|From: russet||12/2/2019 11:08:22 PM|
|Ideal levels of CO2 up to 1500 ppm,...our plants are being starved!!!!|
About CO2 GRO Inc.
GROW's mission is to accelerate the growth of all value plants safely, effectively and profitably using our patent protected advanced CO2 Delivery Solutions. It is a commercially proven technology that is easily adopted into greenhouses, indoor and outdoor grow operations.
GROW's target markets are the 50 billion square feet of global greenhouse space (USDA) and the 4.62 billion acres of global cropland (USGS). While indoor gassing of CO2 to enhance crop yields has been practiced for decades, 85% of the world's greenhouses cannot use CO2 gassing economically due mostly to heat ventilation which causes the CO2 gas to escape. Outdoor growers cannot gas CO2 into the atmosphere to the ideal levels required of up to 1500 ppm.
GROW's CO2 Delivery Solutions naturally and safely dissolves CO2 gas into water creating an aqueous CO2 solution which is then misted directly on plant leaves, GROW has demonstrated improving crop yields by up to 30% with up to 30% faster growth. The CO2 solution's micro droplets create an aqueous film around the entire leaf surface, isolating the leaf from the atmosphere. This creates a diffusion gradient favoring CO2 transport into the leaf and other gases like oxygen out of the leaf. Photosynthesis of the additional carbon leads to faster, larger plant growth. CO2 Delivery Solutions has been demonstrated on crops including cannabis, lettuce, kale, microgreens, peppers, flowers and medical tobacco. Growers everywhere can now supplement CO2 to their crops using CO2 Delivery Solutions increasing plant yields and profits.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|From: russet||12/3/2019 7:20:28 PM|
|Thanks to oil !!!|
The Global Inequality Gap, and How It’s Changed Over 200 Years
December 3, 2019
How the Global Inequality Gap Has Changed In 200 YearsWhat makes a person healthy, wealthy, and wise? The UN’s Human Development Index (HDI) measures this by one’s life expectancy, average income, and years of education.
However, the value of each metric varies greatly depending on where you live. Today’s data visualization from Max Roser at Our World in Data summarizes five basic dimensions of development across countries—and how our average standards of living have evolved since 1800.
Health: Mortality Rates and Life ExpectancyChild mortality rates and life expectancy at birth are telltale signs of a country’s overall standard of living, as they indicate a population’s ability to access healthcare services.
Iceland stood at the top of these ranks in 2017, with only a 0.21% mortality rate for children under five years old. On the other end of the spectrum, Somalia had the highest child mortality rate of 12.7%—over three times the current global average.
While there’s a stark contrast between the best and worst performing countries, it’s clear that even Somalia has made significant strides since 1800. At that time, the global average child mortality rate was a whopping 43%.
Lower child mortality is also tied to higher life expectancy. In 1800, the average life expectancy was that of today’s millennial—only 29 years old:
Today, the global average has shot up to 72.2 years, with areas like Japan exceeding this benchmark by more than a decade.
Education: Mean and Expected Years of SchoolingEducation levels are measured in two distinct ways:
Mean years: the average number of years a person aged 25+ receives in their lifetimeExpected years: the total years a 2-year old child is likely to spend in schoolIn the 1800s, the mean and expected years of education were both less than a year—only 78 days to be precise. Low attendance rates occurred because children were expected to work during harvests, or contracted long-term illnesses that kept them at home.
Since then, education levels have drastically improved:
Mean Years of SchoolingExpected Years of schooling Global Average8.4 years12.7 years
|Highest||Germany : 14.1 years||Australia : 22.9 years|
|Lowest||Burkina Faso : 1.5 years||South Sudan : 4.9 years|
Research shows that investing in education can greatly narrow the inequality gap. Just one additional year of school can:
Raise a person’s income by up to 10%Raise average annual GDP growth by 0.37%Reduce the probability of motherhood by 7.3%Reduce the likelihood of child marriage by >5 percentage points Source
Education has a strong correlation with individual wealth, which cascades into national wealth. Not surprisingly, average income has ballooned significantly in two centuries as well.
Wealth: Average GDP Per CapitaGlobal inequality levels are the most stark when it comes to GDP per capita. While the U.S. stands at $54,225 per person in 2017, resource-rich Qatar brings in more than double this amount—an immense $116,936 per person.
The global average GDP per capita is $15,469, but inequality heavily skews the bottom end of these values. In the Central African Republic, GDP per capita is only $661 today—similar to the average income two hundred years ago.
A Virtuous CycleThese measures of development clearly feed into one another. Rising life expectancies are an indication of a society’s growing access to healthcare options. Compounded with more years of education, especially for women, this has had a ripple effect on declining fertility rates, contributing to higher per capita incomes.
People largely agree on what goes into human well-being: life, health, sustenance, prosperity, peace, freedom, safety, knowledge, leisure, happiness… If they have improved over time, that, I submit, is progress.
— Steven Pinker
As technology accelerates the pace of change across these indicators, will the global inequality gap narrow more, or expand even wider?
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|From: russet||12/4/2019 3:27:17 PM|
|From National Geographic today,...let's all go back to living in caves.|
As Spaceweather.com reports, dozens of spacecraft in the new Starlink constellation dove through the recent (and rare) outburst of the Alpha Monocerotids, creating bright trails that sometimes outshone the meteors. The incident has astronomers and stargazers worried, since parent company SpaceX plans to launch even more of these satellites in a bid to deliver global internet service. Our hunger for more, faster internet may also damage a more common activity: checking the weather forecast. As our Alejandra Borunda reports, next-generation 5G service threatens to drown out key data about water vapor in the atmosphere, potentially undercutting forecast accuracy.
As much as I love my smartphone, I’m hoping that the right folks are paying attention to these warning signs and will make sure that tomorrow’s technology won’t come at too high a price.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|From: Brumar89||12/4/2019 8:28:48 PM|
|Historic Cold in U.S., Record Snow Across Northern Hemisphere: Winter Arrives Early|
If you haven’t heard about the historic snow across the northern hemisphere this winter, hear it now. Yes, winter began early with unusually heavy snow and extraordinary cold.
Many parts of the U.S. recorded historic lows in November, especially during the second week. Media reports confirmed “record-breaking temperatures across the U.S.” Buffalo, New York, broke its highest snowfall record for Nov. 11 with 8.7 inches of snow.
On Nov. 12, the National Weather Service (NWS) in Indianapolis tweeted, “The current temperature is 13 [degrees Fahrenheit] which breaks a 108 year old record low for the city. Old record low was 14 [degrees Fahrenheit] in 1911.”
The Midwest registered over 850 daily temperature records. NWS in Grand Rapids tweeted, “Preliminary numbers from G.R., Lansing, Muskegon, and Kalamazoo indicate this has been a Top 3 coldest first-half of November, competing with 1991 and 1951, with temperatures averaging near 32 degrees! Normally we’re around 41 degrees.”
A similar situation prevailed in Canada. Pearson airport in Toronto recorded 5.5 inches of snow. That was four times higher than the previous record set in 1983. The Weather Network observed that “record January-like cold, bitter wind chill” descended in Ontario. The nation’s capital, Ottawa, registered at least four record-breaking cold days in November.
The northern hemisphere as a whole experienced above-normal snowfall.
The European Space Agency’s Global Snow Monitoring for Climate Research (GlobSnow) quantifies snow levels in terms of snow water equivalent (SWE). SWE is “the amount of liquid water in the snow pack that would be formed if the snow pack was completely melted.”
Data from GlobSnow confirm that snow-mass levels for the past few weeks have been well above the 30-year average (1982–2012).
According to Environment and Climate Change Canada, the snow extent in the northern hemisphere is at its highest levels in recent decades.
National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) reported that the daily snow extent for November has been at a 14-year high (2005–2019).
If the trend continues, the winter of 2019–2020 could be one of the coldest, and snowiest, in recent decades.
Regardless, we can say with certainty that winter has arrived early this year. Arctic blasts have provided us with record-breaking new lows.
Climate activists are largely silent on the record cold and snow. They seem increasingly out of touch with climate reality.
These record lows may or may not presage long-term changes in climate. They do, however, belie false predictions that winters would become milder due to rapid climate change.
Ecclesiastes is right: There is nothing new under the sun!
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (82744)||12/4/2019 8:32:19 PM|
|Why Don’t Climate Change Alarmists Promote Nuclear Power?|
In 2008 Al Gore said climate change threatens to “destroy the future of human civilization.” He continued, “We are facing a planetary emergency which, if not solved, would exceed anything we’ve ever experienced in the history of humankind.” To address the problem will “require us to end our dependence on carbon-based fuels.” Not everyone agrees with Mr. Gore’s conclusions on climate change, but for those who do, why are they not strong advocates of nuclear power? It is a proven technology in use today that emits no greenhouse gasses and can substitute for massive amounts of fossil fuels.
If we need to take action now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there is no surer way to do it than to build nuclear power plants. According to the EPA, electricity generation and transportation account for 57 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Assuming that most transportation emissions are from motor vehicles, then generating all electricity from nuclear power (and other zero-emissions technologies like solar and wind) and replacing petroleum-fueled vehicles with electric vehicles could eliminate more than half of greenhouse gas emissions. Residential and commercial is another 12 percent, which could shift almost entirely to electricity, and industry accounts for another 22 percent, which also could be largely electrified.
By using existing technology to substitute nuclear power for fossil fuels in the generation of electricity, by substituting electricity for petroleum to fuel motor vehicles, and by shifting commercial and residential heating to electricity, emissions of greenhouse gasses could be reduced by 80 percent or more.
If climate change is a catastrophe on the horizon, and immediate action is needed, why are climate change alarmists not solidly backing nuclear power—a remedy that is available today?
I’m not siding with (or against) the climate change alarmists here. Maybe they are right. Maybe not. But they think they are right, and if they hold these strong convictions, their lack of active support for nuclear power is completely baffling. They perceive a problem. A proven and readily available remedy already exists, but they are not clamoring to implement it. They are not advocating the one change we could implement now to avoid what they see as the biggest planetary emergency to have ever faced humankind.
Admittedly, nuclear power has its own drawbacks, but they are small and manageable compared to the alternative of global catastrophe. France generates about 75 percent of its electricity through nuclear, and many countries generate 30 to 50 percent of their electricity through nuclear power, so the substitution of nuclear power for fossil fuels for electricity generation, and to power motor vehicles and heat homes and commercial spaces, is obviously feasible because it is being done now.
Meanwhile, Germany and Switzerland have started phasing out their nuclear power plants and will completely eliminate them. I’m not objecting to their decision, but the climate change alarmists should be. Those who view greenhouse gasses as a serious threat to human civilization should be outraged at nations that are eliminating zero-emissions sources of power.
Some economists advocate carbon taxes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While carbon taxes would undoubtedly have an effect—look at the difference in the size of the average automobile in Europe, where taxes push the price of gasoline to more than double the US price, and in the United States—they won’t eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. Small cars still emit greenhouse gasses. A political problem with carbon taxes is that people resist being taxed, so carbon taxes will be a tough sell.
If governments around the world encouraged nuclear power, and perhaps even subsidized it, energy prices would fall, which people would like much more than rising energy prices, adding to the attractiveness of nuclear power. Electric cars are already cheaper to operate than petroleum-powered cars. What if governments offered reduced cost, or even free, charging stations for electric cars? I’m not suggesting governments should do this. I’m wondering why climate change alarmists aren’t advocating it.
Some climate change alarmists might not advocate nuclear power out of ignorance: They don’t realize the potential of nuclear energy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some alarmists might be hypocrites: They don’t really believe their own arguments. Some alarmists are more anti-capitalist and support climate change hysteria because the remedies proposed would move in the direction of undermining capitalism.
Surely some climate change alarmists are both sincere and knowledgeable. So, why is there no visible support within that group for nuclear power?
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)|
|To: Brumar89 who wrote (82751)||12/5/2019 6:56:43 AM|
|Early snow cover record set for USA – a foot of snow in 25 states!|
Anthony Watts / December 3, 2019
Snow cover over Lower 48 most extensive on record for early December (going back to 2003). At least a foot of snow has fallen in 25 different states over last few days. And snow has fallen as far south as Southern California, Tennessee, and Northern Georgia.
Snow covered the ground on nearly half of the real estate in the Lower 48 — 46.2 percent of land area — on Monday morning, the largest area on Dec. 2 since snow cover records from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration began in 2003. Normally, a little more than a quarter of the nation has snow on the ground at this time of year.
– Source: Jason Samenow, Capital Weather Gang
This graphic from NOAA
Source: nohrsc.noaa.gov personally saw the snow in southern California the day after Thanksgiving. This view below is from Interstate 5 crossing “The Grapevine” north of Los Angeles:
Photo by William WattsFrom the NWS:
Here's a look at total snowfall accumulation across the Lower 48 States since last Tuesday, Nov. 26, 2019. At least 19 states had at least an isolated location with at least a foot of snow over the past 6 days!
12:32 PM - Dec 2, 2019
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)|
|To: Brumar89 who wrote (82752)||12/6/2019 7:05:31 AM|
|Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong|
Environmental journalists and advocates have in recent weeks made a number of apocalyptic predictions about the impact of climate change. Bill McKibben suggested climate-driven fires in Australia had made koalas “functionally extinct.” Extinction Rebellion said “Billions will die” and “Life on Earth is dying.” Vice claimed the “collapse of civilization may have already begun.”
Few have underscored the threat more than student climate activist Greta Thunberg and Green New Deal sponsor Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The latter said, “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.” Says Thunberg in her new book, “Around 2030 we will be in a position to set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control that will lead to the end of our civilization as we know it.”
Sometimes, scientists themselves make apocalyptic claims. “It’s difficult to see how we could accommodate a billion people or even half of that,” if Earth warms four degrees, said one earlier this year. “The potential for multi-breadbasket failure is increasing,” said another. If sea levels rise as much as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts, another scientist said, “It will be an unmanageable problem.”
Today In: Business
Apocalyptic statements like these have real-world impacts. In September, a group of British psychologists said children are increasingly suffering from anxiety from the frightening discourse around climate change. In October, an activist with Extinction Rebellion (”XR”) — an environmental group founded in 2018 to commit civil disobedience to draw awareness to the threat its founders and supporters say climate change poses to human existence — and a videographer, were kicked and beaten in a London Tube station by angry commuters. And last week, an XR co-founder said a genocide like the Holocaust was “happening again, on a far greater scale, and in plain sight” from climate change.
Climate change is an issue I care passionately about and have dedicated a significant portion of my life to addressing. I have been politically active on the issue for over 20 years and have researched and written about it for 17 years. Over the last four years, my organization, Environmental Progress, has worked with some of the world’s leading climate scientists to prevent carbon emissions from rising. So far, we’ve helped prevent emissions increasing the equivalent of adding 24 million cars to the road.
I also care about getting the facts and science right and have in recent months corrected inaccurate and apocalyptic news media coverage of fires in the Amazon and fires in California, both of which have been improperly presented as resulting primarily from climate change.
Journalists and activists alike have an obligation to describe environmental problems honestly and accurately, even if they fear doing so will reduce their news value or salience with the public. There is good evidence that the catastrophist framing of climate change is self-defeating because it alienates and polarizes many people. And exaggerating climate change risks distracting us from other important issues including ones we might have more near-term control over.
I feel the need to say this up-front because I want the issues I’m about to raise to be taken seriously and not dismissed by those who label as “climate deniers” or “climate delayers” anyone who pushes back against exaggeration.
With that out of the way, let’s look whether the science supports what’s being said.
First, no credible scientific body has ever said climate change threatens the collapse of civilization much less the extinction of the human species. “‘Our children are going to die in the next 10 to 20 years.’ What’s the scientific basis for these claims?” BBC’s Andrew Neil asked a visibly uncomfortable XR spokesperson last month.
“These claims have been disputed, admittedly,” she said. “There are some scientists who are agreeing and some who are saying it’s not true. But the overall issue is that these deaths are going to happen.”
“But most scientists don’t agree with this,” said Neil. “I looked through IPCC reports and see no reference to billions of people going to die, or children in 20 years. How would they die?”
“Mass migration around the world already taking place due to prolonged drought in countries, particularly in South Asia. There are wildfires in Indonesia, the Amazon rainforest, Siberia, the Arctic,” she said.
But in saying so, the XR spokesperson had grossly misrepresented the science. “There is robust evidence of disasters displacing people worldwide,” notes IPCC, “but limited evidence that climate change or sea-level rise is the direct cause”
What about “mass migration”? “The majority of resultant population movements tend to occur within the borders of affected countries," says IPCC.
It’s not like climate doesn’t matter. It’s that climate change is outweighed by other factors. Earlier this year, researchers found that climate “has affected organized armed conflict within countries. However, other drivers, such as low socioeconomic development and low capabilities of the state, are judged to be substantially more influential.”
Last January, after climate scientists criticized Rep. Ocasio-Cortez for saying the world would end in 12 years, her spokesperson said "We can quibble about the phraseology, whether it's existential or cataclysmic.” He added, “We're seeing lots of [climate change-related] problems that are already impacting lives."
That last part may be true, but it’s also true that economic development has made us less vulnerable, which is why there was a 99.7% decline in the death toll from natural disasters since its peak in 1931.
In 1931, 3.7 million people died from natural disasters. In 2018, just 11,000 did. And that decline occurred over a period when the global population quadrupled.
What about sea level rise? IPCC estimates sea level could rise two feet (0.6 meters) by 2100. Does that sound apocalyptic or even “unmanageable”?
Consider that one-third of the Netherlands is below sea level, and some areas are seven meters below sea level. You might object that Netherlands is rich while Bangladesh is poor. But the Netherlands adapted to living below sea level 400 years ago. Technology has improved a bit since then.
What about claims of crop failure, famine, and mass death? That’s science fiction, not science. Humans today produce enough food for 10 billion people, or 25% more than we need, and scientific bodies predict increases in that share, not declines.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) forecasts crop yields increasing 30% by 2050. And the poorest parts of the world, like sub-Saharan Africa, are expected to see increases of 80 to 90%.
Nobody is suggesting climate change won’t negatively impact crop yields. It could. But such declines should be put in perspective. Wheat yields increased 100 to 300% around the world since the 1960s, while a study of 30 models found that yields would decline by 6% for every one degree Celsius increase in temperature.
Rates of future yield growth depend far more on whether poor nations get access to tractors, irrigation, and fertilizer than on climate change, says FAO.
All of this helps explain why IPCC anticipates climate change will have a modest impact on economic growth. By 2100, IPCC projects the global economy will be 300 to 500% larger than it is today. Both IPCC and the Nobel-winning Yale economist, William Nordhaus, predict that warming of 2.5°C and 4°C would reduce gross domestic product (GDP) by 2% and 5% over that same period.
Does this mean we shouldn’t worry about climate change? Not at all.
One of the reasons I work on climate change is because I worry about the impact it could have on endangered species. Climate change may threaten one million species globally and half of all mammals, reptiles, and amphibians in diverse places like the Albertine Rift in central Africa, home to the endangered mountain gorilla.
But it’s not the case that “we’re putting our own survival in danger” through extinctions, as Elizabeth Kolbert claimed in her book, Sixth Extinction. As tragic as animal extinctions are, they do not threaten human civilization. If we want to save endangered species, we need to do so because we care about wildlife for spiritual, ethical, or aesthetic reasons, not survival ones.
And exaggerating the risk, and suggesting climate change is more important than things like habitat destruction, are counterproductive.
For example, Australia’s fires are not driving koalas extinct, as Bill McKibben suggested. The main scientific body that tracks the species, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, or IUCN, labels the koala “vulnerable,” which is one level less threatened than “endangered,” two levels less than “critically endangered,” and three less than “extinct” in the wild.
Should we worry about koalas? Absolutely! They are amazing animals and their numbers have declined to around 300,000. But they face far bigger threats such as the destruction of habitat, disease, bushfires, and invasive species.
Think of it this way. The climate could change dramatically — and we could still save koalas. Conversely, the climate could change only modestly — and koalas could still go extinct.
The monomaniacal focus on climate distracts our attention from other threats to koalas and opportunities for protecting them, like protecting and expanding their habitat.
As for fire, one of Australia’s leading scientists on the issue says, “Bushfire losses can be explained by the increasing exposure of dwellings to fire-prone bushlands. No other influences need be invoked. So even if climate change had played some small role in modulating recent bushfires, and we cannot rule this out, any such effects on risk to property are clearly swamped by the changes in exposure.”
Nor are the fires solely due to drought, which is common in Australia, and exceptional this year. “Climate change is playing its role here,” said Richard Thornton of the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre in Australia, “but it's not the cause of these fires."
The same is true for fires in the United States. In 2017, scientists modeled 37 different regions and found “humans may not only influence fire regimes but their presence can actually override, or swamp out, the effects of climate.” Of the 10 variables that influence fire, “none were as significant… as the anthropogenic variables,” such as building homes near, and managing fires and wood fuel growth within, forests.
Climate scientists are starting to push back against exaggerations by activists, journalists, and other scientists.
“While many species are threatened with extinction,” said Stanford’s Ken Caldeira, “climate change does not threaten human extinction... I would not like to see us motivating people to do the right thing by making them believe something that is false.”
I asked the Australian climate scientist Tom Wigley what he thought of the claim that climate change threatens civilization. “It really does bother me because it’s wrong,” he said. “All these young people have been misinformed. And partly it’s Greta Thunberg’s fault. Not deliberately. But she’s wrong.”
But don’t scientists and activists need to exaggerate in order to get the public’s attention?
“I’m reminded of what [late Stanford University climate scientist] Steve Schneider used to say,” Wigley replied. “He used to say that as a scientist, we shouldn’t really be concerned about the way we slant things in communicating with people out on the street who might need a little push in a certain direction to realize that this is a serious problem. Steve didn’t have any qualms about speaking in that biased way. I don’t quite agree with that.”
Wigley started working on climate science full-time in 1975 and created one of the first climate models (MAGICC) in 1987. It remains one of the main climate models in use today.
“When I talk to the general public,” he said, “I point out some of the things that might make projections of warming less and the things that might make them more. I always try to present both sides.”
Part of what bothers me about the apocalyptic rhetoric by climate activists is that it is often accompanied by demands that poor nations be denied the cheap sources of energy they need to develop. I have found that many scientists share my concerns.
“If you want to minimize carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2070 you might want to accelerate the burning of coal in India today,” MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel said.
“It doesn’t sound like it makes sense. Coal is terrible for carbon. But it’s by burning a lot of coal that they make themselves wealthier, and by making themselves wealthier they have fewer children, and you don’t have as many people burning carbon, you might be better off in 2070.”
Emanuel and Wigley say the extreme rhetoric is making political agreement on climate change harder.
“You’ve got to come up with some kind of middle ground where you do reasonable things to mitigate the risk and try at the same time to lift people out of poverty and make them more resilient,” said Emanuel. “We shouldn’t be forced to choose between lifting people out of poverty and doing something for the climate.”
Happily, there is a plenty of middle ground between climate apocalypse and climate denial.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)|
|To: Brumar89 who wrote (82753)||12/7/2019 6:30:06 AM|
|Chaos In California, As Teslas Queue Up To Recharge on Black Friday|
DECEMBER 6, 2019
tags: Electric Cars
By Paul Homewood
h/t AC Osborn
It did not really take a genius to work out that something like this would happen:
Dozens of Tesla drivers in California were forced to wait in an extensive line after what should’ve been a quick stop at a Supercharger station turned into an hours-long ordeal.
Shanon Stellini was travelling through Kettleman City on November 30 when she stumbled across a backlog of around 50 of the electric cars waiting to recharge in a half-mile line outside of at a station near Interstate 5.
‘Bet they wish they had gas’, quipped Stellini’s partner in a video she captured of the chaos – but for the drivers stranded in the stagnant line the issue was certainly no laughing matter.
The Kettleman City Supercharger station – located halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco – is already immensely popular, but even with 40 charging stalls on-site the facility was still overrun by the overwhelming demand that one of the year’s busiest travel times brings.
To make matters worse, simultaneous re-charging slows down the speed of charging for everyone – encumbering a process that can already take up to as long as 75 minutes.
It’s unclear how long the Tesla drivers were forced to wait, however, one disgruntled commuter tweeted that he’d been waiting in the line for 40 minutes but only appeared to be ‘half way there’.
With Tesla’s Model 3 now being produced in mass, there are currently thought to be more than 400,000 Teslas on the roads of America.
But the surge in popularity has exposed a series of flaws in the Supercharger network’s operations this holiday season, which is sure to give the Elon Musk-owned company food for thought as the fallout seen in Kettleman City was not an isolated incident.
A day earlier, a video titled ‘Tesla Energy Crisis’ revealed a sizable line of 15 Teslas waiting for their turn at a Supercharger station in San Luis Obispo around 4.45pm on Thanksgiving day
Teslas could be seen wrapping around the outer edge of the Madonna Inn as families waited inside the running cars for a chance to refuel.
For a Model S Tesla at a Supercharger station, it will take about 20 minutes to charge 50 percent and 40 minutes to charge 80 percent.
Tesla’s website says that drivers will have enough to finish their trip on 80 percent, but owners can reach 100 percent fueled in 75 minutes.
Although there are 400,000 Teslas, this is still a tiny number in proportion to the estimated 272 million cars on US roads, just 0.1%.
Scale up the number of Teslas and other EVs into the hundreds of millions, and the resultant traffic chaos could be frightening, even if tens of billions are spent on building many more charger points.
In the UK, matters will be much worse still, given the crowded nature of our country and roads. We already know how bad traffic jams are on Bank Holidays and the like, but they will be a tea party when millions of cars are queuing up to recharge.
The knock on effect traffic flows generally is another factor to consider. We aren’t just talking about a queue at the services on the motorway. Tailbacks could quickly cause problems on the motorways themselves, and town centres would quickly get gridlocked.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)|
|To: Brumar89 who wrote (82754)||12/8/2019 7:02:40 AM|
|Cockamamie Climate Schemes Like Air Travel Bans and Meat Rationing Are Dead on Arrival|
While Democrats constantly insist that the science on climate change is settled and humans are to blame, voters are not so sure. Even those who buy into the narrative do not want government restrictions on air travel and meat consumption.
Most voters disagreed with the claim that it is "very likely" that "climate change will be catastrophic for humans, plants and animals," which many alarmists claim to be the scientific consensus. Even so, 43 percent of voters held this view, according to a poll from the Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports.
Many voters said catastrophic climate change is "somewhat likely" (20 percent), while others said it is "not very likely" (18 percent), or "not at all likely" (16 percent).
Some might counter that 63 percent of voters said catastrophic climate change is "likely," but the difference between "very likely" and "somewhat likely" seems important given the Democratic alarmism on the issue. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-Grow Yucca in NYC) and Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Hell Yes We Take Your Guns) have insisted that the world only has 12 years (AOC) or 10 years (Beto) left to fight climate change. To alarmists like them, anything less than "extremely likely" counts as "science denial."
Voters also proved skeptical on the causes of climate change. When asked, "Is climate change caused primarily by human activity or by long-term planetary trends?" a plurality (48 percent) pointed to "human activity," while nearly as many voters (38 percent) pointed to "long-term planetary trends." Fourteen percent said they are "not sure." Alarmists insist that the science is settled (when it is not), but Americans are not convinced.
The poll went on to ask more questions of voters who blamed human activity for climate change. Pollsters presented four different forms of government regulation to fight climate change.
The vast majority of these voters (76 percent) agreed that "federal or state governments" should "require people to engage in activities that will lower carbon-dioxide emissions." Only 14 percent disagreed, while 10 percent said they were not sure.
Half of the voters who blame human activity (50 percent) said governments should "punish with fines or jail time fossil-fuel business owners and/or executives." A quarter of these voters (25 percent) said no to this proposal, while another 25 percent said they were not sure.
Even those who blame human activity for climate change did not support restrictions on air travel or meat consumption, however. Only 34 percent said they would back government limits on air travel and 24 percent said the same for meat consumption. Most human-blamers said no to both proposals (50 percent against air travel restrictions, 61 percent against meat rationing).
Democrats proved more likely to agree that climate change is caused by human activity (67 percent), but even these Democrats proved unwilling to back government restrictions on air travel and meat consumption. Only 37 percent supported air travel bans and 27 percent backed meat rationing.
The poll also asked voters whether they had a favorable view of Sens. Bernie Sanders (S-USSR) and Elizabeth Warren (D-1/1024th of a Plan).
Voters with a "very favorable" view of Sanders were more likely to blame humans for climate change (78 percent). They were also more likely to support jailing fossil fuel executives (63 percent), government regulations to cap emissions (85 percent), restrictions on air travel (47 percent), and meat rationing (36 percent).
Similarly, those with a "very favorable" view of Warren proved more likely to blame humans (79 percent). These pro-Warren human-blamers also proved more likely to support jailing fossil fuel executives (69 percent), government regulations to cap emissions (83 percent), air travel bans (39 percent), and meat rationing (37 percent).
Authoritarians of a feather flock together. Another recent poll found that fans of Sanders and Warren proved more likely to support government restrictions on speech, complete with jail time for speech offenders.
When it comes to climate alarmism, Americans are right to be skeptical. Alarmist climate models have proven wrong time and time again. Last year, the Maldives refused to sink beneath the waves on schedule. Even the vaunted 97 percent "consensus" is an outright lie.
Climate catastrophe is possible, of course, but it is not likely. Americans should not abandon the immense wealth and opportunity of free-market capitalism based on false predictions and alarmist rhetoric.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)|