Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Sigmetnow

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: October 12, 2019, 11:45:39 AM »
They created a rechargeable world

The 2019 Nobel Prize in Chemistry are awarded to John Goodenough, M. Stanley Whittingham and Akira Yoshino “for the development of lithium-ion batteries”. Through their work, they have created the right conditions for a wireless and fossil fuel-free society, and so brought the greatest benefit to humankind..

Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: October 10, 2019, 06:39:01 PM »
Poland is importing record amounts of electricity because it costs less than the domestically produced coal power.

WARSAW (Reuters) - Poland is on track to import a record amount of electricity this year as power traders buy cheaper and cleaner electricity from neighboring countries, reducing demand for the mostly coal-fired energy produced by state-run utilities.

The majority of Poland’s electricity imports this year came from Sweden and Germany, where average wholesale prices in the first half of the year were 175 zlotys ($44.71) and 165 zlotys per MWh respectively compared to 229 zlotys in Poland.

Exports amounted to 2.9 TWh and 4.2 TWh in 2018 and 2017 respectively. Until 2014, Poland exported more energy than it imported.

Analysts said that while Poland continues to produce most of its electricity from coal, prices will be higher than in neighboring countries, which use more green energy sources.

Policy and solutions / Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« on: October 09, 2019, 04:35:38 PM »
sigmetnow picked up the latest lunacy from the USA EPA

Here it is & my reply. Also sent this stuff to The Guardian & the UK Extinction Rebellion Press Office
Re: Oil and Gas Issues

From: Sigmetnow on Today at 02:19:07 AM

"There Is Not a Climate Crisis': Trump Administration Spouts Brazen Bullshit to Justify Arctic Drilling"

...attorneys with the Sierra Club stumbled upon this tidbit:

“The BLM does not agree that the proposed development is inconsistent with maintaining a livable planet (i.e., there is not a climate crisis). The planet was much warmer within the past 1,000 years, prior to the Little Ice Age, based on extensive archaeological evidence (such as farming in Greenland and vineyards in England). This warmth did not make the planet unlivable; rather, it was a time when societies prospered.”

This text was included five times in this section of the final environmental impact statement in response to public comments legal group Trustees for Alaska submitted. All the All group’s comments revolved around the role drilling in the Alaskan refuge could have in making climate change worse.

This is the first time that the Sierra Club and its partners have identified the use of such blatant climate-denying language in an official federal environmental analysis. Government officials, including Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler and even President Donald Trump, have said such things before, but an environmental impact statement is more than words. It’s the legal support for a project. ...

That might be what is required for a court to set aside the Government's impact statement by accepting the fact of climate change and its impact. There is precedent for such a judgement.

The reality or not of climate change might end up in the US Supreme Court.
E-Mail Sent
13:57 (1 hour ago)
to press (Extinction Rebellion)

If you don't want to believe that there is a war going on between the people and the powerful, don't read on...

...... " Listen To The Scientists"

This is the latest from Trump's Environment Protection Agency in their final Environmental Impact Statement justifying resuming drilling in The Arctic , and I quote...

“The BLM does not agree that the proposed development is inconsistent with maintaining a livable planet (i.e., there is not a climate crisis). The planet was much warmer within the past 1,000 years, prior to the Little Ice Age, based on extensive archaeological evidence (such as farming in Greenland and vineyards in England). This warmth did not make the planet unlivable; rather, it was a time when societies prospered.”
As the Sierra Club stated...

This is the first time that the Sierra Club and its partners have identified the use of such blatant climate-denying language in an official federal environmental analysis. Government officials, including Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler and even President Donald Trump, have said such things before, but an environmental impact statement is more than words. It’s the legal support for a project. ...

Arctic Sea Ice Forum...,861.msg232459.html#msg232459

I think the Extinction Rebellion people need to know how really bad it really is.

Policy and solutions / Re: Greta Thunberg's Atlantic crossing
« on: October 09, 2019, 03:30:19 AM »
Sig, I don’t know fat boy slim but that was quite the video !  A lot of angst though , careful with that.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 06, 2019, 11:16:35 AM »
For some reason, the Dutch bought 10% of all Teslas produced.

Makes it the most sold car in the country.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 06, 2019, 05:39:45 AM »
I imagine this is how some of the bears in here will react the first time they see Smart Summon.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 05, 2019, 06:55:53 PM »
The level of discussion here is not very high unfortunately. As Tesla is a very polarizing subject, it seems haters gonna hate, lovers gonna love, almost no matter what. I would strongly recommend the strong believers on both sides to avoid reacting to opposing one-sided posts. This will greatly simplify and shorten this thread, and innocent bystanders can still read both sides and form their own opinions.
If someone solely posts positive comments on Tesla, or solely negative comments, no need to react with a countering comment. I am sure the readers already know who is who, and can filter accordingly. I am also sure each poster is certain his/her position is objective while the other is totally irrational. Just leave it at that.

Myself, I try hard to avoid reacting to unbalanced posts, unless I feel I have something to say that merits breaking the vow of silence, or when my resolve weakens. Even then I try hard to make responses short. Give some peace to those innocent bystanders.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 05, 2019, 12:52:15 AM »
Just a typo. I use a Paraguayan keyboard and "t" and "p" are next to each other.


Policy and solutions / Re: Bikes, bikes, bikes and more...bikes
« on: October 03, 2019, 04:58:19 PM »
Brainstorm:  a bicyclist's safety vest with a big orange heart with "I" and "Climate".

Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: October 02, 2019, 09:54:39 PM »
Thank heaven that salt water isn't corrosive. And that raw sewage won't be flowing through restaurants or soaking into everyone's carpets. ::)

Time to move to higher ground. Permanently.


The infrastructure along our coasts that is most at risk from sea level rise are waste water systems. As these systems fail more and more frequently in urban areas, we will begin to see outbreaks of some diseases in urban areas that have not been seen since modern waste water sanitation systems were implemented.

How raw sewage can kill you...

It will only take a few of these outbreaks to essentially destroy the real estate market in cities like Miami.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: October 02, 2019, 06:41:57 PM »
He did! :)

Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: October 02, 2019, 05:17:08 AM »
My power walls have been up and running a couple weeks . I can watch my solar input and power uses on my Tesla app.  On most days the powerwalls contribute ~35 % and the solar contributing the remaining 65 % . 100 % solar/battery electric , on most days. When it is really cloudy the power in the powerwalls gets drawn down and two days of clouds results in power being drawn from the grid . Most days however I am putting power back on the grid while still running my home and business freezers with 100% solar/battery.
 The air conditioner is a power hog and on really hot days it can eat all the energy my solar produces.
The pressure pump for my water system uses enough energy that I can see if I left a faucet open on the app. The app is really fun !  It tells me how many kWh my home uses, how much solar is produced,
how much the powerwalls contributes but it doesn’t tell you how much power you put back on the grid .
You can figure it out subtracting power used from power produced with the excess as power to the grid.
I have to start taking meter readings and figure out how to read a “ smart meter “ . It doesn’t take long to figure out where to concentrate future energy saving projects.
 On good days my solar produces ~ 30 kWh my home uses ~ 11 kWh (65%solar/35% batt)according
to the app. The power accrues to run the 3 phase well pumps on a separate meter.  I will be looking to see what my monthly averages are when I get there.

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: September 28, 2019, 07:33:52 PM »
In case you mean i.e. a Model 3 or a Model S Tesla, they way 1 Ton more and transport the same number of people and a similar payload over a similar distance.

Result is that the battery has to be twice as big, materials need are almost double, rubber (micro plastic) production is almost double, space on roads needed is almost double, electricity needed to move the car is double (42kw against 95kw battery back for the same achievement) etc. etc.

Numbers and factors i mentioned are rough estimates, no time and no mood to make huge calculation only to find someone who will moan over a second digit after the comma

My dear philopek, you are strongly opinionated yet not very accurate in some of your posts.
Yes, the new Zoe Electric is a great car and I hope it sells in the millions.
It just so happens that its battery is 52 Kwh, while the Model 3's battery is 50 Kwh (with a slightly longer range, so more efficient than the Zoe).
Better to stick to facts, that's all.

Policy and solutions / Re: But, but, but, China....
« on: September 28, 2019, 06:57:42 PM »
From a geopolitical point of view it is very intelligent for China to reorient their natural gas and oil imports to friendly nations with over-land transportation. Same as attempting to ramp up domestic natural gas production. This helps remove their oil and gas imports as a weakness that the USA can utilize in a conflict (just like with Japan just before Pearl Harbour). They have also built up a very large strategic oil reserve.

They should also be going full speed with EV's as they replace imported oil with domestic electricity production (coal, natural gas, nuclear and renewables). Their removal of subsidies to EV's and the renewable sector is very short sighted geopolitically and really bad for the climate. Even at 80% coal share in electricity production EV's generate less CO2 due to the efficiency of the electrical engine (and power generating stations).

Removing subsidies actually makes perfect sense for China, although it does suck for climate. Although, it could potentially even out.

They "plant 1000 seeds", scale up, start to corner markets, and then they drop subsidies to encourage further cost efficiency, separating the wheat from the chaffe, and monopolize global markets. That's how they do it, and it's very efficient. They did it with solar, EVs, and will do it with batteries (probably). And they've cornered silicon, solar, and will outpace everyone in battery production by multiple times, while having the biggest EV market that will dominate exports to SE Asia, and anyone who imports them, as well as having a huge presence in global electric buses.

It's actually very effective, in a cutthroat kinda way. They are very good at it. I say it may even out, because they drop costs so significantly through scale, and then optimization + innovation and iteration in manufacturing. They're basically the reason why solar is as cheap as it is, and why batteries will drop in costs as well, at economies of scale. So, it's a catch 22.

What we can expect is that they'll do a "tick, tock" type installation with renewables. They're also going to scale up offshore wind with all their coastal population. By tick tock, I mean they installed a large amount, now they're letting domestic suppliers scale up massively and corner markets, also dropping costs, and when this new expansion has optimized processes and cost efficiency with a whole bunch more supply, they'll do another series of large installs, so it doesn't hamper their global supply too much and they maximize value domestically.

It also has the effect of letting them catch up on grid utilization. As can be expected, they had a good amount of grid problems adding all those renewables, lot of curtailment, bottleneck issues, transmission/distribution. A period of slower growth means they can alleviate some of these issues, while letting them plan better for the future. In the near term, they'll likely be adding grid storage while building their grid, to try and get the most effective options, to aid in transmission/distribution and ancillary services for example.

I guess the positive with China is knowing that they actually want energy independence. Besides the global markets, their rate of oil consumption was projected to be astronomical, which has pushed them towards EVs more. Removing subsidies was actually to reduce costs as fast as possible. No one should be too surprised if they renew some EV subsidies in the future, when their markets stabilize a bit and EVs are even more cost efficient and producing more at scale.

It's no surprise about natural gas, it allows them to flex their muscles in Central Asia as well as strategic agreements in the Middle East, part of the Belt n Road. It also allows them to get plentiful of cheap supply, and to them it's less damaging than coal, so it's a win/win for them as it also helps influence + good faith with all those countries as well as pipelines and $$.

I don't really agree with their methods, but removing subsidies has been an effective way to reduce costs. They'll probably renew some of them at a later date. They know their current rates of consumption are basically unsustainable, so that's a silver lining I guess. There is a method to their madness though, so we'll see. If the world goes into a recession, it will probably hurt renewables + EVs, but I imagine we'll see efforts pick up again in the near future. Hopefully, anyway.

Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: September 27, 2019, 07:19:36 PM »
GE is shifting from producing turbines for steam plants (i.e. coal and natural gas) into batteries for renewable plants.

General Electric profits have been hammered recently because a large part of its business involved supplying generating systems powered by steam. As the world transitions to renewable energy, steam turbines are less and less in demand and GE’s business has suffered as a result.

But the company is reinventing itself as a provider of grid scale energy storage systems and has recently received two important contracts — one to provide a total of 100 MWh of battery storage at three locations in California and another for 300 MWh of storage in South Australia.

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: September 26, 2019, 01:06:16 PM »
Ugly bag of mostly water rif?

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 25, 2019, 10:48:50 PM »
Nirvana fallacy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives.[1] It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the perfect solution fallacy.

By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another unrealistic solution that could in some way be "better".

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 25, 2019, 08:44:40 PM »
Totalitarian ?

YES, it's necessary but you don't get it

Democracy at it's current stage is bankrupt and doomed and will lead to less benevolent totalitariism than my totalitarian proposal to put limits to private transport.

You want changes but refuse anything that has a REAL effect which is why nothing happens, hence you are guilty hypocrites.
I am not sure who the bolded statement refers to, but as it's plural I'll make a response.
Pardon me but I think this statement is not logical. Is the reason that nothing happens really because WE want changes but WE refuse radical solutions with REAL effects? Or maybe because so many OTHERS don't want changes, don't see the need for changes, and don't bother to read your posts or mine on the ASIF?
I would love radical solutions with REAL effects that would actually be deployed. But shooting down partial solutions that can actually get implemented (with severe limitations: too slow, requiring new resources etc.) - just because someone thought of a better and more radical solution that will not actually get implemented - is not logical. In fact, I think it's a bit hypocritical, stopping a small improvement because it's not a big improvement, while the big improvement does not have wide support and is therefore imaginary.
WE are not stopping the radical solutions. WE know they are needed, WE advocate for them, but WE also note they are not happening at the present time, and are not expected to happen in the near future, so WE also support something very partial - but REAL - while still hoping for the radical solutions to find wide support in the future.

Note: I happen to agree that benevolent totalitarianism could be a solution out of the current problem, and that humanity will probably devolve to non-benevolent totalitarianism when the problem plays out in its full manifestation. But how will you achieve this benevolent totalitarianism? Is this a REAL solution with a REAL effect that will be deployed tomorrow? I think not.

Note 2: I support a tourist flight ban, a big home ban, a big car ban, a general luxury ban, a big family ban etc., despite the personal pain it might cause me or my family. But can I use these ideas to prove that nothing else needs to be done? No, because there isn't wide support for these, ergo they will not get implemented, and we are left with the partial and poor solutions.

Note 3: Trying desperately to tie this discussion somehow to the thread's topic, I think there are posters here who truly believe that because of Tesla the radical solutions are not implemented. But these posters are wrong, people support Tesla not because they think this is a complete solution, but because they think a partial solution is better than no solution at all. So best use this thread for its purpose, discussions on Tesla's success or failure.

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: September 24, 2019, 05:57:29 PM »
The beginning of the end of the fossil fuel companies?

The $47 Trillion Death Sentence For Oil & Gas
By Cyril Widdershoven - Sep 23, 2019, 5:00 PM CDT

The future of hydrocarbons is becoming bleak if plans presented by international banks, representing around $47 trillion in value, will be fully implemented.

Around 130 international banks, all present at the UN climate change summit in New York, have committed themselves to decrease their support and investments in the oil and gas sector the coming years. The banking groups have signed the so-called Principles for Responsible Banking, which entails a promise by financial institutions to fully support the implementation of the Paris Agreement, by decreasing hydrocarbon investments while promoting renewables. This statement is going to be a major earthquake for oil and gas companies, threatening upstream and downstream operations worldwide, forcing oil & gas producers to either reduce their impact on the environment or to seek new sources of investment. It is already becoming more difficult for oil and gas companies to find new financing, and on top of this, a large group of institutional investors, representing a value of $11 trillion, are already actively divesting their oil and gas assets.

International banks, such as Deutsche Bank, ABNAmro, Citigroup, Barclays, and ING, are joining the framework. Under the title of action against global warming, the largest financial institutions now seem to be headbutting oil and gas operators. The impact of activist shareholders and NGOs is sending shockwaves through the sector. If the framework is successfully implemented, the hydrocarbon sector shouldn’t fear unrest in the Middle East, but rather their current financiers.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 24, 2019, 11:50:36 AM »
I think Tesla should open the Supercharger network to other cars, probably at a higher price than for Tesla cars. The network is subsidized by the purchase price of the cars, so expecting the same price would be unreasonable. I hope they do so ASAP.
I also think thete should be a lot more public chargers installed proactively, so that EV owners will not have to compete with each other.
OTOH, I don't think the 240-mile M3 SR+ has a too-large battery. Tesla's goal has always been to build cars that are desired and bought by normal people, and not just die-hard environmentalists and EV enthusiasts who might settle for any inconvenience. This way there is a better chance of mass deployment of EVs. The performance versions (and Models S, X) are over-specced but they fund the cheaper models, so I think it's unfair to blame the company as elitist for building such models and for not opening their network, while wondering when they will stop losing money.

Policy and solutions / Re: But, but, but Germany ....
« on: September 21, 2019, 01:44:46 PM »
Germany has (or at least used to have) in its blood and bone the memory of the hyperinflation of the 1920s, that lead to the rise of Hitler & then.......

After WWII the national effort in W. Germany to rebuild the economy and make enough money to repay Marshall Aid was quite extraordinary.

Until the Euro, German economic and financial policy had just one over-riding objective - maintaining the value of the D-Mark - avoiding inflation. They still resist any move that weakens the Euro, and most Germans wish they still had the D-Mark (Deutschmark), and do not like QE (Quantitative Easing).

That is why they will not spend more than they earn. Germany's  Government runs a budget surplus, they have a trade surplus. So there is an emotional resistance to the Government borrowing required to accelerate green energy.

And remember, Chancellor Merkel is from East Germany, which had a very rough time before, during and after unification. After that, indulgence in possibly reckless financial behaviour is just not on.

Mind you, I hope that Germany does embrace the financial and economic logic of getting on with moving to zero-carbon at a faster rate.

ps: It would be nice if Alexander555 could keep his obviously racist agenda to himself.

Policy and solutions / Re: Robots and AI: Our Immortality or Extinction
« on: September 21, 2019, 12:25:48 AM »
Interesting posts as usual Tom.

Computers are stupid: babies know what a face is within the first few months of being alive. For a computer to know what a face is, it must learn by looking at millions of pictures of faces.

Babies are born with a brain that evolved over 500 million years. Babies come loaded with face recognition software and highly specialized hardware to process faces.  The thing about computers is that you can re use code. So once one software stack learns how to recognize faces, potentially all future AIs could be built on top of that software.

This is a demanding process. It takes place inside the data centers we call the cloud, and much of the electricity that powers the cloud is generated by burning fossil fuels

That is not necesarilly true. Energy is certainly a huge consideration when processing huge data but if they are powered by renewables, who cares?

Look at what google is doing:

As an aside, an interesting video I saw the other day:

Multi-Agent Hide and Seek

We’ve observed agents discovering progressively more complex tool use while playing a simple game of hide-and-seek. Through training in our new simulated hide-and-seek environment, agents build a series of six distinct strategies and counterstrategies, some of which we did not know our environment supported. The self-supervised emergent complexity in this simple environment further suggests that multi-agent co-adaptation may one day produce extremely complex and intelligent behavior.

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: September 19, 2019, 11:57:22 AM »
After VW, Daimler announced they would stop development on internal combustion engines. Shit's getting serious. :)

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars Part Deux
« on: September 15, 2019, 08:01:22 PM »
Speed limits set only five miles per hour below engineering recommendations produce a statistically significant decrease in total, fatal and injury crashes, and property-damage-only crashes, according to a group of Penn State researchers.

"If (however) you lower the speed limit by 10, 15, 25 miles per hour, or more, drivers stop paying attention," said Vikash Gayah, assistant professor of civil engineering. "We found there was an increase in fatal and injury crashes at locations with posted speed limits set 10 miles per hour or more below engineering recommendations."

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: September 10, 2019, 04:15:55 AM »
Well Sig they only get one of those plates for the whole state and in California they aren't convincing anyone anyhow.

Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: September 10, 2019, 12:11:38 AM »
Thermal coal (burned to make electricity) is all but dead everywhere except Asia.  And it's on the way out there too.

So steelmaking is the only market left for coal.  But that's changing too.

The way steel is made has not changed significantly in the past 150 years. Iron ore is
smelted in huge blast furnaces that use carbon-rich coke — a form of coal — as a
reducing agent to turn the iron into steel. Those furnaces belch out huge amounts of
carbon dioxide, and it’s not like the iron ore just shows up at the furnaces unaided.
Mining it and transporting it creates lots more carbon emissions.

Climate activists have been hammering the steel industry for years to clean up its
emissions. Now a new report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance claims hydrogen could
replace coke in 10 to 50% of all steelmaking my the year 2050, given the right carbon
pricing. Using hydrogen instead of coke — a process known as direct reduction —
could lower the carbon emissions from steel mills significantly.

Bloomberg NEF says hydrogen technology will be competitive with high-cost, coal-based
plants when the cost of renewable hydrogen falls below $2.20 a kilogram, assuming
coking coal prices remain where they are now at about $310 a ton. That could happen
by 2030, Bloomberg says. Currently, most commercial hydrogen in North America is
derived from natural gas, which has its own carbon and methane emissions problems.
But new technologies that rely on renewable energy are coming to market soon.

Any shift to hydrogen would pose a danger to coking coal producers and their investors.
The material has few uses other than in blast furnaces. “It has long been thought that
met-coal is untouchable and would be unaffected by the changes sweeping the energy
sector,” Bhavnagri says. “Hydrogen extends the reach of renewables right into the front
yard of met-coal miners.”

Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: September 09, 2019, 08:29:31 PM »
My power walls are being installed today. I am looking forward to playing with the energy management app. Will soon have two power walls connected to my solar panels. My wife and I could easily get by with a plug in Prius for the little local driving we do so I have no plans for a model 3. A used plug in Prius is next .
 Hauling pigs to market once a month requires more horsepower and fuel than all other household monthly driving combined. My 30 year old truck will still be our families largest emitter . Eight freezers, air conditioner, water wells, refrigerator, batteries and lighting are all now supplied with solar. Don't need much household heating around here.
 I can feed us and power our farm with very little fossil fuels but earning a living farming still requires
fossil fuels( delivery to markets and grain purchases ) It takes money for all the infrastructure so we will have to keep working. Even with everything paid for we will both still keep working. I don't think any of what I do is either difficult or unaffordable for people who can afford to buy a house. Everything including the house will be paid for before I die. Strange though that none of this seems to affect property values but if the economy crashes at least we can afford our utilities because they are already paid in advance.
Nanning, BAU is still a valid description for my lifestyle choices. Maybe I am heading in the right direction but I believe a rigorous accounting of all the embodied energy it takes to get off the grid needs to be done on working examples around the world. First we need working examples ! We need desperately to compare low carbon options . Zero is impossible without sinking carbon somehow so I pursue farming although even farming will not sink carbon in some climate conditions. If it rained around here and stayed green year round sinking carbon would work but under desert conditions sinking carbon and zero emissions are a pipe dream.

Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: September 09, 2019, 07:15:47 PM »
LOL, i read it as 2.370t.

I don't believe the 39t figure though. I might google dat. ;)

Edit: Found this:

The study's finding of 8.2 years is "based on a series of assumptions." To get to that figure, two of those assumptions must have been that the internal-combustion vehicle in question gets great mileage and isn't driven very much. Oh, and while battery production incurs a carbon footprint in these statistics, the gasoline in the study magically appears in your tank and the only carbon emitted is from burning it (that is, the calculations ignore the carbon emissions created by producing and moving large quantities of gasoline). Those are nifty assumptions.

Let's say the gas-powered car is actually something similar to a Tesla Model S P100D, which would use the battery in question. Let's say we're talking about the Audi A8 4.0, another quick AWD sedan. According to the EPA, that car emits 6.2 metric tons of CO2 per year, given 15,000 miles of annual driving. And since A8s don't automatically percolate their own 93-octane, the EPA also calculates an additional 1.1 tons of upstream carbon to get those ancient dinosaur innards coursing through your fuel pump. Math aficionados will note that 17.5 (battery production) divided by 7.3 (total annual A8 emissions) equals 2.4. As in, apples to apples, the battery's carbon footprint is zeroed out in less than three years.

Link >>

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: September 05, 2019, 03:06:54 AM »
And to think that GM was once way ahead of the competition with the EV1 .... then they took them all and crushed them.

Policy and solutions / Re: Aviation
« on: September 04, 2019, 07:03:57 PM »
A Future Without Long-Haul Vacations
Every time I settle down to write a travel article lately, I feel like a canary in a coal mine, whistling denial. Perhaps, if my work achieves any kind of posterity, it will be in a museum of defunct pastimes from the Extinction Age. Amid the exhibits of hamburgers and combustion engines will be a gallery of press cuttings from the era of mass tourism, fossils for future, static generations to gawp at, wondering at the excess of their deluded forebears, who continued jetting around the planet even as that planet withered and burned before their eyes.

Using Drones To Fight Climate Change
From more intense wildfires to prolonged droughts, climate change is impacting the ecology of the American West. That’s got researchers in our region looking at a new way to fight some of these impacts: drones.

Policy and solutions / Re: Greta Thunberg's Atlantic crossing
« on: August 29, 2019, 07:11:07 AM »
The people here speculating about Greta being manipulated are pathetic.

If you bothered to watch her interviews and have capacity to understand peoples motives then you would know she is doing this because she believes in what she is doing and rather than being manipulated she is influencing the people around her.

I call you all pathetic because this young girl is actually making a difference and your here wining that building the yacht that she's sailing on had some carbon emissions. Really, she made the best choice she could about how to travel to the US where she probably will make even more a of an impact and all you can do is whine about this.

This seems like the denialist bullshit that doesn't gets past Neven's moderation for very long.

NevB I agree this needed to be said.  I edited this post because I was convinced by a later post that negativity doesn't belong in this forum. Greta is making a huge difference bringing forth the critical climate message that needs to be delivered to policy makers.  Greta is a bright light in the gathering darkness.  She has my full support for what she says and for her actions.  Go Greta, you go girl, go!

Policy and solutions / Re: Greta Thunberg's Atlantic crossing
« on: August 28, 2019, 03:19:13 PM »
Greta looks tired, a passage like that will do that to one who is not experienced.  see the two large poles extending outward from the sides?  Their flying a spinnaker or a light air drifter, typically a 3/4 ounce sail (light as butterfly wings).  A good nights sleep & some good food and she'll be right as rain.



Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: August 27, 2019, 07:00:07 PM »
The trade war between the US and China is slowing investment in new LNG infrastructure.

According to the Bank of America Merrill Lynch, a number of companies may delay their final investment decisions on new LNG capacity to next year because of U.S.-Chinese trade tensions. Bloomberg reports these include Tellurian and NextDecade, as well as other companies focused exclusively on LNG.

While the companies themselves are not too talkative when it comes to possible obstacles to the so-called second wave of LNG projects in the U.S., the facts are not encouraging: China has imported no U.S. LNG since March, according to data from ClipperData. Bloomberg data is even gloomier: it suggests no U.S. LNG has made its way into China since February. No wonder, since Beijing first imposed a 10-percent tariff on the commodity and then upped this to 25 percent in retaliation for U.S. tariffs.

Yet there is another aspect of the trade war that is more damaging to U.S. LNG producers. To secure funding for these projects that typically cost billions, U.S. companies need long-term commitments to convince banks the projects are viable. Chinese buyers were the natural choice for these long-term commitments but this is no longer the case as Chinese investors shun U.S. projects amid the war.

To add insult to injury, the gas price context is increasingly unfavourable and could add justification to delays in final investment decisions. U.S. energy companies are producing too much gas at a time when domestic demand is stalling and global demand is being met by a growing number of countries. LNG projects are also suffering the effects of low gas prices. As RBC recently forecast, this year, the natural gas market will remain oversupplied, and this oversupply will extend into 2020 as well.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: August 25, 2019, 10:42:06 PM »
What car is better? It really doesn't matter. The Model 3 is much more important because it costs 50% less, has adequate range and features, and is selling 5-10 times as much. EVs are not a racing solution (or for watching Netflix). They are a way to reduce personal pollution. All the rest are side bonuses.

Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: August 24, 2019, 03:45:55 AM »
Washington court rejects bid to build coal export terminal on Columbia river.
It would give easy access for coal to pacific markets.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: August 22, 2019, 04:55:50 AM »
When you need to borrow money to pay the bills, that's not a sign of fiscal health
Yess Terry still talking bullshite.
Tesla is borrowing to expand manufacturing capacity and develop new products .
The cars them self's make a margin that is one of the highest in the industry.
As this has been pointed out many many times one must ask.
Is Terry suffering from a disability? or is he just in denial?
If Tesla just concentrated on building the S and did not expand into the X and the 3 with the y and B (truck) to come as well as the roadster2 and semi it would be a small bouquet car company making  money.
Instead of a rapidly expending disrupter of the car industry.
Being a rapidly expending disputer has been widely published as the entire point of Tesla.
From 2006
As you know, the initial product of Tesla Motors is a high performance electric sports car called the Tesla Roadster. However, some readers may not be aware of the fact that our long term plan is to build a wide range of models, including affordably priced family cars. This is because the overarching purpose of Tesla Motors (and the reason I am funding the company) is to help expedite the move from a mine-and-burn hydrocarbon economy towards a solar electric economy, which I believe to be the primary, but not exclusive, sustainable solution.
Build sports car
Use that money to build an affordable car
Use that money to build an even more affordable car
While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options

part 2 2016
Integrate Energy Generation and Storage
Create a smoothly integrated and beautiful solar-roof-with-battery product that just works, empowering the individual as their own utility, and then scale that throughout the world. One ordering experience, one installation, one service contact, one phone app.
Expand to Cover the Major Forms of Terrestrial Transport
Today, Tesla addresses two relatively small segments of premium sedans and SUVs. With the Model 3, a future compact SUV and a new kind of pickup truck, we plan to address most of the consumer market. A lower cost vehicle than the Model 3 is unlikely to be necessary, because of the third part of the plan described below
As the technology matures, all Tesla vehicles will have the hardware necessary to be fully self-driving with fail-operational capability, meaning that any given system in the car could break and your car will still drive itself safely. It is important to emphasize that refinement and validation of the software will take much longer than putting in place the cameras, radar, sonar and computing hardware.
Even once the software is highly refined and far better than the average human driver, there will still be a significant time gap, varying widely by jurisdiction, before true self-driving is approved by regulators. We expect that worldwide regulatory approval will require something on the order of 6 billion miles (10 billion km). Current fleet learning is happening at just over 3 million miles (5 million km) per day.
So, in short, Master Plan, Part Deux is:
Create stunning solar roofs with seamlessly integrated battery storage
Expand the electric vehicle product line to address all major segments
Develop a self-driving capability that is 10X safer than manual via massive fleet learning
Enable your car to make money for you when you aren't using it.
August 2, 2006
 July 20, 2016

Plans can change over time.
However Tesla have exceeded expectations so far and are leading the charge towards electric cars
by at lest a generation as the lack of competition from the "Tesla killers" Audi e tron and jag i pace demonstrate.

 American cars are viewed as backward, unreliable, illhandling crap in most of the world .
They simply can not compete on the world stage and are only brought by a few idiots who do not know any better.
Tesla is the only US auto manufacturer that has managed to change that paradigm in decades.
The model 3 is being benchmarked against the best there is world wide and found to be as good as or better than the legacy industry's halo cars.

We also have the Tesla power pack which has altered the energy industry landscape with solar or wind plus battery storage  making gas peaker plants uneconomic to build or run. Tesla did not stop there they have already introduced a larger format solution that promises to be even more disruptive in the megapack.

I find it mind boggling  we have Americans attacking their success or making claims of losses based on  ignoring the obvious investment into their  expansion in future capacity and product range .

Ps I was saving comment #100 for a good rant.
PPS NeilT is a true skeptic unlike some. He can see the value in what they have done even though he has doubts about electric cars.

Policy and solutions / Re: Space colonization
« on: August 21, 2019, 07:28:24 PM »
Nope. Colonization of the solar system is well within the realm of science. As proof, the ISS has been continuously occupied for decades. Space is a more inhospitable environment than mars and we can already inhabit it. The trick is that it has to be continuously resupplied.

In the same way a Mars colony would have to be continuously supplied for decades or centuries. That requires a prosperous Earth. Mars is not a life boat.

Colonizing the solar system is not science fiction, it is destiny and our duty to life. Using space colonization as a life boat for climate change is science fiction.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: August 21, 2019, 04:51:00 PM »
Does a car being in space prove that it is a legitimate electric sports car?

The car being in space is a SpaceX achievement not really relevant to Tesla. Its fun, for usefulness it is no worse than a concrete block mass simulator, potentially inspiring or at least interesting publicity. Mainly is about SpaceX rather than Tesla but not completely impossible for Tesla to get some publicity benefit.

If you wanted to argue that Tesla can / has shown it possible to build 'legitimate electric sports cars' then that is what you should argue. I think effects on other ICE car manufacturers are important achievements.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: August 18, 2019, 01:42:56 PM »
There's more reason to question someone's motivations if they're claiming to do something so big and outside their immediate  remit, in the sense that the legal purpose of a public company is to make money.

How would you do it?  A non profit? Sending letters to your representative? Voting? How do you gather the resource to design and manufacture electric cars without a company?

promotes individual over collective transport, in spite of public transport being the quickest and most effective route to lower emissions,

Have you heard of the The Boring Company and the Tesla Network?

Personally I hope Tesla is successful, but I have a feeling that for musk it's more about him being the saviour of the planet than about saving the planet, but I may be wrong.

If he is successful, what is the difference?

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: August 17, 2019, 04:51:11 PM »
The Tesla Conspiracy… or Am I a Dead Whistleblower?

Hyperbole? I grow weak in the knees publicly repeating a prediction I have quietly been making for years. It is so unbelievable all I can harvest from it now is ridicule. But you are not going to BELIEVE the big names and huge corporations that face unavoidable and absolute bankruptcy and dismemberment, in the VERY NEAR future. No government can save them. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs lost. Economic disruption and dislocation of unparalleled proportions. Office furniture available for 6 cents on the dollar. Not reorganization. But like Eastman Kodak. Sears. K-Mart. Companies that could not fail and are already gone. Picture GM, VW, Daimler. The biggest. The best.

Link >>

Policy and solutions / Re: Greta Thunberg's Atlantic crossing
« on: August 16, 2019, 04:44:11 PM »
Hang on before you start spreading misinformation . Greta is taking a one-way trip on this boat , She is travelling throuhgout the Americas .. committed to going to Chile for a start . What the boat does after she disembarks is scarcely her responsibility .. she is doing what's right for the planet . Take up elsewhere what others are responsible for .. b.c.

.. and the boat was already making the trip ..

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: August 16, 2019, 12:30:46 PM »
Terry that did not make sense. In the US transportation uses about the same amount of energy as electric generation. Due to the inefficiencies of the combustion engine electric would only need about a 20-30% increase of electrical supply. If all that new demand was filled with natural gas that would still lead to a massive reduction in CO2 emissions. A new co-generation natural gas plant is over 70% efficient. Even if all vehicles sold from this day forward were electric it is still going to take over 20 years to replace all those vehicles. The average age of autos in the US is 15 years. You have yet to come up with any reason not to get an EV.

Frankly I think you just like to argue about stuff.[size=78%] [/size]

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: August 16, 2019, 03:48:53 AM »
Honestly I have been reading the last few posts and scratching my head in amazement.
UK power outage blamed on renewables. Why? I see nothing that supports this claim.
Hornsea wind farm cut its grid connection to protect itself. Why? Bad design of the interconnection? I fail to see what its being a wind farm, rather than a nuclear reactor for example, has to do with cutting the grid interconnect during a power demand surge due to the failure of a gas-fired plant.

Power failure blamed on surge in EVS. Why? What surge in EVs? Barely 2.5% of new sales.
The expert is warning of a potential problem by 2040. Is this now? Where are the warning bells exactly?

BTW, is the expert assuming a large growth in EV demand without adding commensurate power generation? 2040 is a long time away.

Nuclear is the solution for 2040. How exactly? The planning and commissioning time of a nuclear plant is extremely long, and fraught with risk of schedule overruns. Hinkley Point C plan was announced in 2008, and was supposed to go online in 2017, but is now expected between 2025 and 2027. So 16 years. Start now, get the power by 2035, with no further surprises. And if EVs surge in the meantime? Blackouts? Why take this risk AND pay 2 or 4 or 10 times the cost per MWh compared to the alternatives?

Why is the solution not added solar and wind, with some gas backup, and battery storage?
Would a grid battery not have solved the frequency issues plaguing the grid? And supplied the missing power and prevented the outage?
I simply fail to see how this outage supports nuclear rather than grid batteries.

Is the choice between "a few gas sipping cars" (37 million in the UK at last count) with E-Buses, or a chimney filled future comparable to Dickens? I fail to see why these are the choices.
Why are E-Buses paired with gas cars? What stops the future from having E-Buses along with "a few electricity-sipping EVs"?
Why the love of gas/diesel? Does the aversion for EVs has to do with dislike of Musk, as can be read between the lines? And if the EVs are all made by VW, and are not robotaxis, will that be okay? Why conflate robotaxis with grid buildout?
Of course E-Buses are better than individual private EVs/shared fleet EVs. But this is orthogonal to all else - grid buildout, nuclear vs. solar, and so on.
If the future holds gas cars, surely a better future holds EV cars with clean power generation, all other things being equal.

And why is it impossible to build out the grid in parallel to the rise in EVs? A solar farm can go online in two years. A grid battery can be installed in 3 months. An offshore wind farm can be planned and built in less than 5 years. A natural gas plant is also cheap and fast to build, cheaper than coal and faster than coal. And can be easily switched off when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. What is stopping anybody from building enough capacity, on time and at an affordable cost?
In addition, thanks to their large batteries, EVs are a dispatchable load, and with proper control their demand can be shed away when power generation is low.

I fail to understand many things today. Very weird discussion. Maybe my chronic lack of sleep is to blame. Can anyone enlighten me with answers to the above rhetoric?

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: August 16, 2019, 02:42:25 AM »
But a 40 cent fuel purchase?
The lowest I can find on that list is $0.88, not $0.40, am I missing something?
But - as there are no per-session charges, no smelly gas pump nozzles to touch, and no need to wait in line to pay - if you're gonna take a 5 minute bathroom break, why not hook up your car to the charger in the meantime?

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: August 15, 2019, 09:17:27 PM »
Long - term storage solutions ( week / month ) are needed
Building much more capacity than we need is far cheaper than building weeks of storage for edge cases.
The example in England was a cascade caused by one large fossil fuel plant failing . The same happened in Australia with the loss of one coal plant causing a cascade. Why does renewable energy get the blame for the effect of a fossil fuel plant failing ? A reasonable sized Battery system could have stabilized the grid for the few minutes needed to stop the cascade and shed load in a controlled manor. A Smarter grid with the ability to shed non essential loads like car charging will also go a long way to minimize such failures.


Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: August 15, 2019, 08:00:12 PM »
Who quoted an article:
"The problem is that the only answer which can resolve this situation, without spending more on the grid than we do on wind farms, is to double our Nuclear power strategy and deliver it in half the time."

There certainly seems to be a substantial problem with the grid in the UK.  But I think this is the wrong solution.  Quite simply, overbuilding renewable sources can be done in far less time (and far lower cost) than building nuclear reactors.

Add some battery load-balancing, long distance transmission, and bit of demand management, and there should be a reliable grid adequate for the EV transition.

Policy and solutions / Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« on: August 13, 2019, 10:58:39 PM »
An additional benefit of renewables is that they do not lend themselves to the economics of scarcity

Well, they are very dependent on mined resources. All those rare earth metals have to be dug up.
Long term is a bitch.

This is an incredibly persistent myth.  While some manufacturers still use rare earth minerals for wind turbines, they can be easily replaced with iron and copper.  That's why the price for rare earth minerals crashed pretty quickly after it spiked around 2010.

Around 2010, many commentators stridently warned that China’s near-monopoly on supermagnet rare-earth elements could make the growing global shift to electric cars and wind turbines impossible—because their motors and generators, respectively, supposedly required supermagnets and hence rare earths. Some such reports persist even in 2017. But they’re nonsense. Everything that such permanent-magnet rotating machines do can also be done as well or better by two other kinds of motors that have no magnets but instead apply modern control software and power electronics made of silicon, the most abundant solid element on Earth.

The first kind is the induction motor, invented by Nikola Tesla 130 years ago and used in every Tesla electric car today. The second kind, less well-known despite origins tracing back to 1842, is the switched reluctance (SR) machine, likewise made of just iron and (less) copper, but using a different geometry and operating principle. If well-designed, which many are not, SR motors are simpler than permanent-magnet motors, more rugged (so they’re widely used, ironically, in mining equipment), more easily maintained, and equally light and compact. They can switch in milliseconds between serving as a motor or as a generator, and spinning in either direction. They’re also more flexibly controllable, more heat-tolerant, and cheaper for the same torque and production volume. The only scarce resources associated with such capable SR machines are familiarity, which few motor experts have, and skill in their more-difficult design—especially at the level achieved by the UK firm SR Drives (bought first by the US firm Emerson Electric, then by Japan’s Nidec).

Both kinds of magnet-free machines can do everything required not only in electric cars but also in wind turbines, functions often claimed to be impossible without tons of neodymium. That some wind turbines and manufacturers use rare-earth permanent-magnet generators does not mean others must. It’s better not to, and the word is spreading.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: August 09, 2019, 10:25:59 PM »
"Steam ran everything from 1800 to about 1911. Then internal combustion took over from 1911 to right about now. And I predict that a child born today probably has as much chance of driving in a gas car as people today have been driving a car with a stick shift,"
This is sad - my daughter drives a stick shift.  I wish the chances were more like driving a car that can be manually cranked to start.  (only certain antique car owners can do that)

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: August 09, 2019, 01:35:50 AM »
With all of this wonderful news, when should we expect the Keeling curve to curve back on itself?

Renewables and batteries are wonderful additions to our power mix, but in most venues they aren't keeping up with additional demand.


First emissions need to peak.  That'll be within a few years.

Then emissions need to go to zero.  That'll be about 2050.

Meanwhile, direct air capture and carbon sequestration needs to be deployed, along with land use changes that sequester more carbon and build up carbon sinks.  The Democratic candidates for President in the US are talking about that now, so hopefully we'll see that deployment in the US in the 2020s.  A lot of these applications, such as biochar to replace (or at least offset some) chemical fertilizers are being used in small scales now.

So when the carbon sinks are beefed up and the carbon emissions are near zero, the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will start declining.  I assume that's what you mean by the Keeling curve curving back on itself.  I think we'll see that in the 2040s.


Radioman: [shouting amiably over the engines] So you don't like flyin', huh? This is nothin'! You shoulda been with us five, six months ago! Whoa, talk about puke! We ran into a hailstorm over the Sea of Japan! Everyone was retchin' his guts out! The pilot shot his lunch all over the windshield, and I barfed on the radio - knocked it out completely! It wasn't that lightweight stuff, either; it was that chunky, industrial-weight puke! [proferring a candy bar] Here, ya wanna bite?

- The Hunt for Red October (1990)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9