Crusinos wrote: The article does state it. Go back to my link and look for this sentence:
"Even if every renewable energy technology advanced as quickly as imagined and they were all applied globally, atmospheric CO2 levels wouldn’t just remain above 350 ppm; they would continue to rise exponentially due to continued fossil fuel use."
They found that not only would green technology not bring atmospheric CO2 levels down, but that green technologies wouldn't even slow the rise.
I don't think they meant indefinitely, and in any case if they did we already know they were wrong... global CO2 emissions have been level the past three years, despite continued economic growth, precisely because of the mass deployment of renewable energy. Level emissions means a level (or technically VERY slowly decreasing) rate of atmospheric CO2 increase... that is linear, not exponential.
With renewable energy deployment continuing to accelerate I expect we'll see falling global emissions within a few years.
What's better, CBD, is that we are now developing building materials capable of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Both rock and Plastics have been developed recently that do just this.
So, now we may see co2 scrubbers in every building. That's pretty reassuring honestly.
Buildings today are planned for about a century of use. It is going to take a long while to do this to a significant degree.
Wrath wrote: Please do not use the Australian government as proof that alternate energy is not any good. Sorry if I implied that but I thought I said the AUS government gave up on climate modeling, since the models can never be any more accurate than they are now (except by accident) and we already know what we need to do.
And for the record, I think alt energy is great (except wind in most places - I don't think that one is really worth it), but that doesn't stop me from realizing we as a species will fail at implementing green tech soon enough.
"CBDunkerson wrote: Rather, {Google} concluded that no current technology could get us back down to 350 ppm atmospheric CO2 levels. Which is true.
Not being able to stop CO2 levels from growing is a completely different thing, which they apparently weren't looking to attempt.
Crusinos wrote: They found that not only would green technology not bring atmospheric CO2 levels down, but that green technologies wouldn't even slow the rise. We just made 400 ppm CO2 for the entire year (official numbers aren't in of course since we've got another month to go but no one expects there to be a drop below 400 ppm), so CO2 levels are not dropping despite the massive deployment of green tech.
I think no matter what we do globally that CO2 levels will see a significant decrease (and green tech a significant deployment) by about 2040. Paris Agreement notwithstanding one way or the other.
You know what 3 of the top 10 selling cars are in China?
SUVs, including #1; the other two may be 9th and 10th but they are also the fastest growing.
Ask yourself how many new cars are expected to hit the road** in India the next 5 years. That increase alone will put more CO2 into the atmosphere than any reduction we might see in America and Europe combined.
** The road being made from oil of course!
Quark Blast wrote: "CBDunkerson wrote: Rather, {Google} concluded that no current technology could get us back down to 350 ppm atmospheric CO2 levels. Which is true.
Not being able to stop CO2 levels from growing is a completely different thing, which they apparently weren't looking to attempt.
Crusinos wrote: They found that not only would green technology not bring atmospheric CO2 levels down, but that green technologies wouldn't even slow the rise. We just made 400 ppm CO2 for the entire year (official numbers aren't in of course since we've got another month to go but no one expects there to be a drop below 400 ppm), so CO2 levels are not dropping despite the massive deployment of green tech.
I think no matter what we do globally that CO2 levels will see a significant decrease (and green tech a significant deployment) by about 2040. Paris Agreement notwithstanding one way or the other. You're right. At least for the near future. That's not what CBDunkerson was saying though.
The first step to actually dropping levels is slowing the increase in emissions, then reversing it. That's happening. As he said above global emissions have been level. That's still increasing the CO2 levels, but it is slowing the rate of increase. Not enough, but a start.
Green tech is slowing the rise. It is having an effect.
thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: "CBDunkerson wrote: Rather, {Google} concluded that no current technology could get us back down to 350 ppm atmospheric CO2 levels. Which is true.
Not being able to stop CO2 levels from growing is a completely different thing, which they apparently weren't looking to attempt.
Crusinos wrote: They found that not only would green technology not bring atmospheric CO2 levels down, but that green technologies wouldn't even slow the rise. We just made 400 ppm CO2 for the entire year (official numbers aren't in of course since we've got another month to go but no one expects there to be a drop below 400 ppm), so CO2 levels are not dropping despite the massive deployment of green tech.
I think no matter what we do globally that CO2 levels will see a significant decrease (and green tech a significant deployment) by about 2040. Paris Agreement notwithstanding one way or the other. You're right. At least for the near future. That's not what CBDunkerson was saying though.
The first step to actually dropping levels is slowing the increase in emissions, then reversing it. That's happening. As he said above global emissions have been level. That's still increasing the CO2 levels, but it is slowing the rate of increase. Not enough, but a start.
Green tech is slowing the rise. It is having an effect. I thought it was the global economic downturn (aka the Great Recession) that was mostly slowing the CO2 rise.
CBDunkerson wrote: Crusinos wrote: The article does state it. Go back to my link and look for this sentence:
"Even if every renewable energy technology advanced as quickly as imagined and they were all applied globally, atmospheric CO2 levels wouldn’t just remain above 350 ppm; they would continue to rise exponentially due to continued fossil fuel use."
They found that not only would green technology not bring atmospheric CO2 levels down, but that green technologies wouldn't even slow the rise.
I don't think they meant indefinitely, and in any case if they did we already know they were wrong... global CO2 emissions have been level the past three years, despite continued economic growth, precisely because of the mass deployment of renewable energy. Level emissions means a level (or technically VERY slowly decreasing) rate of atmospheric CO2 increase... that is linear, not exponential.
With renewable energy deployment continuing to accelerate I expect we'll see falling global emissions within a few years. Every bit of science I've seen on the subject has laid that squarely on economics, not green technology. Because with the worldwide economic downturn, there's also been a decreased in investment in green technologies, and even the UN is discussing that and the slowing growth of most green technologies. Germany, for example, has been building coal power plants and their solar industry has massively slowed (my company has been doing a lot of German consulting work related to this).
Most of the current growth in green energy is happening in China. These days, if you're interested in being heavily involved in green energy, you learn to speak Mandarin and Cantonese.
Quark Blast wrote: "CBDunkerson wrote: Rather, {Google} concluded that no current technology could get us back down to 350 ppm atmospheric CO2 levels. Which is true.
Not being able to stop CO2 levels from growing is a completely different thing, which they apparently weren't looking to attempt.
Crusinos wrote: They found that not only would green technology not bring atmospheric CO2 levels down, but that green technologies wouldn't even slow the rise. We just made 400 ppm CO2 for the entire year (official numbers aren't in of course since we've got another month to go but no one expects there to be a drop below 400 ppm), so CO2 levels are not dropping despite the massive deployment of green tech.
I think no matter what we do globally that CO2 levels will see a significant decrease (and green tech a significant deployment) by about 2040. Paris Agreement notwithstanding one way or the other.
You know what 3 of the top 10 selling cars are in China?
SUVs, including #1; the other two may be 9th and 10th but they are also the fastest growing.
Ask yourself how many new cars are expected to hit the road** in India the next 5 years. That increase alone will put more CO2 into the atmosphere than any reduction we might see in America and Europe combined.
** The road being made from oil of course! This makes a lot of sense for China to do, from a pure infrastructure standpoint.
China and the U.S. have something in common: Massive amounts of land, while populations remain concentrated along the coastal areas. The result is a very large amount of territory that is, relatively, sparsely populated. Electric cars are not really that good of an idea at current for most of either nation simply due to that population spread.
This is part of what hinders the industry in both nations; from a pure infrastructure standpoint, it is practically impossible to build the necessary support nationwide before electric cars are phased out again. For both nations, it's a waste of resources.
Crusinos wrote: Every bit of science I've seen on the subject has laid that squarely on economics, not green technology. Because with the worldwide economic downturn, there's also been a decreased in investment in green technologies There were global downturns in 2009 and 2015 and level CO2 emissions from 2013 through 2016 (estimated thru the end of the year)... ergo 2014 & 2016 saw growing economic output (NOT downturn), but level CO2 emissions.
As to decreased investment in green technologies... only in Europe. Every other continent, and the world as a whole, saw the highest ever green energy investment in 2015 (286 billion USD total) and is on track to beat that in 2016. Nearly all of that is in wind and solar. China IS the biggest mover by far, but still only 35% of the total.
CBDunkerson wrote: Crusinos wrote: Every bit of science I've seen on the subject has laid that squarely on economics, not green technology. Because with the worldwide economic downturn, there's also been a decreased in investment in green technologies There were global downturns in 2009 and 2015 and level CO2 emissions from 2013 through 2016 (estimated thru the end of the year)... ergo 2014 & 2016 saw growing economic output (NOT downturn), but level CO2 emissions.
As to decreased investment in green technologies... only in Europe. Every other continent, and the world as a whole, saw the highest ever green energy investment in 2015 (286 billion USD total) and is on track to beat that in 2016. Nearly all of that is in wind and solar. China IS the biggest mover by far, but still only 35% of the total. Again, the CO2 emissions can still be explained by economic effects. Even though there has been economic growth since both economic downturns, it has been extremely far from even. That lack of it being spread out recently had a very massive impact on the U.S.
Also, what I'm showing from the reports by the UN is that the Europe investment loss, if that is truly the only continent on which it is happening, is continuing to have a rather significant world impact. Investment in all areas still remains lower than the peaks each area established in the past. Given that this is a worldwide problem we're discussing, ignoring the global negative impact of one region is not a good idea.
Crusinos wrote: Again, the CO2 emissions can still be explained by economic effects. Even though there has been economic growth since both economic downturns, it has been extremely far from even. That lack of it being spread out recently had a very massive impact on the U.S. Distribution doesn't matter. We're dealing with a global problem, not a regional one.
Global production, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions have always previously moved in lockstep. To have more production you need to consume more energy and that meant burning more fuels... until now.
From 2013 to 2016 global energy consumption went up. Global CO2 emissions did not. We produced more energy without releasing more CO2. Global energy production got less CO2 intensive. Our energy production got 'greener'... by definition. The only 'economic effect' at play was lower renewable energy prices driving more renewable energy deployment.
Quote: Also, what I'm showing from the reports by the UN is that the Europe investment loss, if that is truly the only continent on which it is happening, is continuing to have a rather significant world impact. Investment in all areas still remains lower than the peaks each area established in the past. Given that this is a worldwide problem we're discussing, ignoring the global negative impact of one region is not a good idea. Again, with a global issue we want to look at the global total.
According to this UNEP report, global renewable energy investment in 2015 was a record high 286 billion USD... up from 234 in 2013 and 274 in 2014. That's increasing investment. Not decreasing. There were dips in 2009 and 2012/13 that were certainly related to economic problems, but the trend is sharply upwards. Meanwhile, coal investment over the same time period has plummeted to the single digits (e.g. 2 billion USD in 2014) and Peabody and Arch coal (the two largest private coal companies) both filed for bankruptcy this year.
Bloomberg: Wind and Solar are Crushing Fossil Fuels - Renewable investment beating fossil fuels by 2 to 1. Solar power production has doubled in size seven times (and wind four times) in the past 15 years... trends which put us less than 15 years from near 100% renewable power.
Crusinos wrote: Quark Blast wrote: "CBDunkerson wrote: Rather, {Google} concluded that no current technology could get us back down to 350 ppm atmospheric CO2 levels. Which is true.
Not being able to stop CO2 levels from growing is a completely different thing, which they apparently weren't looking to attempt.
Crusinos wrote: They found that not only would green technology not bring atmospheric CO2 levels down, but that green technologies wouldn't even slow the rise. We just made 400 ppm CO2 for the entire year (official numbers aren't in of course since we've got another month to go but no one expects there to be a drop below 400 ppm), so CO2 levels are not dropping despite the massive deployment of green tech.
I think no matter what we do globally that CO2 levels will see a significant decrease (and green tech a significant deployment) by about 2040. Paris Agreement notwithstanding one way or the other.
You know what 3 of the top 10 selling cars are in China?
SUVs, including #1; the other two may be 9th and 10th but they are also the fastest growing.
Ask yourself how many new cars are expected to hit the road** in India the next 5 years. That increase alone will put more CO2 into the atmosphere than any reduction we might see in America and Europe combined.
** The road being made from oil of course! This makes a lot of sense for China to do, from a pure infrastructure standpoint.
China and the U.S. have something in common: Massive amounts of land, while populations remain concentrated along the coastal areas. The result is a very large amount of territory that is, relatively, sparsely populated. Electric cars are not really that good of an idea at current for most of either nation simply due to that population spread.
This is part of what hinders the industry in both nations; from a pure infrastructure standpoint, it is practically impossible to build the necessary support... If most of the population is centered in certain regions, wouldn't that make electric cars and efficient public transit even more useful? I get that the infrastructure doesn't make sense for parts of Wyoming or such. But the vast majority of the coastal populations of California, New England, NY, Washington D.C. don't need to travel to Wyoming every week. You can improve and development infrastructure in one area a certain way without applying it evenly to the whole country.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
MMCJawa wrote: If most of the population is centered in certain regions, wouldn't that make electric cars and efficient public transit even more useful? I get that the infrastructure doesn't make sense for parts of Wyoming or such. But the vast majority of the coastal populations of California, New England, NY, Washington D.C. don't need to travel to Wyoming every week. You can improve and development infrastructure in one area a certain way without applying it evenly to the whole country. Quick answer : no, it wouldn't. People don't buy cars and whatnot on the basis of how long their median daily drive is, but on how long they expect the extremes to be.
I'll use myself for an example. My average daily commute is roughly 5km, in an urban area (but an urban area very underserved by public transportation). But about once a month, I need to drive about 500km, and about once every six months, I need to drive about 1000-1500. So I need a car that has a the capacity to travel 500-1000km in a few hours (e.g., without overnight charging) so I either need a range greater than any electric car can provide or I need to know that there will be sufficient refueling capacity along the way that I can travel the necessary distance. Right now, gasoline provides both capacities; electric cars are hard pressed to do 150 km on a full charge, and the infrastructure isn't there. And car rental charges very quickly add up, so that's not an option, either.
In a sense, China and the US both have the worst of both worlds; there's not enough customers in the wide-open spaces to make building infrastructure (like high-speed charging stations) economically viable, but there's a definite need for transportation among widely separated points. At the same time, the urban corridors are are designed around the convenience of private vehicle transportation (seriously, there aren't even sidewalks in front of my house, because people are not supposed to walk anywhere).
I could easily buy a second vehicle that was electric, with the idea that the gas machine sits in the garage three weeks a month while I commute with the golf cart. But that's not really an option for one-car families (such as singles).
Orfamay Quest wrote: MMCJawa wrote: If most of the population is centered in certain regions, wouldn't that make electric cars and efficient public transit even more useful? I get that the infrastructure doesn't make sense for parts of Wyoming or such. But the vast majority of the coastal populations of California, New England, NY, Washington D.C. don't need to travel to Wyoming every week. You can improve and development infrastructure in one area a certain way without applying it evenly to the whole country. Quick answer : no, it wouldn't. People don't buy cars and whatnot on the basis of how long their median daily drive is, but on how long they expect the extremes to be.
I'll use myself for an example. My average daily commute is roughly 5km, in an urban area (but an urban area very underserved by public transportation). But about once a month, I need to drive about 500km, and about once every six months, I need to drive about 1000-1500. So I need a car that has a the capacity to travel 500-1000km in a few hours (e.g., without overnight charging) so I either need a range greater than any electric car can provide or I need to know that there will be sufficient refueling capacity along the way that I can travel the necessary distance. Right now, gasoline provides both capacities; electric cars are hard pressed to do 150 km on a full charge, and the infrastructure isn't there. And car rental charges very quickly add up, so that's not an option, either.
In a sense, China and the US both have the worst of both worlds; there's not enough customers in the wide-open spaces to make building infrastructure (like high-speed charging stations) economically viable, but there's a definite need for transportation among widely separated points. At the same time, the urban corridors are are designed around the convenience of private vehicle transportation (seriously, there aren't even sidewalks in front of my house, because people are not supposed to walk anywhere).
I could easily buy a second vehicle that was electric, with the idea that the gas machine sits in the garage three weeks a month while I commute with the golf cart. But that's not really an option for one-car families (such as singles). That's certainly true and pretty much the situation I'm in. But that really has very little to do with the size of the country. The same argument could easily be applied to Europe, for example, especially given the easy border crossings.
I'd say the bigger problem in the US is the suburban & exurban lifestyle, leading to long commutes, along with the lack of public transportation outside the densest urban areas. I know plenty of people who couldn't use an electric car even for their daily commute.
Currently rentals are structured for daily use, not long trips. Might be able to change the pricing if they could focus on that market. Alternately decent public transportation linking hubs for those long trips could solve the problem.
I see electric vehicles spreading in three stages;
1: Early adopters - A small percentage of people willing to pay extra for novelty / bragging rights / drag racing wins (a big selling point for Tesla apparently) / whatever. We are currently in this stage.
2: Day to day vehicle - Families with multiple vehicles will very likely begin to buy an electric for the short daily commute and keep the SUV for longer range family trips. Likewise, big city cab companies, local post offices, pizza delivery stores, and everyone else that does a lot of short range driving and seldom/never needs long range would likely switch over. We're right on the cusp of this stage with reasonable mass market electric vehicles starting to come out.
3: New technology - Batteries with higher capacity and faster charging AND self-driving vehicles are well into the R&D phase and moving towards mass production in under ten years. They will thus likely have overlapping roll outs. As electric vehicles begin to meet and then exceed fossil fuel vehicles on range, 'refueling time', and purchase cost (they already have lower operating costs) there will be a natural transition. Self-driving vehicles will make point to point car rental much less expensive and drive mass declines in individual car ownership... people will call a self-driving car with their smartphone when they need one... and fuel burning vehicles would only be dispatched in the tiny percentage of trips that are too long range for current electrics.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
CBDunkerson wrote: I see electric vehicles spreading in three stages;
1: Early adopters - A small percentage of people willing to pay extra for novelty / bragging rights / drag racing wins (a big selling point for Tesla apparently) / whatever. We are currently in this stage.
2: Day to day vehicle - Families with multiple vehicles will very likely begin to buy an electric for the short daily commute and keep the SUV for longer range family trips. Likewise, big city cab companies, local post offices, pizza delivery stores, and everyone else that does a lot of short range driving and seldom/never needs long range would likely switch over. We're right on the cusp of this stage with reasonable mass market electric vehicles starting to come out.
Just to point out that hte cabs & delivery vehicles don't really work as electrics. The individual drives are short range, but they drive a lot without the time off to recharge. Those vehicles tend to put on the miles really fast.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: Orfamay Quest wrote: MMCJawa wrote: If most of the population is centered in certain regions, wouldn't that make electric cars and efficient public transit even more useful? I get that the infrastructure doesn't make sense for parts of Wyoming or such. But the vast majority of the coastal populations of California, New England, NY, Washington D.C. don't need to travel to Wyoming every week. You can improve and development infrastructure in one area a certain way without applying it evenly to the whole country. Quick answer : no, it wouldn't. People don't buy cars and whatnot on the basis of how long their median daily drive is, but on how long they expect the extremes to be.
I'll use myself for an example. My average daily commute is roughly 5km, in an urban area (but an urban area very underserved by public transportation). But about once a month, I need to drive about 500km, and about once every six months, I need to drive about 1000-1500. So I need a car that has a the capacity to travel 500-1000km in a few hours (e.g., without overnight charging) so I either need a range greater than any electric car can provide or I need to know that there will be sufficient refueling capacity along the way that I can travel the necessary distance. Right now, gasoline provides both capacities; electric cars are hard pressed to do 150 km on a full charge, and the infrastructure isn't there. And car rental charges very quickly add up, so that's not an option, either.
In a sense, China and the US both have the worst of both worlds; there's not enough customers in the wide-open spaces to make building infrastructure (like high-speed charging stations) economically viable, but there's a definite need for transportation among widely separated points. That's certainly true and pretty much the situation I'm in. But that really has very little to do with the size of the country. The same argument could easily be applied to Europe, for example, especially given the easy border crossings.
I'd say the bigger problem in the US is the suburban & exurban lifestyle, leading to long commutes, along with the lack of public transportation outside the densest urban areas. I know plenty of people who couldn't use an electric car even for their daily commute.
Currently rentals are structured for daily use, not long trips. Might be able to change the pricing if they could focus on that market. Alternately decent public transportation linking hubs for those long trips could solve the problem. Although Europe is certainly big, it's not big and empty like most of the US is (and the parts that are, in fact, empty, are the areas where electric cars would be the most problematic). As you point out, decent public transportation linking hubs solves much of the issues, because you don't need to drive from point A to point B -- but Europe has exactly that in its rail system, because almost everywhere in Europe is close enough to a major city that it's worth running a rail line there and building a station.
(Seriously. discounting Russia, Scandinavia [broadly defined], and the Baltics, there's no country in Europe with fewer than 50 people/km^2. Fewer than half of the US states are that densly populated.)
People don't take trains through Wyoming because there are no tracks through Wyoming; there are no tracks through Wyoming because there is little need for people to ship goods to Wyoming, so we're back to using the Interstate system instead.
CBDunkerson wrote: Crusinos wrote: Again, the CO2 emissions can still be explained by economic effects. Even though there has been economic growth since both economic downturns, it has been extremely far from even. That lack of it being spread out recently had a very massive impact on the U.S. Distribution doesn't matter. We're dealing with a global problem, not a regional one. Local impact of economics very much does matter. It influences not only local spending, but exercise of decision making as far as representation of that area in any national decision making as far as anything economics-related is concerned, including the aspects that impact green energy. This can create problems when people make that representation choice based entirely on who sounds like they best represent the pocketbooks, even if that representation comes at the cost of decreased green energy funding.
Quote: Global production, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions have always previously moved in lockstep. To have more production you need to consume more energy and that meant burning more fuels... until now. This is both scientifically and historically erroneous. I advise you to read the IPCC reports and the science documents they cite on the matter. In both human and geological history, this is a recent phenomenon.
It has been true for the entire time of most nations that currently exist, which is what I think you intended.
Quote: From 2013 to 2016 global energy consumption went up. Global CO2 emissions did not. We produced more energy without releasing more CO2. Global energy production got less CO2 intensive. Our energy production got 'greener'... by definition. The only 'economic effect' at play was lower renewable energy prices driving more renewable energy deployment. You're confusing correlation with causation. Especially since, by your own source, energy [u]production[/u] only increased 0.8%.
If you compare 2014 and 2015 on your map for your own source, you'll notice that several nations saw an energy usage decrease. All of them being nations that suffered economic downturns in 2015. That alone shows that the factor is economic, not green energy.
Your own source disproves you.
Quote: Also, what I'm showing from the reports by the UN is that the Europe investment loss, if that is truly the only continent on which it is happening, is continuing to have a rather significant world impact. Investment in all areas still remains lower than the peaks each area established in the past. Given that this is a worldwide problem we're discussing, ignoring the global negative impact of one region is not a good idea. Again, with a global issue we want to look at the global total.
According to this UNEP report, global renewable energy investment in 2015 was a record high 286 billion USD... up from 234 in 2013 and 274 in 2014. That's increasing investment. Not decreasing. There were dips in 2009 and 2012/13 that were certainly related to economic problems, but the trend is sharply upwards. Meanwhile, coal investment over the same time period has plummeted to the single digits (e.g. 2 billion USD in 2014) and Peabody and Arch coal (the two largest private coal companies) both filed for bankruptcy this year. It helps if you read your own sources instead of just glancing at them. And stop being so short-sighted as to only look at two years. We didn't make this climate mess with only two years of work, so two years of applying fixes won't make an impact.
You just cited the same report I got the information on investments still being below their records from. And since we have to take the whole amount of time into consideration, since planetary climates are incredibly slow to adjust to changes by human standards, we can't ignore that. Despite the increase from the prior year, that very report reveals that every single investment area is still in a net loss compared to where they had been in the past.
Quote: Bloomberg: Wind and Solar are Crushing Fossil Fuels - Renewable investment beating fossil fuels by 2 to 1. Solar power production has doubled in size seven times (and wind four times) in the past 15 years... trends which put us less than 15 years from near 100% renewable power. Right. Now, let's compare that shoddy journalism to the actual use of renewable energy. And... fossil fuels remain king according to the actual data. Despite reduction in investment and some nations actually managing to move away from them, the majority of the world's energy is still produced by fossil fuels.
Bloomberg produces nice graphs, but they tend to be quite unreliable when it comes to getting a picture of what's really going on. Kinda like Fox News.
CBDunkerson wrote: I see electric vehicles spreading in three stages;
1: Early adopters - A small percentage of people willing to pay extra for novelty / bragging rights / drag racing wins (a big selling point for Tesla apparently) / whatever. We are currently in this stage.
2: Day to day vehicle - Families with multiple vehicles will very likely begin to buy an electric for the short daily commute and keep the SUV for longer range family trips. Likewise, big city cab companies, local post offices, pizza delivery stores, and everyone else that does a lot of short range driving and seldom/never needs long range would likely switch over. We're right on the cusp of this stage with reasonable mass market electric vehicles starting to come out.
3: New technology - Batteries with higher capacity and faster charging AND self-driving vehicles are well into the R&D phase and moving towards mass production in under ten years. They will thus likely have overlapping roll outs. As electric vehicles begin to meet and then exceed fossil fuel vehicles on range, 'refueling time', and purchase cost (they already have lower operating costs) there will be a natural transition. Self-driving vehicles will make point to point car rental much less expensive and drive mass declines in individual car ownership... people will call a self-driving car with their smartphone when they need one... and fuel burning vehicles would only be dispatched in the tiny percentage of trips that are too long range for current electrics.
#1 is more accomplished in nations like the U.S. and China through expensive sports cars. An electric car is nice and shiny, but when you can't power it up anywhere for most of where you have to go, it becomes useless even as a status symbol.
#2 assumes a Europe-style short commute. Much of the U.S. and China don't have that simply due to the amount of empty space. That empty space also makes infrastructure incredibly difficult to build; there are part of the U.S. where paved roads only arrived recently and things like reliable cell service or even a sewer system simply don't exist. Often, these areas only have a gas station because a local decided to build one. Building the infrastructure necessary for electric cars is still close around half a century away for these areas, and that's assuming heavy investment in infrastructure. These are the areas where heat of a winter is often still wood-powered.
#3 assumes an even society-wide adoption of technology that both the U.S. and China have never seen at any point in their history. An issue that even nations in Europe struggle with. While that may be what happens for the coastal areas, remember that much of the inland areas is going to be a minimum of fifty years behind just due to the lack of infrastructure.
The U.S. and China are not going to get rid of fossil fuel vehicles on any time scale close to within your lifetime. It's simply not physically possible.
Yes, the US and China COULD get rid of fossil fuel vehicles at any time. The issue is (short term) cost. It is (very, very, very) expensive to make that change and there are too many special interest groups that are fighting it. But it COULD be done. Just money and engineering. That is all.
Sharoth wrote: Yes, the US and China COULD get rid of fossil fuel vehicles at any time. The issue is (short term) cost. It is (very, very, very) expensive to make that change and there are too many special interest groups that are fighting it. But it COULD be done. Just money and engineering. That is all. There's also a raw material and construction time issue. If we decided we didn't give a damn about the environment at all, it could be done in a short amount of time easily.
Yes, some of those special interest groups are environmentalists. Typically, the same people who thought replacing paper bags with plastic was environmentally friendly.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Another thing about renewables that shows up in many of these linked reports but no one here is talking about.
Hydro power.
Hydro power in China, the USA and elsewhere is typically generated from enormous dams that have ancillary needs which impact the environment; and said needs stretch into global impacts. Fisheries being the most obviously impaired downstream* result of mega dam construction.
This problem is similar to the rare earth elements discussion we had up thread. Sure "rare earths" are actually abundant (except one) but mining them and processing them is very costly to the environment and the role of rare earths in "green tech" (like hydro power in renewables) needs to be explicitly called out.
There is no free lunch. Not till we get nuclear fusion reliably contained in something the size of a stadium or smaller.
* See what I did there?
thejeff wrote: Just to point out that hte cabs & delivery vehicles don't really work as electrics. The individual drives are short range, but they drive a lot without the time off to recharge. Those vehicles tend to put on the miles really fast. Everything I can find suggests that taxis average between 100 and 200 miles per day depending on location. That's within the capabilities of current electric vehicle technology (especially as they get better mileage in 'city' conditions than they do on the highway). Most local delivery services (e.g. post office or pizza) don't come anywhere close to that.
Crusinos wrote: Local impact of economics very much does matter. It influences not only local spending... Please explain how sub-components invalidate the total. That is, total energy production is up. Total CO2 emissions are not. How does that NOT prove that global energy use has gotten less CO2 intensive?
Quote: This is both scientifically and historically erroneous. I advise you to read the IPCC reports and the science documents they cite on the matter. In both human and geological history, this is a recent phenomenon.
It has been true for the entire time of most nations that currently exist, which is what I think you intended.
Please explain when exactly you think it was prior to the existence of most current nations that "global production, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions" were not directly linked to each other.
"This is relevant to climate change mitigation, since a fairly robust stylized fact of historical development, consistent with both cross-country and time-series data, is the close correlation between economic growth and carbon emissions."
- IPCC Third Assessment Report
Apparently this IPCC report should read itself to see that it doesn't say that.
As for pre-human geological history... yes it DOES stand to reason that there was no correlation between human production, human energy consumption, and human CO2 emissions before there were any humans.
CBDunkerson wrote: From 2013 to 2016 global energy consumption went up. Global CO2 emissions did not. We produced more energy without releasing more CO2. Global energy production got less CO2 intensive. Our energy production got 'greener'... by definition.Crusinos wrote: You're confusing correlation with causation. Especially since, by your own source, energy [u]production[/u] only increased 0.8%.
If you compare 2014 and 2015 on your map for your own source, you'll notice that several nations saw an energy usage decrease. All of them being nations that suffered economic downturns in 2015. That alone shows that the factor is economic, not green energy.
Your own source disproves you.
What?
How does pointing at individual nations that had production declines 'disprove' that the planet as a whole had increased production without increased emissions?
Production was down in Cleveland, therefore the global decrease in CO2 per unit energy does not exist?
Quote: It helps if you read your own sources instead of just glancing at them. And stop being so short-sighted as to only look at two years. We didn't make this climate mess with only two years of work, so two years of applying fixes won't make an impact. It has been a maxim that economic growth requires increased CO2 emissions... I can find examples of people making that claim in this very thread. The data shows that this is no longer true. That it has only been untrue for a few years does not change the fact that it has been dis-proven by events. We have economic growth without emissions growth. That's simply reality... neither 'short sighted' nor 'long sighted' because it isn't predictive at all.
Quote: You just cited the same report I got the information on investments still being below their records from. And since we have to take the whole amount of time into consideration, since planetary climates are incredibly slow to adjust to changes by human standards, we can't ignore that. Investments in Europe being below their records? Yes, so what? Global investments ARE NOT. I showed the numbers. 2015 had the highest global renewable energy investment ever.
Yes... let's take the whole amount of time into consideration... AND the entire planet too.
Quote: Despite the increase from the prior year, that very report reveals that every single investment area is still in a net loss compared to where they had been in the past. Where? I am looking and I see nothing of the kind. I already cited numbers showing the opposite. So, you tell me... which year does that report say had MORE than 286 billion USD global renewable energy investment?
Quote: Now, let's compare that shoddy journalism to the actual use of renewable energy. And... fossil fuels remain king according to the actual data. So... your argument is; 'Production of energy from fossil fuels is greater than that from renewable energy... therefore Bloomberg's reporting on INVESTMENT in renewable energy being double that in fossil fuels is shoddy'.
That's shoddy logic, not shoddy reporting.
Quote: Bloomberg produces nice graphs, but they tend to be quite unreliable when it comes to getting a picture of what's really going on. So... you can cite some source which contradicts Bloomberg's findings? Renewable power ISN'T getting more investment than fossil fuels? It ISN'T doubling in production every few years? Coal HASN'T been declining in wealthy nations for a decade?
Because I can cite numerous other sources for all of those facts.
Quote: #2 assumes a Europe-style short commute. Much of the U.S. and China don't have that simply due to the amount of empty space. I don't know about China, but 90% of US drivers travel less than 50 miles per day. So yes... most of the US does have short commutes well within the capabilities of current electric vehicles.
Quote: That empty space also makes infrastructure incredibly difficult to build; there are part of the U.S. where paved roads only arrived recently and things like reliable cell service or even a sewer system simply don't exist. Often, these areas only have a gas station because a local decided to build one. Building the infrastructure necessary for electric cars is still close around half a century away for these areas, and that's assuming heavy investment in infrastructure. These are the areas where heat of a winter is often still wood-powered. You're talking about a tiny percentage of the country. The 'infrastructure' needed for electric vehicles is... electricity. Which 98% of the US has. That 2% isn't going to halt all roll out of electric vehicles to the rest of the country.
Quote: #3 assumes an even society-wide adoption of technology that both the U.S. and China have never seen at any point in their history. An issue that even nations in Europe struggle with. While that may be what happens for the coastal areas, remember that much of the inland areas is going to be a minimum of fifty years behind just due to the lack of infrastructure. Again... electricity is not rare in the US. Even in rural areas. If anything, it will be easier to set up a 'mom and pop' charging station than it was to do so for gas stations... all you need is a plot of land near a road and connected to the electrical grid.
Quote: The U.S. and China are not going to get rid of fossil fuel vehicles on any time scale close to within your lifetime. It's simply not physically possible. ALL fossil fuel vehicles? No. There will be specialty applications and collectors keeping those around indefinitely.
However, the vast majority of fossil fuel vehicles will be gone within 25 years. That may or may not be 'within my lifetime'.
Crusinos wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: I see electric vehicles spreading in three stages;
1: Early adopters - A small percentage of people willing to pay extra for novelty / bragging rights / drag racing wins (a big selling point for Tesla apparently) / whatever. We are currently in this stage.
2: Day to day vehicle - Families with multiple vehicles will very likely begin to buy an electric for the short daily commute and keep the SUV for longer range family trips. Likewise, big city cab companies, local post offices, pizza delivery stores, and everyone else that does a lot of short range driving and seldom/never needs long range would likely switch over. We're right on the cusp of this stage with reasonable mass market electric vehicles starting to come out.
3: New technology - Batteries with higher capacity and faster charging AND self-driving vehicles are well into the R&D phase and moving towards mass production in under ten years. They will thus likely have overlapping roll outs. As electric vehicles begin to meet and then exceed fossil fuel vehicles on range, 'refueling time', and purchase cost (they already have lower operating costs) there will be a natural transition. Self-driving vehicles will make point to point car rental much less expensive and drive mass declines in individual car ownership... people will call a self-driving car with their smartphone when they need one... and fuel burning vehicles would only be dispatched in the tiny percentage of trips that are too long range for current electrics.
#1 is more accomplished in nations like the U.S. and China through expensive sports cars. An electric car is nice and shiny, but when you can't power it up anywhere for most of where you have to go, it becomes useless even as a status symbol.
#2 assumes a Europe-style short commute. Much of the U.S. and China don't have that simply due to the amount of empty space. That empty space also makes infrastructure incredibly difficult to build; there are part of the U.S. where paved roads only arrived recently and things like reliable cell service or even a sewer system simply don't exist. Often, these areas only have a gas station because a local decided to build one. Building the infrastructure necessary for electric cars is still close around half a century away for these areas, and that's assuming heavy investment in infrastructure. These are the areas where heat of a winter is often still wood-powered.
#3 assumes an even society-wide adoption of technology that both the U.S. and China have never seen at any point in their history. An issue that even nations in Europe struggle with. While that may be what happens for the coastal areas, remember that much of the inland areas is going to be a minimum of fifty years behind just due to the lack of infrastructure.
The U.S. and China are not going to get rid of fossil fuel vehicles on any time scale close to within your lifetime. It's simply not physically possible. 1) Different crowd, different status symbols. And every can power it up for relatively short trips, so it's a perfectly good status symbol.
It's like having that Porsche that you only drive in good weather to avoid wear and tear.
2) As we said above, "empty space" is largely irrelevant. Sure, the people who live 100 miles from anywhere don't buy them, but pretty much by definition, there aren't a lot of people in the empty spaces. Nor do the vast majority of people commute across them.
If the average commute is longer in the US than in Europe it's not because of the land mass or the vast empty spaces. Think urban planning. Think suburbs and exurbs and the legacy of white flight.
Sure, there are rural spaces where electric vehicles won't make sense and won't be adopted until and unless the tech gets much better - but most people don't live in those spaces. There's enough others to make the tech profitable and to start benefiting from scale.
Again, this isn't "We can ban the gas car right now", this is "the next stage in spreading electric car use". That second car for the family, so you still have something for road trips is probably the big market for the near future.
3) I'm not sure what your objection is. Unless it's again that you think he's saying it's going to be 100% in the foreseeable future. Which I think is the big conflict here: You're thinking "get rid of fossil fuel cars", we're thinking "how do electric cars gain market share".
The first is a very long term goal and may never happen - at least for some niches. The second is in progress and can accelerate.
CBDunkerson wrote: Crusinos wrote: Local impact of economics very much does matter. It influences not only local spending... Please explain how sub-components invalidate the total. That is, total energy production is up. Total CO2 emissions are not. How does that NOT prove that global energy use has gotten less CO2 intensive? It's too short term and relies entirely on confusing correlation and causation. For human energy usage, you need at least a decade to see a true trend of change. Anything else can easily be temporary variations in human behavior.
This is 101 stuff.
Quote: Quote: This is both scientifically and historically erroneous. I advise you to read the IPCC reports and the science documents they cite on the matter. In both human and geological history, this is a recent phenomenon.
It has been true for the entire time of most nations that currently exist, which is what I think you intended.
Please explain when exactly you think it was prior to the existence of most current nations that "global production, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions" were not directly linked to each other.
"This is relevant to climate change mitigation, since a fairly robust stylized fact of historical development, consistent with both cross-country and time-series data, is the close correlation between economic growth and carbon emissions."
- IPCC Third Assessment Report
Apparently this IPCC report should read itself to see that it doesn't say that.
As for pre-human geological history... yes it DOES stand to reason that there was no correlation between human production, human energy consumption, and human CO2 emissions before there were any humans.
Except their discussion of Paleoclimate makes it clear that this phenomenon showed up one hundred years ago: "The concentration of CO2 is now known accurately for the past 650,000 years from antarctic ice cores. During this time, CO2 concentration varied between a low of 180 ppm during cold glacial times and a high of 300 ppm during warm interglacials. Over the past century, it rapidly increased well out of this range, and is now 379 ppm (see Chapter 2). For comparison, the approximately 80-ppm rise in CO2 concentration at the end of the past ice ages generally took over 5,000 years."
Keep in mind a lot of nations were founded over the last century.
And the economic situation: That will be revealed shortly.
Quote: What?
How does pointing at individual nations that had production declines 'disprove' that the planet as a whole had increased production without increased emissions?
Production was down in Cleveland, therefore the global decrease in CO2 per unit energy does not exist?
How about the fact your own source says the total global increase in energy production was only 0.8%? Not total for any individual nation, but total global energy production. And taking a look at the actual image, you don't see a jump in green energy usage across the board; you see a few nations making a jump, most staying steady, and a few falling back.
Then a simple search on all of the nations that fell back shows exactly what they had in common. This isn't one local event, but dozens of local events adding up to a global impact.
Quote: It has been a maxim that economic growth requires increased CO2 emissions... I can find examples of people making that claim in this very thread. The data shows that this is no longer true. That it has only been untrue for a few years does not change the fact that it has been dis-proven by events. We have economic growth without emissions growth. That's simply reality... neither 'short sighted' nor 'long sighted' because it isn't predictive at all. The data shows nothing at all that cannot be explained by temporary economic factors. That is because human energy usage is not a constant, but varies from year to year. And it can even have very short trends in lower energy usage that coincide with impacts upon money access. What is a true sign of improvement is when it continues for ten years straight, even if some nations with lower power end up with an economic recovery; at that point, you generally are looking at something lingering that is likely to have a continued impact.
And finally... your "level for three years" is not backed by the data. Notice how the graph starts to bend upward toward 2016? Right after the 2015 economic downturn wears off? The global graph shows something similar.
It was a fluke. Not a sign of any impact of green technology. But simple economics in action.
Not addressing the rest because I said all I need to say.
thejeff wrote: Crusinos wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: I see electric vehicles spreading in three stages;
1: Early adopters - A small percentage of people willing to pay extra for novelty / bragging rights / drag racing wins (a big selling point for Tesla apparently) / whatever. We are currently in this stage.
2: Day to day vehicle - Families with multiple vehicles will very likely begin to buy an electric for the short daily commute and keep the SUV for longer range family trips. Likewise, big city cab companies, local post offices, pizza delivery stores, and everyone else that does a lot of short range driving and seldom/never needs long range would likely switch over. We're right on the cusp of this stage with reasonable mass market electric vehicles starting to come out.
3: New technology - Batteries with higher capacity and faster charging AND self-driving vehicles are well into the R&D phase and moving towards mass production in under ten years. They will thus likely have overlapping roll outs. As electric vehicles begin to meet and then exceed fossil fuel vehicles on range, 'refueling time', and purchase cost (they already have lower operating costs) there will be a natural transition. Self-driving vehicles will make point to point car rental much less expensive and drive mass declines in individual car ownership... people will call a self-driving car with their smartphone when they need one... and fuel burning vehicles would only be dispatched in the tiny percentage of trips that are too long range for current electrics.
#1 is more accomplished in nations like the U.S. and China through expensive sports cars. An electric car is nice and shiny, but when you can't power it up anywhere for most of where you have to go, it becomes useless even as a status symbol.
#2 assumes a Europe-style short commute. Much of the U.S. and China don't have that simply due to the amount of empty space. That empty space also makes infrastructure incredibly difficult to build; there are part of the U.S. where 1) Different crowd, different status symbols. And every can power it up for relatively short trips, so it's a perfectly good status symbol.
It's like having that Porsche that you only drive in good weather to avoid wear and tear.
2) As we said above, "empty space" is largely irrelevant. Sure, the people who live 100 miles from anywhere don't buy them, but pretty much by definition, there aren't a lot of people in the empty spaces. Nor do the vast majority of people commute across them.
If the average commute is longer in the US than in Europe it's not because of the land mass or the vast empty spaces. Think urban planning. Think suburbs and exurbs and the legacy of white flight.
Sure, there are rural spaces where electric vehicles won't make sense and won't be adopted until and unless the tech gets much better - but most people don't live in those spaces. There's enough others to make the tech profitable and to start benefiting from scale.
Again, this isn't "We can ban the gas car right now", this is "the next stage in spreading electric car use". That second car for the family, so you still have something for road trips is probably the big market for the near future.
3) I'm not sure what your objection is. Unless it's again that you think he's saying it's going to be 100% in the foreseeable future. Which I think is the big conflict here: You're thinking "get rid of fossil fuel cars", we're thinking "how do electric cars gain market share".
The first is a very long term goal and may never happen - at least for some niches. The second is in progress and can accelerate. 1) Good point.
2) Last I checked, only 50% of the American population lived along the coasts. That means that half the nation doesn't. So, despite how spread out they are, numerically they add up to an extremely significant portion of the population.
I'm a lot more iffy on China's population spread, but the last time I was there it seemed similar. I'll have to check that sometime.
3) I'm saying it's going to take a lot longer than people are thinking it will for the technology to spread as far as needed. But, electric cars are only intended to be a temporary solution at best. Given it's taken some parts of the U.S. seventy years to get paved roads, I think we're looking at the very real possibility that electric cars will be phased out for another technology before it even spreads to those areas.
Crusinos wrote: 2) Last I checked, only 50% of the American population lived along the coasts. That means that half the nation doesn't. So, despite how spread out they are, numerically they add up to an extremely significant portion of the population.
I'm a lot more iffy on China's population spread, but the last time I was there it seemed similar. I'll have to check that sometime.
3) I'm saying it's going to take a lot longer than people are thinking it will for the technology to spread as far as needed. But, electric cars are only intended to be a temporary solution at best. Given it's taken some parts of the U.S. seventy years to get paved roads, I think we're looking at the very real possibility that electric cars will be phased out for another technology before it even spreads to those areas.
There are cities and urban areas not on the actual coasts.
According to UN data the US is about 80% urbanized.
thejeff wrote: Crusinos wrote: 2) Last I checked, only 50% of the American population lived along the coasts. That means that half the nation doesn't. So, despite how spread out they are, numerically they add up to an extremely significant portion of the population.
I'm a lot more iffy on China's population spread, but the last time I was there it seemed similar. I'll have to check that sometime.
3) I'm saying it's going to take a lot longer than people are thinking it will for the technology to spread as far as needed. But, electric cars are only intended to be a temporary solution at best. Given it's taken some parts of the U.S. seventy years to get paved roads, I think we're looking at the very real possibility that electric cars will be phased out for another technology before it even spreads to those areas.
There are cities and urban areas not on the actual coasts.
According to UN data the US is about 80% urbanized. I live in the fourth largest city in my state. For much of the city, the difference between urban and rural is academic. If I want to go deer hunting, I just need to sit quietly in my backyard with a shotgun. And I'm not near the wilderness. I also think they finally gave up on the skeletal remains of the bus system; not seen any bus that isn't servicing a school in over a year.
While the graph represents classification based purely on living area, it doesn't reflect effective reality. Effective reality is that a number of those cities are rural, and really should be treated as such when discussing issues of transportation.
Crusinos wrote: thejeff wrote: Crusinos wrote: 2) Last I checked, only 50% of the American population lived along the coasts. That means that half the nation doesn't. So, despite how spread out they are, numerically they add up to an extremely significant portion of the population.
I'm a lot more iffy on China's population spread, but the last time I was there it seemed similar. I'll have to check that sometime.
3) I'm saying it's going to take a lot longer than people are thinking it will for the technology to spread as far as needed. But, electric cars are only intended to be a temporary solution at best. Given it's taken some parts of the U.S. seventy years to get paved roads, I think we're looking at the very real possibility that electric cars will be phased out for another technology before it even spreads to those areas.
There are cities and urban areas not on the actual coasts.
According to UN data the US is about 80% urbanized. I live in the fourth largest city in my state. For much of the city, the difference between urban and rural is academic. If I want to go deer hunting, I just need to sit quietly in my backyard with a shotgun. And I'm not near the wilderness. I also think they finally gave up on the skeletal remains of the bus system; not seen any bus that isn't servicing a school in over a year.
While the graph represents classification based purely on living area, it doesn't reflect effective reality. Effective reality is that a number of those cities are rural, and really should be treated as such when discussing issues of transportation. So? I live in a suburb. I have deer and turkey wandering through my yard regularly (though shooting in my backyard would be discouraged by the neighbors).
I also live 10 minutes from work, closer than that to pretty much any shopping I need and maybe 20 to the city center (not counting rush hour).
I could easily do about 90% of my driving with an electric car. If I wasn't single, I'd definitely push for 1 electric & 1 gas/hybrid for longer trips.
The difference between urban & rural when it comes to transportation has nothing to do with deer in your backyard. It's about travel distance.
And seriously? First you handwave all the coasts as urban and everything else as rural and now you're dismissing actual data based on "my city isn't really urban"? Why am I bothering?
thejeff wrote: Crusinos wrote: thejeff wrote: Crusinos wrote: 2) Last I checked, only 50% of the American population lived along the coasts. That means that half the nation doesn't. So, despite how spread out they are, numerically they add up to an extremely significant portion of the population.
I'm a lot more iffy on China's population spread, but the last time I was there it seemed similar. I'll have to check that sometime.
3) I'm saying it's going to take a lot longer than people are thinking it will for the technology to spread as far as needed. But, electric cars are only intended to be a temporary solution at best. Given it's taken some parts of the U.S. seventy years to get paved roads, I think we're looking at the very real possibility that electric cars will be phased out for another technology before it even spreads to those areas.
There are cities and urban areas not on the actual coasts.
According to UN data the US is about 80% urbanized. I live in the fourth largest city in my state. For much of the city, the difference between urban and rural is academic. If I want to go deer hunting, I just need to sit quietly in my backyard with a shotgun. And I'm not near the wilderness. I also think they finally gave up on the skeletal remains of the bus system; not seen any bus that isn't servicing a school in over a year.
While the graph represents classification based purely on living area, it doesn't reflect effective reality. Effective reality is that a number of those cities are rural, and really should be treated as such when discussing issues of transportation. So? I live in a suburb. I have deer and turkey wandering through my yard regularly (though shooting in my backyard would be discouraged by the neighbors).
I also live 10 minutes from work, closer than that to pretty much any shopping I need and maybe 20 to the city center (not counting rush hour).
I could easily do about 90% of my driving with an electric car. If I wasn't single, I'd definitely push for 1 electric & 1 gas/hybrid for longer trips.
The difference between urban & rural when it comes to transportation has nothing to do with deer in your backyard. It's about travel distance.
And seriously? First you handwave all the coasts as urban and everything else as rural and now you're dismissing actual data based on "my city isn't really urban"? Why am I bothering? You're bothering because I never said it wasn't doable?
I said it's going to take a lot more work, time, and investment than the coastal areas will need. And pointed out electric cars are likely to be phased out before that work is completed.
We both agree it is possible, but disagree on the time and how much effort is going to be needed in some areas. That's it.
Even then, I am certain you can come up with a stance I cannot refute. Just off the top of my head, I can point out the job situation in those areas could be solved this way. Even if the project is never completed, simply trying to going to require employing a lot of people who are not currently employed. It won't be quick, since we still need to prevent environmental damage, but it may still help alleviate a significant source of the issue by making certain people who could benefit the most from switching over to something like solar have the income to do it.
Of course, that's going to cost taxpayers money. A lot of money. Which is why, despite it being beneficial, I don't think anyone would listen to that argument.
The main problem with this isn't true impossibility of making the effort. It's that you have to set out with the idea you're going to spend a lot of time and energy on a project that will likely not see fruition before it is defunct, and even the massive good side-effects for both economics and environment are not enough to make that anything less than an extremely difficult idea to sell. I've tried.
thejeff wrote: Crusinos wrote: thejeff wrote: Crusinos wrote: 2) Last I checked, only 50% of the American population lived along the coasts. That means that half the nation doesn't. So, despite how spread out they are, numerically they add up to an extremely significant portion of the population.
I'm a lot more iffy on China's population spread, but the last time I was there it seemed similar. I'll have to check that sometime.
3) I'm saying it's going to take a lot longer than people are thinking it will for the technology to spread as far as needed. But, electric cars are only intended to be a temporary solution at best. Given it's taken some parts of the U.S. seventy years to get paved roads, I think we're looking at the very real possibility that electric cars will be phased out for another technology before it even spreads to those areas.
There are cities and urban areas not on the actual coasts.
According to UN data the US is about 80% urbanized. I live in the fourth largest city in my state. For much of the city, the difference between urban and rural is academic. If I want to go deer hunting, I just need to sit quietly in my backyard with a shotgun. And I'm not near the wilderness. I also think they finally gave up on the skeletal remains of the bus system; not seen any bus that isn't servicing a school in over a year.
While the graph represents classification based purely on living area, it doesn't reflect effective reality. Effective reality is that a number of those cities are rural, and really should be treated as such when discussing issues of transportation. snip... And seriously? First you handwave all the coasts as urban and everything else as rural and now you're dismissing actual data based on "my city isn't really urban"? Why am I bothering? Is that latter one an overhead question?
If so, I'd wager you have nothing better to do.*
* that's usually what brings me here
Crusinos wrote: It's too short term and relies entirely on confusing correlation and causation. For human energy usage, you need at least a decade to see a true trend of change. Anything else can easily be temporary variations in human behavior. That's relevant for predicting a trend. Not for observing current conditions.
Currently, we can see data which shows that global energy consumption has risen while global CO2 emissions have remained flat. Personally, I don't think that is the start of a trend which will continue. Rather, I expect CO2 emissions to begin decreasing within a few years. Energy consumption will surely continue growing overall, but may fall in the short term if there is another economic downturn.
So yes, I'd have been wrong to claim that just a few years indicated a trend which will continue... but as I haven't DONE that... it continues to be observed reality that global production and energy consumption remain coupled, but CO2 emissions are not.
CBDunkerson wrote: Please explain when exactly you think it was prior to the existence of most current nations that "global production, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions" were not directly linked to each other. Quote: Except their discussion of Paleoclimate makes it clear that this phenomenon showed up one hundred years ago: "The concentration of CO2 is now known accurately for the past 650,000 years from antarctic ice cores. During this time, CO2 concentration varied between a low of 180 ppm during cold glacial times and a high of 300 ppm during warm interglacials. Over the past century, it rapidly increased well out of this range, and is now 379 ppm (see Chapter 2). For comparison, the approximately 80-ppm rise in CO2 concentration at the end of the past ice ages generally took over 5,000 years." I see absolutely nothing in that text which is in ANY way related to global economic production or human energy consumption.
Yes, CO2 has increased rapidly over the past century... so have economic production and energy consumption.
Quote: How about the fact your own source says the total global increase in energy production was only 0.8%? Irrelevant?
Up is up. Not down. Energy consumption is up.
That said, what time period are you citing for 0.8% growth? That's too high for 2014 to 2015, but too low for 2013 to 2015.
Quote: And taking a look at the actual image, you don't see a jump in green energy usage across the board; you see a few nations making a jump, most staying steady, and a few falling back.
Then a simple search on all of the nations that fell back shows exactly what they had in common. This isn't one local event, but dozens of local events adding up to a global impact.
What global impact? That global energy consumption hasn't grown EVEN MORE? Sure, that's true... economic problems in various countries have resulted in global energy consumption growing less than it would have otherwise.
However, global energy consumption still grew. Global CO2 emissions did not. We produced more energy without more emissions. Our energy production got 'greener' / less CO2 intensive.
Quote: 2) Last I checked, only 50% of the American population lived along the coasts. That means that half the nation doesn't. So, despite how spread out they are, numerically they add up to an extremely significant portion of the population. According to the 2010 census, 81% of the US population lives in urban areas. Not all near the coasts, but our cities do all have electricity.
Quote: But, electric cars are only intended to be a temporary solution at best. I've never heard that suggested before. Rather, most analyses seem to think we'll switch to electric cars and then keep improving the technology and infrastructure for them indefinitely.
Quote: Given it's taken some parts of the U.S. seventy years to get paved roads, I think we're looking at the very real possibility that electric cars will be phased out for another technology before it even spreads to those areas. There isn't anywhere in the contiguous United States you can get to with a gasoline powered vehicle that a Tesla cannot also go to (and back from) right now.
Basically, the technology is already available to anyone in the country who can afford it.
CBDunkerson wrote: Basically, the technology is already available to anyone in the country who can afford it. That's not exactly a resounding cheer for EV's now is it?
Quark Blast wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: Basically, the technology is already available to anyone in the country who can afford it. That's not exactly a resounding cheer for EV's now is it? Which... would be why I said earlier that we are still in the 'novelty stage' of EV adoption.
However, that is set to start changing in a few weeks.
CBDunkerson wrote: Crusinos wrote: It's too short term and relies entirely on confusing correlation and causation. For human energy usage, you need at least a decade to see a true trend of change. Anything else can easily be temporary variations in human behavior. That's relevant for predicting a trend. Not for observing current conditions.
Currently, we can see data which shows that global energy consumption has risen while global CO2 emissions have remained flat. Personally, I don't think that is the start of a trend which will continue. Rather, I expect CO2 emissions to begin decreasing within a few years. Energy consumption will surely continue growing overall, but may fall in the short term if there is another economic downturn.
So yes, I'd have been wrong to claim that just a few years indicated a trend which will continue... but as I haven't DONE that... it continues to be observed reality that global production and energy consumption remain coupled, but CO2 emissions are not. Except that you cannot state what current conditions are until after they have been fully analyzed, which typically comes after you have information following the event and a list of what could potentially cause it to examine.
Top it all off, current conditions show an increase in CO2 emissions.
CBDunkerson wrote: I see absolutely nothing in that text which is in ANY way related to global economic production or human energy consumption.
Yes, CO2 has increased rapidly over the past century... so have economic production and energy consumption.
One hundred years ago was the Industrial Revolution, followed by two massive wars that affected the industries of significant parts of the planet. That is effectively when industry began to take off; it had existed well before that, as evidenced by the history of using coal as a power source prior to figuring out it can generate electricity.
You have to get out and read quite a lot of literature on the subject. This has been studied extensively.
Quote: Irrelevant?
Up is up. Not down. Energy consumption is up.
That said, what time period are you citing for 0.8% growth? That's too high for 2014 to 2015, but too low for 2013 to 2015.
You're looking at the wrong set of data. I'm talking about production being only 0.8% increased, despite consumption also increasing. There's more to the story than just looking at one set of data on that site. Compare the consumption map to the production map to see it more clearly.
Quote: What global impact? That global energy consumption hasn't grown EVEN MORE? Sure, that's true... economic problems in various countries have resulted in global energy consumption growing less than it would have otherwise.
However, it global energy consumption still grew. Global CO2 emissions did not. We produced more energy without more emissions. Our energy production got 'greener' / less CO2 intensive.
The global impact that global energy production had not increased more, due to being held back in part by the areas not producing as much.
And as I showed, your argument that CO2 levels didn't grow is simply not true. Go back and take a look at those graphs I linked to that included the 2016. Notice how the lines that show CO2 emissions never flattened, but continued to go up? I was hoping I would not have to point this out, but since you continue that frankly untrue stance, I have to.
Quote: I've never heard that suggested before. Rather, most analyses seem to think we'll switch to electric cars and then keep improving the technology and infrastructure for them indefinitely. Right. That's why so much work is being put into self-driving cars and public transportation options.
Quote: There isn't anywhere in the contiguous United States you can get to with a gasoline powered vehicle that a Tesla cannot also go to (and back from) right now.
Basically, the technology is already available to anyone in the country who can afford it.
Certain wild parts of Missouri. Certain wild parts of Louisiana. A large portion of Nevada. Quite a few mountainous areas. Any space only big enough for a motorcycle. And I could go on.
A Tesla is an electric car. There are gasoline-powered vehicles that can take you places a car will never fit. There are electric vehicles that can take you to some of those places, but none of the are made by Tesla.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: Basically, the technology is already available to anyone in the country who can afford it. That's not exactly a resounding cheer for EV's now is it? Which... would be why I said earlier that we are still in the 'novelty stage' of EV adoption.
However, that is set to start changing in a few weeks. And with an MSRP of $36,620 for the Bolt it won't be having much of an impact.
We'll be in the "novelty" stage for another 15 years or more.
Quark Blast wrote: And with an MSRP of $36,620 for the Bolt it won't be having much of an impact. $36,620 - $7,500 tax credit = $29,120
Average cost of a new car in the US = $34,663
They'll do just fine. At least until so many are sold that the tax credit phases out.
Quote: We'll be in the "novelty" stage for another 15 years or more. Five years. At the outside.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: And with an MSRP of $36,620 for the Bolt it won't be having much of an impact. $36,620 - $7,500 tax credit = $29,120
Average cost of a new car in the US = $34,663
They'll do just fine. At least until so many are sold that the tax credit phases out.
Quote: We'll be in the "novelty" stage for another 15 years or more. Five years. At the outside. For that car (the Chevy Bolt), the tax credit will be less than $5k; while it lasts.
Guess we can Necro this thread in five years to see if you are right but when I did research for a school project on EV's I found prognosticating articles from way back circa the year 2000 that said EV's would be commonplace on America's roads by 2006... and we know how that turned out.
Do you own an EV? Does anyone on this thread own one?
Do I hear crickets?
Sissyl wrote: Buildings today are planned for about a century of use. It is going to take a long while to do this to a significant degree. Except the entirety of the buildings we have don't need to be used. Only new ones. The amount of new development happening in most countries is pretty astounding, given the rate of population growth.
Also, while buildings themselves may last a long time, the need for them often doesn't. Plenty of buildings get knocked down to make room for new developments as population density changes.
So that time frame is much shorter than you're predicting.
Assuming the new tech actually takes off. It's only been released as findings this year after all. Now it takes investors and developers to grab hold of it really. And there are plenty of folk out there with vested interests in that stuff not taking off, since it may well replace materials already in use, and that could cost companies lots of money.
Quark Blast wrote: Do you own an EV? Does anyone on this thread own one? Does a Segway count?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Crusinos wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Do you own an EV? Does anyone on this thread own one? Does a Segway count? Or a John Deere Gator?
Quark Blast wrote: For that car (the Chevy Bolt), the tax credit will be less than $5k; while it lasts. No.... it will not. The tax credit will be $7,500.
Seriously, Google 'chevy Bolt tax credit'. You get a page full of snippets with the number $7,500 in them. Including on Chevy's official site for the car. The size of the credit is based on battery size, and the Bolt will have one of the largest batteries on the road.
How you get the wrong number, I have no idea... but your chances of accurately predicting the future go way down when you can't get the present right.
Quote: Guess we can Necro this thread in five years to see if you are right... I suspect we'll know by the end of next year. If the tax credit has begun to phase out due to excess sales (> 200,000 per manufacturer) then we're past the novelty stage. I expect Chevy to cross that in 2017 and Tesla in 2018 (assuming they actually deliver their mass market car on time). Nissan, BMW, and VW will take longer or may never get there at all if they stick with ~100 mile ranges... but by the end of 2017 I'd expect to start seeing announcements that they are changing that to compete with the Bolt and Model 3.
thejeff wrote: Crusinos wrote: 2) Last I checked, only 50% of the American population lived along the coasts. That means that half the nation doesn't. So, despite how spread out they are, numerically they add up to an extremely significant portion of the population.
I'm a lot more iffy on China's population spread, but the last time I was there it seemed similar. I'll have to check that sometime.
3) I'm saying it's going to take a lot longer than people are thinking it will for the technology to spread as far as needed. But, electric cars are only intended to be a temporary solution at best. Given it's taken some parts of the U.S. seventy years to get paved roads, I think we're looking at the very real possibility that electric cars will be phased out for another technology before it even spreads to those areas.
There are cities and urban areas not on the actual coasts.
According to UN data the US is about 80% urbanized. According to the Center for Urban Policy Resarch at Rutgers University, every county in the United States meets the definition of urban in that it has manufacturing going on within it.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote: thejeff wrote: Crusinos wrote: 2) Last I checked, only 50% of the American population lived along the coasts. That means that half the nation doesn't. So, despite how spread out they are, numerically they add up to an extremely significant portion of the population.
I'm a lot more iffy on China's population spread, but the last time I was there it seemed similar. I'll have to check that sometime.
3) I'm saying it's going to take a lot longer than people are thinking it will for the technology to spread as far as needed. But, electric cars are only intended to be a temporary solution at best. Given it's taken some parts of the U.S. seventy years to get paved roads, I think we're looking at the very real possibility that electric cars will be phased out for another technology before it even spreads to those areas.
There are cities and urban areas not on the actual coasts.
According to UN data the US is about 80% urbanized. According to the Center for Urban Policy Resarch at Rutgers University, every county in the United States meets the definition of urban in that it has manufacturing going on within it. That's an... interesting... definition of "urban." The usual definition of "urban" is "of, relating to, or designating a city or town" or something similar, as a brief glance at any dictionary will tell you. The United States Census Bureau has an official definition used across multiple government agencies that is largely similar, but more formal.
Quote:
The Census Bureau's urban-rural classification is fundamentally a delineation of geographical areas, identifying both individual urban areas and the rural areas of the nation. The Census Bureau's urban areas represent densely developed territory, and encompass residential, commercial, and other non-residential urban land uses. For the 2010 Census, an urban area will comprise a densely settled core of census tracts and/or census blocks that meet minimum population density requirements, along with adjacent territory containing non-residential urban land uses as well as territory with low population density included to link outlying densely settled territory with the densely settled core. To qualify as an urban area, the territory identified according to criteria must encompass at least 2,500 people, at least 1,500 of which reside outside institutional group quarters.
The Census Bureau identifies two types of urban areas:
Urbanized Areas (UAs) of 50,000 or more people;
Urban Clusters (UCs) of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people.
"Rural" encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area.
And the idea that you're going to classify entire counties as urban or rural is simply ludicrous. By that definition, Russia is one enormous city, because there's a factory in it somewhere, and it would remain one enormous city even if I were to miraculously exterminate everyone in Russia outside of St. Petersburg.
thejeff wrote: Crusinos wrote: 2) Last I checked, only 50% of the American population lived along the coasts. That means that half the nation doesn't. So, despite how spread out they are, numerically they add up to an extremely significant portion of the population.
I'm a lot more iffy on China's population spread, but the last time I was there it seemed similar. I'll have to check that sometime.
3) I'm saying it's going to take a lot longer than people are thinking it will for the technology to spread as far as needed. But, electric cars are only intended to be a temporary solution at best. Given it's taken some parts of the U.S. seventy years to get paved roads, I think we're looking at the very real possibility that electric cars will be phased out for another technology before it even spreads to those areas.
There are cities and urban areas not on the actual coasts.
According to UN data the US is about 80% urbanized. Some actual numbers, courtesy of the 2010 US Census, which is as close to authoritative as we can get right now.
Total area of the United States (square miles): 9,156,460,226,723
Total urban area of the US (square miles): 279,879,819,054
Percentage of the US area that is urbanized: 3.057%
So, basically, 80% of the population lives in 3% of the space. Even if you took Alaska out of the mix, the percentage only goes up to 3.636%. Even the state of California, hugely populated as it is, is only about 5.28% urbanized.
The problem is, as I mentioned before, people don't buy cars just to drive around cities with. If I lived in San Francisco, there's a fair chance I would need to travel to Sacramento, Los Angeles, or even Santa Barbara on a regular basis, which means I need a 300 mile range, and I need roadside charging facilities that can give me another 300 mile range while I visit the facilities. Electric vehicles aren't practical even for urban dwellers right now.
Orfamay Quest wrote: thejeff wrote: Crusinos wrote: 2) Last I checked, only 50% of the American population lived along the coasts. That means that half the nation doesn't. So, despite how spread out they are, numerically they add up to an extremely significant portion of the population.
I'm a lot more iffy on China's population spread, but the last time I was there it seemed similar. I'll have to check that sometime.
3) I'm saying it's going to take a lot longer than people are thinking it will for the technology to spread as far as needed. But, electric cars are only intended to be a temporary solution at best. Given it's taken some parts of the U.S. seventy years to get paved roads, I think we're looking at the very real possibility that electric cars will be phased out for another technology before it even spreads to those areas.
There are cities and urban areas not on the actual coasts.
According to UN data the US is about 80% urbanized. Some actual numbers, courtesy of the 2010 US Census, which is as close to authoritative as we can get right now.
Total area of the United States (square miles): 9,156,460,226,723
Total urban area of the US (square miles): 279,879,819,054
Percentage of the US area that is urbanized: 3.057%
So, basically, 80% of the population lives in 3% of the space. Even if you took Alaska out of the mix, the percentage only goes up to 3.636%. Even the state of California, hugely populated as it is, is only about 5.28% urbanized.
The problem is, as I mentioned before, people don't buy cars just to drive around cities with. If I lived in San Francisco, there's a fair chance I would need to travel to Sacramento, Los Angeles, or even Santa Barbara on a regular basis, which means I need a 300 mile range, and I need roadside charging facilities that can give me another 300 mile range while I visit the facilities. Electric... You are aware that this argument translates into "Despite the huge size of the country, most of the population lives in densely populated areas and thus must drive long distances". It makes no sense. To the extent it's true, it applies everywhere in the world except some islands or other places with hard barriers.
If you live in Paris you might just need to drive to Berlin, so you can't have an electric car.
I mean, I get it and largely agree that we're not set up for it and the tech isn't quite there yet - at least as a primary vehicle. As a second family car, most of the objections fade away, except for the price and that's partly a matter of volume and waiting long enough for the used car market to take off.
In answer to CB's contention that I'm bad at math.
Hosers at the IRS wrote: The qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle credit phases out for a manufacturer’s vehicles over the one-year period beginning with the second calendar quarter after the calendar quarter in which at least 200,000 qualifying vehicles manufactured by that manufacturer have been sold for use in the United States (determined on a cumulative basis for sales after December 31, 2009) (“phase-out period”). Qualifying vehicles manufactured by that manufacturer are eligible for 50 percent of the credit if acquired in the first two quarters of the phase-out period and 25 percent of the credit if acquired in the third or fourth quarter of the phase-out period. Vehicles manufactured by that manufacturer are not eligible for a credit if acquired after the phase-out period. So, I expect the average tax credit claimed will be less than $5k. Maybe the phase out won't bring the average tax credit down that much.
And I point this out since it may not be obvious since the IRS code uses taxpeak. Quote: qualifying vehicles manufactured by that manufacturer It appears that the 200k vehicle limit is across all models made by a given manufacturer. If the Bolt is the only thing in their offering plate then it means the phase out starts when 200k Bolts are sold. Else it means when 200k EV's are sold by that manufacturer. Maybe the code doesn't mean that but it looks like it does.
Besides, the third problem (biggest problem?) is; Who wants to lay out $30k for a car with limited functionality. Most people won't do it --> see what thejeff said up thread about his choices.
Also, this:
Hitdice wrote: Crusinos wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Do you own an EV? Does anyone on this thread own one? Does a Segway count?
Or a John Deere Gator?
Segway counts if you use it in a way that directly reduces your use of a gas powered vehicle.
The Gator counts if it's actually an EV and you use it in a way that directly reduces your use of a gas powered vehicle.
This thread is populated by people who (nominally) care about Climate Change yet seemingly none of us own an EV.
Humans, gotta love 'em.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: Quote:
The problem is, as I mentioned before, people don't buy cars just to drive around cities with. If I lived in San Francisco, there's a fair chance I would need to travel to Sacramento, Los Angeles, or even Santa Barbara on a regular basis, which means I need a 300 mile range, and I need roadside charging facilities that can give me another 300 mile range while I visit
You are aware that this argument translates into "Despite the huge size of the country, most of the population lives in densely populated areas and thus must drive long distances". It makes no sense.
No, it's "the country is sparsely populated and people need an infrastructure to support long-distance travel, an infrastructure that does not exist for electric cars."
Quote: To the extent it's true, it applies everywhere in the world except some islands or other places with hard barriers. Everywhere in the world without decent infrastructure, yes.
Quote:
If you live in Paris you might just need to drive to Berlin, so you can't have an electric car.
Except that you can take the train to Berlin.
Broadly speaking, there are three sorts of infrastructure that are relevant.
1) We could build more public transit. The United States, unfortunately, is not set up for efficient long-distance public transportation, as anyone who's played the various Empire Builder series of lines can attest -- unlike, for example, Eurorails, it's very hard to make rail building profitable across the south, midwest, and far west. The only spot that rail is really economically viable is the Acela corridor and maybe California, although they've not been very success at it so far.
2) We could build more charging stations, but until electric cars are widespread, one will still have the problem of finding spots where they are economically viable.
3) We could build a network of gas stations. Oh, wait, we already have one of those. This gives gasoline vehicles a tremendous competitive advantages (the Census Bureau has counted more than 100,000 gas stations in the US, with an average worth of roughly $2MM per; that's roughly a quarter of a trillion dollars in infrastructure that electric cars can't, at this point, use).
So, if you want to make electric cars economically viable, build a two hundred billion dollar network of charging stations, and then perhaps people will be able to charge their cars.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I ride a push bike to work, five days a week.
My car runs on e10 fuel, which 10% ethanol. This burns cleaner than most fuels and emits less CO2.
My car gets 10km per litre, driving in the city. It gets closer to 12km when driving on more open roads.
In essence, I'm causing less carbon foot print than an EV which currently requires mains power to charge. Mains power derived from coal burning in Queensland, where I live.
I run solar panels on my roof.
I recycle everything possible.
I have sky lights to minimise light use.
I run ceiling fans more than air con. I wouldn't even use these if my house got natural breeze, but it doesn't.
I have a large capacity rain water tank, the pump of which runs off solar rather than mains ( if there's been enough sunlight).
I am in fact, doing everything within my fiscal means to reduce my carbon foot print.
I think you need to broaden your ideas Quark.
|
