".

.


----------



## Richard Hed

Scott_M said:


> Misspelled words bother me, I am a terrible speller and rely on spell check a lot because I think that a misspelled word shows a lack of intelligence. Now days everything has spell check and to not use it is just lazy, and to misspell on purpose, I just don't get it.
> Sorry I don't see the humor
> This is just my opinion, but thought I would explain why I asked.
> 
> Scott
> 
> Edit
> I may not be smart enough to spell well but , at least I am smart enough to use spell check


Actually, I am a very goo speller, I like to shake things up by mis-spelling.  But I does have to tell you something funni.  It wasn't until about 1856 that peeps spelt everything like it sounds.  But in 1856, Daniel Webster came out with his "spelling primer" (pronounced prim mer).  After that, "rules" were established and you had to spell like that prescribed.  I thimpfks that is a krok of you know what.  Even so, when I see bad spelling, I too take it that the person is uneducated.  Worse however, is that peeps don't know the dif between 'their', 'there', & 'they're'; your, you're, two, to and too and others as well.


----------



## GreenTwin

Richard Hed said:


> Actually, I am a very goo speller, I like to shake things up by mis-spelling.  But I does have to tell you something funni.  It wasn't until about 1856 that peeps spelt everything like it sounds.  But in 1856, Daniel Webster came out with his "spelling primer" (pronounced prim mer).  After that, "rules" were established and you had to spell like that prescribed.  I thimpfks that is a krok of you know what.  Even so, when I see bad spelling, I too take it that the person is uneducated.  Worse however, is that peeps don't know the dif between 'their', 'there', & 'they're'; your, you're, two, to and too and others as well.


LOL

My daughter sends out text messages, using words such as B4 (before), U2 (you too), ICU (I see you), IMO (in my opinion), OMG (oh my god), UC (you see), and on and on.
One has to keep up with today's jargon or be left behind, TBH (to be honest).

.


----------



## scottyp

I was actually just thinking and wondering the same thing about the whole thimpfking thing.


----------



## GreenTwin

Modern literature:

2B or not 2B, that is the question.........
.


----------



## Richard Hed

GreenTwin said:


> Modern literature:
> 
> 2B or not 2B, that is the question.........
> .


eye kwestshun that


----------



## SmithDoor

Do not forget the remote.
The to turn the channel and get few steps at same time.

Today no knob 
Lose the remote you have a black painting 

Dave



Richard Hed said:


> Har har har.  Yes, this dates you as an old coot.  I'm a spring chicken.  But my parents told me about the dark ages before cruise control and the internet.  We had a B&W tv that lasted 20 years, bought in 1954.  But that was in the daze of a thing called tubes (valves to you Brits), where when one burnt out, you could replace it.  Ever heard of such a thing?  Replace a part?  Hell, now we just throw it in the garbage bin and get a new one.


----------



## GreenTwin

Richard Hed said:


> eye kwestshun that


ubtripn
.


----------



## GreenTwin

SmithDoor said:


> Do not forget the remote.
> The to turn the channel and get few steps at same time.
> 
> Today no knob
> Lose the remote you have a black painting
> 
> Dave


The next door neighbors had a color TV in the bedroom in perhaps the mid 60's, which was somewhat of a rare thing I think, and it had a remote control (Zenith as I recall).

And so this remote made a ping sort of a noise, and the TV would change channels.
No wiring between the remote and TV, no batteries in the remote.
I scratched my head until just recently trying to figure that one out.

Apparently they had one or more tuning forks in the remote, and an acoustical sensor in the TV.
Pushing the remote button would trigger a little hammer.

Magic stuff for sure to an 7 year old.

.


----------



## Richard Hed

GreenTwin said:


> The next door neighbors had a color TV in the bedroom in perhaps the mid 60's, which was somewhat of a rare thing I think, and it had a remote control (Zenith as I recall).
> 
> And so this remote made a ping sort of a noise, and the TV would change channels.
> No wiring between the remote and TV, no batteries in the remote.
> I scratched my head until just recently trying to figure that one out.
> 
> Apparently they had one or more tuning forks in the remote, and an acoustical sensor in the TV.
> Pushing the remote button would trigger a little hammer.
> 
> Magic stuff for sure to an 7 year old.
> 
> .


my auntie had one of those, and if you rattled your keys, it would also change the channels.  I never knew how it workt


----------



## Nerd1000

GreenTwin said:


> I probably need to cast a cane in gray iron, since the "steampunk look" is all the rage these days.
> 
> The "global warming" thing is right out of the Saul Alinsky handbook.
> RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
> 
> They use it for whatever "crisis of the week" that they come up with.
> 
> I was watching a herd dog herding some sheep the other day, and the herd dog never actually bites or harms the sheep, but it is the threat of a bite, and the fear that is so effective at getting the sheep to do whatever one wants.
> 
> Its an elaborate political 3-ring circus that is effectively used to control many/most of the sheep-type people in society today.
> 
> "Today's crisis" morphs as needed by the politicians and political players.
> When global warming was debunked, and all of our cities turned out not to be underwater (surprise, surprise, who would have thought?), then they morphed "global warming" into "climate change", so as to obscure the real agenda in many layers of murky "pseudo-science".
> 
> LOL, the climate has been changing from hot to cold since the earth began (I know, I am old enough to remember when the earth began.....just kidding).
> Just ask any dinosaur you meet (not me) about cold snaps.
> 
> And then there was a warm snap, and the ocean was actually almost at the center of the United States, and you can see that in the fossil record, and in the fossils found near this area, which are all ocean-going creatures.
> Climate like probably anything else, is cyclic, and it swings one way, and then the other.
> 
> Politicians make excellent use of the chicken little effect.
> 
> The only thing that alarms me about anything in the world these days is how naïve the general population worldwide is, even as we enter the 21st Century.
> All the gains in electronics and communication have not improved human intelligence one iota (in my opinion), and as a matter of fact, there seems to be a direct correlation between gains in electronics/communications and the seemingly endless increase in the stupidity of the general public.
> 
> I call it the Jim Jones syndrome on steroids.
> I believe that if the MSM told everyone that flinging themselves off of tall cliffs would help mankind (politically correct "personkind"), then you would not want to be lingering around under any cliffs due to the massive raining down of highly enthusiastic falling folks, all convinced they are saving the planet, and saving the whale too! (a two-fer as they say), all with a huge grin on their face.
> 
> Such is life; human nature will remain human nature.
> People should put forth the effort to educate themselves, not act like sheep, and not do sheep things at the beck and will of politicians.
> 
> Edit:
> As the saying goes, you can always tell when a politician and the main stream media (they are actually the same entity) is lying, because their lips are moving.
> 
> Edit2:
> Critical thinking has morphed into criticizing/attacking anyone who comes up with logic and hard facts which disprove the official political narritive of the day.  We have literally gone down the Alice and Wonderland rabbit hole; not to be all pessimistic and such.
> If things get too bad, I hope to dig a big rabbit hole, move my shop down there, and continue making engines as the policical/cultural wars rage above me.
> .


Indeed the climate has always been changing. But it's worth putting that fact in perspective:


			https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png


----------



## Richard Hed

scottyp said:


> I was actually just thinking and wondering the same thing about the whole thimpfking thing.


Well, I got u'all to talkin' bout it.  You remember wht Liberace said:  I doesn't care what peop0le are saying about me just as long as they are sayin'.


----------



## Ken I

Nerd1000 said:


> Indeed the climate has always been changing. But it's worth putting that fact in perspective:


Cute graphic without sufficient "perspective" and inordinate faith in the IPCC projections at the end.

A different perspective :-





or longer




or way longer




All depends on how you cherry pick your data (timeframe, location or source).

_“The Mississippi between Cairo and New Orleans was twelve hundred and fifteen miles long one hundred and seventy-six years ago. . . . Its length is only nine hundred and seventy-three miles at present.

Now, if I wanted to be one of those ponderous scientific people, and “let on” to prove what had occurred in the remote past by what had occurred in a given time in the recent past . . . what an opportunity is here! Geology never had such a chance, nor such exact data to argue from! . . .

In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long. . . . There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact”_

Mark Twain

Indeed the climate has always been changing - what makes anyone think that we are somehow at an ideal climate optimum and that any change is "worse" - and further that we have the ability to control the climate via the miniscule effects of the magic molecule CO2.

It's mostly scientific arm waving and grant seeking groupthink behavior amplified by a scientifically ignorant and alarmist headline building - profit seeking - mainstream media and unknowingly abetted by political leadership that is mostly scientifically clueless.
All egged on by Extinction Rebellion and countless other hoards of well meaning but misguided souls who want to save the Earth - a noble aim - but ignorant purpose may well be very dangerous.

_"there is nothing more frightening than ignorance in action"_ - Goethe

Regards, Ken


----------



## Steamchick

GreenTwin said:


> Modern literature:
> 
> 2B or not 2B, that is the question.........
> .


2H is better for (technical) drawing... but 2B is better for sketching....And what is Cad? Someone who bends the rules to suit their personal gain?
What was the question again?
Somehow Computerised drawings passed me by.... In the early 1980s I designed from a drawing board  - for years before that, as the Engineer I designed in numbers, sketches, and used 3 or 4 draughtsmen to produce the drawings.... Since the late 80 various jobs have needed me to produce pencil sketches and scan onto documents, that used to be published on paper until someone trebled the size of the job and got rid of paper.... Now retired, I use paper and pencil sketches, and make a few general arrangement drawings to rational layouts and dimensions. Calculations mostly done on my 1978 calculator - or slide rule - faster than I can type (if the computer had the program I wanted). I still find computing real design stuff VERY SLOW, on the so-called "Computers". But then I only need to do small calculations on boilers and stuff. 
While my brain can still do it, I am happy. 
And I am a real Chicken, according to my birth certificate. There are over 27 billion Chickens on this planet, ... so we outnumber humanity by at least 3 : 1 !

K2


----------



## JLaning427

Completely off the ban on SORE, but....



GreenTwin said:


> Robotics have replace many workers in factories, and that trend will continue as long as it is a cost-effective solution.
> It begs the question thought about when automation builds everything, what do the workers do for a living?
> The answer for many (including one of my relatives who at one time worked in a tire plant) is to go back to school and get an automation degree, and work in the automation field.  Someone has to install and maintain all that automation, not to mention program it all.
> "Roll with the flow" as they say.



Here in the US, various states have pushed for and gotten significantly higher minimum wage laws onto the books.  California is going to $15/hr.  A bunch of other states are in the $11 to $12 range.  But the Federal minimum is still $7.25.  Texas is at $7.25.

What does that mean?

Automation is even more cost effective in these areas!  The politicians are making questionable ROI's better.

For example ever notice how fast food restaurants are embracing online ordering and ordering kiosks?  Certainly it is happening in Maryland (except for Chick-Fil-A)  Ever think about why?  That allows the owner of the restaurant to have fewer employees and less cost.  Automated drink filling is already possible.  How about automated food production?  And that's just thinking about fast food.  Same can be said for a bunch of industries.

The problem is what job are you going to retrain for?  Especially when there are fewer entry level jobs to get your feet wet in the workforce?  How do you get all of those folks who thought high school was a pain in the a$$ state run babysitting service (who prove that is correct) to learn stuff?

And what happens to the cost of living in an area where the minimum wage has been increased?  Likely goes up, right?  Grocery store has to charge more to cover their increased costs, for example.

And how many companies (like Tesla) are moving parts or all of their operation to a lower cost state?  What happens to those jobs?  They're gone out of that local economy, unless you move with the company.

Politicians are meddling with things and they have no idea as to what the unintended consequences look like.

Not sure if the EU and UK have similar issues.  But the US definitely does, and it is going to be exciting for a while.

James


----------



## grahamgollar

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno’t mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the only iproamtnt thing is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the human mind deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the word as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!

Seriously though guys, can we now revert to the serious business of engineering and let the Scandinavian hobgoblin solve the world’s pblroems?


----------



## JLaning427

I was going to respond using misspelled words as you did, but autoincorrect kept fixing it for me.

James


----------



## Ken I

JLaning427 said:


> Here in the US, various states have pushed for and gotten significantly higher minimum wage laws onto the books. California is going to $15/hr. A bunch of other states are in the $11 to $12 range. But the Federal minimum is still $7.25. Texas is at $7.25.
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> Automation is even more cost effective in these areas! The politicians are making questionable ROI's better.


I'm in the robot business and everytime some politician ups the minimum wage - I go "Yee-Hah" and rub my hands together - I'm going to get to put more people out of work.
(P.S. if you think I'm being cynical, robots are expensive and are at the very end of the productivity food chain - if you are worried about unemployment - minimum wages simply make it worse. Political interventionism mores so - example - A combine harvester does the work of over 400 people - answer - get rid of combine harvesters and we can all go back to being fully employed peasants.)

Regards, Ken


----------



## SmithDoor

No batteries need for the remote. 

Today if batteries die the tv is black or for some TV's download the app and hope it works.

Dave 



GreenTwin said:


> The next door neighbors had a color TV in the bedroom in perhaps the mid 60's, which was somewhat of a rare thing I think, and it had a remote control (Zenith as I recall).
> 
> And so this remote made a ping sort of a noise, and the TV would change channels.
> No wiring between the remote and TV, no batteries in the remote.
> I scratched my head until just recently trying to figure that one out.
> 
> Apparently they had one or more tuning forks in the remote, and an acoustical sensor in the TV.
> Pushing the remote button would trigger a little hammer.
> 
> Magic stuff for sure to an 7 year old.
> 
> .


----------



## SmithDoor

As long as not the one getting $7.25 hour. 
It is a age old problem. 
I live in California and was in manufacturing so the difference in min wage would have made a problem. 
But on the flip side the ones getting $15.00 are happy. 
If all states was about same there would be no problems.

Dave 



JLaning427 said:


> Completely off the ban on SORE, but....
> 
> 
> 
> Here in the US, various states have pushed for and gotten significantly higher minimum wage laws onto the books.  California is going to $15/hr.  A bunch of other states are in the $11 to $12 range.  But the Federal minimum is still $7.25.  Texas is at $7.25.
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> Automation is even more cost effective in these areas!  The politicians are making questionable ROI's better.
> 
> For example ever notice how fast food restaurants are embracing online ordering and ordering kiosks?  Certainly it is happening in Maryland (except for Chick-Fil-A)  Ever think about why?  That allows the owner of the restaurant to have fewer employees and less cost.  Automated drink filling is already possible.  How about automated food production?  And that's just thinking about fast food.  Same can be said for a bunch of industries.
> 
> The problem is what job are you going to retrain for?  Especially when there are fewer entry level jobs to get your feet wet in the workforce?  How do you get all of those folks who thought high school was a pain in the a$$ state run babysitting service (who prove that is correct) to learn stuff?
> 
> And what happens to the cost of living in an area where the minimum wage has been increased?  Likely goes up, right?  Grocery store has to charge more to cover their increased costs, for example.
> 
> And how many companies (like Tesla) are moving parts or all of their operation to a lower cost state?  What happens to those jobs?  They're gone out of that local economy, unless you move with the company.
> 
> Politicians are meddling with things and they have no idea as to what the unintended consequences look like.
> 
> Not sure if the EU and UK have similar issues.  But the US definitely does, and it is going to be exciting for a while.
> 
> James


----------



## timothysielbeck

Nerd1000 said:


> Indeed the climate has always been changing. But it's worth putting that fact in perspective:
> 
> 
> https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png



In the timelines I have seen for temperature and co2 the temperature rise always precedes co2 rise.  The timeline you linked to is entertaining but that hardly makes it accurate.


----------



## Zeb

Mennonites will sometimes build perfect structures......only to purposely introduce a glaring error to keep things spicy (or humble).

"Perfection is the enemy of good enough."

OCDness is quite prevalent in our small communities. I'm a nerd when I send texts with correct punctuation. When I come home though, I have to break some of the rules, or I'll drive my family insane. It's good to leave some grass uncut with my piston powered mower (tying it all back in, I promise) or a car parked crooked now and then. Pretty soon my new neighbors who escaped Cali promising not to repeat their previous flaws will be enforcing zoning laws on all my yard's imperfections.


----------



## Richard Hed

Zeb said:


> Mennonites will sometimes build perfect structures......only to purposely introduce a glaring error to keep things spicy (or humble).
> 
> "Perfection is the enemy of good enough."
> 
> OCDness is quite prevalent in our small communities. I'm a nerd when I send texts with correct punctuation. When I come home though, I have to break some of the rules, or I'll drive my family insane. It's good to leave some grass uncut with my piston powered mower (tying it all back in, I promise) or a car parked crooked now and then. Pretty soon my new neighbors who escaped Cali promising not to repeat their previous flaws will be enforcing zoning laws on all my yard's imperfections.


Oddly enough, Moses Lake is trying to institute a "less water" usage policy in the city.  Since this entails the growth of low water usage plants (no lawn grass) and the planting of certain dessert like plants, I have begun doing exactly that.  This year, I hardly watered my yard but all my neighbors have sterile mowed lawns with mostly no trees or interesting plants.  Most of my neighbors abhor my yard, but what I have is a yard full of small plants and shrubs that do not need insecticides and the beez simply LOVE.  The city even has a model planting at the local library, so I simply took the best types that I like and planted some.  This fills about 1/3 of my yard.  I have also some junipers which are low water consumption, but I don't really like junipers even tho they shade the house well during summer.

I would say I have been very successful as the city charges a WHOLE LOT for water.  Also, they cheat and claim that the water you use on your lawn goes down the sewer and so they charge you double for that!  What bastards.  And government is for the people, by the people?  I doesn't thimpfk so.  City government (indeed all governments IMNSHO) are big businesses intent on getting all they can.  My question is always, Where does all that $$ go?  

There are approx. 5000 homes in Moses Lake, each putting in for water/sewer/garbage per month about 116$.  5000X100=half a million $$ per month!  There is NO WAY that I believe it costs the city more than 6 million a year to maintain water/sewer/garbage.  There is road repair and other maintenance for any city, but there are other taxes as well that are supposed to be for all that.  So where does all that $$ go?  Honestly, I don't know, even tho it is easy to find out--I'm not that interested, maybe I should be.  However, IMNSHO, water/sewer/garbage $$ should ONLY be used for water/swer/garbage maintenance.


----------



## grahamgollar

And to paraphrase the Scandinavian hobgoblin: blah blah blah.


----------



## ajoeiam

Richard Hed said:


> Oddly enough, Moses Lake is trying to institute a "less water" usage policy in the city.  Since this entails the growth of low water usage plants (no lawn grass) and the planting of certain dessert like plants, I have begun doing exactly that.  This year, I hardly watered my yard but all my neighbors have sterile mowed lawns with mostly no trees or interesting plants.  Most of my neighbors abhor my yard, but what I have is a yard full of small plants and shrubs that do not need insecticides and the beez simply LOVE.  The city even has a model planting at the local library, so I simply took the best types that I like and planted some.  This fills about 1/3 of my yard.  I have also some junipers which are low water consumption, but I don't really like junipers even tho they shade the house well during summer.
> 
> I would say I have been very successful as the city charges a WHOLE LOT for water.  Also, they cheat and claim that the water you use on your lawn goes down the sewer and so they charge you double for that!  What bastards.  And government is for the people, by the people?  I doesn't thimpfk so.  City government (indeed all governments IMNSHO) are big businesses intent on getting all they can.  My question is always, Where does all that $$ go?
> 
> There are approx. 5000 homes in Moses Lake, each putting in for water/sewer/garbage per month about 116$.  5000X100=half a million $$ per month!  There is NO WAY that I believe it costs the city more than 6 million a year to maintain water/sewer/garbage.  There is road repair and other maintenance for any city, but there are other taxes as well that are supposed to be for all that.  So where does all that $$ go?  Honestly, I don't know, even tho it is easy to find out--I'm not that interested, maybe I should be.  However, IMNSHO, water/sewer/garbage $$ should ONLY be used for water/swer/garbage maintenance.



I've come up with the statement:
Bureaucracies (axiom is the more applicable the larger the entity) - - - - for the unwilling the incompetent and/or the unable.

I KNOW where that money goes - - - - - - paying the salaries for lots of useless turkeys.
We have the similar functions here.


----------



## terryd

Richard Hed said:


> Bastards are always manipulating the market.  hyou must remember that half the people in the world have IQ's less than 100.  People with IQ's above 111 immediately get a concept with out having to have it explained in detail.  That is about 2/3's of all people have to have everythign explained in detail.  These people are the ones whom are so easily trikt and manipulated.
> 
> If you will remember the 1980's (before I was born), news articles hit the propaganda sheets about butter being bad for you because of cholesterol.  Thing is, human kind has been using milk products including butter for more than 10,000 years.  It is thot that 750 years (or thereabouts) for a human culture to acclimate to new situation.  What that means is those who cannot tolerate butter, die out and don't reproduce.  Quite simple.  Well, point is, that a mere twenty years later, the tables have turned ande now margarine is bad for you.
> 
> Didded I ever tell you how margarine was created?  during the war (WWII), industry was looking for plastics made from plant material.  They found a lot of interesting things and one was this greasy material called ole or oleo.  They couldn't find a use for it so they said "let's try feeding it to chickens".  the Chickens wouldn't eat it.  So they said, "Let's feed it to pigs, they'll eat anything".  The pigs wouldn't eat it.  So, they said, "Let's feed it to cattle, it's just down their line."  Cattle wouldn't touch it.  So Who do you thimpfk they ended up feeding it to?  The dumbest animal on earth.  they said, "Let's feed it to people who can't afford butter.  We can convince these idiots of anything!"  Guess what kind of manipulations continue day to day in the modern way?
> 
> BTW, just so you know, the average IQ of machinists is 125--that is, our IQ's are generally higher than that idiot king george bush II


Hi Richard, 
Please don't take this the wrong was but I'm sorry to rain on your parade as many of your statements here are quite wrong.  For example people do not 'die out' because of inability to eat butter.  In fact approximately 65% of the world population are lactose  intolerant after infancy, especially in East Asia so cannot consume most dairy products, however some of those are able to tolerate fermented diary products such as cheese or yoghurt.  I personally know Thai and Chinese who think that cheese etc are disgusting describing them as 'rotten milk'.

The 'facts' you state about margarine are actually myths.  They are a result of some so called 'facts' that have been circulating on the internet for some time based on propaganda from the dairy industry in the US.  Basically they are  essentially the result of conspiracy theories.  Firstly, 'oleo' was not discovered by scientists in WW2 looking for plastics materials.  The word oleo is derived from the Latin 'oleum' which is a word for edible oils especially olive oil.  Early margarines were called oleomargarines to distinguish them as plant based and the term 'oleo' was used in the US colloquially to refer to margarine made from plant based oils such as rapeseed, sunflower and olive oil which themselves have been consumed for centuries by us humans.  You may also have been confused by the fact that in Germany in the 1930s there were experiments done to produce edible fats from paraffin wax by  a chemical process, apparently hte resulting product was nutritious and palatable, but it was a deliberate process, during a time of poverty in that country when they were rebuilding following the devstation as a result of WW1, and there was a shortage of expensive butter as farming practices had not flly recovered and there was a need for high energy nutritious foods.  It was not an accidental discovery.

By the way you should know that the term 'plastic' is a property of materials (plasticity) - e.g. wet clay is described as being 'plastic' during the stage when it can be moulded, say by a potter.  The term has been hijacked as a noun to conveniently describe polymerised materials that have been shaped by moulding, casting or some other forming process during a 'plastic' state before solidifying.

Margarine was indeed developed during the war - the Franco-Prussian wars in 1869 as  a cheaper. longer lasting (no portable refrigerators then) substitute for butter as a high energy food for the French troops.  It was originally developed - as a response to a French government competition - from solid animal fats but that's another story, before using plant based oils after the discovery that hydrogenation 'firmed up' the oil.  It was first sold in the US in the 1880s and it was so popular that the powerful dairy industry lobbied the US government to tax and restrict the sales of margarine (land of the free) by introducing expensive 'licences' for wholesalers and retailers who sold margarine.  That same dairy industry also circulated the myths you quote about margarine to  deter people from using the butter substitute which have been continued by the magnifying glass that is the internet.

On another tack, could you let me know the source of the research on the IQ levels of machinists, I'd love to impress my family and prove them wrong.

TDx


----------



## terryd

CFLBob said:


> How about how wind and solar power kill birds and wildlife in huge numbers?  I've seen the downstream effects of wind turbine farms on weather radars.  It's not small.  After all, if the wind turbines were 100% effective at taking energy from the wind, there would be no wind left after them and it would radically change the weather.  Thankfully, 100% effectiveness just isn't going to happen, but I don't know that they aren't modifying weather now.



Hi Bob, just to point out that far more birds and animals are killed by traditional power stations and pollution than by the turbines.  Also there are a huge number of birds killed by flying into all glass tall buildings, plus if climate change IS really happening (I'm not saying it is, just that on balance of evidence it's more probable than possible) then far more will be wiped out by that.

Turbines cannot extract'100%' of energy from wind as most wind passes by in th espaces between, only a tiny proportion of the wind is used, and as wind is created by the differential heating effect of the oceans and land it will neve stop blowing.

Tdx


----------



## terryd

GreenTwin said:


> This is my dream car, and if I live long enough, I will make one of these, but perhaps powered with a Frisco Standard style engine.
> There is something very visually appealing about this car.



Hi Greentwin,
It's rather a stretch of the imagination to call that a 'car'  it's essentially a motorised tricycle whose descendants are stilll with us today:






OK it's a bit more advanced, but so are 'real' cars.  The one here can carry three - driver and two passengers.  A good friend of mine has a similar one that seats two plus I think that seat belts and helmets are not compulsory here in the UK but I still wouldn't call it a car.

Definition Cambridge dictionary -
Car - a road vehicle with an engine, four wheels, and seats for a small number of people:

This is probably the worlds first powered passenger carrying vehicle, also a tricycle:






Built in 1803 by Richard Trevithwick, a Cornish engineer and powered by steam.

However I do agree that your example of the Benz designed vehicle (original built 1885), the first to use an i.c. engine, is awesome and I'd love one for sunny days, thanks for sharing but I would still describe it as a powered tricycle or vehicle.  By the way, the term 'car' is thought to be derived from the Early English word 'carre' - a horse drawn cart, carriage or chariot.

As for building one, it would be impossible to use it on public roads in the UK as it would be classified as a new vehicle and would have to conform to regulations covering road going vehicles such as the need for headlights and driving lights as well as safety regulations such as protection for pedestrians in case of collision - I know that sounds stupid but it's the law here.  If it was an original it would be ok to drive on the road.  What's the situation in the US?

TDx


----------



## lennardhme

Hi all,
         Dont you know that calling a young girl a hobgoblin could have a negative psycho impact on her for the rest of her natural ? life. In future kindly refer to the young thing as bloody hobgoblin.....what happened to ' children should be seen & not heard'?, although I would love to have her come up with some positive solutions.
 By the way, the CO2 problem has been largely solved by British engineering ingenuity. 
Google JCB, a company owned by Lord Cyril Bamford which makes back hoes & suchlike & sells worldwide.
He has perfected one of his modified diesels  to run on Hydrogen, with spark ignition. It is economical, powerful & currently holds the world land speed record, so you can all sleep well tonight knowing that our beloved ICE will be around for a few more generations.
 The Hydrogen for the UK will largely be produced in Australia.....done deal.
This is a very interesting story for engine afficianados & don' t miss the video, gives some insight into hydrogen fuel cells & why they are not suitable for some applications.
Cheers,
            Lennard.


----------



## skyline1

grahamgollar said:


> And to paraphrase the Scandinavian hobgoblin: blah blah blah.



"Scandinavian Hobgoblin" that made me laugh ROTFL in fact ! But sadly I feel she is right

How many people will come to COP26 in Glasgow?

30,000 Delegates
10,000 Police Officers
Countless protesters
and all the transport to get them there, Biden's entourage alone probably produced as much CO² as a small country over the same period.

It's an awful lot of CO² to "solve" a problem which

A) May not exist
B) We may have little or no control over.

All we achieved was the wishy-washy compromise that everyone expected which will be either deliberately misinterpreted or outright ignored anyway

Vested interests and lying advertising execs have always needed a "bandwagon to jump onto" first it was health and safety, then equality and discrimination, now it's climate change and green issues. What will the next one be ?

Best Regards Mark


----------



## GreenTwin

Zeb said:


> Mennonites will sometimes build perfect structures......only to purposely introduce a glaring error to keep things spicy (or humble).
> 
> "Perfection is the enemy of good enough."
> 
> OCDness is quite prevalent in our small communities. I'm a nerd when I send texts with correct punctuation. When I come home though, I have to break some of the rules, or I'll drive my family insane. It's good to leave some grass uncut with my piston powered mower (tying it all back in, I promise) or a car parked crooked now and then. Pretty soon my new neighbors who escaped Cali promising not to repeat their previous flaws will be enforcing zoning laws on all my yard's imperfections.


I have to do the same thing.
My daughter has a new job, a new place to live, and is just getting on her feet, so she is short on money.
Her car broke down the other day, and it is perhaps 14 years old with a lot of miles.
I went to buy her a new car, and due to supply problems, the least expensive ones are not available.

They did have one with hail damage on the hood and roof, but no breaks or cracks in the paint, and it was the only new compact car they had on the lot.  I bought it, and they took $4,000.00 off the price.
My daughter was more than excited to see it, hail damage and all.
I told her that the hail damage was a reminder that life is not perfect, and that is OK.
She loves her car, and is no longer in danger of breaking down in some unsafe part of town.

.


----------



## Ken I

Terry, Correct birds are killed by all sorts of things but the damage done by wind turbines is greatly underestimated for a whole host of reasons :-

See the following infrared video of typical bat behaviour around a wind-turbine – including curiosity touch and go exploration of the object (tower and stationary blade) as well as bats falling out of the sky without being actually hit (barotrauma) and of course direct strikes.



Scientists are also concerned why bats – which have excellent echo location sonar and should have no problem identifying a moving turbine blade – seem to be attracted to them.

One suggestion is that from a distance the wing tip vortices created by the blades may be mistaken by the bats for a swirling cloud of insects – or a rather attractive dinner.

Similarly large soaring raptors can be seen to “suicidally” circle wind turbines for no apparent reason. Again it is thought that the raptors pick up on the wingtip vortices and cruise around in them looking for a free “lift” as they do for thermals. Clearly seen in the video link below…..



Raptors wingtip feathers “sense” rising and falling airflow (like a glider’s variometer instrument informs the pilot) it does not consider the turbine to be the cause nor does the bird consider it in any way dangerous. It is simply responding to millions of years of evolution dancing through the turbulence.







Theoretical wake vortex of a wind turbine.






Actual wake vortex made visible by unusual weather conditions.

It is quite possible that raptors intercept these “false thermals” and unintentionally “surf” them to their doom (as can be seen in video link above).

Glider pilots will tell you they share the airspace with soaring birds (modern gliders have better “sink” rates than birds) and you can watch them adjust their flight to remain in the thermal and the glider pilot following his variometer finds himself flying the same course as the birds.

A soaring bird crossing the downwind vortex trail would, on exiting an area of lift will turn back in to it and on subsequent crossings reverse the direction of turn – by this navigation method it zig zags or circles up towards the turbine. Once the bird passes the turbine it turns once again to find the “thermal” it was using. This then becomes the “suicidal” behaviour we see.

Clearly the fatal footprint of a wind turbine is very much larger that the physical space it occupies.

It has recently been discovered that birds flying in typical “V” formations do so for reason of energy conservation – stealing a little bit of lift from the wing vortices of the bird diagonally ahead – this behaviour was previously thought to be a line of sight issue.






This behaviour is typical for large migratory bird species – also at risk from the presence of wind turbines.

Migratory birds travelling over water typically adjust their flight paths to fly over islands to gain the benefit of any thermal lift. An offshore wind turbine would look like a tree, obviously must be supported by an “island” – so they adjust their flight path – through the rotating turbine which in most cases are large enough to transect the typical flight altitude of migratory birds. Again birds adopt these altitudes to best make use of thermals and conserve energy.

The above behaviour patterns explain the disproportionate mortality for larger birds, particularly large soaring birds like raptors and migratory species.

Because these are "Eco-friendly" projects the environmental impact study is either glossed over or by-passed completely in spite of the fact that a typical wind farm involves a hundred of these intrusive towers each with a 2500-3500 Ton foundation, about a kilometre of road per tower and extensive power grids.

A great number of wind and solar projects have in fact been built in “Bio-diversity” and “Wildlife Sanctuary’s” – where no building is normally allowed – see the following link :-

BBC Admits: Green Energy Plants Threaten Wildlife Habitats

It looks like environmentalists are starting to wake up to the fact that wind and solar are in no way “Eco-Friendly” !

Wind Turbines chop birds & bats to pieces (even the endangered ones - seems they don't differentiate) are noisy (infrasound), generate annoying “light flicker” and universally detested by the neighbours. Property values diminish with the presence of wind farms.

Britain's Wind Farm Scam Threatens Economic Recovery

Wind power is endangering species that have survived numerous ice ages, sea level changes etc - Global Warming poses no threat to them - Wind Turbines are positively lethal - refer the following link that suggest that environmentalists are in a state of denial over this inconvenient truth.

Refer to the following article in which windpower companies are using bird mortality figures and sampling guidelines for 50-60m high wind turbines on 100-130m wind turbines in order to “gloss over” the damage being done to bird (and particularly raptor) populations. They also indulge in wishful thinking such as 30 day periods between surveys when they know from other studies that most carcasses are removed by scavengers within 10 days thus underreporting avian mortalities by anywhere from 2 to 10 times the real values.

Wind turbines kill up to 39 million birds a year! - CFACT

The Irish Sea is festooned with offshore wind farms and sea bird numbers have fallen drastically – the greens are in denial and are trying desperately to find some other plausible cause – preferably finding some way of blaming man/climate change as the cause.

Admittedly causality remains unproven but a drop of 50 to 80% in some seabird populations, concomitant with the growth in offshore wind farms, is certainly alarming.

As Wind Farms Overwhelm The Irish Sea, Isle Of Man Seabird Populations Plummet

It is impossible to determine mortality rates caused by offshore wind turbines as carcasses are simply lost to the sea. I’m sure they could study it if they tried but I suspect lack of motivation to go looking for evidence that runs counter to their belief system / narrative.

Two sides to every story.

P.S. I believe the term Margerine comes from the Greek Margeron - for Pearl -apparently because under a microscope the inverse emulsion looks like pearls.

_https://wonderopolis.org/wonder/what-is-margarine#:~:text=Margarine's%20name%20derives%20from%20the,milky%2C%20pearl%2Dlike%20drops.&text=Modern%20margarine%20is%20usually%20made,oils%20that%20have%20been%20hydrogenated._

Regards, Ken


----------



## davidyat

Zeb said:


> Mennonites will sometimes build perfect structures......only to purposely introduce a glaring error to keep things spicy (or humble).
> 
> "Perfection is the enemy of good enough."
> 
> OCDness is quite prevalent in our small communities. I'm a nerd when I send texts with correct punctuation. When I come home though, I have to break some of the rules, or I'll drive my family insane. It's good to leave some grass uncut with my piston powered mower (tying it all back in, I promise) or a car parked crooked now and then. Pretty soon my new neighbors who escaped Cali promising not to repeat their previous flaws will be enforcing zoning laws on all my yard's imperfections.


Zeb, is your Avatar a WWII English Fighter Pilot, Spitfire or Hawker Hurricane? My Dad was a WWII B-24 top turret gunner and was shot down and a POW for 15 months. I'm a WWII history buff.
Grasshopper


----------



## ajoeiam

terryd said:


> Hi Richard,
> Please don't take this the wrong was but I'm sorry to rain on your parade as many of your statements here are quite wrong.  For example people do not 'die out' because of inability to eat butter.  In fact approximately 65% of the world population are lactose  intolerant after infancy, especially in East Asia so cannot consume most dairy products, however some of those are able to tolerate fermented diary products such as cheese or yoghurt.  I personally know Thai and Chinese who think that cheese etc are disgusting describing them as 'rotten milk'.
> 
> snip
> 
> TDx



Hmmmmmmmmmm - - - - - "many of your statements here are quite wrong." and you yourself are continuing the spread of same.

Please do some research - - - - butter contains at best a tiny fraction of lactose - - - if any - - - butter is a FAT product.
A good cheese - - - - SAME - - - now watch out because much of the mozzarella in north america is made using an acid rather than culture and then it does still contain lactose. As far as an intolerance to 'lactose' - - - - I think (because I am not 100% sure) in most cases this is an inability to digest some of the milk proteins - - -  which is just a wee bit different than being lactose intolerant. In fact - - - if one were lactose intolerant - - - well - - - then one would have to be glucose intolerant as well for lactose is a disaccharide formed by glucose and galactose.

As to the 'Asian' dietary thinking - - - -well they consider shark's fin a delicacy as well as a certain kind of bird's nest also eating giant slugs and maggots and a few other things that I think most of us would find quite revolting so they may label cheese as rotten milk but then if I enjoy it - - - - it is to me like their choice to eat things I find disgusting. 

Sorta easy to understand their food predilections as they have been extremely heavily populated for so long that they don't have a cultural memory of having enough space to raise things like beef easily. Beef does take more space as grass doesn't produce the same volume of stuff as do maggots or even pigs fed on wastes.


----------



## Richard Hed

terryd said:


> Hi Richard,
> Please don't take this the wrong was but I'm sorry to rain on your parade as many of your statements here are quite wrong.  For example people do not 'die out' because of inability to eat butter.  In fact approximately 65% of the world population are lactose  intolerant after infancy, especially in East Asia so cannot consume most dairy products, however some of those are able to tolerate fermented diary products such as cheese or yoghurt.  I personally know Thai and Chinese who think that cheese etc are disgusting describing them as 'rotten milk'.
> 
> The 'facts' you state about margarine are actually myths.  They are a result of some so called 'facts' that have been circulating on the internet for some time based on propaganda from the dairy industry in the US.  Basically they are  essentially the result of conspiracy theories.  Firstly, 'oleo' was not discovered by scientists in WW2 looking for plastics materials.  The word oleo is derived from the Latin 'oleum' which is a word for edible oils especially olive oil.  Early margarines were called oleomargarines to distinguish them as plant based and the term 'oleo' was used in the US colloquially to refer to margarine made from plant based oils such as rapeseed, sunflower and olive oil which themselves have been consumed for centuries by us humans.  You may also have been confused by the fact that in Germany in the 1930s there were experiments done to produce edible fats from paraffin wax by  a chemical process, apparently hte resulting product was nutritious and palatable, but it was a deliberate process, during a time of poverty in that country when they were rebuilding following the devstation as a result of WW1, and there was a shortage of expensive butter as farming practices had not flly recovered and there was a need for high energy nutritious foods.  It was not an accidental discovery.
> 
> By the way you should know that the term 'plastic' is a property of materials (plasticity) - e.g. wet clay is described as being 'plastic' during the stage when it can be moulded, say by a potter.  The term has been hijacked as a noun to conveniently describe polymerised materials that have been shaped by moulding, casting or some other forming process during a 'plastic' state before solidifying.
> 
> Margarine was indeed developed during the war - the Franco-Prussian wars in 1869 as  a cheaper. longer lasting (no portable refrigerators then) substitute for butter as a high energy food for the French troops.  It was originally developed - as a response to a French government competition - from solid animal fats but that's another story, before using plant based oils after the discovery that hydrogenation 'firmed up' the oil.  It was first sold in the US in the 1880s and it was so popular that the powerful dairy industry lobbied the US government to tax and restrict the sales of margarine (land of the free) by introducing expensive 'licences' for wholesalers and retailers who sold margarine.  That same dairy industry also circulated the myths you quote about margarine to  deter people from using the butter substitute which have been continued by the magnifying glass that is the internet.
> 
> On another tack, could you let me know the source of the research on the IQ levels of machinists, I'd love to impress my family and prove them wrong.
> 
> TDx


My degree is in Psychology.  I doesn't remember where I got the info on the IQs, however, I'm quite sure it is as accurate as any information can be (???).  However, as we all know, psychologists are all crazy anyway and as you have shown above, I probably got my facts wrong.  I absolutely loathe margarine and truly believe it is a hazard to the health.  

As for the statement about evolution, it is a general truth, if you cannot tolerate milk products, you are less likely to live longer.  When dealing with 100,000s of peop.le 40,000 years ago, this would be life extending or threatennig to an individual and so with tribes of 250 or so people.  

I have more to say, but I have to go to work.  More after work (oops, I mean werk for those of you who are trying to learn to 'unspell').


----------



## Nerd1000

ajoeiam said:


> Hmmmmmmmmmm - - - - - "many of your statements here are quite wrong." and you yourself are continuing the spread of same.
> 
> Please do some research - - - - butter contains at best a tiny fraction of lactose - - - if any - - - butter is a FAT product.
> A good cheese - - - - SAME - - - now watch out because much of the mozzarella in north america is made using an acid rather than culture and then it does still contain lactose. As far as an intolerance to 'lactose' - - - - I think (because I am not 100% sure) in most cases this is an inability to digest some of the milk proteins - - -  which is just a wee bit different than being lactose intolerant. In fact - - - if one were lactose intolerant - - - well - - - then one would have to be glucose intolerant as well for lactose is a disaccharide formed by glucose and galactose.
> 
> As to the 'Asian' dietary thinking - - - -well they consider shark's fin a delicacy as well as a certain kind of bird's nest also eating giant slugs and maggots and a few other things that I think most of us would find quite revolting so they may label cheese as rotten milk but then if I enjoy it - - - - it is to me like their choice to eat things I find disgusting.
> 
> Sorta easy to understand their food predilections as they have been extremely heavily populated for so long that they don't have a cultural memory of having enough space to raise things like beef easily. Beef does take more space as grass doesn't produce the same volume of stuff as do maggots or even pigs fed on wastes.


Ok so I'm a biochemist and need to correct you here.

Lactose is indeed a disaccharide, but your body can't use it as-is, it must be cleaved into its glucose and galactose components before your cells can absorb it. There is an enzyme that does this called lactase (or beta-galactosidase if you want to get technical) that is universal in mammals, because we all drink milk when we're babies. Most mammals, however, don't drink milk when they are adults, so making lactase would be a waste of energy and protein. Evolution hates such inefficiency, so in most mammals including humans after a certain age the gene that encodes this enzyme gets switched off and you stop being able to break down and absorb lactose. Your gut bacteria also have the gene for this enzyme, but regulate it differently (Google 'Lac Operon' for info on that) so if you don't absorb it the lactose passes through to your large intestine where the bacteria ferment it and make you sick.

Some time in prehistory, probably 8000-12000 years ago, someone was born with a mutation (DNA base 'C' at position 13910 on chromosome 2 was switched to 'T') that breaks the control system that disables lactase production in adults. This mutation would be a slight disadvantage to a hunter-gatherer, but to a farmer who kept cattle, sheep, goats etc it was an enormous genetic advantage. As a consequence it soon spread and became the dominant genotype in Northern Europe, which is staggeringly fast by evolutionary standards. However due to geographic barriers and different conditions it didn't make it to Asia or Africa until much later, and never 'took off' to the same degree.


----------



## Zeb

davidyat said:


> Zeb, is your Avatar a WWII English Fighter Pilot, Spitfire or Hawker Hurricane? My Dad was a WWII B-24 top turret gunner and was shot down and a POW for 15 months. I'm a WWII history buff.
> Grasshopper


@Grasshopper  I remember being in awe (90's) talking to some B-24 airmen that went through the Stalag Luft. They will be missed. My avatar is from a drawing of a Mustang pilot.

Regarding the amount of CO2 emissions being emitted to support COP24, I'd like to proudly remind our international members that US hunters spend approximately 1.6 billion yearly towards habitat and wildlife conservation. I think the actual output is probably worth around 10% of that, but that's still a big chunk of change. And we do spend a lot of time walking. hehe


----------



## Richard Hed

Zeb said:


> @Grasshopper  I remember being in awe (90's) talking to some B-24 airmen that went through the Stalag Luft. They will be missed. My avatar is from a drawing of a Mustang pilot.
> 
> Regarding the amount of CO2 emissions being emitted to support COP24, I'd like to proudly remind our international members that US hunters spend approximately 1.6 billion yearly towards habitat and wildlife conservation. I think the actual output is probably worth around 10% of that, but that's still a big chunk of change. And we do spend a lot of time walking. hehe


So you hunt in eastern Washington, do you?


----------



## Zeb

Negative, I try to shy away...except maybe for Alcobra. I still need to check that place out.


----------



## Richard Hed

Zeb said:


> Negative, I try to shy away...except maybe for Alcobra. I still need to check that place out.


Yes, I need to get some 1/2X3/4" brass and maybe some bronze too.  Boy alive, that stuff is expensive.  I was there a mnth ago and could have bought a piece but it was only about 18" long and cost 80$!.  I let it go at that time as I wasn't sure I would have enough moolah in the old bank account to get my other purchases.  Now I'm sorry I did not get it.


----------



## ajoeiam

Nerd1000 said:


> Ok so I'm a biochemist and need to correct you here.
> 
> Lactose is indeed a disaccharide, but your body can't use it as-is, it must be cleaved into its glucose and galactose components before your cells can absorb it. There is an enzyme that does this called lactase (or beta-galactosidase if you want to get technical) that is universal in mammals, because we all drink milk when we're babies. Most mammals, however, don't drink milk when they are adults, so making lactase would be a waste of energy and protein. Evolution hates such inefficiency, so in most mammals including humans after a certain age the gene that encodes this enzyme gets switched off and you stop being able to break down and absorb lactose. Your gut bacteria also have the gene for this enzyme, but regulate it differently (Google 'Lac Operon' for info on that) so if you don't absorb it the lactose passes through to your large intestine where the bacteria ferment it and make you sick.
> 
> Some time in prehistory, probably 8000-12000 years ago, someone was born with a mutation (DNA base 'C' at position 13910 on chromosome 2 was switched to 'T') that breaks the control system that disables lactase production in adults. This mutation would be a slight disadvantage to a hunter-gatherer, but to a farmer who kept cattle, sheep, goats etc it was an enormous genetic advantage. As a consequence it soon spread and became the dominant genotype in Northern Europe, which is staggeringly fast by evolutionary standards. However due to geographic barriers and different conditions it didn't make it to Asia or Africa until much later, and never 'took off' to the same degree.



OK - - - - so one can be lactose intolerant due to a lack of lactase. 

Still doesn't remove the fact that there should be zero lactose in butter - - - and in a good cheese. 

So what causes the issues when butter is used or a good cheese? 
(Not talking about when a pasta filata produced using the acid process is involved.)


----------



## Nerd1000

ajoeiam said:


> OK - - - - so one can be lactose intolerant due to a lack of lactase.
> 
> Still doesn't remove the fact that there should be zero lactose in butter - - - and in a good cheese.
> 
> So what causes the issues when butter is used or a good cheese?
> (Not talking about when a pasta filata produced using the acid process is involved.)


In an ideal world there should not be lactose in butter or cheese, in practice there is usually going to be some carry-over, in the butter because some small amount of the non-fat milk components sneak through, and in cheese because the bacteria don't manage to eat it all before conditions stop them growing.

People were eating yoghurt and cheese for a long time before they were eating other dairy, precisely because the much lower lactose content made it tolerable (also no refrigeration or pasteurisation means milk turns into one of these products rather quickly after it comes out of the cow, whether you want it to or not).

Going back to the start of this conversation, a lot of what is seen as 'bad' about margarine comes from its trans-fat content. Animal fats like butter are mostly saturated fats, which are known to not be great for cardiovascular health. Vegetable oils are mostly cis- unsaturated fats, which are better, but the bent shape of a cis-unsaturated fatty acid means the molecules don't pack together into a solid so easily as saturated fats, causing the fat to be a liquid at room temperature. To make margarine (as opposed to something with the consistency of mayonnaise) from vegetable oils the usual practice is to hydrogenate the oil, turning it into a saturated fat. No worse than butter so far, but the conditions of the hydrogenation can also catalyse a side reaction that flips cis unsaturated fatty acids into trans unsaturated fatty acids, which are now known to cause lots of cholesterol problems.


----------



## willray

Richard Hed said:


> As for the statement about evolution, it is a general truth, if you cannot tolerate milk products, you are less likely to live longer.



Quite obviously, this "general truth" is something other than true.  The fact that the large majority of the earth's population is "lactose intolerant", suggests that lactose intolerance is not even remotely an impediment to fitness in an evolutionary sense.


----------



## davidyat

Zeb said:


> @Grasshopper  I remember being in awe (90's) talking to some B-24 airmen that went through the Stalag Luft. They will be missed. My avatar is from a drawing of a Mustang pilot.
> 
> Regarding the amount of CO2 emissions being emitted to support COP24, I'd like to proudly remind our international members that US hunters spend approximately 1.6 billion yearly towards habitat and wildlife conservation. I think the actual output is probably worth around 10% of that, but that's still a big chunk of change. And we do spend a lot of time walking. hehe


*Zeb, I didn't know Mustang pilots (USA I assume) wore British style skull caps and oxygen delivery systems. I thought they wore headgear more like this. I'm assembling a mannequin with all the equipment I believe my Dad wore during His time in the B-24. In 2019, I was lucky enough to be on a 75th Anniversary of D-Day tour in Europe and afterward, visited the sites of 2 of His Stalag Lufts. Luft IV and 11A
Grasshopper*


----------



## Ken I

I think it more likely that they were British pilots flying Mustangs. Mustang MkIII's were used by the RAF.
IIRC Stanford Tuck's squadron flew them for a while.
Regards, Ken


----------



## Henry K

Years ago, there was a large ( 2 units each 300 megawatt) coal fired electric generating plant a few miles away. It used water from an adjacent river for cooling. My friend worked for the utility. One time they had an environmental problem - a large fish kill. It was winter (air temperature 20 to 30 degrees farenheight) and the plant had to shut down for some repairs. The very large volume of bathtub temperature water stopped coming into the river. Fish that were used to the warm water were now in ice cold water - big fish kill.


----------



## Richard Hed

willray said:


> Quite obviously, this "general truth" is something other than true.  The fact that the large majority of the earth's population is "lactose intolerant", suggests that lactose intolerance is not even remotely an impediment to fitness in an evolutionary sense.


It's true for Europeans.  It's very much like when nomads learned to use wheat in a flour to make breads.  THis gave them more energy to breed more and live longer too.


----------



## Steamchick

"Vive la difference!".. But these same nomads also found that where grasses grew well was a more temperate climate, the dried seeds could be stored easily through "non-growing"
 seasons, making winter survival better, and a host of other reasons. Including genetic changes to have less pigment to block UV in the skin, differences in eyes, liver, and other organ details, etc.
And grass seeds can make beer! - Yummy!
K2


----------



## Richard Hed

Steamchick said:


> "Vive la difference!".. But these same nomads also found that where grasses grew well was a more temperate climate, the dried seeds could be stored easily through "non-growing"
> seasons, making winter survival better, and a host of other reasons. Including genetic changes to have less pigment to block UV in the skin, differences in eyes, liver, and other organ details, etc.
> And grass seeds can make beer! - Yummy!
> K2


Exactly.  And it took tens of thousands of years to do so, each characteristic, one at a tyme.


----------

