Henry Winkler cited the bright side of global warming: “Eskimos look fabulous in bikinis.”
Thanks Hank ?
And therefore the alarmist reports of global warming should be disregarded?
Anthropogenic Global Warming ... how hot is it ?
- Thread starter sear
- Start date
Henry Winkler cited the bright side of global warming: “Eskimos look fabulous in bikinis.”
Thanks Hank ?
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Not at all - just pointing out that there is a difference between weather and climate.
Trump promised to cut electric bills in half. His energy policy is doing the opposite
Ella Nilsen, CNN / Tue, July 7, 2026 at 9:30 AM GMT-5A sudden electricity crunch in the US, driven by artificial intelligence, is colliding headlong with the Trump administration's attacks on wind and solar. President Donald Trump has presented his anti-renewable stance as a way to cut energy costs — but a new analysis suggests limiting energy development at a time of high demand will result in Americans paying even more for power.
The new report from clean energy think tank Energy Innovation suggests higher energy bills will continue for the next decade, tied directly to Trump's policies. It comes as energy affordability is emerging as a key issue in this year's midterm elections.
A year ago, Republicans in Congress killed a clean energy law that had contained billions in subsidies for renewables, electric vehicles, rooftop solar and household batteries. The administration has made it harder to permit clean energy projects and has tipped the scales in favor of more expensive coal-fired power. And Trump's government has waged a largely successful onslaught against the budding electric vehicle market in the US.
On the campaign trail, Trump vowed to cut electricity bills in half in his first year in office. But the collective impact of the administration's actions will raise costs on American households by more than half a trillion dollars by 2040, Energy Innovation found. On average, individual households will pay $460 more for their energy costs by 2035, and up to $490 more per household by 2040.
The White House does not consider Energy Innovation's report to be fair and non-partisan, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said.
But clean energy analysts say Trump policy is driving cost increases. "It is materially impacting Americans' pocketbooks in a negative sense," said Sam Ricketts, co-founder of clean energy consulting firm S2 Strategies. "We cannot overlook that it is the wrong direction. We need to change course."
Trump promised to cut electric bills in half. His energy policy is doing the opposite, new analysis finds
American’s are paying more for power as the Trump administration’s attacks on renewable energy collide with increased energy demand.
View attachment 5633
Trump promised to cut electric bills in half. His energy policy is doing the opposite
Ella Nilsen, CNN / Tue, July 7, 2026 at 9:30 AM GMT-5
A sudden electricity crunch in the US, driven by artificial intelligence, is colliding headlong with the Trump administration's attacks on wind and solar. President Donald Trump has presented his anti-renewable stance as a way to cut energy costs — but a new analysis suggests limiting energy development at a time of high demand will result in Americans paying even more for power.
The new report from clean energy think tank Energy Innovation suggests higher energy bills will continue for the next decade, tied directly to Trump's policies. It comes as energy affordability is emerging as a key issue in this year's midterm elections.
A year ago, Republicans in Congress killed a clean energy law that had contained billions in subsidies for renewables, electric vehicles, rooftop solar and household batteries. The administration has made it harder to permit clean energy projects and has tipped the scales in favor of more expensive coal-fired power. And Trump's government has waged a largely successful onslaught against the budding electric vehicle market in the US.
On the campaign trail, Trump vowed to cut electricity bills in half in his first year in office. But the collective impact of the administration's actions will raise costs on American households by more than half a trillion dollars by 2040, Energy Innovation found. On average, individual households will pay $460 more for their energy costs by 2035, and up to $490 more per household by 2040.
The White House does not consider Energy Innovation's report to be fair and non-partisan, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said.
But clean energy analysts say Trump policy is driving cost increases. "It is materially impacting Americans' pocketbooks in a negative sense," said Sam Ricketts, co-founder of clean energy consulting firm S2 Strategies. "We cannot overlook that it is the wrong direction. We need to change course."
Trump promised to cut electric bills in half. His energy policy is doing the opposite, new analysis finds
American’s are paying more for power as the Trump administration’s attacks on renewable energy collide with increased energy demand.www.yahoo.com
I am all for cleaner air, but batteries and EVs actually make things worse.
The rare earth elements, extra weight, and built in inefficiencies increase the emissions of battery EVs.
Especially since we could instead use bio fuels, hydrogen, or something like ethanol that costs less and pollutes almost nothing.
"make things worse" than what?
Our choice as an industrialized planet is:
If Bruce is going to drive X miles in one year, which is better for the planets population? A Gasoline fueled car? A hybrid? Or an all electric?
Seems like you're obfuscating mining pollution vs automobile pollution, substantially what gushes from exhaust pipes.
Part of the obstacle to that is the political status quo.
Trump seems to be obstructing renewable energy where he can, to benefit his fossil fuel chums.
If you burn bio fuel, it absorbs more carbon while growing than is released again when burned.
Hydrogen can be made from nuclear, wind, or solar and emits nothing but water vapor.
All electric is the worst, since electricity is very inefficient to generate, store, extract, convert back into kinetic energy, and the batteries are so heavy that they double the energy consumed.
The massive emissions are from the plants that generate electricity.
Mining pollution is only a tiny factor in comparison.
Carbon neutrality seems to be the general rule. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7735313/
Jeremy Rifkin, author of The Hydrogen Economy endorses the zero Carbon virtue of Hydrogen, BUT
acknowledges there are troubles ahead for converting to Hydrogen as a mainstay.
I have not read any plausible accounts of the storage problems being solved, Hydrogen is difficult to store. It leaks out.
I gather the way Hydrogen gas is converted to Hydrogen liquid is refrigeration. That takes energy.
An additional problem, burning Hydrogen fuel only releases about 70% of the energy consumed in producing the Hydrogen fuel.
Subjectively perhaps. Electricity is Carbon free. So by rational standard it might also be considered the best.
Currently, indeed so. But
improvements have been made. Li / Ion increased the energy density of "batteries".
We're not there yet, your point perhaps.
It remains a technological problem.
And the fabulous thing about technological problems is they have technological solutions.
While it is true it is hard to store hydrogen, what Iceland did was to not generate it until needed.
If you fill up a tank of hydrogen in your car, it lasts for several months.
While hydrogen burning is only 70% efficient, that is far more efficient than electricity that has 50% losses in generation, 10% loses in transmission, 10% loss in storage, 10% loss in retrieval, and another 50% loss in conversion back to kinetic energy.
Electricity is currently the greatest source of carbon emissions.
That is because the non-carbon sources of electricity can't easily be stored or ramped up and down like fossil fuel electric generators can.
The reality is that EVs are ignoring their increased emissions that are at the power plant instead of the tailpipe.
Bio fuels are the best solution since they absorb more CO2 when growing than they release when burned.
I'm wondering whether a competition should be held, invite a new generation of grad. students to take a new-eyes look at the panorama,
and consider large scale which energy storage technology makes most sense.
It's an extreme example, but one worth mentioning.
Not a hybrid, but a full electric only car may pollute more Carbon per mile, IF its electricity is generated in a coal-fired commercial power plant.
Do you have a link for this?
Seems implausible to me.
Iceland uses geothermal to produce electricity, which could only be used around Yellowstone park in the US, from what I know?
There has to be a hot spring.
Hybrids have the extra weight and complexity of 2 separate drive trains.
They say there is only about 25 years of gas and oil left, so we will have to return to coal, since there is enough coal for 500 years.
With biofuels, remember that you only harvest and burn a tiny portion of the plant, like the palm oil fruit nut.
The rest of the plant is not burned and retains its sequestered carbon.
It is also a simple cold press and not a heated extraction or complex refinery process.
Last edited: