[N_Fiddledog]

herbie herbie:

How long are you gonna shimmy, shake, dance and dodge to avoid admitting the headline you posted is a total fucking lie?

The headline? Is that all your pooping your diapers over?

The first line of the article clarifies.

$1:

When CO2 emissions linked to the production of batteries and the German energy mix - in which coal still plays an important role - are taken into consideration, electric vehicles emit 11% to 28% more than their diesel counterparts, according to the study, presented on Wednesday at the Ifo Institute in Munich.

If your quest for the truth ends at headlines I'm not sure why you'd want to attract attention to your resulting ignorance.

[herbie]

$1:

electric vehicles emit 11% to 28% more than their diesel counterparts,

Which is a straight out fucking LIE. Electric motors don't emit. You just read an article describing exactly how FILTHY COAL is and pretends that EVs are the problem.

But I know you love to scour the Net for outright lies and you've adopted the Trumpian model of just repeating them over and over thinking that makes them true.
Matter of fact I wonder who's paying you, as no one in their right mind would put such effort into scouring the Net attempting to back up their contrarian claims. I mean every fucking Muslim who does anything wrong anywhere in the world, every instance of anyone tied to any environmental cause who doesn't cross the world on a four masted schooner wearing a hair shirt and sandals,

[PluggyRug]

herbie herbie:

$1:

electric vehicles emit 11% to 28% more than their diesel counterparts,

Which is a straight out fucking LIE. Electric motors don't emit. You just read an article describing exactly how FILTHY COAL is and pretends that EVs are the problem.

No but the electrickery needed to power them does.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Just ask the fine people of Minnesota and the Dakotas. They almost froze to death last winter because the power companies couldn't guarantee the supply.

The fine people at Google have no idea what you are talking about.

Try Duck, Duck, Go:

$1:

More to the point, as Powerlineblog’s John Hinderaker tells us in a perceptive piece, the deep freeze affecting his home state of Minnesota has much to tell us about the futility of green energy as the putative panacea of global warming doom. It turns out that as Minnesotans were freezing, renewable energy was nowhere to be found. The wind wasn’t blowing and in the entire MISO area (15 states in the Midwest and the South) it generated a measly 4% of the energy and operated at a miserable 24% of installed capacity, prompting Hinderaker to ask pointedly “why do we need wind farms”? Why indeed? To answer this question, it is worth delving into some of the other figures Hinderaker provides.

The MISO area energy is supplied by coal (45%), natural gas (26%), nuclear power (13%), and imports from Canada. Imagine for a minute how many would have died if coal was no longer in use, as the left wants, and people had to rely on renewable energy for 50% of their needs as the state authorities are planning by 2030? As it was, 66% of the homes in Minnesota were heated by natural gas. These suffered brownouts, forcing the Xcel Energy utility to advise customers to set their thermostats at 60 degrees and not to use hot water. And last I looked, Minnesota was not in some Godforsaken corner of Siberia but in the United States of America.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 ... atans.html

[N_Fiddledog]

herbie herbie:

$1:

electric vehicles emit 11% to 28% more than their diesel counterparts,

Which is a straight out fucking LIE. Electric motors don't emit.

Are you really such a bubble-head that you don't think I'll see that the lie is in how you snipped an out of context quote? Or are you hoping I won't observe the obvious?

Good luck with that. Here's the more complete quote again:

$1:

When CO2 emissions linked to the production of batteries and the German energy mix - in which coal still plays an important role - are taken into consideration, electric vehicles emit 11% to 28% more than their diesel counterpart

[martin14]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

herbie herbie:

$1:

electric vehicles emit 11% to 28% more than their diesel counterparts,

Which is a straight out fucking LIE. Electric motors don't emit. You just read an article describing exactly how FILTHY COAL is and pretends that EVs are the problem.

No but the electrickery needed to power them does.

And did the article touch at all how much pollution is created during the manufacturing
process, or is that too much for the little snowflakes to understand ?

[Tricks]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Just ask the fine people of Minnesota and the Dakotas. They almost froze to death last winter because the power companies couldn't guarantee the supply.

The fine people at Google have no idea what you are talking about.

Maybe he's talking about the strain on the natural gas system? A couples states were asked to turn their thermostats down to 63 to preserve gas. There were energy issues, the cold caused problems on turbines, gas plants, and coal plants. But it affected pretty much all types of energy (except I think nuclear). So doesn't really help his point any.

[peck420]

Tricks Tricks:

Maybe he's talking about the strain on the natural gas system? A couples states were asked to turn their thermostats down to 63 to preserve gas. There were energy issues, the cold caused problems on turbines, gas plants, and coal plants. But it affected pretty much all types of energy (except I think nuclear). So doesn't really help his point any.

This was a planning and response issue more than anything.

Sadly, it is not an uncommon issue.

Long live ATCO!!!

Long live EPCOR!!!

Long live my dividends!!!

[N_Fiddledog]

There was a deep freeze in the Minnesota area this winter.

From the article previously posted:

$1:

The MISO area energy is supplied by coal (45%), natural gas (26%), nuclear power (13%), and imports from Canada. Imagine for a minute how many would have died if coal was no longer in use, as the left wants, and people had to rely on renewable energy for 50% of their needs as the state authorities are planning by 2030? As it was, 66% of the homes in Minnesota were heated by natural gas. These suffered brownouts, forcing the Xcel Energy utility to advise customers to set their thermostats at 60 degrees and not to use hot water. And last I looked, Minnesota was not in some Godforsaken corner of Siberia but in the United States of America.

The point would be more what could have happened if they had relied on wind and solar. As it was there were brownouts and energy rationing was necessary.

[herbie]

I'm tired of arguing with total idiots

I will be buying an EV. And enjoying everyone of "your" tax dollars they subsidize it with.
Suck shit

[martin14]

herbie herbie:

I'm tired of arguing with total idiots

Just make sure you remove all the mirrors in your house first.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Tricks Tricks:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Just ask the fine people of Minnesota and the Dakotas. They almost froze to death last winter because the power companies couldn't guarantee the supply.

The fine people at Google have no idea what you are talking about.

Maybe he's talking about the strain on the natural gas system? A couples states were asked to turn their thermostats down to 63 to preserve gas. There were energy issues, the cold caused problems on turbines, gas plants, and coal plants. But it affected pretty much all types of energy (except I think nuclear). So doesn't really help his point any.

Strain on the system? The strain was simply a result of running short of natgas during a cold snap. As for coal plants, they've been cranking out power in below zero temps for a LONG time.
However, it’s true that any number of unforeseen circumstances could prevent a coal, nuclear or natural gas plant from being able to run during a cold snap. But the key word is “unforeseen.” The intermittency of wind and solar is a feature, not a bug.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Just ask the fine people of Minnesota and the Dakotas. They almost froze to death last winter because the power companies couldn't guarantee the supply.

The fine people at Google have no idea what you are talking about.

Oh well then. If it's not on Google then obviously it didn't happen. I guess the people in the MISO area were merely experiencing a mass hallucination.

[DrCaleb]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Just ask the fine people of Minnesota and the Dakotas. They almost froze to death last winter because the power companies couldn't guarantee the supply.

The fine people at Google have no idea what you are talking about.

Oh well then. If it's not on Google then obviously it didn't happen. I guess the people in the MISO area were merely experiencing a mass hallucination.

Must be, because none reported being unable to produce electricity. US Fracking has produced an over supply of Natural Gas, so it wasn't that either.

[N_Fiddledog]

You're just wrong Doc.

There were brownouts in the Miso area. Residents were requested to ration energy.

But that had more to do with the deep freeze in Minnesota this winter.

You would be right in thinking wind and solar had nothing to do with that, because they're only generating 4% of the energy on good days. But Minnesota talks about wanting to go to 50% alternatives. If they had reached their dream last winter there would be a lot of frozen Minnesotans. And by that I mean you'd be melting them out of buildings about now.