Topic: Trump has declared war on water saving toilets and it’s hilarious (15 times) :) (Read 849 times)

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/17/tech/apple-microsoft-tesla-dell-congo-cobalt-mining/index.html

Trump is simply trying to show people that government people don't have any power.

All that people need to do is take any law or government person to court, jury-style, for anything, and laws can be reversed or created by the people.

I wouldn't be surprised if he has declared war on the three separately...

• Ban water! Everyone has access to water, which makes it socialist, which makes it A Bad Thing.
• Ban saving! Everyone needs to spend to help the economy. It is un-American to save.
• Ban toilets! Studies have shown that toilets contain human fecal matter. Toilets are a health hazard. Toilets should be shot on sight. And then the contaminated toilet shards should be scraped up by trained professionals.

Would you be at all surprised if he actually said any of these things? No, of course you wouldn't. The man is a fool.

Oh definitely. There's nothing more annoying than a spillage in the middle of the night because one jug was not enough and you noticed too late.

My comments weren't specifically directed at you. But think of the ridiculousness, someone buys an EV to be True Green and then other True Greens cause his coal fired power utility's prices to skyrocket. Like Obama promised.

Germany shut down their coal fired power plants to be True Green, only to find themselves economically dependent on natural gas and a pipeline from Russia. And they shut down their nuclear plants, 8 already and the remaining 9 before long.

If the results look quite silly, they are. An eighth grader can look at politicians' claims they will get a country "completely renewable" and look at the current state of affairs, the progress per year and report they are totally untrue. That's why I meant exactly what I said, "the pinnacle of the AGW circus is the training of people to be stupid, to think stupid and act stupid, and think they are wise, and wonderful. "

Well its better than declaring war in iran or any country, its pretty much hilarious. Seriously how did this guy got elected as the president of the united states but i hope he's just joking cause really water toilets are pretty much useful they're widely use in japan, but enough of the toilets why not focus in important things like growing problems of drugs and poverty, the increasing number of homeless people. Why dont he focus on that ?

You are projecting as usual. Don't accuse us of "bashing" you because you can't handle people being critical of your ideas. This is the behavior of some one who is looking to confirm their bias, not some one who is here to have a discussion.

Neither of us are qualified, but you still declare your conclusion, and want data which of course you will quickly dismiss because "we are not qualified" but of course your conclusion is the obvious conclusion isn't it? Your inability to find evidence you don't really care to find is evidence of nothing but your own bias.

There are lots of industries that stand to gain from the promotion of electric vehicles, much more than that of internal combustion cars. Of course you will find an abundance of materials promoting EVs and dismissing any criticism of them. Nine out of ten doctors agree after all that Marlboro cigarettes are a great way to sooth that chronic cough.

Price is an indicator, but of course that depends on all kinds of complex economical variables. Palm oil is cheap, but its cultivation results in deforestation. Corn syrup is cheap, but it is subsidized by the government and bad for your body. Even the dollar cost alone is not a reliable indicator because markets are continually shifting with supply, demand, as well as other subsidies and monetary base variables. The issue is not as much the initial price of the car but the price of fueling it that can change quickly.

This is also not to mention the strain that would be placed on the electrical grid if EVs were the norm and not the exception, not to mention how vulnerable that would make everyone to grid failures. There are a lot of other issues regarding EVs I won't go into here but there are many. Again, I wish we could all have solar powered jet packs and not pollute the environment, but we aren't there yet no matter how much you want to confirm your bias.

Half convo, half 'lets bash TwitchySeal' party lol

Was just pointing out my 'bouncing around' was just responding to you guys.

Do you have any data that shows electric vehicles are ecologically worse or less efficient?

Calculating the overall cost of mining the minerals => driving a Tesla vs  Drilling for oil => Driving your normal car is not something either of us are qualified to do.

The research I've done tells me it's a very complicated calculation, but electric cars are the overall winner.  I can not find a single reputable source that agrees with you and lots that explicitly disagree with you.

Overall price is definitely an indicator.  But I guess we could argue Gas is too high or electric too low and it won't stay that way?

Seems likely electric cars are still coming down in price though.

As you are often fond of telling me, calm down. We are just having a discussion, you just don't like the direction it went. I am afraid you are just going to have to learn cope with that.

You brought up price and CO2, TECSHARE brought up efficiency.  Which is fine, I was literally just trying to have a discussion.  Jeez.

All very true, but the pinnacle of the AGW circus is the training of people to be stupid, to think stupid and act stupid, and think they are wise, and wonderful.

Where people once were taught the mechanisms of weather and climate, including the short, medium and long term oscillations and the reasons for them, now they are drilled with a mantra, a prescribed dogma, and questioning it is bad.

Where there might have been serious discussion about electric cars versus gasoline, now the "good green option" is pre-decreed, regardless of whether the electric car where sited must run off a downstream coal combustion process.

Where an offshore adversary or an enemy within the US wants to weaken us, they need only agitate and spend a few million to destroy or stall the issues (not building new nuclear power, the pipeline from Canada, fracking, offshore drilling, shutting down existing nuclear power, wasting money on windmills and solar farms) that if cleverly manipulated, directly lead to the US being economically dependent on oil from the Middle East, with all the consequences of that.

He is bouncing freely between co2 emissions, price, and actual energy efficiency. I find the concept of anthropogenic global warming to be nonsense and meaningless, but it takes many years for an electric vehicle to make up for the emissions created during the construction of the vehicle. The price (currently ) is in favor of EVs, but that could change any day as the market shifts. As far as energy efficiency he likes to point about the extraction and delivery cost of fossil fuels but also wants to ignore the immense amounts of energy required to mine the rare Earth elements required to build an EV, as well as the multitude of other disastrous environmental side effects of mining these types of minerals.

good find.  So it's fair to say that the 'downstream' energy costs are reflected in these prices.

I know you still have the issue of what's best described as "lifecycle energy costs" or "lifecycle emissions," or "lifecycle costs including disposal of Li batteries" etc.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/electricvehicles/saving-fuel-and-vehicle-costs

Those energies are nicely summarized in a thing called "price."

So just the emissions of when the coal combusts in the power plant and the gas in the engine.

That's just part of the equation, as I've already pointed out.  I think you're underestimating how much energy it takes to transfer the potential energy from the coal and crude oil in the ground to a car.  It's not simple.

That is is basic chemistry, results of combustion. There are many other trace outputs, in IC engines these are nominal. With coal they can be quite a problem.

Following chemical reactions takes place in the combustion of coal with the release of heat:

C + O2 = CO2 + 8084 Kcal/ Kg of carbon (33940 KJ/Kg)
S + O2 = SO2 + 2224 Kcal/Kg of sulfur (9141 KJ/Kg)
2 H2 + O2 = 2 H2O + 28922 Kcal/Kg of hydrogen (142670 KJ/Kg)

https://marcepinc.com/blog/coal-combustion-process-and-its-products

Gasoline is usually approximated as being made up of only octane, whose chemical formula is C8H18, hence ...

C8H18 + 12.5 O2 → 8 CO2 + 9 H2O

 some researchers suggest that a regional approach to clean vehicle standards makes more sense than national standards that effectively require electric cars across the board. Minnesota could go for hybrids and California could go for electric vehicles.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-cars-are-not-necessarily-clean/

But he gets it wrong. CA is clean only in CA's imagination. Consider the giant coal power plants in southern Nevada that were built primarily to supply power to CA...

Is this your 'reasons', or am I missing something.

Are you saying the 2 molecules created account for the entire process?  Or just when it combusts in your engine.

It says exactly this.

"If your original source of energy is coal, an electric car is inferior to a gasoline car."

Nothing complicated about it. Very simple. I gave the reasons.

Now, regarding your concern about total life cycle carbon emissions versus usage carbon emissions for the electric versus gasoline vehicle.

I see your point. "Apply the Schiff Method."

There should be a thorough investigation of the total life cycle energy emissions problem for the gasoline car. Adequate investigations and careful selection of evidence, coupled with careful deletion of evidence, should enable reaching the desired conclusion, that the gasoline car is inferior to the electric car.

We appreciate your help in urging us to investigate very thoroughly, when the pre-ordained conclusion is not immediately reached, and stopping all investigation, when some promoted issue at first appearances indicates the pre-ordained conclusion is evident. If you need help, our trusted comrades will be happy to help. Although they may not be the brightest tools in the shed, they do have experience with the Adam Schiff method. Peter Struck himself, the grand master of bias in method, is looking for a job, and Linda Paige is also available.

Just think, "What conclusion do I want to shape?" for starters.

Are you saying the 2 molecules created account for the entire process?  Or just when it combusts in your engine.