The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread

[sys]

Who WHO WHOOOOOOO gives a eff

1/6th of us economy.

[gatoveintisiete]

And 100% of the states that will need bailed out

[sys]

And 100% of the states that will need bailed out

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2018/0615/California-sees-9-billion-surplus-passes-budget-to-help-poor

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

The largest consumer of gasoline, largest generator of auto emissions and the one state who can't generate enough electricity to avoid brownouts is "going green" on the grid.

You guys are so stupid.

[sys]

The largest consumer of gasoline

2nd.

http://blogs.platts.com/2017/03/31/pickup-prius-texas-california-gasoline/

largest generator of auto emissions

2nd in total co2, 3rd lowest in per capita co2 (didn't find a quick link to tranport only co2)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

the one state who can't generate enough electricity to avoid brownouts is "going green" on the grid.

i've lived here for 7 years, i've experienced 0 brownouts.  dunno how that compares to the national average.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

It's quite the achievement for a place where 40% of the population lives below the poverty line. 

You should be proud of your enormous carbon footprint, which is easily top 10 (5?) in the world.

[sys]

3rd lowest in the us is pretty good.  but it's nice that they're not content with that.  moving to 100% renewable electricity generation is a good goal.

[DaBigTrain]

You guys are I am so stupid.

[treysolid]

It's quite the achievement for a place where 40% of the population lives below the poverty line. 

You should be proud of your enormous carbon footprint, which is easily top 10 (5?) in the world.

Sounds like you just unearthed the reason California is aggressively pursuing emissions-free electricity. Good sleuthing there, Sherlock.

[sonofdaxjones]

https://www.ocregister.com/2018/04/06/with-california-taxpayers-facing-a-1-trillion-unfunded-pension-liability-lawmakers-focus-on-foam-and-plastic-straws/

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/12/californias-77-billion-high-speed-rail-project-is-in-trouble.html   (and on the run towards $100 Billion)


https://www.insidesources.com/california-gas-tax-subsidizes-electric-cars/

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/how-california-promotes-energy-poverty-6168.html

[sonofdaxjones]

Using current technological prowess to get to the 100% renewable goal using solar and wind and using current outputs and footprints as our guide then:

-16K square miles of wind turbines will be needed to reach stated goal for wind output

-Approximately 500 square miles of solar energy panels to reach stated goal for solar output

In essence to meet stated goals, California will have to produce more renewable energy by 2048 than the entire world produces now.   Using known technology, the environmental costs in land use alone will be astronomical, not even taking into all the other environmental impacts.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

They're rough ridin' clueless, they're basically at the point where they're simply making the libtard wishlist legislation with no possible way of implementing or paying for it.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

3rd lowest in the us is pretty good.  but it's nice that they're not content with that.  moving to 100% renewable electricity generation is a good goal.

If they can get the number of people living in poverty up to 80% and maybe ban the sale of used cars, I'm confident California can make it impossible for enough people to own a car to bring their per capita emissions down to China's level. Very altruistic ambissions. Maybe throw out some child tax credit to get the birth rate up and they could achieve India like per capita emissions.

What a bunch of fucktards

[DaBigTrain]

“It’s impossible to switch to green energy because it’s never going to get better, more efficient, or cheaper. So why even try? Shut it all down so we can burn baby burn.”

- Dax

[sonofdaxjones]

“It’s impossible to switch to green energy because it’s never going to get better, more efficient, or cheaper. So why even try? Shut it all down so we can burn baby burn.”

- Dax

That's not what I said.   

But, I knew that's exactly how you were going to respond.   

[DaBigTrain]

“It’s impossible to switch to green energy because it’s never going to get better, more efficient, or cheaper. So why even try? Shut it all down so we can burn baby burn.”

- Dax

That's not what I said.   

But, I knew that's exactly how you were going to respond.

So what did you mean by your post? Or more specifically what were you implying?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

TBT is beyond help. People in a vegetative state contribute more to humanity.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Using current technological prowess to get to the 100% renewable goal using solar and wind and using current outputs and footprints as our guide then:

-16K square miles of wind turbines will be needed to reach stated goal for wind output

-Approximately 500 square miles of solar energy panels to reach stated goal for solar output

In essence to meet stated goals, California will have to produce more renewable energy by 2048 than the entire world produces now.   Using known technology, the environmental costs in land use alone will be astronomical, not even taking into all the other environmental impacts.

If they started it today, they couldn't get it done by 2048.

[star seed 7]

Green energy is really enraging

[steve dave]

Green energy is really enraging

It infuriates them


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sonofdaxjones]

Nothing is enraging.  But the simpletons in the Lib movement when it comes to "green energy" are 

[sonofdaxjones]

Our emissions are going down, China/Europe/India going up.  Paris signatories . . . . all talk, as predicted. 

Plastic in the seas?   China/Asia/North Africa

https://www.dw.com/en/almost-all-plastic-in-the-ocean-comes-from-just-10-rivers/a-41581484

[sys]

Using current technological prowess to get to the 100% renewable goal using solar and wind and using current outputs and footprints as our guide then:

-16K square miles of wind turbines will be needed to reach stated goal for wind output

-Approximately 500 square miles of solar energy panels to reach stated goal for solar output

In essence to meet stated goals, California will have to produce more renewable energy by 2048 than the entire world produces now.   Using known technology, the environmental costs in land use alone will be astronomical, not even taking into all the other environmental impacts.

not gonna bother to look for data on the first two.  the last assertion is laughably false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California

[sys]

If they started it today, they couldn't get it done by 2048.

they're on track to get to 50% renewable by 2020, ten years ahead of the 2030 goal.

[sonofdaxjones]

Using current technological prowess to get to the 100% renewable goal using solar and wind and using current outputs and footprints as our guide then:

-16K square miles of wind turbines will be needed to reach stated goal for wind output

-Approximately 500 square miles of solar energy panels to reach stated goal for solar output

In essence to meet stated goals, California will have to produce more renewable energy by 2048 than the entire world produces now.   Using known technology, the environmental costs in land use alone will be astronomical, not even taking into all the other environmental impacts.

not gonna bother to look for data on the first two.  the last assertion is laughably false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California

Based on 2048 demand, no it is not.  Wind turbine production in Cali has also dropped over the last 4 years, because of environmental restrictions.