8flat

Well-Known Member
First Name
Gary
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
268
Reaction score
189
Location
Montana
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLUR
I'm not sure where you heard that, but according to Wikipedia:

no.PNG
China is ramping up quickly, but in Gurk's defense, it could very likely still be true that their fossil fuel usage will NOT actually decrease for quite some time. Baseload generation in China is still leaning heavy on them, because renewables make terrible baseload plants until grid-attached storage becomes feasible (not there yet). Germany, a country with more installed solar than almost any other country, I think up through 2019 they were actually #1, damn near ran out of power last month because they've cut back on baseload plants that were using coal and gas and January 2021 was cold, dark, and still. (almost no solar or wind production)

Renewables are fine, you just have to be careful relying on them too heavily as baseload generation until grid attached storage systems (batteries, pumped hydro, etc) are mature.





Advertisement

 

AnnDee4444

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
2,239
Reaction score
2,311
Location
Earth
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
China is ramping up quickly, but in Gurk's defense, it could very likely still be true that their fossil fuel usage will NOT actually decrease for quite some time. Baseload generation in China is still leaning heavy on them, because renewables make terrible baseload plants until grid-attached storage becomes feasible (not there yet). Germany, a country with more installed solar than almost any other country, I think up through 2019 they were actually #1, damn near ran out of power last month because they've cut back on baseload plants that were using coal and gas and January 2021 was cold, dark, and still. (almost no solar or wind production)

Renewables are fine, you just have to be careful relying on them too heavily as baseload generation until grid attached storage systems (batteries, pumped hydro, etc) are mature.
Looks like I incorrectly assumed an increase in renewable energy would lead to a decrease in fossil fuels. It could happen, but it isn't an absolute.

And yeah, energy storage is a huge issue right now.
 

8flat

Well-Known Member
First Name
Gary
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
268
Reaction score
189
Location
Montana
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLUR
Looks like I incorrectly assumed an increase in renewable energy would lead to a decrease in fossil fuels. It could happen, but it isn't an absolute.

And yeah, energy storage is a huge issue right now.
Well, it sure could, but the other factor with China is their load (consumption) is growing at a pretty insane pace since they're a developing country with tens of millions of people going through a rapid transition to middle class. With that of course comes a huge jump in electric consumption. They're working a deal to buy a bunch of coal from the Montana and shipping a steady stream of it to China for their plants. Pretty insane when you think of shipping costs, so it tells me they're pretty desperate for baseload.
 

AnnDee4444

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
2,239
Reaction score
2,311
Location
Earth
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
Well, it sure could, but the other factor with China is their load (consumption) is growing at a pretty insane pace since they're a developing country with tens of millions of people going through a rapid transition to middle class. With that of course comes a huge jump in electric consumption. They're working a deal to buy a bunch of coal from the Montana and shipping a steady stream of it to China for their plants. Pretty insane when you think of shipping costs, so it tells me they're pretty desperate for baseload.
Somewhat related: https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/lets-build-a-global-power-grid
 

BearJewJonny

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jon
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
373
Reaction score
413
Location
NYC
Vehicle(s)
2018 JlU Sahara
Holy F**King S**T.

TAKE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE.

So glad I just had to sift through all these stupid comments which provided absolutely nothing of value in relation to the BEV.

And since when is wikipedia a credible source? Literally anyone can go on there and write whatever they want.
 

AnnDee4444

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
2,239
Reaction score
2,311
Location
Earth
Vehicle(s)
Jeep

ITGuy

Member
First Name
Cody
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Messages
15
Reaction score
23
Location
Rancho Cucamonga
Vehicle(s)
21 JLUR
Rob: A couple of things.

We only have public free speech in this country as a product of case law, which has interpreted the founding father's "an open exchange of ideas" in the 1st amendment as such. And I don't need to tell you the importance of protecting free speech for the good it brings, just point out its intentions for being and limits. Disclosing national secrets, shouting fire in a crowded movie theater when the is none...not protected.
Just a point of legal trivia, that is America’s go-to catch phrase for saying there are limits to free speech, but it actually is (likely) legal to shout fire in a crowded theatre. The Supreme Court overturned the case Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes used that analogy on in 1969 (Brandenburg v Ohio) This was the beauty of the great American experiment of individual liberties and freedom. Todays culture seems worlds away however from the underlying laws.
 

8flat

Well-Known Member
First Name
Gary
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
268
Reaction score
189
Location
Montana
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLUR
Holy F**King S**T.

TAKE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE.

So glad I just had to sift through all these stupid comments which provided absolutely nothing of value in relation to the BEV.

And since when is wikipedia a credible source? Literally anyone can go on there and write whatever they want.
hahahaha wow

OK how 'bout this: Electric jeep plugs in wall, make big torque, super sneaky quiet, might die in middle of desert.

Further questions?
 

Gee-pah

Well-Known Member
First Name
Andy
Joined
Nov 19, 2019
Messages
1,510
Reaction score
1,074
Location
SanFrancisco
Vehicle(s)
JL Wrangler
Just a point of legal trivia, that is America’s go-to catch phrase for saying there are limits to free speech, but it actually is (likely) legal to shout fire in a crowded theatre. The Supreme Court overturned the case Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes used that analogy on in 1969 (Brandenburg v Ohio) This was the beauty of the great American experiment of individual liberties and freedom. Todays culture seems worlds away however from the underlying laws.
Disagree. I know the case, I say in advance, so you'll appreciate this admitted cut and paste below, while absolutely on point, doesn't seem disingenuous on my part, or simply my opinion.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the Supreme Court established that speech advocating illegal conduct (by those who hear or read the words) is protected under the First Amendment unless the speech is likely to incite “imminent lawless action.”

Yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, whether real or not, doesn't advocate that the theater's occupants commit illegal conduct, rather, in good faith, evacuate the premises to save their lives. Brandenburg, and the protections it affords, simply doesn't apply here.

Brandenburg focuses on what people can say to get others to break the law, and the court sided with Brandenburg because it found Ohio's laws too restrictive in prohibiting speech that *might* result in lawless acts, rather than limiting their law to speech that's likely to eminently result in other's lawless acts.

~~~~~

Ok, all this pinhead stuff behind us, you and I Cody can agree that protecting nearly all speech is an important thing, and is about preventing the silencing of those whose opinions differ from others--as someday we may have something to say that doesn't go with the mainstream, and may, just may, be of value. But motivating others to eminently attack innocents/break laws with their words incendiary crosses a line.

Never will saying something, especially untruthful, (like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater where one doesn't exist) that may cause a stampede as a product of self-preservation, rather than deliberate unlawful acts, be, or should it be protected speech. And it is so because the rights of innocents to not potentially be smothered in such a stampede outweighs any of our rights to yell something merely for "sh_ts and giggles."

I believe you a good guy Cody and don't wish you hurt in a crowded space based on the deliberate reckless acts of others, who could reasonably see that their publicly shouted lies could cause such injury.
 

ThirtyOne

Well-Known Member
Rock Sponsor (Level 1)
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
4,921
Reaction score
7,021
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Website
www.jeepdoodles.com
Vehicle(s)
2018 Jeep Wrangler Sport S, 2017 Chevy Tahoe, 2005 Jeep Liberty
Holy F**King S**T.

TAKE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE.

So glad I just had to sift through all these stupid comments which provided absolutely nothing of value in relation to the BEV.

And since when is wikipedia a credible source? Literally anyone can go on there and write whatever they want.
This thread will inevitably go off-topic, because there just isn't that much to say about the Concept at this point.
 

ITGuy

Member
First Name
Cody
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Messages
15
Reaction score
23
Location
Rancho Cucamonga
Vehicle(s)
21 JLUR
Disagree. I know the case, I say in advance, so you'll appreciate this admitted cut and paste below, while absolutely on point, doesn't seem disingenuous on my part, or simply my opinion.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the Supreme Court established that speech advocating illegal conduct (by those who hear or read the words) is protected under the First Amendment unless the speech is likely to incite “imminent lawless action.”

Yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, whether real or not, doesn't advocate that the theater's occupants commit illegal conduct, rather, in good faith, evacuate the premises to save their lives. Brandenburg, and the protections it affords, simply doesn't apply here.

Brandenburg focuses on what people can say to get others to break the law, and the court sided with Brandenburg because it found Ohio's laws too restrictive in prohibiting speech that *might* result in lawless acts, rather than limiting their law to speech that's likely to eminently result in other's lawless acts.

~~~~~

Ok, all this pinhead stuff behind us, you and I Cody can agree that protecting nearly all speech is an important thing, and is about preventing the silencing of those whose opinions differ from others--as someday we may have something to say that doesn't go with the mainstream, and may, just may, be of value. But motivating others to eminently attack innocents/break laws with their words incendiary crosses a line.

Never will saying something, especially untruthful, (like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater where one doesn't exist) that may cause a stampede as a product of self-preservation, rather than deliberate unlawful acts, be, or should it be protected speech. And it is so because the rights of innocents to not potentially be smothered in such a stampede outweighs any of our rights to yell something merely for "sh_ts and giggles."

I believe you a good guy Cody and don't wish you hurt in a crowded space based on the deliberate reckless acts of others, who could reasonably see that their publicly shouted lies could cause such injury.
Definitely not advocating recklessness, just pointing out the example isn’t the legal slam dunk that everyone thinks it is.

it’s the same principle under which there are things that are legal to buy but not use, or why it’s fine to have how to make a bomb books for sale or available in the library.
 

Gee-pah

Well-Known Member
First Name
Andy
Joined
Nov 19, 2019
Messages
1,510
Reaction score
1,074
Location
SanFrancisco
Vehicle(s)
JL Wrangler
Definitely not advocating recklessness, just pointing out the example isn’t the legal slam dunk that everyone thinks it is.

it’s the same principle under which there are things that are legal to buy but not use, or why it’s fine to have how to make a bomb books for sale or available in the library.
Fair.
 

Jehovasfitness

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mark
Joined
Apr 7, 2018
Messages
151
Reaction score
100
Location
Maryland
Vehicle(s)
JLUR and '04 Z06
Oh it can be debatable if you have evidence on your side. The weight of the evidence is not, on top of that you're not a climate scientist so sorry if I don't take what some random guy on a Jeep forum has to say on the topic.
 

Advertisement




Icon Vehicle Dynamics
 



Advertisement
Top