Take a good look at this woman. She has her hands in your pocket, and is lifting your wallet and any loose change you may still have.
“During an interview aired on Wednesday’s edition of MSNBC’s “11th Hour,” Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm responded to a question on whether there is a plan to address energy prices that have started to tick up by stating that “the better choice is to move to electrify transportation, because it is so much cheaper for you” and “moving to clean is moving to energy security and moving to affordability.”
I almost fell off my chair. I just Googled Biden’s electrification of transportation plan and learned that he is pouring money into electric charging station infrastructure. Will it be enough? Probably not for a very long time. His desire is to have 500,000 charging stations in place by 2030. The latest stat I found on the number of gas stations in the United States is 115,400. At first the number of charging stations sounds like it will be plenty, but I don’t think so. Most of the 115,400 stations provide up to twelve or more fueling points. It takes me about five minutes to fill my tank while a fast charge will take about 45 minutes. That means the electric charging depot will require nine times as many charging points to equal the fill capacity of a regular fueling station. My arithmetic tells me that the number of charging points is only half of what will be required. Another fact of life is that the current grid that supplies us with our spark is not capable of simultaneously charging more than about five cars per city block before it crashes.
At the same time Biden is planning to increase regulation of gasoline to make it more expensive and harder to get. Remember a few weeks ago when I stated that the current car shortage is a government conspiracy to force us into electric cars. Along with that, the pandemic taught us that we don’t need to drive. Anyway, I have veered from my point which is to state that this lady who has her hands in our pockets is a moron. She actually believes she can convince us that going electric overnight will be cheaper for us.
What Ms Granholm has left out of the discussion is where the electricity needed to spark those 500,000 charging stations will come from. Maybe she has a plan to install a huge windmill on the roof of every fossil fuel and atomic power plant across the country to give us a charge. While we hire the Dutch to design and build those windmills for us we will have to rely on something else. Maybe it will be hydro-electric, but wait, didn’t Lake Meade nearly run out of water this last year? Where will we build new hydro-electric plants. Niagara Falls already has a power plant. Actually, a better idea will be to buy all the old bicycles that the Chinese are no longer using, and we can use them to move around. Not only would that be clean green energy, but we would all lose weight and be healthier. Think of all the reduced health care costs that would accrue. Surplus doctors and nurses would need to be directed to keeping the millions of illegal aliens that have descended upon the USA healthy. The downside of healthy immigrants is that they will be buying up all the beautifully efficient gas powered cars that we had to give up for the electrics.
The bottom line is that we need more power pants
Jennifer Granholm’s stupid answer was completely political talking points. She did it so robotically, and kept repeating the exact same line so many times that I wondered if maybe she is a government robot with limited artificial intelligence.
Last week I got the urge to research the effect of carbon dioxide on global warming. I must have looked at charts on a dozen different websites. What I found was not what I hoped to find. Chart after chart showed CO2 levels rising yearly. My inner brain began to trickle information to the front of my mind. Most notable was a vacation camping trip I took with my kids. We went to Arizona and one of the stops was between Phoenix and Tucson at a place called Biosphere 2. It was intended to be a giant experiment to determine if man could survive in space in a man made atmosphere replicating that of Earth.
Inside Biosphere 2 was a much smaller experiment. In fact, I would call it a tiny experiment showing the result of CO2 on plant growth. Biosphere 2 is a three acre glass topped structure that is hermetically sealed off from Earth’s atmosphere. The tiny experiment was three twenty gallon aquarium tanks set up side by side. Tank 1 had a normal CO2 level, Tank 2 had a generous percentage more CO2, and Tank 3 had a ridiculously high percentage above normal CO2, they all had the same amount of light. The test was to see the effect of CO2 levels on corn growth. In Tank 1 the corn was normal, kind of what we see in the fields near the 4th of July. The CO2 level was increased in Tank 2, and surprisingly the growth was hearty and healthier looking than normal, but in Tank 3 the corn was a shriveled dried up mess. The CO2 level in Tank 3 was increased to double digits above normal. That experiment stuck with me. Rising CO2 levels gives us a an agricultural advantage, and too much CO2 dries up the earth and burns the crops. That is when I put the brakes on writing about the CO2 hoax and global warming.
Then yesterday, the idea light turned on and I got a new insight. In all the charts and articles about global warming there was not a single one that showed a temperature rise on the earth’s surface or atmosphere. If there is such a report the green new dealers are hiding the facts. In order for the Arctic ice caps to melt the air temperature at the pole has to rise. Another thing that is missing is any data that indicates a rise in water levels other than that caused by the tides and the position of the moon relative to Earth. I also remember seeing another shocking video on rising water levels in Venice, Italy. They showed knee high water covering St. Mark’s Square. My God, I thought, is it really happening? A few weeks later I saw another article that explained that the high water in Venice is cyclical, and is attributed to seasonal tides. The news station made a scare piece that would make one believe that the ice caps are melting. The Venetian locals have learned to live with rising water as we will if ever our coastlines begin to go under water. No where have I found one article that takes the opposite approach and identifies a phenomenon that cancels the effect of rising CO2 like what if the hole in the Ozone layer acts as a vent that draws excess CO2 out into the stratosphere? Is no one interested in playing devil’s advocate?
Notice how the hole in the ozone layer hovers over Antarctica, the same spot that will melt away because of rising CO2. Also notice that the hole keeps getting bigger even though earthlings paid the price of changing out freon from air conditioners world-wide.
Another part of my research was to compile a list of cars, trucks, busses, locomotives, ships, and airplanes that contribute to CO2. The worldwide transportation component accounts for 40% of the CO2 load, but I have yet to see a single article about how walking and bicycle riding can reduce CO2. If you want to make a personal contribution break out your trusty Schwinn, air up the tires, oil the chain, and start pedaling. Not only will you reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, you will lose weight, sleep better, and generally be healthier.
Fossil fueled Electricity is the number two contributor to the CO2 load just behind light vehicles. What I don’t see is a projection of how converting cars from fossil fuel to electricity will affect electricity generation. I guess we will worry about that when it actually happens. That conversion is not just a USA problem it is also a world-wide problem. China is of course the world’s largest polluter and is far ahead of where the USA was in the nineteen forties. If the United States worked overtime and created a pollution free atmosphere the air flow around the planet would change out our pure air and mix it with stinky Chinese air. We pay to clean the air, and they continue to pollute. In my mind we are the slaves of the Chinese.
As a kid, I remember very well how polluted the air was on the Southside of Chicago. We had a concentration of steel mills and oil refineries that spewed tons of caustic gasses and ash into the sky, the stink was amazing. We made great strides in eliminating the problem by losing the steel mills to Korea, and the refineries to the gulf coast. We cleaned our atmosphere by worsening someone else’s. As the world becomes more intelligent and uses more computers it also becomes an electrical energy hog. By concentrating on reducing car emissions by converting to electricity we have pushed the electrical generation problem off toward the fantasy of wind and solar, neither of which will suffice. If the politicians were smart they would send China a monthly bill as payment for the U.S.A. filtering their crummy air.
During the nineteen eighties I had to determine why our products were failing in the pristine eastern region of Canada. After microscopic examination of the failed products I determined that the plastic was being attacked chemically. Why and how does that happen in the deepest forests of the continent? Finally, after much study I blamed it on acid rain. How did the rain get loaded with acid so far in the wilderness? The answer was that the air became polluted by smoke pouring out of smoke stacks eight hundred miles away that were modified and made taller to move the pollution away from a population center. The smoke reached a layer of air moving eastward and fell out over the forest where our product was used. The pollutant mixed with the rain and caused the rainfall to be very acidic. An example of one area solving its pollution problem by transferring it to another area. We came to our conclusion after learning that the fish in that area were dying from lake water that was highly acidic.
The air pollution problem is huge and complex. I would like to see a viable solution to it in my life time, but I fear that will not happen. One suggestion that I have is to go backwards in civilization. We must go back to the days when there were no industries, or gasoline gulping cars, and we didn’t need so much electricity. Trash your computers, TV’s, phones, lights, and air conditioners, then, we might be able to make a dent in rising CO2 levels, but will we affect a change on global warming?
View of United States Steel factories Gary Works, producing pollution and located on the shores of Lake Michigan, Gary, Indiana, 1970s. (Photo by Paul Sequeira/Getty Images)
In closing, picture this, a world that exists one hundred years from now, and civilization has made the ultimate sacrifice to reduce CO2 levels to normal. Yet, with all that sacrifice the planet has continued to get hotter as it normally does in a cyclical way, and the ice caps have melted anyway. How will we answer to that? We will have wasted a hundred years of human effort causing untold misery on several generations of people on solving the wrong problem. What will the politicians say to that? What will their spin be? WiIl we believe it, or will we buy into what ever bull crap Uncle feeds us, and we drink the cool aid. I for one, would like to be here a hundred years from now to fend off the leaders who will lie their way out of the problem, and blame it all on Trump.
While driving north on interstate 355 this week I passed a familiar air inflated dome on the East side. My mind was racing through many wild thoughts like a newsreel gone wild. Flashes of ideas burning their way through my brain. It seemed like the wheels on a slot machine whirling through waiting to settle on something. Then the images stopped just as the dome came into view. Emblazoned across the balloon was the name “Bo Jackson’s Elite Sports.”
What if we were to enclose the entire country under one giant humongous air building like Bo Jackson’s? We might actually be able to achieve the dream of the Green New Deal? Without any dirty air coming at us from different parts of the polluted world it could be possible. Constructing the cocoon over America would be easier than convincing countries like China to cut their emissions. We could definitely control the air inside our cocoon. Or could we? Then, the practical aspects of living in a balloon began to spin in my slot machine idea generator. How would we cover the mountains? Building the fence between Mexico and the USA was a large enough task, but it would be declared a piece of cake compared to covering the Smokies and the Rockies under a balloon. The idea generator began spinning again, and a new picture developed. What if we merely covered the cities and towns all around the States? In other words, just put balloon buildings where people live. That way they can breathe absolutely 99.9999% pure air and be allergy and asthma free. The town balloon can be connected by balloon tunnels between. Oh yeah, well what about all the emission you generate inside the balloon? Not a problem with electric vehicles. Where will you get the electricity? Also not as big a problem when all the balloon structures are also encased in photovoltaic cells generating as much power as needed. Also, it will be without the unsightly acres and acres of solar panels.
When millions of people are enclosed within a limited air building they will generate tons of exhaled carbon dioxide which will have to be dealt with, how? Well we could just displace the carbon dioxide with pure filtered air without pollutants. In nature, the trees and vegetation do that work for us by using the carbon dioxide to power photosynthesis. But still, we will have to dispose of the tons of exhaled carbon. Where? How about we build a balloon chimney to blow the needed carbon into the space beyond our stratosphere? One novel idea proposed by science is to convert the carbon into coal. Isn’t that where all this began? Coal? My idea generator stopped spinning at two cherries and a lemon. Thankfully, by this time I arrived at my destination and my mind was forced into thinking about other matters like lunch and where to buy gasoline.
