@Griff
GO WATCH THE VIDEO
GO WATCH THE VIDEO
Can't fix stupid
- Thread starter Slim Jim
- Start date
Thanks. That video is the only discussion that we should be having about GW. Essentially; what are the risks and how do we mitigate against them?
Instead all we have now is rhetoric over a bunch of questions, many of them irrelevant, like:
"Is the climate changing?" (everyone agrees it is)
"Is the climate warming?" (mostly all in agreement)
"Is human activity influencing it?" (strong consensus in favor)
And at this stage in the public discourse we get the deniers, who impede the progress of the discussion at these unimportant questions.
The only questions that matter are:
"Will predicted climate change do much harm?" (strong disagreement, weak info, almost no discussion)
"Is there anything we could do to fight it if we wanted to, technically?" (people only discuss CO2 reduction)
"Will fighting it do more harm or more good?" (huge disagreement, mostly ideological arguments, leading to political paralysis)
Glad to see that video, it's the first time I've heard the discussion revolve around the questions that really matter on this topic.
Great points all around. I think there are many extreme views on both sides of the table, which unfortunately hinder a real sensible approach to energy use and transition.
I'd just like to touch on 'consensus'. For me, it is 100% the most misleading of all climate change rhetoric. The email leaks of climategate alone show there is no consensus within the ranks of the IPCC itself, nevermind the larger scientific community at large and the origins of the 97% are dubious at best.
But even it the consensus existed, it really doen't have a place in science. I'd like to point to the recent acceptance of the bacterial cause for ulcers first discovered by Barry Marshell and his partner. They fought "consensus" for 20+ years; he won the noble prize in 2006.
Sometimes it doesn't matter how much sense something makes when you're fighting large organizations intent on pushing their agenda.
Snobike Mike
Banned
Commentary on Wynne's complete Greenie nuttiness.....
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...o-ontario-with-wynnes-new-climate-change-plan
Is there anybody out there that will vote these crazies out of office?
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...o-ontario-with-wynnes-new-climate-change-plan
Is there anybody out there that will vote these crazies out of office?
Rex nailed it.
Relative equilibrium!! You've got to be kidding me!!!
^^^^ Do you remember this graph? You should, you posted it.
20 degree swings completely devoid of human influence. Total harmony and balance
Of course there are swings. Now draw a trend line through it for both temperature and CO2 levels.
Snobike Mike
Banned
And if one does such a thing and one see's a "correlation" then there must be "causation" and thus we should dream up ridiculous taxation and infrastructure changes right?
That analysis is part 2 of the story, and the largest consensus of scientific thought lays rising CO2 levels as key to that.
The science we have today is overwhelmingly of the opinion that human activity, and specifically the exponential growth of fossil fuel burning since industrialization began in the 1800s, is responsible for those rising CO2 levels and in turn rising global temperatures. It is also of the opinion that left unchecked, the environmental chain of events will accelerate to the point of reaching the climate and environmental equivalent of a nuclear core meltdown.
Yes, some scientists disagree, but this goes back to the old adage, "to the lunatic in the asylum, everyone else is crazy". However, do we do nothing until we reach 100% consensus among all scientists? Or do we act on the best available evidence that we have thus far and begin to work towards implementing a solution according to how we currently understand the problem?
Reducing reliance on fossil fuels and the environmental impact their production (fracking, tar sands, refinery emissions, pipeline and other transport-related spills, tailpipe and smokestack emissions, etc) is a good thing. Nobody disputes that. Reducing reliance on fossil fuels WILL require infrastructure changes regardless of the timeline you put on it.
Wynne's supposed plan, which may or may not be put into motion, is calling for a 2030 start to take homes off fossil fuel heating appliances. That's still 14 years away, 14 years in which climactic theories can be further tested and validated, 14 years in which we can improve alternate technologies, 14 years in which we can reduce fossil fuel use which everybody already agrees is a good thing, and 14 years in which government can continue to work and refine their environmental policies to adjust to changing realities and scientific discoveries.
A total ban, or such that can be had, wouldn't come for 20 more years after that, and this means 20 more years for scientific discovery and government policy adjustments as needed.
Or, let's wait until 2050 and do nothing until we get that 100% scientific consensus. If it turns out that the 97% or whatever % scientific consensus we have today was indeed accurate, then we will have sat on our hands for all that time potentially letting the problem get even worse and harder to roll back.
Last edited:
Snobike Mike
Banned
Then do it.. show me this trend on a 400000 year scale; can't be done because it doesn't exist, that's why you always see the classic hockey stick graph on a 1000 year time scale; go any further back and it becomes less scary... but don't let that get in the way of dogmatic post like your last one.... I'll just refer you back to the title of this thread.
I did. Then I read and watched more from others.
Snobike Mike
Banned
And yet most of your recent long post was nothing but regurgitated rhetoric from the climate change alarmists which without having to look very hard is nothing more than a façade for more taxes and government control.
Reducing use of fossil fuels is A Good Thing. It doesn't matter whether you believe in global warming or not.
The thing I have a problem with, is meddling bureaucrats ramming stuff down our throats whether we like it or not or whether it's the right thing to do or not.
Introducing incentives to encourage the right things to be done is something I can tolerate as long as it is not done to an extent that destroys the economy. Doesn't help with tomorrow if we can't get through today.
I am quite sure that at least for average daily-driver transportation, 10 years from now the default choice of the consumer will be an EV ... because by then, recharging won't be an issue and performance will be better (it already is - anyone who has not had a test-ride in a Tesla Model S P85D, owes it to themselves) and EVs will be more hassle-free than combustion-engine vehicles. If EVs handle the daily grind then there is less pressure (and no need) to ban all combustion-engine vehicles.
At this point the only thing stopping me from buying an EV as my next commuter vehicle (Chevrolet Bolt starts production in November) is NOT the $14,000 purchase incentive or the $1000 for installing a home EV charging station or any of that ... It's lack of public-access SAE Combo Level 3 fast-charging stations at all of the OnRoute service centers plus perhaps a few more sprinkled around elsewhere for good measure. Tesla got this right but I don't want to deal with their current business practices and I still have doubts about their long-term survival. It's all about worry-free travel wherever I need to go, and that means fast-charging infrastructure. Until that is in place ... it doesn't matter how much purchase incentives they give, an EV is useless to me.
The thing I have a problem with, is meddling bureaucrats ramming stuff down our throats whether we like it or not or whether it's the right thing to do or not.
Introducing incentives to encourage the right things to be done is something I can tolerate as long as it is not done to an extent that destroys the economy. Doesn't help with tomorrow if we can't get through today.
I am quite sure that at least for average daily-driver transportation, 10 years from now the default choice of the consumer will be an EV ... because by then, recharging won't be an issue and performance will be better (it already is - anyone who has not had a test-ride in a Tesla Model S P85D, owes it to themselves) and EVs will be more hassle-free than combustion-engine vehicles. If EVs handle the daily grind then there is less pressure (and no need) to ban all combustion-engine vehicles.
At this point the only thing stopping me from buying an EV as my next commuter vehicle (Chevrolet Bolt starts production in November) is NOT the $14,000 purchase incentive or the $1000 for installing a home EV charging station or any of that ... It's lack of public-access SAE Combo Level 3 fast-charging stations at all of the OnRoute service centers plus perhaps a few more sprinkled around elsewhere for good measure. Tesla got this right but I don't want to deal with their current business practices and I still have doubts about their long-term survival. It's all about worry-free travel wherever I need to go, and that means fast-charging infrastructure. Until that is in place ... it doesn't matter how much purchase incentives they give, an EV is useless to me.
Thank you. I think the term is stewardship. Use wisely not like a drunk politician.
Some interesting perspective. Personally I have reservations with the concept of EV's for the masses. For one, say 50%+ make the switch; what capacity would an onRoute (to use your example) have to accommodate that many cars and people waiting for a charge to complete? Even with quick charge stations, it's not as simple as a 2 min stop at the pump. To my understanding these systems take something like 20mins in ideal conditions, but in a cold climate, that can inflate to 2-3 times as long. The second is do we have enough rare earths to make all this green go? Motors; batteries; wind turbines etc. They all require large quantities of rare earths. For these technologies to become viable for all, either the technology needs to develop into rare earth free, or we need to dig more holes; and if the latter, throw the environmental argument out the window.
I honestly think EV may just be a short term transitional technology with hydrogen based technologies as a possible viable future; be that combustion; fuel cell; or a combination of the two. But realistically, FCV's face the same rare earth question marks as EV's and Hybrids; so I'm leaning towards combustion based. Even then, there are still production issues with hydrogen, so who knows. Maybe personal transportation will return to an exclusive to the exclusive status in the next 50 years.
Snobike Mike
Banned
Yep.
There are many many problems with mass EV including all of the things you noted. Simply putting the infrastructure in place is a mind boggling problem which has both a significant cost and environmental toll if one actually thinks about it.
But the real problem is still the issue of government/alarmists conjuring MMGW to increase taxation and control of the populace.
In order to finish, one must first start.
Yes, if 50% of the vehicles on the roads instantly became EVs, we would have a problem.
But I know what the sales forecasts are for the Chevrolet Bolt (and I know what the capacity of some of the equipment used to build it is ... I've worked on it, a customer of mine will be building parts for it), and we know how many reservations Tesla took for the Model 3 (and pretty much everyone in the auto industry has a different kind of "reservation" about whether Tesla will be able to ramp up production that fast). Even if 100,000 EVs were sold in one year that's 1% of the market for NEW cars and it's <0.1% of the vehicles on the road.
And now it's time to think about those charging stations again. Right now, every time your combustion engine vehicle has an empty fuel tank, you have to go to a gas station. If you have an EV, you do not have to use a quick-charging station ... the design intent is that people recharge overnight at home. The average person doing the average commute will never have to use a quick-charging station. The only people who would need a recharge at an OnRoute are those doing the Toronto-Windsor run, for example. Not all the traffic on the 401 is doing that - and it will be a long time before it is a significant enough percentage of the traffic to fill up whatever charging stations get built. Once again ... in order to finish, we must first start!
And another thing ... A gasoline/diesel filling station has hazardous and flammable substances on site. It requires permits, environmental monitoring, etc. On the other hand, charging stations can go anywhere that there's electricity. When there get to be a large enough number of EVs on the road, places like Tim Horton's or McDonalds will start realizing that if they put in charging stations, EV drivers will use them while they are in the store. I'm typing this at a Tim Horton's right now. If I had an EV and the Timmies had a charging station, I'd be using it. The Timmies on Wilson Street in Ancaster already has one. (although it isn't a quick-charger)
Hydrogen has orders of magnitude more infrastructure issues to overcome and thermodynamics dictates that it will never be as efficient as a lithium battery.
Also regarding rare earths ... Whether you are talking hydrogen fuel cell or lithium battery (or even a gasoline-electric hybrid), you still have a big electric motor in there powering the wheels no matter what! Tesla uses induction motors precisely to avoid having to use rare earths in their motors. If a Tesla P85D can put 500+ horsepower to the ground using motors that just contain iron and copper (and insulation), that's plenty good enough ! ! !
Yes, if 50% of the vehicles on the roads instantly became EVs, we would have a problem.
But I know what the sales forecasts are for the Chevrolet Bolt (and I know what the capacity of some of the equipment used to build it is ... I've worked on it, a customer of mine will be building parts for it), and we know how many reservations Tesla took for the Model 3 (and pretty much everyone in the auto industry has a different kind of "reservation" about whether Tesla will be able to ramp up production that fast). Even if 100,000 EVs were sold in one year that's 1% of the market for NEW cars and it's <0.1% of the vehicles on the road.
And now it's time to think about those charging stations again. Right now, every time your combustion engine vehicle has an empty fuel tank, you have to go to a gas station. If you have an EV, you do not have to use a quick-charging station ... the design intent is that people recharge overnight at home. The average person doing the average commute will never have to use a quick-charging station. The only people who would need a recharge at an OnRoute are those doing the Toronto-Windsor run, for example. Not all the traffic on the 401 is doing that - and it will be a long time before it is a significant enough percentage of the traffic to fill up whatever charging stations get built. Once again ... in order to finish, we must first start!
And another thing ... A gasoline/diesel filling station has hazardous and flammable substances on site. It requires permits, environmental monitoring, etc. On the other hand, charging stations can go anywhere that there's electricity. When there get to be a large enough number of EVs on the road, places like Tim Horton's or McDonalds will start realizing that if they put in charging stations, EV drivers will use them while they are in the store. I'm typing this at a Tim Horton's right now. If I had an EV and the Timmies had a charging station, I'd be using it. The Timmies on Wilson Street in Ancaster already has one. (although it isn't a quick-charger)
Hydrogen has orders of magnitude more infrastructure issues to overcome and thermodynamics dictates that it will never be as efficient as a lithium battery.
Also regarding rare earths ... Whether you are talking hydrogen fuel cell or lithium battery (or even a gasoline-electric hybrid), you still have a big electric motor in there powering the wheels no matter what! Tesla uses induction motors precisely to avoid having to use rare earths in their motors. If a Tesla P85D can put 500+ horsepower to the ground using motors that just contain iron and copper (and insulation), that's plenty good enough ! ! !
Snobike Mike
Banned
On electric cars and Unicorns....
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...ns-ontarios-new-green-scheme/article30120071/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...ns-ontarios-new-green-scheme/article30120071/
I agree with the general sentiment of that article, and the statement that EVs are short-range and take forever to recharge are true of most of the crapmobiles on the market today (Nissan Leaf included) but we are 6 months (Chevrolet Bolt) to 1 year (Tesla 3) away from electric vehicles that have range >320 km (more than most people drive in a day by a fair bit) and cost somewhere near what the average transaction price is for a new car. And 373,000 people who put down a deposit on that Tesla indicate that there does appear to be a market for an EV that actually works and is in a somewhat affordable price range.
Heck, at the top end of the market, the Tesla Model S already outsells Mercedes S-class, BMW 7-series ... even in Europe.
Photoelectric cells >20% efficient are on the market and >30% has been demonstrated. At that point, the roof of my van would be almost enough to supply its needs for how I use it (given sufficient storage capacity onboard) The roof of my house would be enough area to supply all of its electricity (given sufficient storage) and that's TODAY. The problem is that it's not yet cost-effective at that small scale.
I don't know how to address the NIMBY sentiments - and that is a big problem. I know how I'd fix it but it wouldn't be politically popular. Shut off the disconnect and let them figure out how to generate their own electricity. When they're willing to shut up, turn the disconnect back on again. If they still don't shut up, turn it off again.
Heck, at the top end of the market, the Tesla Model S already outsells Mercedes S-class, BMW 7-series ... even in Europe.
Photoelectric cells >20% efficient are on the market and >30% has been demonstrated. At that point, the roof of my van would be almost enough to supply its needs for how I use it (given sufficient storage capacity onboard) The roof of my house would be enough area to supply all of its electricity (given sufficient storage) and that's TODAY. The problem is that it's not yet cost-effective at that small scale.
I don't know how to address the NIMBY sentiments - and that is a big problem. I know how I'd fix it but it wouldn't be politically popular. Shut off the disconnect and let them figure out how to generate their own electricity. When they're willing to shut up, turn the disconnect back on again. If they still don't shut up, turn it off again.
