LaxPower Back-Up Stick

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:25 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:17 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 3:34 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 8:37 am Yeah, you're really so persuasive here, cradle.

I'm not trying to persuade anyone MD. I will point out the stupidity of any person that thinks by the use of climate models they can predict what the planet will do in 50 years is jerking your chain. I know this for certain, neither you nor myself know what the planet will do 50 years years from now. I guaran dam tee you if I did I would find a betting line on Vegas and sink 20 or 30 grand betting on prognosticating the future. What money line should I choose??? FIRE.. FLOOD.. DISEASE.. FAMINE.. ZOMBIES.. help me out here MD.. what potential disaster should I be chitting my pants over and where should I put my money? I will just keep doing the same thing I do every morning. I will walk Roxy and pick up the same trash and debris left by the same inconsiderate assholes every night. Then I will ask myself the same question...who exactly are we saving the planet for again??? I understand my concerns are too low on the food chain for the really smart people like you to be concerned with. The real important thing is people eating faux hamburger meat, driving electric cars and installing those really cool mini wind turbines in their backyards so they can go off the power grid and maybe sell electricity back to the power company. That is the true meaning of being a real "green" American.

Cradleanddroptheball,
50 years on a geological scale is 5 seconds from now. If off by 50 years, it’s not even a rounding error….

So what is the mechanism that reverses CC/GW? For the sake of discussion it took us say 60 years to get where we are today. If it takes another 60 years granted everything works perfectly it takes 120 years in hypothetical terms until planet earth reaches its former equilibrium so to speak. In hypothetical terms that now takes 120 years for the planet to forgive us. That still does not answer my initial question.. what is the mechanism in place that reverses CC/GW.. Wishful thinking is not a legitimate mechanism.

The hubris of man makes us think any variance from the current temperature is catastrophic. It's been statistically significantly warmer and colder and we've managed through more than a few times. We need to worry about breathable air and drinkable water.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:25 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:17 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 3:34 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 8:37 am Yeah, you're really so persuasive here, cradle.

I'm not trying to persuade anyone MD. I will point out the stupidity of any person that thinks by the use of climate models they can predict what the planet will do in 50 years is jerking your chain. I know this for certain, neither you nor myself know what the planet will do 50 years years from now. I guaran dam tee you if I did I would find a betting line on Vegas and sink 20 or 30 grand betting on prognosticating the future. What money line should I choose??? FIRE.. FLOOD.. DISEASE.. FAMINE.. ZOMBIES.. help me out here MD.. what potential disaster should I be chitting my pants over and where should I put my money? I will just keep doing the same thing I do every morning. I will walk Roxy and pick up the same trash and debris left by the same inconsiderate assholes every night. Then I will ask myself the same question...who exactly are we saving the planet for again??? I understand my concerns are too low on the food chain for the really smart people like you to be concerned with. The real important thing is people eating faux hamburger meat, driving electric cars and installing those really cool mini wind turbines in their backyards so they can go off the power grid and maybe sell electricity back to the power company. That is the true meaning of being a real "green" American.

Cradleanddroptheball,
50 years on a geological scale is 5 seconds from now. If off by 50 years, it’s not even a rounding error….

So what is the mechanism that reverses CC/GW? For the sake of discussion it took us say 60 years to get where we are today. If it takes another 60 years granted everything works perfectly it takes 120 years in hypothetical terms until planet earth reaches its former equilibrium so to speak. In hypothetical terms that now takes 120 years for the planet to forgive us. That still does not answer my initial question.. what is the mechanism in place that reverses CC/GW.. Wishful thinking is not a legitimate mechanism.

I would worry about not making it worse first. Hopefully we figure out how to not contribute to the problem. You and I will be dead and gone buddy.

get it to x wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:32 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:25 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:17 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 3:34 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 8:37 am Yeah, you're really so persuasive here, cradle.

I'm not trying to persuade anyone MD. I will point out the stupidity of any person that thinks by the use of climate models they can predict what the planet will do in 50 years is jerking your chain. I know this for certain, neither you nor myself know what the planet will do 50 years years from now. I guaran dam tee you if I did I would find a betting line on Vegas and sink 20 or 30 grand betting on prognosticating the future. What money line should I choose??? FIRE.. FLOOD.. DISEASE.. FAMINE.. ZOMBIES.. help me out here MD.. what potential disaster should I be chitting my pants over and where should I put my money? I will just keep doing the same thing I do every morning. I will walk Roxy and pick up the same trash and debris left by the same inconsiderate assholes every night. Then I will ask myself the same question...who exactly are we saving the planet for again??? I understand my concerns are too low on the food chain for the really smart people like you to be concerned with. The real important thing is people eating faux hamburger meat, driving electric cars and installing those really cool mini wind turbines in their backyards so they can go off the power grid and maybe sell electricity back to the power company. That is the true meaning of being a real "green" American.

Cradleanddroptheball,
50 years on a geological scale is 5 seconds from now. If off by 50 years, it’s not even a rounding error….

So what is the mechanism that reverses CC/GW? For the sake of discussion it took us say 60 years to get where we are today. If it takes another 60 years granted everything works perfectly it takes 120 years in hypothetical terms until planet earth reaches its former equilibrium so to speak. In hypothetical terms that now takes 120 years for the planet to forgive us. That still does not answer my initial question.. what is the mechanism in place that reverses CC/GW.. Wishful thinking is not a legitimate mechanism.

The hubris of man makes us think any variance from the current temperature is catastrophic. It's been statistically significantly warmer and colder and we've managed through more than a few times. We need to worry about breathable air and drinkable water.

The "hubris of man" is to imagine that we can't negatively impact the Earth to the point of making it virtually uninhabitable for man for a millennium. We're too 'smart' for that, right?

Anyone catch the women skiers last night catching big air? Lots of emission stacks in the picture some with the Olympic logo. Some looked nuclear some looked coal.

get it to x wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 4:39 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 4:15 pm

get it to x wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 3:55 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 3:38 pm Keep grinding and flailing away cradle.

You must have been the debate champ at Dartmouth. Science based on federal grant dollars is no road to discovery. Nor is science funded by oil companies. True science doesn't have an agenda, like propping up green businesses so they can kick back some of the taxpayers money in campaign contributions. If someone yells "The Science is settled" loudly, it doesn't make it so. If they cherry pick statistics to prove their point, then it disproves their point. Science is hypothesis, experiment, observe, record, test against hypothesis. I am sure I am missing something, but the computer modeling business is almost as accurate as a weather forecast 30 days out.

Did you think you were debating me with this post?

I agree with all but your second and last sentence.

The second sentence falsely presupposes that federal research grants for basic research, including climate research, necessarily have an 'agenda' other than to learn whatever truths as may unfold from that research. That doesn't mean that a grant, earmarked by someone with an actual agenda (whether influenced a 'green' lobby or a carbon 'lobby') can't happen, but there's nothing that says that simply being "federal" funding tilts the seeking of truth through scientific processes. It can, but not because it was funded by the government. But you're 100% right that oil companies' funded research is no more reliable than the cigarette companies was. (who funded the research the finally debunked the BS spewed by tobacco companies for so many years?)

That said, your last sentence, while hyperbolic, has an element of truth.

Models and simulations are necessarily imperfect, as it's impossible to know all potential inputs at all possible times and throughout history. Instead we have only the previously measured data, we try and gather more and more data points, and improve our models and simulations to better predict what we expect the future will hold as we do so.

This is not a flaw in approach, it's simply the reality that we cannot know all possible information and thus models cannot incorporate what is not known. So, we find as many ways as we can to approximate both historical 'data' and to measure far more going forward. And improve the models as we learn more and more.

Right now, the models, based on a huge amount of effort, point to increased warming overall and to more and more severe weather and climate events. If additional data leads to other conclusions that would be tremendously good news...but it does not appear that is likely.

No, I thought your reply to cradle was not up to Dartmouth standards.

You know, as well as I, that federal climate grantees would lose their grant funding if it concluded man made climate change was not significant. They can't grow the bureaucracy without problems to solve, real and imagined. Not saying warming isn't happening, but the temperature was going up and down way before man was lighting fires.

So then, with all you say about flaws in the models, you feel we should bet big on carbon capture, electric vehicles, wind power, solar and hydro? For a potential ten feet of sea level rise? You don't think man can adapt to change? Especially one that will likely occur over a few hundred years, if at all.

Bet big, win big. Bet big, lose big.

ahh, yes, I certainly wasn't debating with the black hole that is cradle.

No, I think that, like on a lot of topics, you imagine nefarious motivations of government that simply don't exist in such a one-sided way. Indeed, my own sense is that the carbon lobby has immensely more influence on government policy than does the green lobby. I don't think that truthful, rigorous science would be rejected if it found answers that weren't in alignment with current, overwhelming assumptions. But it's gotta be the real deal, not a hack job.

Yes, temperatures have risen and fallen, sometimes rapidly, but usually very slowly and by very slowly I mean over eons far longer than man's tenure on Earth. When rapid, it's been due, we think, to catastrophic events that simply haven't happened in the last 300 years of clear observation...the singular 'new' contribution has been man's output during the industrial revolution.

And it's an accelerating effect. We may well be too late if the momentum of the current warming releases trapped gasses in the tundra as it warms.

But then again, we may well find technological responses that mediate these effects sufficiently that next 100 years, 500 years, and thereon includes a highly hospital environment and climate.

I think your questions about what actions I'd go hard on is a really interesting one, but I have a lasagna and Caesar salad and a cold beer calling...

lagerhead wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 6:28 pm Anyone catch the women skiers last night catching big air? Lots of emission stacks in the picture some with the Olympic logo. Some looked nuclear some looked coal.

Chinese “can do” work ethic and exceptionalism:

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/olympic ... 9c875fvzyk

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 6:43 pm

lagerhead wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 6:28 pm Anyone catch the women skiers last night catching big air? Lots of emission stacks in the picture some with the Olympic logo. Some looked nuclear some looked coal.

Chinese “can do” work ethic and exceptionalism:

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/olympic ... 9c875fvzyk

Cool thanks

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 6:24 pm

get it to x wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:32 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:25 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:17 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 3:34 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 8:37 am Yeah, you're really so persuasive here, cradle.

I'm not trying to persuade anyone MD. I will point out the stupidity of any person that thinks by the use of climate models they can predict what the planet will do in 50 years is jerking your chain. I know this for certain, neither you nor myself know what the planet will do 50 years years from now. I guaran dam tee you if I did I would find a betting line on Vegas and sink 20 or 30 grand betting on prognosticating the future. What money line should I choose??? FIRE.. FLOOD.. DISEASE.. FAMINE.. ZOMBIES.. help me out here MD.. what potential disaster should I be chitting my pants over and where should I put my money? I will just keep doing the same thing I do every morning. I will walk Roxy and pick up the same trash and debris left by the same inconsiderate assholes every night. Then I will ask myself the same question...who exactly are we saving the planet for again??? I understand my concerns are too low on the food chain for the really smart people like you to be concerned with. The real important thing is people eating faux hamburger meat, driving electric cars and installing those really cool mini wind turbines in their backyards so they can go off the power grid and maybe sell electricity back to the power company. That is the true meaning of being a real "green" American.

Cradleanddroptheball,
50 years on a geological scale is 5 seconds from now. If off by 50 years, it’s not even a rounding error….

So what is the mechanism that reverses CC/GW? For the sake of discussion it took us say 60 years to get where we are today. If it takes another 60 years granted everything works perfectly it takes 120 years in hypothetical terms until planet earth reaches its former equilibrium so to speak. In hypothetical terms that now takes 120 years for the planet to forgive us. That still does not answer my initial question.. what is the mechanism in place that reverses CC/GW.. Wishful thinking is not a legitimate mechanism.

The hubris of man makes us think any variance from the current temperature is catastrophic. It's been statistically significantly warmer and colder and we've managed through more than a few times. We need to worry about breathable air and drinkable water.

The "hubris of man" is to imagine that we can't negatively impact the Earth to the point of making it virtually uninhabitable for man for a millennium. We're too 'smart' for that, right?

Who is saying that? What I am saying is man can adapt, and will. The axe was around for probably 10,000 years before it got a handle. Think how fast technology is advancing. We will have clean energy at some point, and probably not as far off as you think. Our air here in America is way better than it used to be, and the water is generally better. People are boating on Lake Erie again. This is about stewardship of the planet, and instead of focusing on solvable issues like clean drinking water for all and cleaner air, we're focused on something that is at best a theory, based on flawed models and to a degree, science corrupted by money and politics.

get it to x wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 6:47 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 6:24 pm

get it to x wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:32 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:25 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:17 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 3:34 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 8:37 am Yeah, you're really so persuasive here, cradle.

I'm not trying to persuade anyone MD. I will point out the stupidity of any person that thinks by the use of climate models they can predict what the planet will do in 50 years is jerking your chain. I know this for certain, neither you nor myself know what the planet will do 50 years years from now. I guaran dam tee you if I did I would find a betting line on Vegas and sink 20 or 30 grand betting on prognosticating the future. What money line should I choose??? FIRE.. FLOOD.. DISEASE.. FAMINE.. ZOMBIES.. help me out here MD.. what potential disaster should I be chitting my pants over and where should I put my money? I will just keep doing the same thing I do every morning. I will walk Roxy and pick up the same trash and debris left by the same inconsiderate assholes every night. Then I will ask myself the same question...who exactly are we saving the planet for again??? I understand my concerns are too low on the food chain for the really smart people like you to be concerned with. The real important thing is people eating faux hamburger meat, driving electric cars and installing those really cool mini wind turbines in their backyards so they can go off the power grid and maybe sell electricity back to the power company. That is the true meaning of being a real "green" American.

Cradleanddroptheball,
50 years on a geological scale is 5 seconds from now. If off by 50 years, it’s not even a rounding error….

So what is the mechanism that reverses CC/GW? For the sake of discussion it took us say 60 years to get where we are today. If it takes another 60 years granted everything works perfectly it takes 120 years in hypothetical terms until planet earth reaches its former equilibrium so to speak. In hypothetical terms that now takes 120 years for the planet to forgive us. That still does not answer my initial question.. what is the mechanism in place that reverses CC/GW.. Wishful thinking is not a legitimate mechanism.

The hubris of man makes us think any variance from the current temperature is catastrophic. It's been statistically significantly warmer and colder and we've managed through more than a few times. We need to worry about breathable air and drinkable water.

The "hubris of man" is to imagine that we can't negatively impact the Earth to the point of making it virtually uninhabitable for man for a millennium. We're too 'smart' for that, right?

Who is saying that? What I am saying is man can adapt, and will. The axe was around for probably 10,000 years before it got a handle. Think how fast technology is advancing. We will have clean energy at some point, and probably not as far off as you think. Our air here in America is way better than it used to be, and the water is generally better. People are boating on Lake Erie again. This is about stewardship of the planet, and instead of focusing on solvable issues like clean drinking water for all and cleaner air, we're focused on something that is at best a theory, based on flawed models and to a degree, science corrupted by money and politics.

Get it through X

get it to x wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 6:47 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 6:24 pm

get it to x wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:32 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:25 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:17 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 3:34 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 8:37 am Yeah, you're really so persuasive here, cradle.

I'm not trying to persuade anyone MD. I will point out the stupidity of any person that thinks by the use of climate models they can predict what the planet will do in 50 years is jerking your chain. I know this for certain, neither you nor myself know what the planet will do 50 years years from now. I guaran dam tee you if I did I would find a betting line on Vegas and sink 20 or 30 grand betting on prognosticating the future. What money line should I choose??? FIRE.. FLOOD.. DISEASE.. FAMINE.. ZOMBIES.. help me out here MD.. what potential disaster should I be chitting my pants over and where should I put my money? I will just keep doing the same thing I do every morning. I will walk Roxy and pick up the same trash and debris left by the same inconsiderate assholes every night. Then I will ask myself the same question...who exactly are we saving the planet for again??? I understand my concerns are too low on the food chain for the really smart people like you to be concerned with. The real important thing is people eating faux hamburger meat, driving electric cars and installing those really cool mini wind turbines in their backyards so they can go off the power grid and maybe sell electricity back to the power company. That is the true meaning of being a real "green" American.

Cradleanddroptheball,
50 years on a geological scale is 5 seconds from now. If off by 50 years, it’s not even a rounding error….

So what is the mechanism that reverses CC/GW? For the sake of discussion it took us say 60 years to get where we are today. If it takes another 60 years granted everything works perfectly it takes 120 years in hypothetical terms until planet earth reaches its former equilibrium so to speak. In hypothetical terms that now takes 120 years for the planet to forgive us. That still does not answer my initial question.. what is the mechanism in place that reverses CC/GW.. Wishful thinking is not a legitimate mechanism.

The hubris of man makes us think any variance from the current temperature is catastrophic. It's been statistically significantly warmer and colder and we've managed through more than a few times. We need to worry about breathable air and drinkable water.

The "hubris of man" is to imagine that we can't negatively impact the Earth to the point of making it virtually uninhabitable for man for a millennium. We're too 'smart' for that, right?

Who is saying that? What I am saying is man can adapt, and will. The axe was around for probably 10,000 years before it got a handle. Think how fast technology is advancing. We will have clean energy at some point, and probably not as far off as you think. Our air here in America is way better than it used to be, and the water is generally better. People are boating on Lake Erie again. This is about stewardship of the planet, and instead of focusing on solvable issues like clean drinking water for all and cleaner air, we're focused on something that is at best a theory, based on flawed models and to a degree, science corrupted by money and politics.

mmm, where I'd agree with you is that we have at least the potential to find technological solutions...but it's not a foregone conclusion that we will...in time.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 6:24 pm

get it to x wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:32 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:25 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:17 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 3:34 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 8:37 am Yeah, you're really so persuasive here, cradle.

I'm not trying to persuade anyone MD. I will point out the stupidity of any person that thinks by the use of climate models they can predict what the planet will do in 50 years is jerking your chain. I know this for certain, neither you nor myself know what the planet will do 50 years years from now. I guaran dam tee you if I did I would find a betting line on Vegas and sink 20 or 30 grand betting on prognosticating the future. What money line should I choose??? FIRE.. FLOOD.. DISEASE.. FAMINE.. ZOMBIES.. help me out here MD.. what potential disaster should I be chitting my pants over and where should I put my money? I will just keep doing the same thing I do every morning. I will walk Roxy and pick up the same trash and debris left by the same inconsiderate assholes every night. Then I will ask myself the same question...who exactly are we saving the planet for again??? I understand my concerns are too low on the food chain for the really smart people like you to be concerned with. The real important thing is people eating faux hamburger meat, driving electric cars and installing those really cool mini wind turbines in their backyards so they can go off the power grid and maybe sell electricity back to the power company. That is the true meaning of being a real "green" American.

Cradleanddroptheball,
50 years on a geological scale is 5 seconds from now. If off by 50 years, it’s not even a rounding error….

So what is the mechanism that reverses CC/GW? For the sake of discussion it took us say 60 years to get where we are today. If it takes another 60 years granted everything works perfectly it takes 120 years in hypothetical terms until planet earth reaches its former equilibrium so to speak. In hypothetical terms that now takes 120 years for the planet to forgive us. That still does not answer my initial question.. what is the mechanism in place that reverses CC/GW.. Wishful thinking is not a legitimate mechanism.

The hubris of man makes us think any variance from the current temperature is catastrophic. It's been statistically significantly warmer and colder and we've managed through more than a few times. We need to worry about breathable air and drinkable water.

The "hubris of man" is to imagine that we can't negatively impact the Earth to the point of making it virtually uninhabitable for man for a millennium. We're too 'smart' for that, right?

I repeat my question to you. Does it take hubris to ask the question what is the mechanism that reverses CC? Your post is a prime example of the worst case scenario with no proof to back it up. Dr Spencer has made this same observation many times.. no legitimate scientist that understands how complex this issue is makes idiotic projections.. the exception is on this forum where the concept of idiotic projections predominates reality.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 7:59 am https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/09/uk/nucle ... index.html

... this machine and the Chinese tokamak are vying for the lead. US tokamak is distant third at this point. But don't worry Apple will have a new iPhone soon.

A tiny, FHA/Va level down payment on this effort. Begging my FIL to get his electrical engineering company into this game


POLITICS
EV Charging Network Will Target Interstate Highways
Money approved by Congress for electric-vehicle chargers should first build out a network on high-use corridors, federal officials say

Dotting interstate highways with charging stations is considered a priority because it will reassure EV motorists that they can take long trips.
PHOTO: LUKE SHARRETT/BLOOMBERG NEWS
By Timothy Puko
Follow
Feb. 10, 2022 5:00 am ET

SAVE

SHARE

TEXT

Listen to article
Length 4 minutes

Queue
WASHINGTON—The $5 billion program to create a national network of electric-vehicle charging stations will give priority to interstate highways and fast chargers before expanding into remote rural and crowded urban areas, federal officials said.

On Thursday, Biden administration officials plan to roll out guidelines for states applying for federal funds to build the charging stations. The charging network is considered a key part of the administration’s plan to accelerate a transition to clean-energy vehicles.

Dotting the interstate-highway corridors with charging stations is considered a priority because it will give EV motorists confidence that they can take long-distance trips without trouble recharging, the officials said.


The roughly $1 trillion federal infrastructure bill approved by Congress last year included two pots of money for charging stations totaling $7.5 billion, which could start going out to states as early as September, according to federal officials.

NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
Capital Journal

Scoops, analysis and insights driving Washington from the WSJ's D.C. bureau.

PREVIEW
SUBSCRIBE
The larger pot, $5 billion, is designated for high-use corridors that connect the entire country.

As part of the plans being released Thursday, the administration would grant $615 million to states in the first 12 months of that program—with the biggest allocations to Texas, California and Florida—using a formula that mirrors traditional federal highway grants to states.

The guidelines will stipulate that states should focus on interstates before building elsewhere.

Under the guidelines, the U.S. transportation secretary will certify plans that connect high-use corridors, mostly interstates. Many of the corridors are already set by the federal government, but in their grant requests states can ask for approval to adjust or expand them.

Solar Cars Are Coming. So Why Aren't All EVs Solar?
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

UP NEXT


0:00 / 6:04
Solar Cars Are Coming. So Why Aren't All EVs Solar?
Solar Cars Are Coming. So Why Aren't All EVs Solar?
Aptera, Lightyear and Sono all plan to release solar-assisted commercial EVs over the next few years. These vehicles promise less frequent plug-in charging by using solar panels to charge their batteries. WSJ's George Downs takes a look at the technology–and its limitations. Photo illustration: George Downs
Stations will have to be installed every 50 miles, no more than one mile off the interstate, according to a guidance memo by the Federal Highway Administration. And stations will have to have at least 600 kilowatts of total capacity, with ports for at least four cars that can simultaneously deliver at least 150 kilowatts each.

The stations also have to be accessible to the general public, or to fleet operators from more than one company. The locations can include privately owned parking lots if they are open to the general public.


Administration officials said their goal is to accommodate a public that wants recharging stations to be just as easy to access as gas stations for traditional cars. That led them to focus on highway-side locales that would serve drivers using cars and trucks for long family trips, vacations or transporting goods, and stations that could recharge cars quickly.

In its memo, the highway administration said it expects most states to contract with private-sector entities to install and operate the stations. The federal money can support only 80% of the cost of these stations, the memo said.

The Transportation and Energy departments, which are jointly implementing the charging-station programs, said they will announce the rules for the other $2.5 billion in funding later this year.

That pot of money will fund two other discretionary grant programs that can go to any state to further fill in gaps and cover high-demand areas in the nationwide system, and to support disadvantaged communities, especially rural areas, that are underserved or overburdened.

Write to Timothy Puko at [email protected]

According to Washington Post reporting:

President Biden on Wednesday met with the chief executives of utility companies to discuss his Build Back Better agenda. But after about 20 minutes, the president excused himself and left the room, and the press and cameras were ushered out.

What happened next is no longer a mystery. Pedro Pizarro, the president and CEO of Edison International, the parent company of Southern California Edison, said about the private discussion that ensued among executives and Biden administration officials, including White House Climate Coordinator Gina McCarthy, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm and National Economic Council Director Brian Deese.

Pizarro said he expressed serious concerns about the costs of inaction on climate change, as the Build Back Better package — including its $555 billion in climate spending — remains stalled on Capitol Hill.

“A lot of the discussion right now is focused on, ‘What’s the cost today for this program or that program?’” he said. “I’m worried there’s not enough discussion of, ‘What’s the cost of inaction?’”

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 6:24 pm

get it to x wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:32 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:25 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:17 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 3:34 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 8:37 am Yeah, you're really so persuasive here, cradle.

I'm not trying to persuade anyone MD. I will point out the stupidity of any person that thinks by the use of climate models they can predict what the planet will do in 50 years is jerking your chain. I know this for certain, neither you nor myself know what the planet will do 50 years years from now. I guaran dam tee you if I did I would find a betting line on Vegas and sink 20 or 30 grand betting on prognosticating the future. What money line should I choose??? FIRE.. FLOOD.. DISEASE.. FAMINE.. ZOMBIES.. help me out here MD.. what potential disaster should I be chitting my pants over and where should I put my money? I will just keep doing the same thing I do every morning. I will walk Roxy and pick up the same trash and debris left by the same inconsiderate assholes every night. Then I will ask myself the same question...who exactly are we saving the planet for again??? I understand my concerns are too low on the food chain for the really smart people like you to be concerned with. The real important thing is people eating faux hamburger meat, driving electric cars and installing those really cool mini wind turbines in their backyards so they can go off the power grid and maybe sell electricity back to the power company. That is the true meaning of being a real "green" American.

Cradleanddroptheball,
50 years on a geological scale is 5 seconds from now. If off by 50 years, it’s not even a rounding error….

So what is the mechanism that reverses CC/GW? For the sake of discussion it took us say 60 years to get where we are today. If it takes another 60 years granted everything works perfectly it takes 120 years in hypothetical terms until planet earth reaches its former equilibrium so to speak. In hypothetical terms that now takes 120 years for the planet to forgive us. That still does not answer my initial question.. what is the mechanism in place that reverses CC/GW.. Wishful thinking is not a legitimate mechanism.

The hubris of man makes us think any variance from the current temperature is catastrophic. It's been statistically significantly warmer and colder and we've managed through more than a few times. We need to worry about breathable air and drinkable water.

The "hubris of man" is to imagine that we can't negatively impact the Earth to the point of making it virtually uninhabitable for man for a millennium. We're too 'smart' for that, right?

The dumbest people are Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson and Elon Musk of course

Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters
by Steven Koonin

Now, one of America's most distinguished scientists is clearing away the fog to explain what science really says (and doesn't say) about our changing climate. In Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, Steven Koonin draws upon his decades of experience—including as a top science advisor to the Obama administration—to provide up-to-date insights and expert perspective free from political agendas.

https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climat ... 1950665798

tech37 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 4:10 pm Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters
by Steven Koonin

Now, one of America's most distinguished scientists is clearing away the fog to explain what science really says (and doesn't say) about our changing climate. In Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, Steven Koonin draws upon his decades of experience—including as a top science advisor to the Obama administration—to provide up-to-date insights and expert perspective free from political agendas.

https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climat ... 1950665798

mmm, former chief scientist at an oil company. But not a climate scientist. The folks who positively reviewed the book are an interesting bunch of characters as well.

Critique of the book includes cherry picked data, agenda driven.

My objection is the conclusion that we can't make policy decisions because things are complex...so, be indecisive and just hope. Maximizing the carbon industry's continued profit generation stream longer.

mmmm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 4:22 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 4:10 pm Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters
by Steven Koonin

Now, one of America's most distinguished scientists is clearing away the fog to explain what science really says (and doesn't say) about our changing climate. In Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, Steven Koonin draws upon his decades of experience—including as a top science advisor to the Obama administration—to provide up-to-date insights and expert perspective free from political agendas.

https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climat ... 1950665798

mmm, former chief scientist at an oil company. But not a climate scientist. The folks who positively reviewed the book are an interesting bunch of characters as well.

Critique of the book includes cherry picked data, agenda driven.

My objection is the conclusion that we can't make policy decisions because things are complex...so, be indecisive and just hope. Maximizing the carbon industry's continued profit generation stream longer.

mmmm

Walk, or use a cart ? When playing golf.