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 - KiwiGriff

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17
Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: September 24, 2020, 09:03:55 AM »
Frequency of extreme precipitation increases extensively with event rareness under global warming
G. Myhre, K. Alterskjær, C. W. Stjern, Ø. Hodnebrog, L. Marelle, B. H. Samset, J. Sillmann, N. Schaller, E. Fischer, M. Schulz & A. Stohl
Scientific Reports volume 9, Article number: 16063 (2019)

The intensity of the heaviest extreme precipitation events is known to increase with global warming. How often such events occur in a warmer world is however less well established, and the combined effect of changes in frequency and intensity on the total amount of rain falling as extreme precipitation is much less explored, in spite of potentially large societal impacts. Here, we employ observations and climate model simulations to document strong increases in the frequencies of extreme precipitation events occurring on decadal timescales. Based on observations we find that the total precipitation from these intense events almost doubles per degree of warming, mainly due to changes in frequency, while the intensity changes are relatively weak, in accordance to previous studies. This shift towards stronger total precipitation from extreme events is seen in observations and climate models, and increases with the strength – and hence the rareness – of the event. Based on these results, we project that if historical trends continue, the most intense precipitation events observed today are likely to almost double in occurrence for each degree of further global warming. Changes to extreme precipitation of this magnitude are dramatically stronger than the more widely communicated changes to global mean precipitation.

The increase in the frequency of extreme precipitation, i.e. the number of events per unit time with intensity above a given threshold, has generally received much less attention18,19,20,21. Unlike for intensity changes, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) gave no quantitative estimates of frequency changes22. Recent analyses of observations over Europe4,23 and over the US23,24,25,26 however show a substantial frequency increase. Here, we analyse a comprehensive data set of changes in the total amount of water falling as extreme precipitation, quantifying the contributions from changes in the intensity and the frequency, and including both observed and simulated precipitation. We investigate events that are rarer than those used in earlier studies, and find larger changes in the total amount of extreme precipitation than has been previously quantified.

To illustrate how changes to the total extreme precipitation are affected by both frequency and intensity, Fig. 1a shows a conceptualized probability density function (PDF) of daily precipitation corresponding to a reference surface air temperature (purple line), compared to one with a higher surface air temperature (orange). The increase in the intensity of heavy precipitation is illustrated by the horizontal blue arrow; the increase in frequency as the vertical green arrow. If we define “extreme” precipitation to be any event above a certain percentile, as illustrated by the dotted vertical line, Fig. 1a demonstrates that the total change in extreme precipitation amounts depends on changes to both intensity and frequency.

Heavy precipitation in Europe.
Not a file format that i can link to directly here please go to website.,eastern%20Europe%20since%20the%201960s.&text=Heavy%20precipitation%20events%20are%20likely,and%20eastern%20Europe%20in%20winter.
Observed trends in maximum annual five-day consecutive precipitation in winter and summer.


Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: September 24, 2020, 08:43:30 AM »
So long, internal combustion engine. We hardly knew ye -- and starting in 2035, you'll be banned from California new car lots. On Wednesday, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order that will ban the sale of new gas- and diesel-powered automobiles within the state effective 2035, saying the ban is essential to the state's goal of using 100% renewable energy by 2045.

Also very significant in the US context.
It signals the end of loopholes for gas guzzling trucks like america's best selling vehicle the ford  f150 .
The order also says that, “where feasible,” medium and heavy duty vehicles such as trucks and construction equipment should be zero-emission by 2045.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 24, 2020, 07:55:59 AM »
Nobody seems to understand why I am pursuing...

Bruce Steele
I understand what you are doing and respect you immensely  for the effort.
Your efforts do not translate directly into my world here in NZ. We  already have a  85% renewable  power grid here. I grow 100%  grass feed beef to offset my local government costs and am aware of the fossil fuel inputs in the fertilizer I use. I am also aware  of what carbon emissions my life style produces and make an effort to offset that with the woodlands I have protected and spent considerable time and effort to encourage.
Do not think you are alone . Many here are making an effort towards a carbon neutral lifestyle and  lead by their example to the local community.
You offer an example many here follow with interest and admiration. 

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 23, 2020, 06:36:46 PM »
56% reduction in $/kWh
54% increase in Range
69% less investment per gWh
Will take 12-18 months to start realizing this improvement; ~3 years to fully realize.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 22, 2020, 07:51:21 PM »
Year zero.

Wanting to rewire the worlds economic paradigm  may seem the only way .
You are not going to take bubbas massive truck with out force.
Billions must die in conflict for that to happen.
USA Canada Australia Russia  and Saudia Arabia all over consume.
Hence why some of us look towards what is possible within our present system without the inevitable consequence of death and destruction of any other way.
If that fails we will see the death and destruction as the old way reacts to the loss of privilege.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 22, 2020, 08:29:56 AM »
Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) for photovoltaic solar systems in regions of moderate insolation: A comprehensive response
A recent paper by Ferroni and Hopkirk (2016) asserts that the ERoEI (also referred to as EROI) of photovoltaic (PV) systems is so low that they actually act as net energy sinks, rather than delivering energy to society. Such claim, if accurate, would call into question many energy investment decisions. In the same paper, a comparison is also drawn between PV and nuclear electricity. We have carefully analysed this paper, and found methodological inconsistencies and calculation errors that, in combination, render its conclusions not scientifically sound. Ferroni and Hopkirk adopt ‘extended’ boundaries for their analysis of PV without acknowledging that such choice of boundaries makes their results incompatible with those for all other technologies that have been analysed using more conventional boundaries, including nuclear energy with which the authors engage in multiple inconsistent comparisons. In addition, they use out-dated information, make invalid assumptions on PV specifications and other key parameters, and conduct calculation errors, including double counting. We herein provide revised EROI calculations for PV electricity in Switzerland, adopting both conventional and ‘extended’ system boundaries, to contrast with their results, which points to an order-of-magnitude underestimate of the EROI of PV in Switzerland by Ferroni and Hopkirk.

Solar Energy Return On Investment — Energy Payback Period
solar pvSome critics and skeptics incorrectly say too much energy is consumed in the production of solar panels and that the panels don’t generate enough electricity during their lifetimes to make up for it.

This criticism has been proven to be false, and may be nothing more than a deliberate form of misinformation intended to persuade people who are interested in solar power to lose that interest. Too often, the critics turn out to be people who are directly or indirectly connected to fossil fuel industries like oil and gas, nuclear, or coal. They also may be politically conservative — certain highly politicized members of that group have historically opposed renewable energy to some degree.

Let’s look at what a neutral scientifically focused source, the US National Renewable Energy Lab, says about solar power and the energy payback situation: “Energy payback estimates for rooftop PV systems are 4, 3, 2, and 1 years: 4 years for systems using current multicrystalline-silicon PV modules, 3 years for current thin-film modules, 2 years for anticipated multicrystalline modules, and 1 year for anticipated thin-film modules (see Figure 1). With energy paybacks of 1 to 4 years and assumed life expectancies of 30 years, 87% to 97% of the energy that PV systems generate won’t be plagued by pollution, greenhouse gases, and depletion of resources.”

One study syndrome......

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: September 22, 2020, 08:15:46 AM »
Abortion is verboten.
No good can come of such a discussion on here.
I am with wili and then some.

Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: September 22, 2020, 07:41:41 AM »
I am of course in the south
How  ever we seem to be getting wild swings in rain fall
Record wet things die we lost trees due to soggy soil three years ago.
Record dry things die I lost many ten year old tree ferns last year.
You can not plan for a future with such unpredictable weather.
The local ecology can not hope to cope with such swings and neither can human infrastructure.

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: September 21, 2020, 08:22:24 PM »
It is the zombie apocalypse.
 We are all just predead corpses.  ;D

Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: September 21, 2020, 08:01:34 PM »
GE stops coal
General Electric Co (GE.N), one of the world’s largest makers of coal-fired power plants, said today it will stop making new coal-fired power plants. The US industrial conglomerate will shift its focus to green energy. GE said the exit from the coal business could include divestitures, site closures, and layoffs.

CNN Business points out that this decision is a huge pivot for the company:

The move marks a dramatic reversal for GE. Just five years ago, the company doubled down on coal by acquiring Alstom’s power business, which makes coal-fueled turbines.

That $9.5 billion deal, GE’s biggest-ever industrial purchase, proved to be a disaster because coal has been crushed by the rise of natural gas and a shift toward solar, wind and renewable energy. Since then, GE has laid off thousands of power workers, slashed its dividend to a penny, fired two CEOs, and sharply written down the value of its power business.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 20, 2020, 08:24:13 PM »
Home solar - car.
Oil production, refining, distribution -car
Electricity generation - grid - car .
Cut out the fiscal drag of the  grid infrastructure or between crude oil and gasoline at the pump .
That is what Tony Seba has been saying is one of the most distributive forces on the legacy industry's business  model .
I also think offering a seamless integration between your solar , .storage and your car will give an  advantage to Tesla .

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 18, 2020, 07:31:03 PM »
Also of note.
Dig up fossil fuel then burn it .
single use.
Build a solar panel use it for thirty years then recycle the materials
and another thirty years ......
About 85 % of a solar panel is recyclable at a much lower energy input  than sourcing virgin materials. The suns energy is free .
At present wind power is growing in size and efficiency at a rapid pace so you do not simply add a new generator to an existing installation. I can not see much difference with wind once the technology is mature. Much of the infrastructure built the first time will be recyclable .

 The energy costs of renewable energy  goes down the longer we use them for.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 15, 2020, 07:46:33 PM »
OK boomer.  ;)
We  collectively are old.
Most of us on this blog are nearing or reached retirement .
The youth are much more aware about the threats of over consumption and AGW than our generation.
They will shift the Overton window towards solutions.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 15, 2020, 09:36:09 AM »
We did not leave the Stone age  because we run out of stones.

Coal is a zombie technology.
Coal is already dead as an energy source.
Coal based electricity generation can not compete  with the cost of renewable energy.
It simply costs more to run an existing  coal plant than to build new renewable energy sources.
The same is true with all fossil fuel generation if you add in the indirect costs.
This represents Trillions of dollars of lost value to the Fossil fuel industry's.
Crisis equals opportunity .
There is an  up side if you are aware where this is going to lead us.

Antarctica / Re: Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE
« on: September 15, 2020, 07:27:53 AM »
I know what you are saying abslr
Just not well enough to explain it
This is the third time I have pulled H up on useing sst as a proxy for ocean heat content. Having spent thousand of hours in on and under the water the temp in the surface layer has little correlation to the temp at depths.
H is getting misleading information from unrealible sources and spreading fud on here.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 13, 2020, 08:43:01 PM »
Electric tractors.

The "ford" sourced  from India without engines and converted to electric  is actually a Massy Ferguson design based on the trusty te20  like Hillary took to the south pole. They are incredibly robust  and can still be seen working today on many hobby farms around NZ . Almost all parts can be brought new other than the major castings.

Converting a small around 30hp tractor  to electric would not be impossible  there are already commercial conversion kits for lawn tractors.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 13, 2020, 11:03:21 AM »
They are definitely not interchangeable unless components like electric motors have been developed that can replace diesel-powered ones for heavy equipment used in mining, for engines in container ships, and more.

see this?
Its diesel electric .
As is all the big mining hardware and trains etc.
Battery tech is improving  fast as billions is being spent by the automobile industry.
Land based mining is not going to be difficult simply swap out the diesels for battery's .
Off shore shipping is another kettle of fish .
The future  is to use some form of manufactured fuel from renewable energy.

Long Time Climate Denier Appointed at NOAA


David Legates, a University of Delaware professor of climatology who has spent much of his career questioning basic tenets of climate science, has been hired for a top position at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Legates confirmed to NPR that he was recently hired as NOAA’s deputy assistant secretary of commerce for observation and prediction. The position suggests that he reports directly to Neil Jacobs, the acting head of the agency that is in charge of the federal government’s sprawling weather and climate prediction work.

Neither Legates nor NOAA representatives responded to questions about Legates’ specific responsibilities or why he was hired. The White House also declined to comment.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 12, 2020, 05:49:05 AM »
I can not see your posts because I have you on ignore but do see you make them .
Here is a hint.
You can add more to a post after publishing one if you simply edit it by clicking on modify at the top right .
This means there is no need to post ten times in succession  making my poor scroll finger work unpaid overtime and wearing out my mouse.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 12, 2020, 05:23:21 AM »
10 times the energy used and only one tenth the processing speed.
It is like compering a modern LCD high definition TV with a 26" B&W CRT circa 1970....
 ::) ::) ::)

Antarctica / Re: Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE
« on: September 11, 2020, 08:42:27 AM »
Do you have some data source that there is record ocean heat around Antarctica? The sea surface temperature data seem to show the opposite.

40 year temperature trend in Antarctica is slightly negative, -0.0230C per year.
40 year temperature trend in SH midlatitudes (30S - 60S) is very slightly positive, +0.0070C per year.
What the fuck have any of these to do with ocean heat content ?

Comparing temperature measurements obtained at the end of the twentieth century or early in the twenty-first century with temperature records of previous decades is unambiguous: the Southern Ocean within and north of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current has warmed at all depths in the upper 2,000 m at a more rapid rate than the globally averaged ocean warming (Figure 4a,b; Gille, 2008 ; Böning et al., 2008; Giglio and Johnson, 2017). This long-term trend agrees with warming observed during the last decade, when profiling floats greatly improved spatial sampling (e.g., Giglio and Johnson, 2017). The water masses north and within the Antarctic Circumpolar Current have warmed at a rate of 0.1°–0.2°C per decade in the upper 1 km (Figures 1 and 4).

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 11, 2020, 08:01:56 AM »
Awesome post Wildcatter.
Good to see some positive input about the future.
Please post more I for one will take note of any detail or research you can add.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 11, 2020, 07:30:08 AM »
xThe Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan (just between you and me)

Elon Musk, Co-Founder & CEO of Tesla Motors August 2, 2006

Backgrouand : My day job is running a space transportation company called SpaceX, but on the side I am the chairman of Tesla Motors and help formulate the business and product strategy with Martin and the rest of the team. I have also been Tesla Motor's primary funding source from when the company was just three people and a business plan.

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.

Critical to making that happen is an electric car without compromises, which is why the Tesla Roadster is designed to beat a gasoline sports car like a Porsche or Ferrari in a head to head showdown. Then, over and above that fact, it has twice the energy efficiency of a Prius. Even so, some may question whether this actually does any good for the world. Are we really in need of another high performance sports car? Will it actually make a difference to global carbon emissions?

Well, the answers are no and not much. However, that misses the point, unless you understand the secret master plan alluded to above. Almost any new technology initially has high unit cost before it can be optimized and this is no less true for electric cars. The strategy of Tesla is to enter at the high end of the market, where customers are prepared to pay a premium, and then drive down market as fast as possible to higher unit volume and lower prices with each successive model.

Without giving away too much, I can say that the second model will be a sporty four door family car at roughly half the $89k price point of the Tesla Roadster and the third model will be even more affordable. In keeping with a fast growing technology company, all free cash flow is plowed back into R&D to drive down the costs and bring the follow on products to market as fast as possible. When someone buys the Tesla Roadster sports car, they are actually helping pay for development of the low cost family car.

Now I’d like to address two repeated arguments against electric vehicles — battery disposal and power plant emissions. The answer to the first is short and simple, the second requires a bit of math:

Batteries that are not toxic to the environment!
I wouldn’t recommend them as a dessert topping, but the Tesla Motors Lithium-Ion cells are not classified as hazardous and are landfill safe. However, dumping them in the trash would be throwing money away, since the battery pack can be sold to recycling companies (unsubsidized) at the end of its greater than 100,000-mile design life. Moreover, the battery isn’t dead at that point, it just has less range.

Power Plant Emissions aka “The Long Tailpipe”
(For a more detailed version of this argument, please see the white paper written by Martin and Marc.)

A common rebuttal to electric vehicles as a solution to carbon emissions is that they simply transfer the CO2 emissions to the power plant. The obvious counter is that one can develop grid electric power from a variety of means, many of which, like hydro, wind, geothermal, nuclear, solar, etc. involve no CO2 emissions. However, let’s assume for the moment that the electricity is generated from a hydrocarbon source like natural gas, the most popular fuel for new US power plants in recent years.

The H-System Combined Cycle Generator from General Electric is 60% efficient in turning natural gas into electricity. "Combined Cycle" is where the natural gas is burned to generate electricity and then the waste heat is used to create steam that powers a second generator. Natural gas recovery is 97.5% efficient, processing is also 97.5% efficient and then transmission efficiency over the electric grid is 92% on average. This gives us a well-to-electric-outlet efficiency of 97.5% x 97.5% x 60% x 92% = 52.5%.

Despite a body shape, tires and gearing aimed at high performance rather than peak efficiency, the Tesla Roadster requires 0.4 MJ per kilometer or, stated another way, will travel 2.53 km per mega-joule of electricity. The full cycle charge and discharge efficiency of the Tesla Roadster is 86%, which means that for every 100 MJ of electricity used to charge the battery, about 86 MJ reaches the motor.

Bringing the math together, we get the final figure of merit of 2.53 km/MJ x 86% x 52.5% = 1.14 km/MJ. Let’s compare that to the Prius and a few other options normally considered energy efficient.

The fully considered well-to-wheel efficiency of a gasoline powered car is equal to the energy content of gasoline (34.3 MJ/liter) minus the refinement & transportation losses (18.3%), multiplied by the miles per gallon or km per liter. The Prius at an EPA rated 55 mpg therefore has an energy efficiency of 0.56 km/MJ. This is actually an excellent number compared with a “normal” car like the Toyota Camry at 0.28 km/MJ.

Note the term hybrid as applied to cars currently on the road is a misnomer. They are really just gasoline powered cars with a little battery assistance and, unless you are one of the handful who have an aftermarket hack, the little battery has to be charged from the gasoline engine. Therefore, they can be considered simply as slightly more efficient gasoline powered cars. If the EPA certified mileage is 55 mpg, then it is indistinguishable from a non-hybrid that achieves 55 mpg. As a friend of mine says, a world 100% full of Prius drivers is still 100% addicted to oil.

The CO2 content of any given source fuel is well understood. Natural gas is 14.4 grams of carbon per mega-joule and oil is 19.9 grams of carbon per mega-joule. Applying those carbon content levels to the vehicle efficiencies, including as a reference the Honda combusted natural gas and Honda fuel cell natural gas vehicles, the hands down winner is pure electric:

Car   Energy Source   CO2 Content   Efficiency   CO2 Emissions
Honda CNG   Natural Gas   14.4 g/MJ   0.32 km/MJ   45.0 g/km
Honda FCX   Nat Gas-Fuel Cell   14.4 g/MJ   0.35 km/MJ   41.1 g/km
Toyota Prius   Oil   19.9 g/MJ   0.56 km/MJ   35.8 g/km
Tesla Roadster   Nat Gas-Electric   14.4 g/MJ   1.14 km/MJ   12.6 g/km

The Tesla Roadster still wins by a hefty margin if you assume the average CO2 per joule of US power production. The higher CO2 content of coal compared to natural gas is offset by the negligible CO2 content of hydro, nuclear, geothermal, wind, solar, etc. The exact power production mixture varies from one part of the country to another and is changing over time, so natural gas is used here as a fixed yardstick.

Becoming Energy Positive
I should mention that Tesla Motors will be co-marketing sustainable energy products from other companies along with the car. For example, among other choices, we will be offering a modestly sized and priced solar panel from SolarCity, a photovoltaics company (where I am also the principal financier). This system can be installed on your roof in an out of the way location, because of its small size, or set up as a carport and will generate about 50 miles per day of electricity.

If you travel less than 350 miles per week, you will therefore be “energy positive” with respect to your personal transportation. This is a step beyond conserving or even nullifying your use of energy for transport – you will actually be putting more energy back into the system than you consume in transportation! So, in short, the master plan is:

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
Don't tell anyone.

Master Plan, Part Deux
Elon Musk July 20, 2016
The first master plan that I wrote 10 years ago is now in the final stages of completion. It wasn't all that complicated and basically consisted of:

Create a low volume car, which would necessarily be expensive
Use that money to develop a medium volume car at a lower price
Use that money to create an affordable, high volume car
Provide solar power. No kidding, this has literally been on our website for 10 years.
The reason we had to start off with step 1 was that it was all I could afford to do with what I made from PayPal. I thought our chances of success were so low that I didn't want to risk anyone's funds in the beginning but my own. The list of successful car company startups is short. As of 2016, the number of American car companies that haven't gone bankrupt is a grand total of two: Ford and Tesla. Starting a car company is idiotic and an electric car company is idiocy squared.

Also, a low volume car means a much smaller, simpler factory, albeit with most things done by hand. Without economies of scale, anything we built would be expensive, whether it was an economy sedan or a sports car. While at least some people would be prepared to pay a high price for a sports car, no one was going to pay $100k for an electric Honda Civic, no matter how cool it looked.

Part of the reason I wrote the first master plan was to defend against the inevitable attacks Tesla would face accusing us of just caring about making cars for rich people, implying that we felt there was a shortage of sports car companies or some other bizarre rationale. Unfortunately, the blog didn't stop countless attack articles on exactly these grounds, so it pretty much completely failed that objective.

However, the main reason was to explain how our actions fit into a larger picture, so that they would seem less random. The point of all this was, and remains, accelerating the advent of sustainable energy, so that we can imagine far into the future and life is still good. That's what "sustainable" means. It's not some silly, hippy thing -- it matters for everyone.

By definition, we must at some point achieve a sustainable energy economy or we will run out of fossil fuels to burn and civilization will collapse. Given that we must get off fossil fuels anyway and that virtually all scientists agree that dramatically increasing atmospheric and oceanic carbon levels is insane, the faster we achieve sustainability, the better.

Here is what we plan to do to make that day come sooner:

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.

We can't do this well if Tesla and SolarCity are different companies, which is why we need to combine and break down the barriers inherent to being separate companies. That they are separate at all, despite similar origins and pursuit of the same overarching goal of sustainable energy, is largely an accident of history. Now that Tesla is ready to scale Powerwall and SolarCity is ready to provide highly differentiated solar, the time has come to bring them together.

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.

What really matters to accelerate a sustainable future is being able to scale up production volume as quickly as possible. That is why Tesla engineering has transitioned to focus heavily on designing the machine that makes the machine -- turning the factory itself into a product. A first principles physics analysis of automotive production suggests that somewhere between a 5 to 10 fold improvement is achievable by version 3 on a roughly 2 year iteration cycle. The first Model 3 factory machine should be thought of as version 0.5, with version 1.0 probably in 2018.

In addition to consumer vehicles, there are two other types of electric vehicle needed: heavy-duty trucks and high passenger-density urban transport. Both are in the early stages of development at Tesla and should be ready for unveiling next year. We believe the Tesla Semi will deliver a substantial reduction in the cost of cargo transport, while increasing safety and making it really fun to operate.

With the advent of autonomy, it will probably make sense to shrink the size of buses and transition the role of bus driver to that of fleet manager. Traffic congestion would improve due to increased passenger areal density by eliminating the center aisle and putting seats where there are currently entryways, and matching acceleration and braking to other vehicles, thus avoiding the inertial impedance to smooth traffic flow of traditional heavy buses. It would also take people all the way to their destination. Fixed summon buttons at existing bus stops would serve those who don't have a phone. Design accommodates wheelchairs, strollers and bikes.

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.

I should add a note here to explain why Tesla is deploying partial autonomy now, rather than waiting until some point in the future. The most important reason is that, when used correctly, it is already significantly safer than a person driving by themselves and it would therefore be morally reprehensible to delay release simply for fear of bad press or some mercantile calculation of legal liability.

According to the recently released 2015 NHTSA report, automotive fatalities increased by 8% to one death every 89 million miles. Autopilot miles will soon exceed twice that number and the system gets better every day. It would no more make sense to disable Tesla's Autopilot, as some have called for, than it would to disable autopilot in aircraft, after which our system is named.

It is also important to explain why we refer to Autopilot as "beta". This is not beta software in any normal sense of the word. Every release goes through extensive internal validation before it reaches any customers. It is called beta in order to decrease complacency and indicate that it will continue to improve (Autopilot is always off by default). Once we get to the point where Autopilot is approximately 10 times safer than the US vehicle average, the beta label will be removed.

When true self-driving is approved by regulators, it will mean that you will be able to summon your Tesla from pretty much anywhere. Once it picks you up, you will be able to sleep, read or do anything else enroute to your destination.

You will also be able to add your car to the Tesla shared fleet just by tapping a button on the Tesla phone app and have it generate income for you while you're at work or on vacation, significantly offsetting and at times potentially exceeding the monthly loan or lease cost. This dramatically lowers the true cost of ownership to the point where almost anyone could own a Tesla. Since most cars are only in use by their owner for 5% to 10% of the day, the fundamental economic utility of a true self-driving car is likely to be several times that of a car which is not.

In cities where demand exceeds the supply of customer-owned cars, Tesla will operate its own fleet, ensuring you can always hail a ride from us no matter where you are.

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

If you are going to comment please read the thread and at have at lest some idea about the subject in hand .
Ignorance is excusable  for a new comer not for some one who has commented on this thread many times....

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 10, 2020, 10:52:43 AM »
Tesla's  success  is not  binary .
Have they proven?

That electric cars can be as good as or better than ICE ?
I could post many videos of professional car reviews who benchmark the Model 3 against the premium ICE offerings from Europe   and find it either the outright winner or a real contender.

That you can travel long distance in an electric car?
The supercharger network makes it easy even here on  my remote pacific islands.

Made other car manufactures  take electric cars seriously rather than just building odd looking limited market compliance cars?
Google BMW i3 or Chevy bolt  if you want  examples.

If you answer yes to any of these Tesla is already a success.

Tesla have already proven beyond doubt it is possible to build electric cars that stand up on their own merits as  cars not just as a compromised virtual signal for  rich liberals or a limited market niche product to get around legal restrictions on ICE sales.
Tesla has already won they have accelerated the transition to  electric transport  by a measurable amount .

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: September 10, 2020, 07:57:22 AM »
I was rubished for pointing out demand side control of electric car charging is probably as important as V2G.
Transport makes up around thirty percent of all energy used.
Being able to control when that energy is used will be a huge economic advantage even of it is only a small percentage of the total .
Here is the daily rate on the NZ wholesale  electricity market for one year.|3
See the spikes of over 10X.
Being able to curb those spikes by even a few percent represents a huge economic advantage to any one that has the capacity .
I believe Tesla is looking at that ability to  control the demand side use of its fleet rather than V2G as a potential economic advantage.  There  is no cost in battery degradation to slow or halt charging for an hour or two when demand and hence cost spikes. 

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: September 09, 2020, 08:13:25 PM »
 Nikola Re-Badger. ;D

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 08, 2020, 07:20:24 AM »
Shite nanning
100 bucks will by you a small solar  panel,  controller, a second hand car battery and a 12 v led light.
That is a months power bill to guarantee some light for the next decade at lest.
Want hot water? go find a  black twenty liter plastic container if you look around you can get them for free.
Full with water and stick it in a sunny spot it will give you  20 liters of warm water a day as long as the sun shines for more than five hours a day.
Want a electric bike? You can get a bike for free in your society ex laptop batteries and an electric bike  kit will cost  at most a few hundred bucks.
You are not stupid you can  find out how to do this stuff for SFA  on the web .
Get of your fuckin arse and find solutions! mate, instead of asking for them to be handed to you .   

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: September 08, 2020, 07:00:08 AM »
Is a scam .
Hydrogen does not work because..... the immutable laws of physics say it can not be economically viable compared to battery based energy storage .
Where are the Nikolai trolls on here?
We have lots of Tesla trolls yet the biggest scam attracts no comments from them .

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 07, 2020, 07:40:50 AM »
Right now you might have a point Bruce .
In the future I think we will use renewable energy to mine and farm.
I can not see any unsurmountable technological issues to stop us transitioning to 100% renewable energy.

I have been off grid for just over  the last decade.
The decreasing costs have been startling.
My first panels cost 2000NZD  for 80 watts and a pwm controller in 2008.
My present array built four years ago cost 2000NZD for 2kW using more efficient MPPT controllers
One built now for 2000NZD would be about 2.6kW .
When I started LED's were new, expensive and unreliable. Now reliable cheap and  efficient LED lighting is not an issue . Same with refrigeration modern  inverter fridges are more efficient and do not need high starting currents reducing the loads on inverters.
I presently use valve regulated agm lead acid batteries ex a commercial emergency power supply.
Looking at the options to upgrade I have a choice of technology's that promise much higher cycle life and better round trip  efficiency than lead acid for near the same cost . Electric cars have not reached the point were their batteries  are a viable source for energy storage here...yet. this will soon change. Home Heating / cooling is not really needed here in northern NZ so i do not have that to contend with.
It was cheaper for me to go off gild than run a power cable 350meters up my drive let alone pay the resulting power bills.

This translates into places like Africa and Asia were the grid is nonexistent or unreliable .
They too have the opportunity  to use solar for lighting, water pumping ,refrigeration , and communication because it is cheaper than alternates.

Something else not mentioned  Solar panels are something like 90% recyclable after their 25 year or more useful life which will lower their embedded energy over time as we transition fully towards a renewable circular economy.

PS ralfy just earned a place on my ignore  list.
Reading someones comments  who is continuing to use outdated data to push nonsense on a rapidly changing technology is not worth my time.

I dont the think NZ can solve climate change alone
We are only a small nation.
The world can plant marginal and unproductive lands into forest. If done every where it will have an impact on CO2 levels.

El Cid the initial stocking rate for a pinus plantation in NZ is about 1,000 stems a  hectare.
 Native forest is usually started using a pioneer crop of tea tree at around twice that density.
Much forested land marginal  for grazing was converted to pasture  in the extractive phase of the early  NZ  settlement.
NZ is aiming towards planting half to a million  hectares of new forest  over the next decade.
Not all of this will be commercial tree crops  instead some will be permanent native forest designated to provide a long term carbon sink with a return provided under our emission trading scheme.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 04, 2020, 07:33:41 PM »
Hanlon's razor is an aphorism, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity", known in several other forms. It is a philosophical razor which suggests a way of eliminating unlikely explanations for human behavior.

One Billion Trees Programme
The New Zealand government has set a goal to plant a billion trees by 2028, and we need your help to achieve it.

About the One Billion Trees Programme
Find out why the goal has been set to plant one billion trees by 2028 and how we will achieve it.

Funding to help plant one billion trees
There are different funding options for landowners, organisations, and communities who want to plant trees or revert land to native forest. There are also partnership funding options for groups or organisations with workforce development programmes or projects that improve the way we plant or grow trees.

Direct Grants for tree planting
Apply for a grant from the One Billion Trees Fund to help with the costs of tree planting or retiring your land to native forest on your farmland, private land, or Māori land.

Partnership Funding
Access One Billion Trees Partnership Funding from Te Uru Rākau (Forestry New Zealand) for projects and initiatives that support tree planting and help improve the way we grow and plant trees.

Matariki Tu Rākau memorial tree-planting
Access One Billion Trees funding to plant living memorials to honour members of your community.  Funding is provided

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 04, 2020, 08:20:35 AM »
Tesla Model 3 hailed as the most reliable executive car in the UK
A car’s reliability could easily determine whether a customer’s ownership experience is excellent or poor. Even simple cars could be great to own if they are reliable, and even high-performance vehicles could be a headache if they experience intermittent problems during their ownership period. This is why reliability is arguably one of the most important things that car buyers look for when purchasing an automobile.

Motoring publication What Car? Recently conducted its annual What Car? Reliability Survey, which reveals the best and worst vehicles in the UK market today when it comes to reliability. This year’s study included nearly 13,000 car owners who were asked about how dependable their vehicles have been over the previous 12 months. For this year, What Car? also decided to ask owners how much they had to pay to get their vehicles’ problems fixed, and how long the repair process took.

 “In most cases, these two factors are more important than what actually went wrong with the car, because they determine how long you could be without your car and how much of a dent a fault could put in your wallet. So we used a combination of the answers to these questions to create a unique Reliability Rating – expressed as a percentage – for each model,” the publication noted
In what could be dubbed as a pleasant surprise, the Tesla Model 3 was deemed as the most reliable executive car today in Britain, electric or otherwise. Only 5% of the Tesla Model 3 owners who participated in the survey reported having issues with their vehicle, and even then, the problems were only connected to the car’s interior trim. Despite these faults, the Model 3 owners noted that the cars could still be driven without any problems. Even better, the issues, once reported, were fixed in a day or less and at zero cost.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 04, 2020, 07:53:19 AM »

Consequences / Re: Temperature records (data)
« on: September 03, 2020, 08:14:47 AM »
NZ has warmest winter  on record..
Warm winters are becoming a recurring theme in New Zealand.
This year’s winter peaked at 1.14 degrees Celsius above average, making it the warmest on record.
Niwa has been recording seasonal averages for 111 years, but seven of the 10 warmest winters have all occurred in the 21st century. The previous record was made in 2013 when the seasonal average increased by 1.08C.
“That really shows a trend,” NIWA forecaster Ben Noll said.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: September 03, 2020, 08:04:20 AM »
I'm not sure if primary energy can be ignored, i.e., if oil is needed for mining, manufacturing, and shipping of renewable energy components, plus the infrastructure to make energy from that available, and the consumer goods that will use the energy.
You miss orens point.
Much of the energy from hydro carbon use is waste heat that you have to dispose of .
ie the most efficient fossil fuel generation from a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plant coverts only 63% of the energy into a form that is usable the rest is wasted heat that must be disposed of
When used In transport only about 20% of the energy contained in fossil fuel is converted to useful work.

This is not a thing with renewable energy 100% of the output is usable energy available to do work. Even when used for  transport  around 80% of renewable energy is converted to  useful work driving you forward.

Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: September 03, 2020, 07:35:39 AM »
Wildfires Hasten Another Climate Crisis: Homeowners Who Can’t Get Insurance.
Insurers, facing huge losses, have been pulling back from fire-prone areas across California. “The marketplace has largely collapsed,” an advocate for counties in the state said.
As wildfires burn homes across California, the state is also grappling with a different kind of climate predicament: How to stop insurers from abandoning fire-prone areas, leaving countless homeowners at risk.

Years of megafires have caused huge losses for insurance companies, a problem so severe that, last year, California temporarily banned insurers from canceling policies on some 800,000 homes in or near risky parts of the state. However, that ban is about expire and can’t be renewed, and a recent plan to deal with the problem fell apart in a clash between insurers and consumer advocates.

Insurers are widely expected to continue their retreat, potentially devastating the housing market if homes become essentially uninsurable.

“The marketplace has largely collapsed” in those high-risk areas, said Graham Knaus, executive director of the California State Association of Counties, which has pushed state officials to address the problem. “It’s a very large geographic area of the state that is facing this.”
Hat tip to David Wallace-Wells twitter account though Climate Denial Crock of the Week.

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: September 02, 2020, 08:01:51 PM »
As the electric fleet increases  being able to curtail charging on the demand side will be as significant as using batteries as storage .

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 02, 2020, 06:30:42 AM »
If you examined every one on here you would by highly unlikely to find someone who excels in all metrics.
I know for a fact I am two standard deviations to the right on the metric called IQ. I am here because Many of the commentators on this forum will  also share this  high IQ metric and can grok the future we are creating .
I also score extremely low on other scales that others excel in. For instance I have  declared on more than one occasion that I am in awe of Orens EQ.
Mr Musk excels in The metric we can call  entrepreneurism
If you read the Tesla master plan from  August 2, 2006.
You can see why I respect Mr Musks entrepreneurism. Musk was demonstrable so far ahead of the curve he must be respected.
As To anything else he is just another smart ape   No better or worse than the rest of us in in some ways not even in the ball park...
Musk can be a fuckwit in many instances without degrading the fact he is also so far ahead in others.


Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2020
« on: August 27, 2020, 08:51:32 AM »
Watching some guy in a parking garage in lake Charles live stream on you tube.
145mile an hour winds  .

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2020
« on: August 26, 2020, 07:37:41 PM »

Levi Cowan
New plane entering #Laura is finding surface wind estimates of 130-135 mph, which would make Laura a Category 4 hurricane.

Walking the walk / Re: Gardening
« on: August 26, 2020, 08:49:02 AM »
The last of the winter broccoli and cauliflower is ripe and needs to be eaten
The spinach from last year is beginning to bolt so it will get composted and new plants for this year started I use fresh small leaves for salads and bigger ones for cooking.  Only Six plants have kept me well supplied with Greens since last spring .
Strawberry's  are now starting to flower about a dozen plants out of twenty  made it over winter . Rhubarb has done really well this winter apple and rhubarb crumble is a winter treat . Time to  cut the Rhubarb back  and give them a large dressing of fresh manure ready for next winter I think.
I have about a dozen new lavenders grown from cutting ready to go in  . My experience with lavenders is try as many types as you can find and take cuttings from  the ones that do well in your soil and micro climate. Hoping the Asparagus does well this year. I brought some very dried out plants for a dollar from a sale bin in summer they struggled but did grow a few shoots.

The  avocados and grape vines are beginning to show new buds have to keep baiting the snails  or they eat all the fresh growth. Citrus has done well I have Limes, Lemons and Tangelo by the bucket. The pūkeko's got all the Mandarins this year and I think a possum had the two grapefruit the tree had. I will need to net the trees next season if I want to eat the fruit not feed the wild life.   The orchard is only two years old so the future is looking bright for fruit in the future.

The rest / Re: Arctic/AGW humour and satire
« on: August 26, 2020, 04:20:12 AM »

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: August 26, 2020, 03:58:21 AM »
Exxon Mobil dropped from the Dow after 92 years, replaced by a software stock

In its biggest reshuffle in several years, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is removing its longest-serving member: Exxon Mobil Corp.

The change was prompted by Apple’s forthcoming split, set to happen at Friday’s market close, which will leave the stock at one-quarter of its current price, Bloomberg News reported.

As opposed to the market-cap-weighted S&P 500 index, the Dow weights its members by price rather than market value. If a stock’s price falls too much, it can have a notable impact on the 124-year old index, according to Barron's.

To offset the decrease, the blue-chip Dow  will replace Exxon Mobil with cloud-based software company Salesforce. Founded in 1999, Salesforce's stock has risen 27-fold since March 2009, according to Bloomberg News.

Energy giant Exxon Mobil, the oldest member of the index, joined the Dow in 1928 as Standard Oil of New Jersey. The Dow's last original member, General Electric, was removed in 2018, CBS News reported.

While Exxon Mobil was worth more than $450 billion as recently as 2014, according to Bloomberg News, the stock had fallen throughout the six years before 2020 and is down another 40 percent since January.
Influence will die along with  value.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2020
« on: August 25, 2020, 08:29:23 PM »

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2020
« on: August 24, 2020, 06:07:25 AM »

The 6Z Sunday, August 23, forecast of the COAMPS-TC model, which made the best 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-day intensity forecasts of any model in 2019, predicted Laura would traverse Cuba, reorganize over the Gulf of Mexico, and peak as a category 3 hurricane shortly before landfall Wednesday night in Louisiana. The COAMPS-TC was the third-best track model in 2019, behind the European model and UKMET model. (Image credit: Naval Research Laboratory)

Science / Re: Sea Level Rise Accelerating
« on: August 23, 2020, 08:32:03 PM »
The Paper Hefaistos just linked to is by a well known crank.
 Albert Parker/ Alberto Boretti
Being a member of  Principia Scientific International he is a fuckin gibbering loon class crank.

Science / Re: Ocean temperatures
« on: August 23, 2020, 08:10:01 PM »
<Snip. Let's not make Hefaistos the centre of attention and stay on-topic; N.>

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2020
« on: August 23, 2020, 01:52:19 AM »
Tropical Storm Laura could intensify to major hurricane status on approach to U.S. Gulf CoastBy Jeff Masters, Ph.D. | Aug 22, 2020

Will Laura and Marco perform a Fujiwara dance in the Gulf of Mexico?
When two tropical cyclones approach within about 900 miles of each other, they tend to rotate counter-clockwise around a common center, then go their separate ways, in a process called the Fujiwara effect. In rare cases they may merge into one storm, but the resulting storm will not be stronger than either of the original two storms, since wind shear from each weakens the other.

More commonly, when two storms interact, one will weaken or destroy the other with its wind shear, just as Hurricane Wilma did to Tropical Storm Alpha in 2005. The Saturday morning model runs showed limited support for a Fujiwara interaction between Marco and Laura.

Science / Re: Ocean temperatures
« on: August 23, 2020, 01:43:32 AM »
I never bother following links to whack fringe sites as it gives them  traffic they dont deserve .
Nic Lewis is not an authority and his blog posts are not science so do not need examination.
I did follow your links to the MSM.
According to you
How many have published the news about the retraction and that results are now in line with previous research?
From your first two links.
Errors have been found in a recent study suggesting the oceans were soaking up more heat than previously estimated.

The initial report suggested that the seas have absorbed 60% more than previously thought.

But a re-examination by a mathematician showed that the margin of error was larger than in the published study.

The authors have acknowledged the problem and have submitted a correction to the journal.
Editors’ Note: November 14, 2018

An earlier version of this article included a conclusion from a study about ocean warming that is now in doubt. The researchers are working to revise their study because of errors detected in their calculations and it appears unlikely that they will be able to support their original conclusion that the oceans have warmed an average of 60 percent more per year than the current official estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The sections of the article dealing with that conclusion have been removed and the headline has been updated.

Update: Sept. 26, 2019: Nature, the journal which initially published the study last year, announced on Wednesday that it was retracting the paper.

You have just been publicly Pawned for gibbering nonsense.
I will bet your list came unchecked from some fringe crank site and like many deniers you never bothered to check what your links actually said  instead believed your crank source unconditionally.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17