America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Thanks for your thoughts Scare Crow.

Other than the government trying to force it down the throat of the people, what is this "need to adopt green solutions" come from?

Any green solution that you come up with will still require the use of fossil fuels to make and deliver the products you use. Look around you, nearly everything is made from fossil fuels. The keyboard you are typing on, the TV that you watch, the remote that you use to change the channels on the TV, the shoes you wear, the clothing you wear, the carpet you walk on, the appliances in your kitchen, the clock hanging on your wall, the insulation in your house, the plumbing in your house, the insulation for the wiring in your house, the shingles on your roof, the containers that you store your food in, the glasses on your face, the containers that hold your medication, the rubber tires on your Tesla, the body panels and, probably 98.2% of the construction, for your Tesla... all are made from the refinement of fossil fuels. FACT, not opinion. The list is essentially endless.

Now let's touch on some of your examples that you've used to argue for government mandates for EVs and other "green" initiatives, shall we?

You've used the example of going from incandescent bulbs, to compact florescent, to LED to support your thesis (government mandates for the common good). That is a a FAIL. Moving from incandescent to CF to LED doesn't require an overhaul or redesigning a new electrical system for your house and/or the electric grid (up front capital expenses). EV's, solar and wind do and will require that. Your light bulb fixtures are like the honey badger, it don't give a $hit if you put in an incandescent, CF or LED bulb in it. It works the same without any rewiring or changes.

Your failed logic and talking points also apply to some of your other examples that you use such as seat belts, low flow shower heads, toilets, plumbing fixtures. All of these are simple drop in changes that don't require the consumer nor the water/energy suppliers to come up with a rather large chunk of change in capital expense in order to implement and support them.

I'm not saying to stop the development of alternative sources of energy and raw materials. I'm all for trying to be more efficient. But the way we are going about it (shutting down harvesting oil, coal, natural gas and the refinement and production of this sources of raw materials) is not feasible until we have a solid and proven replacement for them. So far we don't and we are orders of magnitude away from doing so.

You can't just say that we'll figure it out later and *Poof* a miracle happens, that's not the way of the real world.

My remote clips on the sun visor and worked just fine.

The transmitter I bought is GPS based, goes in the nose of the car and shows up on the main display.
When you get close to home, it pops up and tells you it will open the door in 20 feet, 10 ft, 5 ft, opening the door - with the option to abort.

So I bought not having to press the button.

#howcoolisthat

50 years of failed climate predictions in 15 minutes!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErftVFXSRso&t=348s

Pretty sure the science has already established the minerals and materials mined for the lithium batteries is actually worse for the environment, they have no plan for the disposal of said batteries, and the people used to mine said materials are not protected by OSHA, nor do they have unions to ensure fair pay for the hazardous duty they are exposed to.

Just saying...

Besides that - if “we” don’t give a sh1t about the environment, than way care about mining rare earths?

Elemental chemical that are Metals are rather and particularly recyclable. Plastics not so much. But lithium, cobalt…..iron - separate with heat, and be rendered pure and reused.

If gas cars are not bad for the environment then who gives a fook about mining metals?

Yes - science is not settled - that is fair.

I would not tell you that EV will save the environment.
I would say that they are a needed step in the right direction - but I suppose the science is not settled either way.

the use of fossil fuels to produce EVs is a fact...and would also be used to produce a combustible engine vehicle...

the amount of fossil fuel exhaust NOT produced by a combustion engine vehicle that has been substituted for by an EV is also a measurable fact...a net reduction...an EV on the road is one less ICE veh...



the fossil fuel industry propaganda machine continues to produce misinformation and disinformation to obscure their own role in climate change, despite internal documents that acknowledge their understanding of the phenomena...but instead of acknowledging it, their public message was denial...and they had a whole buncha folks willing to be fooled...just like the tobacco companies...

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/

eventually we will stop or radically cut back on burning fossil fuels.
And that will be when it's all figured out.
And people will be glad, and we'll be better off.

I believe in the marketplace.

not so odd, actually....

there was a lot of opposition to the first generations of the Horseless Carriages too. They tried steam, electricity, etc.
And all that back firing skeered off the horses!

I'm thinking that with all the research and development efforts happening as we type, there will be lithium free/other rare minerals free batteries, or some other energy system reaching the market in a few years.

(I coulda swore you hated Saudi before finding them useful as a political attack vehicle)

Wow - that...is...not...a...good ..."study"

No wonder they are a "boutique consulting house". That has more holes that swiss cheese.
They assume the "average driver" "dead heads" to a top dollar charging station. Most drivers charge at home, over night.
The ICE vehicle goes 100 miles for about $7.50 in gas?? 46 mpg??? Oh, that's the national average....
People per 100 miles spend 2 hours charging on the road, 2 hours traveling to the charger, 2 hours charging at home...wtf?


Ok, so their leaving their "findings" for personal experience with my car:

82 kWh battery - about 350 mile from a full battery
14 cents per kWh to change at home - like 12 bucks for a full tank (real life)
A station charge could cost from 25 to 50 cents per kWh - so wow it could cost $40 buck to fill the tank, worse case.

Say - they left out oil changes for the ICE vehicle - those are free now right?



For the last 6 months I have been spending about 20 cents on the dollar to the gas I bought for the previous 4 door sedan.
ymmv

Izzat some kinda DIY transgender thing? No thank you, sir! I love my stick shift where it is... in either interpretation

That’s why I said may make a case. I’ll admit I didn’t do an in depth analysis of the analysis. Who knows where their loyalties lie. I’m sure there is some truth to some of the things they state, but to what degree is debatable.

You were wrong with Covid, you're wrong with EV's and um...I don't own a diesel pickup. You're just WRONG.




You may have already heard about California Governor Gavin Newsom’s announcement last year that his state will ban the sale of gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035. Restrictions on how many non-electric vehicles can be sold will begin in just three years. This is making all of the climate alarmists very happy, of course, but there is a significantly large fly in the ointment of this plan. In order to charge up roughly 12.5 million EVs on a daily basis, the state will need to have a lot of electricity available on the power grid. But nobody seems to have run through all of the numbers with the Governor. Some people who actually did the math work with the Institute for Energy Research, and they have some bad news for Governor Newsom. The state’s plan is based on “a myriad of assumptions” about its electrical grid, and a lot of those assumptions are simply unrealistic in a very big way.

California has chosen to ban gasoline-powered vehicle sales as of 2035 and claims that the state will have enough electricity supply to support an all-electric vehicle fleet of 12.5 million cars by then. That surprises many since the state currently cannot even get through the summer/fall season without having to worry about rolling blackouts because of inadequate supplies. To meet EV electricity demand, California will need to build solar and wind power at a rate almost 5 times higher than that of the past decade since they are pushing the de-carbonization of their grid. It will also have to train its residents to charge their electric vehicles only at certain times of the day when excess power is available, i.e. in off-peak periods. California’s grid is already heavily stressed, and it is compelling much higher demand at the same time it is forcing more intermittent sourcing of electricity.

Under the state’s regulation, 35 percent of new 2026 car models sold must be zero-emission, ramping up to 100 percent in 2035. For an all-electric fleet, the state must triple the amount of electricity produced and deploy new solar and wind energy at almost five times the rate of the past decade. At the same time, they are forcing electrification of cars and trucks, California’s state law requires it to shift all of its power to renewable energy by 2045.

What we’re seeing here is the head-on collision of two bad pieces of policy that will crash into each other in barely a decade. One is the ban on gas-powered vehicles and the other is the state’s mandate that all power produced in California must come from renewable sources by 2045. As the linked report notes, industry officials were “surprised” by the announcement that there would be sufficient electricity to charge a fleet of vehicles that size when the state can barely avoid rolling blackouts today during the summer and autumn months today.

In order to reach that goal, California would need to immediately begin constructing enough solar and wind plants to literally triple the amount of electricity that is currently being generated. That means that they would need to put up new wind farms and solar plants at roughly five times the rate they have been able to build them over the past ten years.

Nobody thinks that can actually happen. Both rising prices and supply chain shortages have raised costs and delayed the development of new wind farms over the past two years. This trend is projected to continue. In fact, the completion of new wind installations in the United States dropped 77.5% in the third quarter of 2022 as compared to the previous year, despite generous subsidies from the federal government. No matter how much money the state government throws at the problem, they can’t magically wave their hands and make new power plants appear or make more electricity available on the grid.

Even if the state somehow was able to generate the bare minimum amount of electricity required, under the current plan, they would need to “train” the citizens of the state to only recharge their vehicles during certain times of the day when demand is low. That simply won’t work for some people, particularly shift workers who have to go to their jobs during overnight hours. And since when does the state government get to issue orders and tell people when they can or can’t plug something in? Are we suddenly living in China now? (I don’t know why I asked that. California is looking more and more like China every day in terms of autocratic authority.)

One final issue should also be addressed here. The first phase of EV mandates begins in 2026 when 35 percent of new 2026 car models sold must be zero-emission. What the state isn’t telling its residents is how they plan to enforce that and who will decide which 65% of shoppers will still be able to purchase gas-powered vehicles. If they reach that number by August, will the dealerships be forced to tell people, ‘sorry? You should have ordered sooner. Now come take a look at our supply of EVs that cost three times as much.’

This harebrained scheme is going to come crashing down on the state government’s head at some point. Sadly, many residents will pay the price for all of this. If you live in California, I will reiterate for the umpteenth time that you should really consider moving while you can still find an operational moving van to carry all of your stuff.

https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2023/01/30/californias-plan-to-power-evs-has-one-glaring-shortcoming-n527352


Butt, hey...your car makes fart noises. That's really something to um...yeah.

Next they will legislate when you can charge your EV... and they're already asking for remote shutoffs for these vehicles. And some of the charging stations in CA, along the freeways, have lines of cars waiting to charge.

Like HD... not my problem, but if they export that insanity, it will be.

But wait...people think that crazy is going to stay in Cali...nope...dey exportin it.

Bet you heard in on the grape vine……

I wish we could change that about you.

This does bring up one thing about the future of EV's - the haters.

That's right, some folks will just get so angry at "them bad EV's" that they will lash out. Not just hate speak or spreading lies, but the cut them off, or run them off the road type stuff. In the name of Freedom.

In accordance with the 5 rules of Stupidity:
Law 5: A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

one of the largest if not the largest developer/retail landlord in the New England (malls, large office buildings, combo lab/residential/retail etc) just signed a couple hydro-electric deals for renewable power for its new developments.

WS Development.

Help me understand this Frank (I looked at a few articles but they were all fluff pieces or PR releases).

Is NRG building new hydro plant specifically to handle the WS developments or is this hydro-power already on the grid, and WS is simply saying we only want the power that comes from the hydro? If the latter, how do they distinguish the hydro power from the dinosaur juice power once it's on the grid? Does it smell better or something?

Fixed it for ya!

Do I have'ta look at it both times?

No, clean 'lectric is not distinguishable from dirty 'lectric once in its shocking final form. Even shares power lines and chit.

I am surprised at any new hydro efforts. EPA doesn't like people messing with the Waters of the US and such

I believe some people in ICEs will run EVs off the road. I believe some people in EVs will run ICEs off the road. I believe every single subcategory of humanity includes some number of azzholes. I HOPE they are a minority overall, but have my doubts some days

This has been your multi-response wrap up. Stardate: 100684.65

all I know is from this:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/01/31/business/why-major-local-developer-is-going-big-renewable-power-its-35-building-portfolio/


Why a major local developer is going big on renewable power for 43-building portfolio
WS Development has committed to fully renewable electric power across its New England portfolio, which includes suburban shopping centers and Seaport office buildings.
By Jon Chesto Globe Staff,Updated January 31, 2023, 11:50 a.m.


4
A new Amazon office building is one of eight buildings in the Seaport owned by WS Development, along with dozens more at shopping centers around the region, that are converting to all-renewable electric power under a deal the Chestnut Hill-based developer has signed with local utilities.
A new Amazon office building is one of eight buildings in the Seaport owned by WS Development, along with dozens more at shopping centers around the region, that are converting to all-renewable electric power under a deal the Chestnut Hill-based developer has signed with local utilities.DAVID L. RYAN/GLOBE STAFF
Retail landlord WS Development has signed a power purchase agreement that essentially ensures the electricity for its New England real estate portfolio will come from renewable sources.

The developer announced the seven-year agreement with NRG Energy subsidiary Direct Energy on Tuesday, though it has been rolling into effect property by property over the past month or so. Yanni Tsipis, senior vice president at WS, said his company is buying this power — an estimated 14 million kilowatt-hours of electricity — from hydroelectric dams in northern New England, such as NextEra’s Wyman Hydro plant on the Kennebec River and Brookfield’s Great Lakes Hydro plant on the Penobscot River’s west branch. The deal is the latest example of how the development industry is rethinking its environmental impact amid regulatory pressure from state and municipal officials.

Advertisement


The WS properties that will run on 100 percent renewable power include three entire buildings and retail space it owns in five other buildings in Boston’s Seaport area and 35 other developments around New England, including Legacy Place in Dedham and The Street in Chestnut Hill where WS is headquartered. Many, Tsipis said, are heated with electricity, allowing those to be considered net-zero in terms of carbon emissions from their energy use. While the agreement doesn’t change the heating source for properties that currently use natural gas, it would significantly reduce their overall carbon footprints.

One structure, a 700,000-square-foot office building to be occupied by Amazon after it opens next year, will be all electric and the largest net-zero office building in Boston.

“This is absolutely on the leading edge,” said Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres, a Boston environmental advocacy organization. “It’s a big contract compared to anything I’ve seen.”

Related
‘There’s a dam breaking:’ Cities and towns start to kick fossil fuels with new building code
Boston’s net-zero emissions zoning code raises concerns among developers
The next generation of green buildings
Universities and hospitals have purchased large quantities of renewable power for years, but now a growing number of for-profit property owners such as WS are entering the market. Boston Properties signed an agreement in 2018 to buy renewable electricity credits associated with a Texas wind farm for the power used in its Massachusetts buildings, for example, and lab developer Alexandria Real Estate Equities has signed a solar power purchase agreement for its buildings in Greater Boston that takes effect starting in 2024.

Advertisement


Legacy Place in Dedham is one of the WS Development properties that will be powered fully by electricity from renewable sources.
Legacy Place in Dedham is one of the WS Development properties that will be powered fully by electricity from renewable sources. BILL GREENE
These shifts come as Boston officials push large and midsized buildings to reach “net zero” status by 2050, with increasingly stringent carbon emissions caps starting in 2025. Tsipis cited those rules (known as “BERDO 2.0″) as well as other emissions standards at the municipal and state level — those that have already taken effect, and others that are coming or are under discussion — as a big factor in the decision.

“We’re long-term owners,” Tsipis said. “We care deeply about the communities in which our places are located and also about a greener future for our planet. This was an opportunity to get ahead of what we know the regulatory context is going to be in many of our host communities, especially Boston.”

In WS Development’s case, the power purchase agreement cost was relatively comparable to retail grid rates, Tsipis said. The agreement took about 18 months to hammer out, partly because of the number of hydroelectric plants that needed to be aggregated to meet WS Development’s needs.

The WS portfolio spans 14 million square feet and includes several residential and research buildings in the Seaport that haven’t gone up yet, though it does not include Fenway Corners, a 2-million-square-foot project around Fenway Park that WS is proposing with partners including WS and Fenway Sports Group, which is currently under city review. (FSG’s principal owner John Henry also owns The Boston Globe.)

Advertisement


Meredith Elbaum, executive director of green-building nonprofit Built Environment Plus, said it’s one thing to reduce the carbon footprint of buildings that are in the planning stage, before a shovel goes in the ground. It’s another thing entirely to do it with existing buildings.

“For them to look across their entire portfolio and not all of the buildings being new buildings, that’s pretty exciting,” Elbaum said of the WS deal. “I do think this is a sign of things to come.”

When you purchase special green energy contracts to lower your greenhouse gas emissions, they actually run special power lines that are colored green to your property. Next time you are looking at power lines you’ll prolly spot them!