Hey Max Green,

"You apparently missed all the bits where I said Solar and EV's are the answer?"
- I'm not sure it's the whole answer, but I'm sure it's a part of it.

Whilst not as technically versed as some of the others, I think they make a good point about base-load power (and renewables inability to provide it), and I'm not sure building renewables out 5x like you've stated is necessarily an ideal solution.
- Even if solar panels were free it would take a lot to build that.

"Also, if you look at the overall tone of my previous post you can see that I'm PROPOSING AN IDEA - not saying Haystacks Solar Garden are THE ONLY WAY to do it. You missed..."
- Sorry, I'm not necessarily saying the co-op idea doesn't have potential.

"Imagine they get more ambitious and build a PHES scheme for overnight discounted electricity as well?"
- I'm all for looking into more efficient dams, I like them, they're like giant batteries.

"Understand the 10:1 energy ratio yet - or still DERPING over that one?"
- Still derping it.

'negative attention'... [rolls eyes]

I think the part you don't get is when someone proposes something that affect others in a 'negative way', (checkmate negative attention) then those people have no choice but to stand up against it to defend their own interests;
- Like you did, when proposing we all eat mealworms, insects, and lab grown whatever-the-hell-you-call-it, with such enthusiasm, celebrating the idea.

- Do you understand that it's at this point where the issues YOU SUPPORT impact MY way of life in a negative manner, and I have a right and a duty to stand against them? (and not just for me)
Also at this point, instead of coming across as someone with realistic ideas that wishes to make other peoples lives better, you cross a line over to becoming 'drunk on climate religion' or a 'Mengler' (someone who took their interests too damn far)
- and essentially became a danger to the rest of us.

Any one care to comment on EVs and water?
Can they be used as emergency vehicles in floods?
What depth of water can they negotiate?

Hi Is Mise,
that is your best question so far. I genuinely don't know!

Oh, and I got to see that Bond car again!
http://www.drive.com.au/caradvice/can-electric-cars-get-wet/

These guys seem confident it can be dealt with...
http://mr4x4.com.au/crossing-rivers-in-an-electric-rivian/

So the first part of the answer is that where an undamaged EV is floating down a flooded road or river, its electrical components are well sealed and extremely unlikely to provide an electrical hazard to its occupants, bystanders … or passing fish ….

"A second part to the question does however present itself: what happens if the EV is damaged and sections of the high voltage electrics become exposed?

In this case, a series of safety and protection systems will kick in. In the event of a crash, automatic disconnection of the high voltage electrics occurs through an impact sensor (which exists in all modern cars), thereby limiting the presence of high voltage to within the battery only. Another system (called a ground-fault detection system) is also built into EVs."

http://thedriven.io/2018/12/04/is-a-battery-electric-vehicle-safe-in-a-flood/

HI ARMCHAIR - the 10:1 Haber Bosch things is WELL KNOWN.

"For me, one of the most startling truths is just how much energy is embedded in our industrialized food system. From the chemical fertilizers that make it grow, to the diesel fuel that powers the farm machinery and refrigerated trucks, to the plastic wrap that keeps it fresh for weeks (or months, or years), the vast majority of food we purchase is so full of fossil-fuel energy, it's amazing it doesn't smell like oil. Most studies put it at about 10-to-one; in other words, for every calorie of food energy we consume, we're burning 10 calories of fossil fuel energy. Doesn't exactly reek of sustainability, does it?"
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a1127/4206698/

Max,
Thanks for that, very informative.
I, used to work on submarines and know and appreciate the trouble that has to be gone to to protect batteries from water.
Submarine batteries, just as a point of interest, are the same voltage as a single cell in a car battery but are about 4 feet tall and about a foot square.

Hey Max Green,
I read your article.

Whilst I didn't know the story behind Haber, who stated in 1898 that that the worlds use of saltpeter as fertilizer was unsustainable and that the answer to this problem was nitrogen, to which he was able to only make a small amount of ammonia, and that I also didn't know that Bosch in 1909 found a way to make ammonia in large quantities, nor do I know the exact process for doing so...

I certainly did know that fertilizer use makes agriculture more productive, and I've heard about the problem of runoff but certainly no expert on these things...

I watched a video before and learned a little, but the 10:1 thing wasn't explained.

The part I just cant get my head around is 'calories of fossil fuels'

Its like saying I was traveling in my car at a speed of 100kg
Or saying the plane I was flying in leveled off at 30,000 litres
Or that the weight of one of the cows out in the front paddock is 500klms

I may be the dummy here, but it just doesn't make sense to me.
- You (and the person in your article) need to explain things better, and not in a way that boggles my mind and makes me think 'what the hell are these mad people on about'.

If you said the combine harvester uses 100 litres of diesel to harvest a 500m x 500m field and the average harvest is 20 tonnes (rough estimate I don't know typical amounts are) that would make sense to me.
If you said it took 1kw of power to turn 1 tonne of grain into 1 tonne of flour, well this would make sense to me.
If you added up all the production values for each part of the process and listed them, then this would make more sense to me.

[Cont.]
Saying it takes 10 calories of fossil fuels to make 1 calorie of food, well it just makes my brain implode, I just can't comprehend it, and not only that, but saying 'calories of fossil fuels' feels like I'm being baffled with bs... or something..
'Keep it simple stupid' comes to mind, even if it has to be more complicated to make sense.

Ok... next.
I understand that you're extremely passionate about 'green things' for example reducing emissions and cleaner more efficient energy production that is better for the environment
But you need to understand that if you say you want to mess with the food, you're actually asking for pushback.
I'm actually trying to give you advice here
- It's fine to talk about EV's and solar farms, and pumped hydro, as they all have positive benefits but if you talk about messing with food, people are going to want to string you up when they are forced to eat acheta, and mealworms.
Likewise if 'green ideas' lead to blowing up all the coal plants and the price of electricity doubles, then you're going to get pushback.
People are going to be mad about it.
Or going after peoples pets, you're asking for trouble there
Just thoughts...

Meanwhile society raises horses for racing as a sport, but if the horse don't win it's going to be repurposed
- glue factory and pet food for the greyhound industry.
But we can't have meat?
Seriously, all this talk of frankenslop has got me considering going on a carnivore diet.

As for food being emissions costly, I think one of the biggest waste of resources and energy is commercialism;
why does the inhabitants on planet earth need to create 1000 new car models every year, why does the throw-away society produce things that aren't built to last before needing to be replaced?

You should see the amount of stuff people throw away now.
Have you been to the tip lately?