The Environment Thread

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/19/opinions/sutter-carbon-tax-washington-british-columbia/index.html

 

Interesting article. 

Solid and elegant argument. 

"We should make bad stuff more expensive.

And, by doing that, make good stuff cheaper."

[17to85]

2 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/19/opinions/sutter-carbon-tax-washington-british-columbia/index.html

 

Interesting article. 

Solid and elegant argument. 

"We should make bad stuff more expensive.

And, by doing that, make good stuff cheaper."

The problem is that it won't change peoples behaviour unless the tax is so much of a burden that people can't afford to not change, but that's not what happens because the infrastructure isn't there to just change like that. 

We just got a carbon tax in Alberta, you know what it's going to do? Going to make me pay more for gas and more on my electricity bill, you know what actions I'm going to take? I'm going to ***** about having to pay more and keep on living my life. 

[Logan007]

16 hours ago, 17to85 said:

The problem is that it won't change peoples behaviour unless the tax is so much of a burden that people can't afford to not change, but that's not what happens because the infrastructure isn't there to just change like that. 

We just got a carbon tax in Alberta, you know what it's going to do? Going to make me pay more for gas and more on my electricity bill, you know what actions I'm going to take? I'm going to ***** about having to pay more and keep on living my life. 

Agreed, if they want people to change, the change needs to be significant, and the good stuff they want us to do, like say buy an electric car or whatever, needs to be significantly cheaper.  We need to see a good deal or we won't go for it.  It's like going across the border for shopping.  It's not worth it when our dollar is down or if you go when they don't have sales.  But when our dollar is up and there's 40-60% off...dude I'm there.

[Fatty Liver]

13 hours ago, Logan007 said:

Agreed, if they want people to change, the change needs to be significant, and the good stuff they want us to do, like say buy an electric car or whatever, needs to be significantly cheaper.  We need to see a good deal or we won't go for it.  It's like going across the border for shopping.  It's not worth it when our dollar is down or if you go when they don't have sales.  But when our dollar is up and there's 40-60% off...dude I'm there.

Electric cars aren't that far off in affordability.  A Nissan Leaf pulled up beside me the other day and I did a double take.  Price is around $32,000 CDN for a 4 door compact.  Consider that the average driver burns through $5,000-$8,000 worth of gas in a year, plus around $2,000 for repairs and maintenance.  Electric motors are much more reliable and durable compared to mechanical engines so repairs and maintenance are going to be significantly cheaper.  Take those savings over a 10 year time period and it's almost a no-brainer.  I'm getting in line for a Tesla.

[Logan007]

9 hours ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Electric cars aren't that far off in affordability.  A Nissan Leaf pulled up beside me the other day and I did a double take.  Price is around $32,000 CDN for a 4 door compact.  Consider that the average driver burns through $5,000-$8,000 worth of gas in a year, plus around $2,000 for repairs and maintenance.  Electric motors are much more reliable and durable compared to mechanical engines so repairs and maintenance are going to be significantly cheaper.  Take those savings over a 10 year time period and it's almost a no-brainer.  I'm getting in line for a Tesla.

Right, but the problem is, people don't like to change.  It's like when most people vote (normally) they'll vote for the same person every time.  It's like a car, you could show them all the benefits and specs and reviews and they're still going to go..."well...I don't know, I'm just use to gas engines".  It's just the stubbornness of people.  They don't like change.  And I get the saving gas thing as well, but even if you show them that, most won't care.  I want one, personally, but if they want people to change, they need to start by giving an amazing deal for those things they want them to move towards.

I want people to move towards these things, but people are just hard nosed and don't like change.

[Fatty Liver]

4 hours ago, Logan007 said:

Right, but the problem is, people don't like to change.  It's like when most people vote (normally) they'll vote for the same person every time.  It's like a car, you could show them all the benefits and specs and reviews and they're still going to go..."well...I don't know, I'm just use to gas engines".  It's just the stubbornness of people.  They don't like change.  And I get the saving gas thing as well, but even if you show them that, most won't care.  I want one, personally, but if they want people to change, they need to start by giving an amazing deal for those things they want them to move towards.

I want people to move towards these things, but people are just hard nosed and don't like change.

Unfortunately with electric cars, they are technology based and limited in production so they will command a premium until mass production is ramped up to meet demand.  No reason there won't be cheao electro-box options available within 20 years pouring out of of China and Korea as the complexity and the cost of production is much less than a standard automobile.  In 40 years gas pumps may be as rare as electric charging stations are today.

[17to85]

what's the range on electric vehicles these days? 

[Fatty Liver]

36 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

what's the range on electric vehicles these days? 

The Nissan Leaf is promoting from 133-172 kms for two different versions.  I think the Tesla 3 is advertising in the range of 300 kms.   Good enough for a daily commuter.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Throw Long Bannatyne

[17to85]

22 hours ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

The Nissan Leaf is promoting from 133-172 kms for two different versions.  I think the Tesla 3 is advertising in the range of 300 kms.   Good enough for a daily commuter.

but horrible for people who have to travel any sort of distance who don't want to stop every couple hours to charge. I thought it was somewhere in that range and is still a major draw back for me. 

[Fatty Liver]

2 hours ago, 17to85 said:

but horrible for people who have to travel any sort of distance who don't want to stop every couple hours to charge. I thought it was somewhere in that range and is still a major draw back for me. 

Fair enough, electric is not going to be an all encompassing solution anytime soon.  Most families have multiple vehicles with the daily commuter carrying the majority of the work load, so the current range is adequate for most of those vehicles. 

[kelownabomberfan]

1 hour ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Fair enough, electric is not going to be an all encompassing solution anytime soon.  Most families have multiple vehicles with the daily commuter carrying the majority of the work load, so the current range is adequate for most of those vehicles. 

I only travel around 12 KM per day round trip.  My current vehicle (gas) is 12 years old and has only 112,000 KM on it.  I would switch to electric if they made a good SUV that had decent range, and the price wasn't so high.  A few people in Kelowna, mostly the high-tech millionaires, drive Teslas, but they are more like status symbols than anything else - look at me, I won the lottery with my start-up and now I can drive around in a $100,000 electric car, because I care so much about the environment.  I am seeing a few charging stations going up around town, including up at Mission Hill winery, but I have yet to see one car ever using them, anywhere.

[Fatty Liver]

51 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

I only travel around 12 KM per day round trip.  My current vehicle (gas) is 12 years old and has only 112,000 KM on it.  I would switch to electric if they made a good SUV that had decent range, and the price wasn't so high.  A few people in Kelowna, mostly the high-tech millionaires, drive Teslas, but they are more like status symbols than anything else - look at me, I won the lottery with my start-up and now I can drive around in a $100,000 electric car, because I care so much about the environment.  I am seeing a few charging stations going up around town, including up at Mission Hill winery, but I have yet to see one car ever using them, anywhere.

Rarity is the very definition of a status symbol whether it's a Tesla S, Ferrari or a Rolls Royce.  The same day I saw the Leaf, I filled up next to a 12 cylinder Maserati at the gas bar.  The Tesla 3 which will sell for $35,000 USD was announced a few weeks ago and already has 400,000 pre-orders in N. America, no idea how many are from Canada but a guesstimate would be around 10%.  The prices won't come down much until the major manufacturers get into the game and create competition.

[kelownabomberfan]

22 hours ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Rarity is the very definition of a status symbol whether it's a Tesla S, Ferrari or a Rolls Royce.  The same day I saw the Leaf, I filled up next to a 12 cylinder Maserati at the gas bar.  The Tesla 3 which will sell for $35,000 USD was announced a few weeks ago and already has 400,000 pre-orders in N. America, no idea how many are from Canada but a guesstimate would be around 10%.  The prices won't come down much until the major manufacturers get into the game and create competition.

I saw that.  Most of those people won't see their cars until 2019.  If the Republicans get in power and cut the huge river of government cash that Tesla needs to survive, will those cars ever see the road?  Does Tesla even break even on those models without huge government subsidies?  What happens when those cars reach end of life, who bears the huge cost of recycling?  I think I already know the answer to that question.

[Rich]

41 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

I saw that.  Most of those people won't see their cars until 2019.  If the Republicans get in power and cut the huge river of government cash that Tesla needs to survive, will those cars ever see the road?  Does Tesla even break even on those models without huge government subsidies?  What happens when those cars reach end of life, who bears the huge cost of recycling?  I think I already know the answer to that question.

One of the biggest cost to Tesla right now is maintenance of these cars.  

There are not enough garages to service them.  If you are outside the range of a Tesla service centre, they will drive a replacement car to you, take yours away on a truck, then return it once it is fixed.  For general maintenance, they have mobile trucks that can do basic maintenance and repairs.  A lot of the cost of the vehicles today is to factor in those costs.

As Tesla grows, and their presence grows, that cost becomes less.

There are recycling programs in place today to deal with their batteries.   Other issues with Tesla cars are they need to be really light weight, so the metals they use can be more expensive then a regular car.

The charging of batteries can shift / mask environment concerns as well.  For many areas in the states, you are shifting powering cars by gasoline to coal (since coal generated electricity would recharge the cars battery).  Still not great for the environment.

I've read some studies that say the overall impact if you include manufacturing of the battery of these cars to normal cars aren't much better if they are being powered by coal.  (coal being more efficient for the environment then gas, but the manufacturing process adds to that).   But for wind and hydro electricity, there is a net benefit.

I have no problem with the government subsidizing these types of things in the beginning , but there has to come a time when they've advanced the technology enough they can be self sufficient. 

[iso_55]

On ‎4‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 0:51 PM, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

The Nissan Leaf is promoting from 133-172 kms for two different versions.  I think the Tesla 3 is advertising in the range of 300 kms.   Good enough for a daily commuter.

How long to charge?

[Fatty Liver]

1 hour ago, iso_55 said:

How long to charge?

For the Nissan Leaf charging time is between 5-8 hrs. depending on which charger is purchased, so it's basically only good as a commuter car.  Tesla is advertising 80% recharge in 3.5 hrs. or 30 mins. at one of their super charging stations.  Curiously there are currently 8 of these Tesla stations operating in Canada and they are all located between Red Deer and Vancouver. 

Edited April 24, 2016 by Throw Long Bannatyne

[iso_55]

Won't be buying any electric cars to go on a road trip. And I think the short mileage & long charging time is  more of a deterrent than the price.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

I thought it was hot- but not this hot.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/16/world/climate-change-april-hottest-month/index.html

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/temperature-monthly-records-1.3584249

 

 

[pigseye]

The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth. The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. The convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.

 

This is all a matter of science and not science fiction as portrayed by the media.

[Mr Dee]

I'm pretty sure you just added to the greenhouse effect...in some way.

[pigseye]

Caught cooking the data again

http://www.cfact.org/2016/02/02/stats-tampering-puts-noaa-in-hot-water/

http://www.cfact.org/2016/01/26/measuring-global-temperatures-satellites-or-thermometers/

 

 

 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

58 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Caught cooking the data again

http://www.cfact.org/2016/02/02/stats-tampering-puts-noaa-in-hot-water/

http://www.cfact.org/2016/01/26/measuring-global-temperatures-satellites-or-thermometers/

 

 

 

Yeeeeeeaah... I am going to go with the consensus of the scientific community on this one (Before you scream "NOT 100%!!!"), not some special interest undermine outfit like climate depot, as and extension of  CFACT, funded by donors trust with notable money men like Koch family and so on... 

Cherry picking data at it's best. 

 

Seriously- what is with the anti-science crowd? How can you be against evidence based decision making?

[pigseye]

What consensus would that be:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9

 

Quote

However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.

FYI actual science is where you posit a hypothesis, construct a model that explains how X will react to Y IF the hypothesis is correct. The next, and most important step is to compare the model to real world empirical data to see how well they match. If the correlation is poor then the hypothesis is wrong. It is on this final test that AGW fails miserably, no increase in extreme weather events, no mid tropospheric hot spot, no acceleration in sea level rise, no long term temperature variations that exceed previous warm periods (Roman, Medieval etc).

Scientists, like other people, have political beliefs, ideological orientations, and personal views that strain their scientific objectivity. One of the most disgusting things to emerge from the 2009 Climategate emails was the revelation of an attempt to subvert the peer-review process by suppressing the publication of work that was scientifically sound but contrary to the reviewer’s personal views.

 

The infamous phrase “hide the decline” refers to an instance where a global warming alarmist omitted data that contradicted his personal belief that the world was warming. This sort of bias is not limited but pervasive. Neither is science a foolproof method for producing absolute truth. Scientific knowledge is always tentative and subject to revision. The entire history of science is littered with discarded theories once thought to be incontrovertible truths.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

10 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Neither is science a foolproof method for producing absolute truth. Scientific knowledge is always tentative and subject to revision. The entire history of science is littered with discarded theories once thought to be incontrovertible truths.

Yup- that is the beauty of science... if new material comes to light that dispels a theory- it's trashed and you start again. Science states what holds to be true at that moment. What you are suggesting is basing truth on the fact science "might" be wrong in the future, despite what the evidence shows us at this moment- that is insane. 

 

 

 

[pigseye]

It's not that it might be wrong, it's that it can debunked by any first year physics student:

The STUPIDITY of AGW.
 ----
 Trenberth's Energy Budget

 

 Incoming Solar Radiation = 342 w/m^2
Solar Radiation Absorbed by atmosphere = 67 w/m^2
 -------------------
 (342 - 67) Leaves 275 w/m^2 available.

 

 Reflected by Clouds etc. = 77 w/m^2
 Reflected by Surface = 30 w/m^2
 Total due to reflection = 107 w/m^2

 

 The percentage of reflected energy is 107/275 = 0.389 or 38.9%.

 

 Leaves 168 w/m^2 absorbed by the Surface of the Earth.

 

 168 w/m^2 and an emissivity of 1, gives a temperature of 233.31K or -39.69 deg C.
 --------------------
 Now what happens if the reflected energy was decreased by 1% to 37.9%?

 

 0.379 X 275 = 104.23 w/m^2 so an additional (107 - 104.23 = 2.77 w/m^2) is available to heat the Earth.

 

 168 + 2.77 = 170.77 w/m^2 is now absorbed by the Surface of the Earth.

 

 170.77 w/m^2 and an emissivity of 1, gives a temperature of 234.26K or -38.74 deg C.
 --------------

 

 The Earth just warmed by (39.69 - 38.74) 0.95 deg C !!

 

 That's just due to a ONE PERCENT change in reflected energy!!

 

 -----------------
 Why the Hell is anybody talking about CO2, positive feed-back loops, carbon taxes etc. to explain something so easily explained?

 

 Especially since the AGW'ers admit that their "computer models" can't and don't handle CLOUDS well and the SUN is the ONLY ENERGY SOURCE!
 -----------------
 AGW is UTTER STUPIDITY no matter how you look at it!