The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction

Message boards : Politics : The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 . . . 22 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1063617 - Posted: 5 Jan 2011, 8:13:20 UTC - in response to Message 1063254.  

Honda Civic, about 30MPG, less than $20,000 new.

Heck, I could get a 1986 Honda Civic CRX to do 38 mpg in 1994. So much for progress!
ID: 1063617 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1063761 - Posted: 5 Jan 2011, 21:39:19 UTC

http://www.solarserver.com/solar-magazine/solar-news/current/kw50/sunpower-and-au-optronics-dedicate-14gw-solar-cell-production-facility.html

A single facility to produce 1.4Gigawatt of solar panels per year. This one is Malaysia. Time to kick the USA into high gear.
Janice
ID: 1063761 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20232
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1063998 - Posted: 6 Jan 2011, 17:02:59 UTC - in response to Message 1063617.  

Honda Civic, about 30MPG, less than $20,000 new.

Heck, I could get a 1986 Honda Civic CRX to do 38 mpg in 1994. So much for progress!

What progress when Marketing pushes ever bigger 'numbers'?...

You can't do more mpg with bigger cc's and bhp's...


As for electric cars:

Electric cars not accessible 'in next five years'

The majority of global car executives do not foresee a reasonably priced electric vehicle being available on the mass market in the next five years, a survey has suggested.

Many also believe that electric cars will not be affordable without government subsidies, KPMG said.

But they do think that the market for electric cars will be the fastest growing sector in the market.

Carmakers are investing in electric vehicles to reduce carbon emissions.

This is to both hit emissions targets and satisfy consumers' growing desire for fuel efficient cars.



All rather contradictory...

I'm in favour of electric cars, but not with their present heavyweight batteries. Other fuels are possible and also the use of fuel cells.

It's just a question of development... In effect we're still just driving around in oil-fired steam engines!


It's our only planet,
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1063998 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1064009 - Posted: 6 Jan 2011, 17:14:00 UTC - in response to Message 1063248.  

5. What are we left with? The only thing we have left are the opinions of the involved scientists. You mention some scientists having certain opinions because of who pays them (the fossil fuel companies). I think it is a bit more widespread than that. Scientists, being human, of course have biases. And a bias towards who is providing their funding is a big one. This is what makes repeatable experiment such a key component of the scientific method. It is one way to help screen out bias. We cannot yet conduct reliable, repeatable experiment on this. Therefore, it is all opinion.


Umm, which I guess means evolution is opinion, most of cosmology is opinion, indeed pretty much all of science is mere opinion. Or perhaps not. Make an observation (apple falls on head), form a hypothesis (there's a force, let's call it gravity), gather data to test the hypothesis, if the data matches predictions made in the hypothesis, submit the hypothesis, predictions, tests, test conditions to a peer reviewed journal and see if other experts in the field can find flaws with it. If no flaws are found the hypothesis becomes a theory, that's the scientific method as I understand it. Theories stand until a better one comes along. Controlled experiments are one way to gather data when testing a hypothesis, they are not the only way. Or am I missing something?

Based on this understanding, anthropogenic green house gas emissions as a contributor to global climate change is probably the most widely accepted theory in earthbound climate science today.

Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities


At least that's what the National Academies of Science have said on the matter. The Royal Society appear to share a similar view:

In the journal Science in 2004, Oreskes published the results of a survey of 928 papers on climate change published in peer-reviewed journals between 1993 and 2003. She found that three-quarters of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the view expressed in the IPCC 2001 report that human activities have had a major impact on climate change in the last 50 years, and none rejected it.


Those papers are indeed opinion, though it's the best scientific opinion we have today, and is thus equivalent to the best scientific opinion in any other field of scientific inquiry.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1064009 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1064012 - Posted: 6 Jan 2011, 17:25:52 UTC - in response to Message 1063998.  

They hybrid cars are making a quiet but vital evolution, the move towards plug in hybrids. This enables them to run on shorter trips on pure electricity, without the expense of having battery capacity to take them for hundreds of miles. The lead acid batteries of old are out, and the move from nickle metal hydride towards lithium-ion batteries is in full swing.

For the pure electric,

http://www.teslamotors.com/models They are coming towards the market.
These are not priced, nor will they be priced for the mainstream market. They are starting as luxury items, and moving down from there. The "glorified golf carts" may still use the lead based batteries, and may even be useful for those with limited mobility needs.

Honestly, if you do most of your driving in a 10-15 mile radius, and only need a large vehicle for vacations(holidays for those across the pond) then the simple short ranged versions may fit your needs. Renting a car for the 2 week trip per year is not that expensive. And the fuel savings in the mean time are immense.
Janice
ID: 1064012 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1064015 - Posted: 6 Jan 2011, 17:28:50 UTC

for the pure economy minded.....

http://www.zapworld.com/zap-xebra-electric-sedan


Janice
ID: 1064015 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1064033 - Posted: 6 Jan 2011, 18:38:44 UTC - in response to Message 1064009.  

Bobby,
The opening remarks from the link http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/booklets/climate_change_2008_final.pdf you provided:

There is a growing concern about global warming and the impact it will have on people and the ecosystems on which they depend. Temperatures have already risen 1.4°F since the start of the 20th century—with much of this warming occurring in just the last 30 years—and temperatures will likely rise at least another 2°F, and possibly more than 11°F, over the next 100 years. This warming will cause significant changes in sea level, ecosystems, and ice cover, among other impacts. In the Arctic, where temperatures have increased almost twice as much as the global average, the landscape and ecosystems are already changing rapidly.

Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (see Figure 1). Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, have increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels for energy, industrial processes, and transportation. Carbon dioxide levels are at their highest in at least 650,000 years and continue to rise.

There is no doubt that climate will continue to change throughout the 21st century and beyond, but there are still important questions regarding how large and how fast these changes will be, and what effects they will have in different regions. In some parts of the world, global warming could bring positive effects such as longer growing seasons and milder winters. Unfortunately, it is likely to bring harmful effects to a much higher percentage of the world’s people. For example, people in coastal communities will likely experience increased flooding due to rising sea levels.

The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to begin taking steps to prepare for climate change and to slow it. Human actions over the next few decades will have a major influence on the magnitude and rate of future warming. Large, disruptive changes are much more likely if greenhouse gases are allowed to continue building up in the atmosphere at their present rate. However, reducing greenhouse gas emissions will require strong national and international commitments, technological innovation, and human willpower.


As this report from the National Academy of Science states: it is opinion. And, for what it is worth, I am in agreement with it. However, it is still just opinion.

This report states a bunch of correlation, but then correlation does not equate to causation.

One would have to be pretty blind to deny that there are shifts in climate going on. Also, the data indicates that atmospheric composition has changed in the same time frame. That the change in CO2 levels are the cause of the climate shifts is a natural assumption to make. But that is all it is, an assumption. An opinion.

Read the summary carefully. We don't know the magnitude of the effects. We don't know for certain that there will BE effects, or exactly what form they will take. But we think it will be thus and such, and they are likely to be bad.

Also, pay attention to what I have said in this thread. My entire point is that there are plenty of other reasons to stop burning fossil fuels for energy (thought to be the primary reason for the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere). Reasons grounded both in firm, settled science and in economics.

While these reasons may lack the intense scare-factor of climate change, they are on a much better foundation to be used to motivate changes in public policy.
ID: 1064033 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20232
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1064091 - Posted: 6 Jan 2011, 23:16:31 UTC - in response to Message 1064033.  

Bobby,
The opening remarks from the link http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/booklets/climate_change_2008_final.pdf you provided:

There is a growing concern about global warming and the impact it will have on people and the ecosystems on which they depend. ...

However, reducing greenhouse gas emissions will require strong national and international commitments, technological innovation, and human willpower.


As this report from the National Academy of Science states: it is opinion. And, for what it is worth, I am in agreement with it. However, it is still just opinion.

This report states a bunch of correlation, but then correlation does not equate to causation.

One would have to be pretty blind to deny that there are shifts in climate going on. ...


The charts on page 11 should give quite a kick. Some of the effects observed are indeed just correlations when using strict scientific rigour. However, the change in our atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and O2 follow our industrial revolution and population growth almost exactly...

We are also literally into uncharted territory.


While these reasons may lack the intense scare-factor of climate change, they are on a much better foundation to be used to motivate changes in public policy.


The motivation to do something is all important here. Note how the research behind all this is now getting to be rather old and has stood the tests of a few years already. Meanwhile, the scientific reports and the politics are a few years behind reality racing ahead...

Planet Earth We Have A Problem : Part 1


It's our only planet.
Martin



See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1064091 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1064155 - Posted: 7 Jan 2011, 4:41:42 UTC - in response to Message 1064091.  

Bobby,
The opening remarks from the link http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/booklets/climate_change_2008_final.pdf you provided:

There is a growing concern about global warming and the impact it will have on people and the ecosystems on which they depend. ...

However, reducing greenhouse gas emissions will require strong national and international commitments, technological innovation, and human willpower.


As this report from the National Academy of Science states: it is opinion. And, for what it is worth, I am in agreement with it. However, it is still just opinion.

This report states a bunch of correlation, but then correlation does not equate to causation.

One would have to be pretty blind to deny that there are shifts in climate going on. ...


The charts on page 11 should give quite a kick. Some of the effects observed are indeed just correlations when using strict scientific rigour. However, the change in our atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and O2 follow our industrial revolution and population growth almost exactly...

We are also literally into uncharted territory.


While these reasons may lack the intense scare-factor of climate change, they are on a much better foundation to be used to motivate changes in public policy.


The motivation to do something is all important here. Note how the research behind all this is now getting to be rather old and has stood the tests of a few years already. Meanwhile, the scientific reports and the politics are a few years behind reality racing ahead...

Planet Earth We Have A Problem : Part 1


It's our only planet.
Martin



So you admit it, Martin. Its all about the motivation to do something here. Instead of relying on better supported reasons to push the no-OGC-as-fuel agenda here, you are using the huge scare-factor of 'climate change' to frighten people into supporting it, even though it is mostly all just correlation at this point.

Thought so.
https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.
ID: 1064155 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20232
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1064201 - Posted: 7 Jan 2011, 10:41:54 UTC - in response to Message 1064155.  
Last modified: 7 Jan 2011, 10:47:31 UTC

So you admit it, Martin. Its all about the motivation to do something here. Instead of relying on better supported reasons to push the no-OGC-as-fuel agenda here, you are using the huge scare-factor of 'climate change' to frighten people into supporting it, even though it is mostly all just correlation at this point.

Thought so.

The problem is that of global pollution from Man. Forced change of climate is one immediate effect. We're also measurably rapidly changing the acidity of the oceans, with knock on effects from that. Other natural carbon sinks are being saturated. (Hence the rise in CO2 concentration...)

That will definitely cost us very dearly economically.

Unfortunately, you will not get any economic motivation to reduce pollution until there is a directly applied cost to producing that pollution...


It's our only planet...
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1064201 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1064258 - Posted: 7 Jan 2011, 15:04:34 UTC - in response to Message 1064251.  

http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index#/leaf-electric-car/tags/show/price

If I had to chose right now, I'd go with the Nissan Leaf. 62-138 miles per charge. Will do the speed limit.

HOWEVER, no where do I ever see anything about how much electricity it takes to charge the batteries from, say, 20% back up to 100% on any of these electric car web sites. Nor, do I ever see anything about how much battery replacement costs.

I can't plan with out this information. So, I refuse to commit at this time.



Toyota Prius battery pack replacements run under $3,000 to replace. They were estimated to last 5-6 years but are actually being effective longer.

A call to the nissan parts department would give you the leaf battery pack prices, I would guess (based just on that, a wild guess) in the neighborhood of 10-12K for that kind of range. I would also expect due to different types of batteries the life cycle to be near 100K miles or more.

Side note: Prius conversions are available that make them plug-in capable. It involves roughly doubling the battery capacity, adding a manual engine shutoff,
and uncapping the plug. This enables a short commute trip with no gasoline at all.
Janice
ID: 1064258 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1064283 - Posted: 7 Jan 2011, 15:51:36 UTC - in response to Message 1064279.  

http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index#/leaf-electric-car/tags/show/price

If I had to chose right now, I'd go with the Nissan Leaf. 62-138 miles per charge. Will do the speed limit.

HOWEVER, no where do I ever see anything about how much electricity it takes to charge the batteries from, say, 20% back up to 100% on any of these electric car web sites. Nor, do I ever see anything about how much battery replacement costs.

I can't plan with out this information. So, I refuse to commit at this time.



Toyota Prius battery pack replacements run under $3,000 to replace. They were estimated to last 5-6 years but are actually being effective longer.

A call to the nissan parts department would give you the leaf battery pack prices, I would guess (based just on that, a wild guess) in the neighborhood of 10-12K for that kind of range. I would also expect due to different types of batteries the life cycle to be near 100K miles or more.

Side note: Prius conversions are available that make them plug-in capable. It involves roughly doubling the battery capacity, adding a manual engine shutoff,
and uncapping the plug. This enables a short commute trip with no gasoline at all.



Which electric car do you drive?

none. At the moment I have a 93 ford escort, which takes about 1 tank every 2 months( I drive very little). I will personally be looking towards the used markets for things like this when they become available. But I do invest with an eye towards the future, not the past.
Janice
ID: 1064283 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1064289 - Posted: 7 Jan 2011, 15:55:51 UTC - in response to Message 1064284.  

I am not sure what that means, but okay.


Janice
ID: 1064289 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1064300 - Posted: 7 Jan 2011, 16:42:30 UTC

I don't drive an electric or hybrid car either, right now. I wish I could, but I just can't afford it right now. Hopefully when it comes time to by my next car, the full electrics will be affordable.

But what I did do was replaced 2 vehicles with one that gets 50% higher MPG. I didn't need two vehicles (each one got around 20MPG), and I replaced them with one that gets around 30MPG. I don't drive that much either. I use maybe one tank every 6 weeks or so.
ID: 1064300 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1064307 - Posted: 7 Jan 2011, 16:53:04 UTC - in response to Message 1064300.  

sounds reasonable Kong. Driving an electric car before they really hit the market is kind of difficult. Some will buy new, others will buy used. It all takes time. And it takes time for technology to hit mass market.

I was shopping for a prius at one point in time, and honestly the local dealership could not keep them in stock long enough for me to test drive. But I am keeping an eye out for used ones. Honestly, it is a bit low on my list of things to spend money on. But that does not make the technology a bad idea, or not worth watching.

Electric vehicles are just coming into the swing. It will be a while until they are mainstream. The amazing part is how venomous some folks are about the very idea. Inertia is a powerful force to overcome.
Janice
ID: 1064307 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1064334 - Posted: 7 Jan 2011, 18:14:42 UTC - in response to Message 1064325.  

generally speaking, unless someone has this problem staring them in the face, they won't do anything. CO2 has no taste and you can't feel it so its a hard sell for the average person that doesn't understand how a Internal combustion engine works but they know their Camaro has 426 BHP. Needless to say We need enormous education programs to get people to understand something this complex


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1064334 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1064351 - Posted: 7 Jan 2011, 19:25:11 UTC

ID: 1064351 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 . . . 22 · Next

Message boards : Politics : The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.