Message boards :
Politics :
The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 . . . 22 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
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! |
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
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 |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21129 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
Honda Civic, about 30MPG, less than $20,000 new. 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) |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
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 ... |
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
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 |
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
|
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
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. 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. |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21129 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
Bobby, 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) |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
Bobby, 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. |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21129 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
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. 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) |
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index#/leaf-electric-car/tags/show/price 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 |
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index#/leaf-electric-car/tags/show/price 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 |
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
I am not sure what that means, but okay. Janice |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
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. |
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
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 |
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60 |
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 |
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
|
©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.