Conspiracy theories surrounding human influenced climate change, what's up with that?

[Scythia]

How is this thread still open?

[CBDunkerson]

Scythia wrote:

How is this thread still open?

Probably because global warming is only 'political' in the same way that gender identity issues are... at which point everything is potentially political.

[Scythia]

Well, everything is political, but this thread specifically refers to current elected politicians and U.S. government policy, as well as foreign government policies. That's explicitly political.

[CBDunkerson]

It has done so in the past. None of the current discussion is of that nature. The same is true of many other long running threads.

[CBDunkerson]

Volvo to stop making conventional gasoline vehicles after next year

They will continue producing a few hybrids, but plan to introduce five new fully electric models starting in 2019.

This is the inevitable result of the fact that battery costs are coming down quickly enough that electric vehicles will soon cost less to buy than internal combustion vehicles. They already cost less to operate.

Coal and natural gas have been losing the battle for electricity generation 'market share' to solar and wind power. Now oil for transportation is going down. Those three things constitute the vast majority of the emissions driving global warming. Fossil fuels continuing as our major power source through 2100, and the extreme global warming that would have caused, is no longer plausible.

[Quark Blast]

So of course I had to post this.

Scientists are starting to clear up one of the biggest controversies in climate science

WP wrote:

The models, for instance, suggest that if the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere were to reach double its preindustrial level, the planet would warm by anywhere from about 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius. But the warming patterns we’ve actually observed over the past 200 years or so would suggest that a doubling in carbon dioxide should only lead to about 3 degrees Celsius of warming at the most....

The new study helps reconcile the models with the historical record. It suggests global warming occurs in different phases or “modes” throughout the planet, some of which happen more quickly than others. Certain slow-developing climate processes could amplify warming to a greater extent in the future, putting the models in the right after all...

other parts of the planet — namely, the Southern Ocean and the eastern Pacific — respond much more slowly, in part because they’re just so deep and cold to begin with. But as they absorb more heat and finally start to warm up, they may produce a variety of climate feedback effects that enhance the global warming that’s already occurring...

According to Proistosescu, some studies of Earth’s ancient climate — which scientists can conduct using information from sources like ice cores and preserved sediments — do suggest that a slow climate mode does exist and has occurred in the past. And he added that the climate models rely on basic physical processes to a great extent, and “we trust that they do the basic physics correctly.”

IPCC 2014 Summary Report - see the Table on Page 22

The IPCC report was made without the insight from the current study discussed in the WP article. My standard claim of +2.5°C year 2100 was based on my own reading of the various findings much like what the IPCC summarizes.

Again, my "we will hit +2.5°C" claim may just not be cynical enough... because, you know, the world buys so many Volvos.

[CBDunkerson]

Quark Blast, again... you so consistently post 'evidence' undercutting your position that I can only imagine it is deliberate;

That research suggests that the 1.5 to 4.5 degree Celsius uncertainty range for warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels in the models can be narrowed down towards a 3 degree value projected based on observations of atmospheric warming IF we assume that roughly half the warming will follow a "slow climate mode" and take centuries to manifest. Do the math. 3 / 2 = 1.5 C warming by 2100 IF atmospheric CO2 levels double... well short of your 2.5 C value.

Further, we are currently at ~400 ppm atmospheric CO2, up from a pre-industrial level of ~280 ppm. Therefore, we are ~160 ppm (280 * 2 - 400) short of doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration. CO2 levels have been rising ~2 ppm per year, so even if the current rate continued we'd need another ~80 years to get to double the pre-industrial level. Even the implausibly pessimistic assumption that the Paris targets will never be increased does not have us continuing with current emissions levels for 80 years... so we aren't going to get to doubled atmospheric CO2 levels before 2100... and the research you are citing suggests that we should only see ~1.5 degrees Celsius warming by then even if we somehow DID emit that much CO2.

That said... I don't think the paper in question is at all likely to hold up simply because we are already over 1 C atmospheric warming despite being nowhere near doubling CO2 levels OR 2100... and most evidence suggests that atmospheric warming has lagged the climate in general (e.g. the oceans account for over 93% of global warming). This paper essentially suggests that lag will take centuries to balance out rather than the decades more commonly projected.

[Smarnil le couard]

For fun : french government plan to ban internal combustion engine cars by 2040.

Cant't say if that particular goal will be met, but setting it is a first step.

[doc roc]

Smarnil le couard wrote:

For fun : french government plan to ban internal combustion engine cars by 2040.

Cant't say if that particular goal will be met, but setting it is a first step.

I imagine a lot of them will be gone before then.

Its all immaterial anwyay.... human beings are a doomed species.

As Agent Smith objectively observed....we are pretty much a virus.

[Irontruth]

In Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan there has been a serious problem of over population of deer without wolves to help moderate their population growth. This overpopulation of deer has led to the eradication of various species of trees and flowers in the region, because those are the favored foods of the deer.

By Agent Smith's definition, all life is a virus. When a definition includes everything, it's no longer really a useful definition, unless it's a word like all, everything, or universe.

[Captain Battletoad]

Irontruth wrote:

In Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan there has been a serious problem of over population of deer without wolves to help moderate their population growth. This overpopulation of deer has led to the eradication of various species of trees and flowers in the region, because those are the favored foods of the deer.

By Agent Smith's definition, all life is a virus. When a definition includes everything, it's no longer really a useful definition, unless it's a word like all, everything, or universe.

Is deer season in Wisconsin still like two weeks long? Maybe elongating that would help to mitigate that some, though I don't follow Wisconsin deer population news, so it's just a guess.

[Irontruth]

I don't know, I don't hunt. The DNR here in Minnesota is loathe to greatly reduce deer populations because it's also a source of revenue for the state and various local towns. Lower deer populations means hunters have a harder time bagging one, which in turn will lower the number of hunters over time, or they'll go to places that have better populations.

The real point though is that all life consumes, and if there is no check in place to stop that consumption, it over consumes to the detriment of organisms around it. It makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective, because resources are often scarce in the natural world, so organisms have to get all they can.

[thejeff]

Irontruth wrote:

I don't know, I don't hunt. The DNR here in Minnesota is loathe to greatly reduce deer populations because it's also a source of revenue for the state and various local towns. Lower deer populations means hunters have a harder time bagging one, which in turn will lower the number of hunters over time, or they'll go to places that have better populations.

There's something off about that logic: We can't have enough hunters to keep the deer population in check because then there won't be enough deer for the hunters to hunt. I mean, it's true in the extreme case - unlimited exploitation of such a resource will lead to a population crash, but it doesn't sound like you're anywhere near that.

[Irontruth]

That isn't what I said.

I said that the lack of wolves have led to deer overpopulation, which has decimated certain plant species. The question was then asked, why don't we increase hunting limits? The answer: because maintaining a high deer population brings in revenue to the state.

We are purposely maintaining a high level of deer in the region. In the mid-00's, Minnesota harvests were in the ~250,000 range, which implies a deer population of around 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 deer. A few years ago, deer harvests had dropped to around ~120,000, which means that there were just fewer deer, so they were harder to hunt (DNR was still issuing permits).

That large population of 1 to 1.5 million deer is the population that has cut the number of plant species in some areas in half. The state is currently trying to get back to that level of deer, because deer are an important economic resource for the state. The easier it is to hunt, the more people will do it and the more money they'll spend doing it.

[thejeff]

Irontruth wrote:

That isn't what I said.

I said that the lack of wolves have led to deer overpopulation, which has decimated certain plant species. The question was then asked, why don't we increase hunting limits? The answer: because maintaining a high deer population brings in revenue to the state.

We are purposely maintaining a high level of deer in the region. In the mid-00's, Minnesota harvests were in the ~250,000 range, which implies a deer population of around 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 deer. A few years ago, deer harvests had dropped to around ~120,000, which means that there were just fewer deer, so they were harder to hunt (DNR was still issuing permits).

That large population of 1 to 1.5 million deer is the population that has cut the number of plant species in some areas in half. The state is currently trying to get back to that level of deer, because deer are an important economic resource for the state. The easier it is to hunt, the more people will do it and the more money they'll spend doing it.

Fair enough. I misunderstood you as saying they wanted them lower, but were worried about dropping them too low.

[Orfamay Quest]

There's probably another issue as well. Urban versus rural. A lot of the plants that are being devastated are probably in suburban gardens, but the people who live there don't want hunters firing guns near their houses for obvious reasons.

I've seen a lot of places where that's a problem. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an easy solution because even if you have too few deer in the state as a whole, you have too many in the town of Springfield.

[Irontruth]

The plants in suburban gardens aren't the ones that biologists are worried about. The Wisconsin studies I've read about were concerning native plant species found in the wilderness. Ironically, state parks, where hunting wasn't allowed for many years in Wisconsin, are the ones that have been hardest hit in terms of plant diversity.

[Lathiira]

Earlier in the decade, I know Virginia's DNR had posted reaching deer levels equal to colonial times....

As far as plant biodiversity, it worries me when you're reaching the point of extirpation and eradication of plant species. If those are the favored foods of the deep population, the deer might sooner or later run out of alternatives, leading to a crash.

[Irontruth]

Deer can eat a pretty broad range of plants. CWD if it were to spread widely would be a much more likely cause of deer population collapse. Reduced food species from consumption would lead to gradual decline until stability was reached, if it were to have an impact at all.

Another issue leading to lower mortality amongst deer are warmer and shorter winters. Here in Minnesota lakes are frozen for about 2 weeks less per year on average than they were 50 or 100 years ago.

[Lathiira]

I know deer also vary diet by season. I have seen the photos out here, I think it was in Pennsylvania, where the population got so bad that every edible plant was gone or the trees and shrubs denuded to a height of about six feet. That's why I'd worry about a crash, though you're also right about CWD.

As far as the winters: same issue here, and deer phenology is probably with your part of the world and mine also being affected.

[Irontruth]

The purpose of the example was to show that life consumes, not just humans. It's just that we humans have exponentially expanded our ability to consume. So yes the virus analogy from Agent Smith is accurate, but it's accurate for all living organisms. The analogy says more about the person using it than about our species.

[Quark Blast]

Oh deer, let me see if I can get this thread back on topic.

What the IPCC report said in 2014 was that the combined model range for AGW has a floor of +1.5°C by 2100. Since we are at +1.0°C already, and since the model range from the 2014 report failed to account for feedback effects of the greater world ocean (and what the Washington Post article is highlighting), is that the actual floor is at least +2.0°C and has a new ceiling of +4.5°C, instead of the old value of +3.0°C.

So my repeated value of +2.5°C is now seen as being on the low side.

As for the Volvo initiative to have only battery and hybrid vehicles starting in 2019.
Sobering News from Bloomberg

Bloomberg wrote:

Most electric and hybrid vehicles are sold in countries where government incentives are the strongest. There aren't many countries where fully electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids amounted to more than 1 percent of new cars sold in 2016, and in most of them, government stimulus -- of both the stick and the carrot variety -- is strong. As soon as the stimulus drops off, so do electric car sales. That happened in Denmark last year, where an attempt to phase out tax breaks resulted in a 71 percent drop in battery-powered vehicle sales and a 49 percent reduction in hybrid sales in 2016, according to the International Energy Agency. It happened in the Netherlands, where tax breaks on hybrids (but not on battery-powered cars) were cut and sales plummeted by 50 percent.

The thing is, even if the global human population was on track to deliver a CO2 level no higher than 425 ppm (forgetting for the sake of argument that we are so not on track), there are other pressures that will work to derail our Paris Agreement promises. Because when things go really bad, people forget about pie-in-the-sky promises. Things like...

This type of manifest idiocy - China’s Appetite Pushes Fisheries to the Brink

NYT wrote:

Overfishing is depleting oceans across the globe, with 90 percent of the world’s fisheries fully exploited or facing collapse, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. From Russian king crab fishermen in the west Bering Sea to Mexican ships that poach red snapper off the coast of Florida, unsustainable fishing practices threaten the well-being of millions of people in the developing world who depend on the sea for income and food, experts say...

Increasingly, China’s growing armada of distant-water fishing vessels is heading to the waters of West Africa, drawn by corruption and weak enforcement by local governments. West Africa, experts say, now provides the vast majority of the fish caught by China’s distant-water fleet. And by some estimates, as many as two-thirds of those boats engage in fishing that contravenes international or national laws.

China’s distant-water fishing fleet has grown to nearly 2,600 vessels (the United States has fewer than one-tenth as many), with 400 boats coming into service between 2014 and 2016 alone. Most of the Chinese ships are so large that they scoop up as many fish in one week as Senegalese boats catch in a year, costing West African economies $2 billion a year, according to a new study published by the journal Frontiers in Marine Science...

“The truth is, traditional fishing grounds in Chinese waters exist in name only,” said Mr. Zhang of Nanyang University. “For China’s leaders, ensuring a steady supply of aquatic products is not just about good economics but social stability and political legitimacy.”

Or this - Where have all the insects gone?

Science Mag wrote:

Over that time the group, the Krefeld Entomological Society, has seen the yearly insect catches fluctuate, as expected. But in 2013 they spotted something alarming. When they returned to one of their earliest trapping sites from 1989, the total mass of their catch had fallen by nearly 80%. Perhaps it was a particularly bad year, they thought, so they set up the traps again in 2014. The numbers were just as low. Through more direct comparisons, the group—which had preserved thousands of samples over 3 decades—found dramatic declines across more than a dozen other sites.

Or this - River piracy and drainage basin reorganization led by climate-driven glacier retreat

Lucky downstream of this event wasn't in a populated area like, say, this - The State and Fate of Himalayan Glaciers

Cryo Science wrote:

A poor understanding of the processes affecting them, combined with the diversity of climatic conditions and the extremes of topographical relief within the region, makes projections speculative. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that dramatic changes in total runoff will occur soon, although continuing shrinkage outside the Karakoram will increase the seasonality of runoff, affect irrigation and hydropower, and alter hazards.

Not to mention events like this - Larsen C rift branches as it comes within 5 km of calving

Project MIDAS wrote:

When it calves, the Larsen C Ice Shelf will lose more than 10% of its area to leave the ice front at its most retreated position ever recorded; this event will fundamentally change the landscape of the Antarctic Peninsula. We have previously shown that the new configuration will be less stable than it was prior to the rift, and that Larsen C may eventually follow the example of its neighbour Larsen B, which disintegrated in 2002 following a similar rift-induced calving event.

And why does it matter that the Larsen C Ice Shelf is likely to disintegrate?

Well, because of this - Climate change impacts on methane hydrates

World Ocean Review wrote:

a temperature increase of only 1 degree ­Celsius would be sufficient to release large amounts of methane from the hydrates. The methane hydrates in the open ocean at around 500 metres of water depth, and deposits in the shallow regions of the Arctic would mainly be affected.

The ice shelf protects the hydrates from dissolution/eruption. Once the shelf is gone, so go the methane hydrates. Release in tropical waters would see the methane rendered chemically inert in the water column but the arctic and antarctic waters are too cold and much of the methane would escape to the atmosphere.

And also this - Antarctica's Ice Shelves Thin, Threaten Significant Sea Level Rise

Scientific American wrote:

The ice shelves—some of which are larger than California and tens to hundreds of yards thick—are the linchpins of the Antarctic ice sheet system, holding back the millions of cubic miles of ice contained in the glaciers that flow into them, like doorstops. As the ice sheets thin, the massive rivers of ice behind them can surge forward into the sea.

Modeling this isn't any easier than modeling climate.

John Englander wrote:

The six "Pine Island Glaciers" in West Antarctica plus the Totten Glacier in the east, hold enough ice to raise global sea level more than 30 feet (10 meters). Unlike storm surge, sea level rise is global and will not recede.

The fact is we do not know -- and can not presently know -- exactly what decade the water level will start to rise quickly and visibly. Those glaciers are miles thick, tens of miles wide, and more than a hundred miles long. There is no way to model exactly WHEN they will "disgorge" or slide into the sea. It is rather like being up in snow covered mountains and being told the conditions are right for an avalanche. It could happen two minutes from now, or two weeks from now. The forces and dynamics cannot be precisely modeled any more than we can know when an earthquake will happen.

There is another news item I'm sure we're all aware of, that France is doing away with internal combustion engines entirely by 2040. I expect they will beat this estimate by at least a decade - if not literally at least EVs will be proportionally in the high 90s-% range.

These efforts that CB cites and touts are all generally good and real. However, the effect is going to be too little, too late. These efforts should've been at today's level of achievement in 1995.

Most of the world is, given human nature, way too poor and way too overpopulated to make the Paris Agreement work in a best case sort of way. With modern communications the whole world (excepting a few very remote jungle locations and islands) sees what the "west" has for lifestyle and they want it.

To rebuild Mosul (a city of well over half a million people), it is estimated to cost in the neighborhood of $1 billion. The cost to rebuild One World Trade Center is closing in on $4.0 billion.

That's some major disparity in wealth. The world is watching and they aren't going to sit around letting others be fat cats. They want their concrete and steel skyscrapers too, and the infrastructure/lifestyle to go along with it.

[CBDunkerson]

Quark Blast wrote:

What the IPCC report said in 2014 was that the combined model range for AGW has a floor of +1.5°C by 2100. Since we are at +1.0°C already, and since the model range from the 2014 report failed to account for feedback effects of the greater world ocean (and what the Washington Post article is highlighting), is that the actual floor is at least +2.0°C and has a new ceiling of +4.5°C, instead of the old value of +3.0°C.

False. The "old value" was also 4.5°C and the report said only that 1.5°C is a "likely" rather than absolute 'floor'.

IPCC 5th assessment summary wrote:

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same.

Quark Blast wrote:

So my repeated value of +2.5°C is now seen as being on the low side.

Again, what the study in the Washington Post article is arguing is that the timing of some feedbacks will be different than assumed in the models summarized by the IPCC... that roughly half the warming will take centuries to manifest rather than decades as more commonly assumed. Which, if true, would make your +2.5°C by 2100 projection virtually impossible. That study is arguing for vastly LOWER warming by 2100 because they think half of it will be delayed for centuries.

Sobering News from Bloomberg wrote:

Most electric and hybrid vehicles are sold in countries where government incentives are the strongest. There aren't many countries where fully electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids amounted to more than 1 percent of new cars sold in 2016, and in most of them, government stimulus -- of both the stick and the carrot variety -- is strong. As soon as the stimulus drops off, so do electric car sales.

And? This is the same sort of myopic argument as claiming that automobiles would never replace the horse and buggy because when they first came out they were more expensive and represented a tiny percentage of wheeled vehicles. Ditto for smart phones never replacing cheaper mobile phones.

Electric vehicle adoption is growing. All logic suggests that this will continue and accelerate.

The first mass production $35,000 Tesla model 3 rolled off the assembly line yesterday. That means electric vehicles are now cost competitive with ICE even WITHOUT subsidies. The next generation of electric vehicles will be cheaper than internal combustion.

Quark Blast wrote:

There is another news item I'm sure we're all aware of, that France is doing away with internal combustion engines entirely by 2040. I expect they will beat this estimate by at least a decade - if not literally at least EVs will be proportionally in the high 90s-% range.

...which completely contradicts the argument you put forward from Bloomberg.

Quark Blast wrote:

The world is watching and they aren't going to sit around letting others be fat cats. They want their concrete and steel skyscrapers too, and the infrastructure/lifestyle to go along with it.

...and the only way they are going to be able to get those things is thru renewable energy sources like wind and solar. Fossil fuel production can't cover the existing developed nations AND the developing world... and even if we could somehow ramp up production to do so (we can't) they would then cost much more than renewable sources... and quickly run out.

[Quark Blast]

Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines

PNAS wrote:

Our data indicate that beyond global species extinctions Earth is experiencing a huge episode of population declines and extirpations, which will have negative cascading consequences on ecosystem functioning and services vital to sustaining civilization. We describe this as a “biological annihilation” to highlight the current magnitude of Earth’s ongoing sixth major extinction event.

Like the changing runoff regimes in watersheds across the globe that have (or had) glaciers, we will have multiple negative feedback loops impacting the global economy.

Most countries won't be able to absorb these types of hits:
Regional hydrologic/water availability changes (because most countries are entirely within an affected area. Trans-regional nations are unusual, I count less than 10 total); modest sea level rise (say +1mm/year) will kill many local and several national economies; the pollution that modern technology creates (you think air pollution in China is bad? Well, it is, but soil and ground water contamination make the air pollution problem a lark).

The idea that solar panels, batteries and wind mills will make it all better is seriously misleading. They will help but the level of effort we have now was needed 20+ years ago. And if we don't keep up the Paris Agreement promised pace or better (you know, like the USA funding solar projects worldwide with the same effort we put into fighting wars around the globe), these other things, these "unintended consequences" mentioned above, will largely degrade any gains.

And for the record, the Bloomberg piece does not contravene what I believe will happen in France with regard to EVs. France could suicide themselves to a person by tomorrow afternoon and it will have zero measurable effect on global CO2 readings in the year 2030.

What the Bloomberg piece tells us is that virtually every nation will need to put the level of effort into converting to EVs that France has said they will.
Because if they don't, once the incentives go away, people stop buying EVs.

As one commenter on The Guardian's article about the PNAS study said:

micblaze wrote:

Human populations don't need huge numbers in order to live a happy life... however, our economic systems are reliant on it. The problem is that we place too much emphasis on the pursuit of wealth and not enough on life balance. And true happiness comes with a symbiotic relationship with Nature, not a parasitic one.

And because no nation will take the first step towards voluntary "poverty", no nation will do anything at all of the sort.

Global economics is seen as a zero-sum game. And nation states will continue to play it that way until we absolutely cannot.

Not a happy future until, as a species, we can get over that hump. If we can.

The silence of the starry host, combined with the astronomical plurality of "Goldilocks zone" worlds, tells me we don't have much of a chance. As in, winning the jackpot lottery would be more likely.

[CBDunkerson]

Quark Blast wrote:

The idea that solar panels, batteries and wind mills will make it all better is seriously misleading.

Solar panels, batteries, and wind mills will make carbon emissions lower.

The suggestion that anyone has claimed they would prevent various other (off topic) environmental problems is seriously misleading.

Quote:

What the Bloomberg piece tells us is that virtually every nation will need to put the level of effort into converting to EVs that France has said they will.

Because if they don't, once the incentives go away, people stop buying EVs.

Again, you are ignoring the reality of time.

People largely stopped buying EVs when incentives went away in the past... because EVs were only cost competitive to buy (note: they have always cost less to maintain and operate) with the incentives.

In the present that is no longer true. The Chevy Bolt and Tesla Model 3 are both cost competitive without incentives, and virtually every major auto manufacturer has announced having similar vehicles in production. The UNsubsidized market is thus now comparable to the subsidized market from the Bloomberg study of the past... i.e. we can expect that level of sales WITHOUT subsidies or HIGHER sales with subsidies.

In the near future (i.e. within five years) electric vehicles will cost LESS than internal combustion vehicles. At which point, ICE vehicles would need subsidies in order to be able to compete with EV sales... and that's not going to happen.

France's pledge to ban ICE vehicles by 2040 is largely symbolic... by 2040 there will be hardly any ICE vehicles left to be impacted by it.

[Quark Blast]

CBDunkerson wrote:

Quark Blast wrote:

What the Bloomberg piece tells us is that virtually every nation will need to put the level of effort into converting to EVs that France has said they will.

Because if they don't, once the incentives go away, people stop buying EVs.

Again, you are ignoring the reality of time.

People largely stopped buying EVs when incentives went away in the past... because EVs were only cost competitive to buy (note: they have always cost less to maintain and operate) with the incentives.

In the present that is no longer true. The Chevy Bolt and Tesla Model 3 are both cost competitive without incentives, and virtually every major auto manufacturer has announced having similar vehicles in production. The UNsubsidized market is thus now comparable to the subsidized market from the Bloomberg study of the past... i.e. we can expect that level of sales WITHOUT subsidies or HIGHER sales with subsidies.

In the near future (i.e. within five years) electric vehicles will cost LESS than internal combustion vehicles. At which point, ICE vehicles would need subsidies in order to be able to compete with EV sales... and that's not going to happen.

Having to charge your EV for three hours while only two hours into a three hour road trip really cuts into the incentive to buy an EV.

I like doubling my commute time! Doesn't everybody?

Besides the charging time, there is also, still, a fundamental lack of infrastructure for charging when one is out and about.

CBDunkerson wrote:

France's pledge to ban ICE vehicles by 2040 is largely symbolic... by 2040 there will be hardly any ICE vehicles left to be impacted by it.

Agreed. Too bad 2040 is, oh, 40 years too late.

CBDunkerson wrote:

Again, you are ignoring the reality of time.

Even if that were true, which it's not, I regularly accuse others of ignoring the reality of,... well, reality. Look at the following items:

The man who takes a plane to work every day

BBC wrote:

Curt von Badinski, a mechanical engineer and co-founder of a San Francisco-based tech company, has a six-hour daily commute from Los Angeles – most of it by plane.

Five days a week, he rises at 05:00 for the 15-minute drive to Bob Hope Burbank airport, for a 90-minute flight to Oakland, located 353 miles (568km) north west...

“The way I justify a six-hour commute is having the ability to have all the things that I want," he explains.

And that quote, particularly the notion in bold, rather sums up my argument in a most excellent way.

And lest you think Curt is an anomaly:

The Rise Of Super-Commuting

Forbes wrote:

For super-commuters, the distance to and from work is 180 miles or more, which, for some, can mean hopping a plane. (Others may choose to take a train.) This subgroup of professionals accounts for about 3-10% of the working population—and their number is only expected to rise...

Ensig and his wife, Angela, sometimes talk about relocating to New York... but, for now, they’ve decided that it makes more sense to stay put. They're not ready to trade the many comforts they have in Philadelphia for the convenience of living close to his job.

Yes, saving the planet is soooo uncomfortable. Who can blame them? I mean, like, 3.5 to 15 million people in the USA can't be wrong. AmIRight?

And before someone says, "well, some people...". Let me point out that entire countries act this way too. For example:

China cracks down on coastal fisheries

Science Mag wrote:

Attempting to give its depleted fisheries a chance to recover, China last week launched its strictest ever moratorium in fishing in its coastal waters. The ban varies by location, type of fishing, and target fish, but most fisheries will be closed for up to 4 months. The effort is welcomed by fisheries experts worldwide. But some warn it has limited effectiveness, because fishers strive to make up for lost income once the ban lifts. China should also be working on fisheries management with its neighbors, because the stocks and interbreeding subpopulations tend to be shared. The ultimate solution, however, is reducing China's fishing fleet overcapacity. The government previously announced plans to shrink the fishing fleet and reduce the global catch to less than 10 million tons by 2020, down by 3.1 million tons from 2015.

Sure they keep their own in check near home but send trawlers half way around the globe to steal fish from people too weak to stop them*.

And the "ultimate solution" is to stop eating fish (or poultry, or cows, or pigs, etc.) at anything like the current rate of consumption. I'm talking a 90% redux; that would make a difference.

* See previous link - China’s Appetite Pushes Fisheries to the Brink

Then there's this:

Damming the rivers of the Amazon basin

Nature wrote:

More than a hundred hydropower dams have already been built in the Amazon basin and numerous proposals for further dam constructions are under consideration. The accumulated negative environmental effects of existing dams and proposed dams, if constructed, will trigger massive hydrophysical and biotic disturbances that will affect the Amazon basin’s floodplains, estuary and sediment plume.

I bet they build most of these dams. Why wouldn't they?

[CBDunkerson]

Quark Blast wrote:

Having to charge your EV for three hours while only two hours into a three hour road trip really cuts into the incentive to buy an EV.

A: A three hour road trip at 65 mph would be 195 miles... within the range of both the Bolt and Model 3... w/o charging.

B: There is not a single EV on the road which requires 3 hours of charging per two hours of driving.

Ergo, you have constructed false 'facts' to 'support' your pre-existing conclusion.

Also note that even if we ignore current technologies like longer range batteries (~500 miles), fast charging (~200 miles in 30 minutes), battery swap stations (faster than gasoline refueling), and the fact that these will inevitably keep improving... it seems clear that by 2030 autonomous EVs will be widespread. Which means that if you are taking a long road trip and your car is running out of power it could just drop you off at a rest stop where another, fully charged, car is waiting to pick you up to continue on.

Quote:

Besides the charging time, there is also, still, a fundamental lack of infrastructure for charging when one is out and about.

Depends what continent you are talking about. Your statement is false for most of North America and Europe, but true for the rest of the planet. That said, anywhere you have a power grid 'charging infrastructure' can easily be installed in just a few years... as has been demonstrated by North America and Europe doing so. Thus, this is a non issue. Anywhere EVs become widespread enough to require a charging infrastructure one will quickly be deployed.

Quote:

Agreed. Too bad 2040 is, oh, 40 years too late.

Fixing the problem now will result in vastly less death and destruction than NOT doing so now. Ergo, it is only 'too late' in the sense that ANYTHING we do now is too late to avoid the past. It is NOT 'too late' to avoid much worse in the future.

Quote:

Look at the following items:

The man who takes a plane to work every day

...and?

Air travel accounts for only about 3% of total carbon emissions. Thus, even if we are unable to reduce the carbon intensity of air travel, it will not matter if we resolve the larger emissions sources... most notably electricity production and ground transportation.

[Quark Blast]

CBDunkerson wrote:

A: A three hour road trip at 65 mph would be 195 miles... within the range of both the Bolt and Model 3... w/o charging.

B: There is not a single EV on the road which requires 3 hours of charging per two hours of driving.

Ergo, you have constructed false 'facts' to 'support' your preexisting conclusion.

Fact "A":

Green Car Reports

GCR wrote:

One of the major advantages Tesla Motors brings to new owners is its Supercharger network of DC fast-charging sites, which now largely cover the U.S. (and several other areas of the world as well).

That network generally provides an 80-percent recharge of a Tesla battery in around 30 minutes, meaning close to 200 miles of added range.

General Motors, however, has said flatly that it has no intention of putting any money toward national DC fast charging infrastructure.

The same can be said for a national DC fast charging station network for other car makers; like Volkswagen, BMW, Ford, Honda, Nissan, Kia, etc.

Recharging also only takes 30 minutes once you get to the unoccupied station. Getting there and getting back on the road to your actual destination can easily add another 30 minutes to your "charge time".

For all the Teslas on the road today their charging network is passable. Two years from now, if they sell like they intend to, they will need to add some serious capacity to their network.

But that only takes care of Tesla owners.

Fact "B":
Ford Focus EV

C&D wrote:

The EPA estimates a range of 76 miles per charge; in our testing, we ran out of juice after 64 miles and saw the equivalent of 71 mpg. The 2017 model, however, will have a 100-mile range and is probably worth waiting for...

Ford says a fully drained battery can be recharged in 3.6 hours at 240 volts.

Ipso facto, ergo, vis-a-vis, he who lives in a glass house, BOOM!, you've been schooled. ;P

CBDunkerson wrote:

snip ...it seems clear that by 2030 autonomous EVs will be widespread.

I already agreed with that many times upthread, including my previous post.

We as a species can push another 80 gigatons (+- 20 GtC) of carbon into the atmosphere as CO2 and still keep CO2-forced global warming to 2.0°C by the year 2100.

This assumes simple models of the world atmosphere-ocean heat sink and transfer mechanisms are accurate enough not to be thrown by unperceived feedback loops (from marine algae, Greenland and Antarctica ice melts, etc).

This also assumes a net carbon zero by about 2050 and useful carbon sequestration technology on a scale similar to our current emissions of carbon as CO2.

This also assumes a large measure of reforestation.

This also assumes a global population of less than 9 billion by 2050 (a figure I don't think we'll achieve without some serious pandemics).

This also assumes a ton of other things we as a species have seemingly little to no control over, but that will have measurable effect on global climate.

The real answer is to reduce the western lifestyle to something far less than it is today.

CBDunkerson wrote:

Depends what continent you are talking about...snip

If all we did was commute to work and back, then yeah, EVs would already be adopted as the majority vehicle. We don't, so they're not.

They will be, by 2030, in most of the developed world.

But so what?

CBDunkerson wrote:

Fixing the problem now will result in vastly less death and destruction than NOT doing so now. Ergo, it is only 'too late' in the sense that ANYTHING we do now is too late to avoid the past. It is NOT 'too late' to avoid much worse in the future.

It pretty much is too late. The economics of coal, Trump notwithstanding, will push it to the history books, for everything but making cement, in the next decade or so.

At this point humanity could not plan to make things any worse. Oh sure we could make plans for the worse but the odds of them being implemented are the same as the Kyoto Protocol* being implemented. Which is to say not a measurable chance.

Saying, "We can still make this better", is like saying Warren Buffet will finally make the pay of his secretary equitable after grousing for 40 years about her "unfair" tax rate.

Saying what's right and doing it are entirely different matters.

Granted, you generally need to know right before you can take right action, but knowing what's right is only a prerequisite to right action. Knowing what's right doesn't actually make anyone do what's right.

CBDunkerson wrote:

...and?

Air travel accounts for only about 3% of total carbon emissions. Thus, even if we are unable to reduce the carbon intensity of air travel, it will not matter if we resolve the larger emissions sources... most notably electricity production and ground transportation.

And, did you not read any of the content in those links? By far, most Super Commuters don't fly to work everyday.

A huge chunk of humanity refuses to live near their work because it's "uncomfortable" and they "can't have all they want" if they don't super commute. Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

This is the same reason (different symptom but the same reason) Warren Buffet's secretary has to endure unfair taxation.

Because people who can make a difference, a real difference, don't like being "uncomfortable" and not "having what they want".

* And yes I mean Kyoto not the Paris Agreement

[CBDunkerson]

Quark Blast wrote:

CBDunkerson wrote:

A: A three hour road trip at 65 mph would be 195 miles... within the range of both the Bolt and Model 3... w/o charging.

B: There is not a single EV on the road which requires 3 hours of charging per two hours of driving.

Fact "A":

Green Car Reports

GCR wrote:

One of the major advantages Tesla Motors brings to new owners is its Supercharger network of DC fast-charging sites, which now largely cover the U.S. (and several other areas of the world as well).

That network generally provides an 80-percent recharge of a Tesla battery in around 30 minutes, meaning close to 200 miles of added range.

As usual, you just throw out a wall of text and pretend it makes your point despite it doing exactly the opposite.

NOTHING in that text relates to the EV range I cited in "Fact A" at all. The topic isn't even RAISED, let alone disputed.

What that text DOES include is a charging rate citation;
30 minutes = 200 miles

Directly contradicting your earlier claim of, "Having to charge your EV for three hours while only two hours into a three hour road".

Quote:

For all the Teslas on the road today their charging network is passable. Two years from now, if they sell like they intend to, they will need to add some serious capacity to their network.

Which continues to be a non-issue because they can deploy (and indeed HAVE deployed) vast numbers of new charging stations in a matter of weeks.

This should not be surprising. Access to electricity is not scarce in developed countries. Charging infrastructure can thus simply be installed anywhere on the existing electricity infrastructure.

Quote:

But that only takes care of Tesla owners.

False.

Even setting aside the fact that most automakers have not bothered to build their own charging networks because there are plenty of independent providers available... it is also possible to charge many non-Tesla EVs from Tesla's network.

Quark Blast wrote:

C&D wrote:

The EPA estimates a range of 76 miles per charge; in our testing, we ran out of juice after 64 miles and saw the equivalent of 71 mpg. The 2017 model, however, will have a 100-mile range and is probably worth waiting for...

Ford says a fully drained battery can be recharged in 3.6 hours at 240 volts.

Ipso facto, ergo, vis-a-vis, he who lives in a glass house, BOOM!, you've been schooled. ;P

I see.

I needed to specify that I was talking about vehicles capable of driving for two hours?

You're 'right'... many low range electric vehicles have large charge times. However, your previous claim of needing to charge for three hours when two hours into a three hour road trip remains fictional... as demonstrated by your own 200 miles of charge in 30 minutes citation. None of the cars capable of MAKING a three hour road trip have charging rates that low.

Quote:

The real answer is to reduce the western lifestyle to something far less than it is today.

False.

The GDP per capita of Trinidad is less than half that of the US... but their per capita CO2 emissions are more than double. Thus, converting the US to a lower 'lifestyle' based on the Trinidad model would result in US CO2 emissions more than quadrupling... and make global warming WORSE.

That is NOT an answer. The only "real answer" is reducing CO2 emissions. Which can be done without reducing 'lifestyle'... as proven by the fact that emissions in many countries are now decreasing while GDP is increasing.

Quote:

A huge chunk of humanity refuses to live near their work because it's "uncomfortable" and they "can't have all they want" if they don't super commute.

Again... and?

People are selfish is not news... and DOES NOT MAKE YOUR CASE NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU SAY IT.

Great. Many people live a long distance from where they work. Also, the Sun is large. So what? You conceded in the VERY SAME POST that most transportation will soon convert to electric vehicles... ergo, those long commutes will soon not be powered by gasoline... and are thus not going to indefinite continuation of current CO2 emissions.

[doc roc]

Naaaahhh....

As has so often been the case, humans (like other organisms) will follow the path of least resistance.....aka nuclear.... the utopian and logistically unrealistic idea of persuading the planet to go over to solar wont win out. Not a chance.

Plus it has the benefit for certain countries of facilitating nuclear weapons production.....

[leonvios]

Hopefully we will be saved by fusion XD

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html

[Sharoth]

leonvios wrote:

Hopefully we will be saved by fusion XD

Compact Fusion - Lockheed Martin

Fixed the link. I really hope it works and it is not shut down by people who gain more from it not going into production.

[CBDunkerson]

doc roc wrote:

As has so often been the case, humans (like other organisms) will follow the path of least resistance.....aka nuclear.... the utopian and logistically unrealistic idea of persuading the planet to go over to solar wont win out. Not a chance.

Just no.

Not only WILL solar 'win out' over nuclear... it already has.

IEA World Energy Investment 2017 wrote:

Even though the contribution of new wind and solar PV to meeting demand has grown by around three-quarters over the past five years, the expected generation from this wind and solar capacity is almost entirely offset by the slowdown in nuclear and hydropower investment decisions, which declined by over half over the same time frame.

Nuclear is expensive, controversial, and takes a long time to deploy... it is dying precisely because it is the path of most resistance. Solar and wind are cheaper and can be ramped up much more quickly.

[Coriat]

doc roc wrote:

Naaaahhh....

As has so often been the case, humans (like other organisms) will follow the path of least resistance.....aka nuclear.... the utopian and logistically unrealistic idea of persuading the planet to go over to solar wont win out. Not a chance.

Plus it has the benefit for certain countries of facilitating nuclear weapons production.....

Current money in nuclear power, at least in the U.S., is in milking more lifetime out of existing plants. Building new nuclear power plants is so not the path of least resistance here that the only company to try it, Westinghouse, just went bankrupt due to its attempt to build new plants, and went bankrupt so deeply that they threatened to drag their owner Toshiba down with them.

[Quark Blast]

CB wrote:

As usual, you just throw out a wall of text* and pretend it makes your point despite it doing exactly the opposite.

NOTHING in that text relates to the EV range I cited in "Fact A" at all. The topic isn't even RAISED, let alone disputed.

What that text DOES include is a charging rate citation;
30 minutes = 200 miles

Directly contradicting your earlier claim of, "Having to charge your EV for three hours while only two hours into a three hour road".

LOL, you're kidding right?

What my link proved was that the Tesla is the only EV for which your factoid is true. A car virtually no one can afford.

Have you ever driven an EV? You do know that if you need to use the heat or the AC the distance drops off by double-digit percentages?

EVs suck for long distances, unless you can afford a Tesla.

And who can afford those? 2% of the 'western' world, maybe.

We need EVs to be widespread circa 2005, not 2035.

As I said in my previous post:
We as a species can push another 80 gigatons (+- 20 GtC) of carbon into the atmosphere as CO2 and still keep CO2-forced global warming to 2.0°C by the year 2100.

This assumes simple models of the world atmosphere-ocean heat sink and transfer mechanisms are accurate enough not to be thrown by unperceived feedback loops (from marine algae, Greenland and Antarctica ice melts, etc).

This also assumes a net carbon zero by about 2050 and useful carbon sequestration technology on a scale similar to our current emissions of carbon as CO2.

This also assumes a large measure of reforestation.

This also assumes a global population of less than 9 billion by 2050 (a figure I don't think we'll achieve without some serious pandemics).

This also assumes a ton of other things we as a species have seemingly little to no control over, but that will have measurable effect on global climate.

Bottom line = too many assumptions for a happy ending:
We (the human race) have waited too long to make things better. Things will turn out about as bad as you can reasonably imagine.

We are getting away from fossil fuels because we have to, because we've used up the easy ones to get, not because we've had a moment of enlightenment as codified in the Paris Agreement.

* Call it a "wall of text" if you want but my posts never fit that definition. Being that they use punctuation, avoid run on sentences, generally show proper quotes and citations to ease comprehension, and demonstrate fully thought out argumentation. But whatevs, if misapplication of idioms works for you to make you feel better I won't begrudge you your peccadilloes.

[Quark Blast]

Sharoth wrote:

leonvios wrote:

Hopefully we will be saved by fusion XD

Compact Fusion - Lockheed Martin

Fixed the link. I really hope it works and it is not shut down by people who gain more from it not going into production.

Lockheed Martin is a big enough company that I don't think Big Oil can shut them down if they wanted to.

I do hope we can get fusion figured out, because humanity will need it badly over the next century. Either that or we'll do without a few billion people.

[Irontruth]

doc roc wrote:

Naaaahhh....

As has so often been the case, humans (like other organisms) will follow the path of least resistance.....aka nuclear.... the utopian and logistically unrealistic idea of persuading the planet to go over to solar wont win out. Not a chance.

Plus it has the benefit for certain countries of facilitating nuclear weapons production.....

Your last point is the only true one.

With no tax credit, the $/MWh cost for new production is about as follows:
Nuclear 99.1
Natural Gas (combined cycle) 57.3
Wind - Onshore 52.2
Wind - Offshore 145.9
Solar PV 66.8
Solar Thermal 184
Coal 30% sequestration 140
Coal 90% sequestration 123.2

Nuclear is cheaper than coal, thermal solar, or offshore wind, but it's more expensive than natural gas, onshore wind, and photovoltaic cells. These costs are why no one is building new coal plants, or new nuclear plants. You don't make money with them. You can make money with wind, solar and natural gas though, which is why currently most new energy production is from those sources.

You're dead on with nuclear power plants being needed for nuclear weapons. The US, China, India, Russia and similar countries are going to maintain at least a few reactors, because they are necessary for the production of nuclear material for weapons. Nuclear will become less and less meaningful to the energy supply as the decades wear on though.

[CBDunkerson]

Quark Blast wrote:

What my link proved was that the Tesla is the only EV for which your factoid is true. A car virtually no one can afford.

EVs suck for long distances, unless you can afford a Tesla.

And who can afford those? 2% of the 'western' world, maybe.

False.

Plenty of people can afford the $35,000 Tesla Model 3. Or the $37,000 Chevy Bolt.

Quote:

Bottom line = too many assumptions for a happy ending:

We (the human race) have waited too long to make things better. Things will turn out about as bad as you can reasonably imagine.

I can reasonably imagine the human race wiping itself out of existence. However, there is no plausible way that we will do so via global warming. Military conflicts sparked by global warming are within the realm of possibility, but global warming itself is not.

Ergo, it is not 'too late' to decrease the impact of global warming.

[leonvios]

Quote:

Plenty of people can afford the $35,000 Tesla Model 3. Or the $37,000 Chevy Bolt.

Do not forget there is also the $7,500 Tax credit for Electric vehicles currently. so tesla is really more like 27,500. And do not forget the Savings in Mileage which varies from person to person. the average male in America Drives 16,550 Miles per year so depending on your gas mileage you could be saving well over a thousand dollars a year.

*Edit* Oh and you get around ~1000 free miles worth of electricity from the supercharging stations per year.

[Quark Blast]

leonvios wrote:

Quote:

Plenty of people can afford the $35,000 Tesla Model 3. Or the $37,000 Chevy Bolt.

Do not forget there is also the $7,500 Tax credit for Electric vehicles currently. so tesla is really more like 27,500. And do not forget the Savings in Mileage which varies from person to person. the average male in America Drives 16,550 Miles per year so depending on your gas mileage you could be saving well over a thousand dollars a year.

*Edit* Oh and you get around ~1000 free miles worth of electricity from the supercharging stations per year.

Well, unless you put your name on the Tesla 3 list years ago you won't be getting one that is eligible for the Tax Credit. And the waiting list is so long that by the time you can buy yours the price will have gone up.

"Free electricity". LOL Like you aren't paying for it up front.

Two other things to consider with EVs.

1) Mentioned this already but no one touched it. The mileage sucks for an EV and sucks even worse if you have to use the AC or heat. This, along with the large recharging time for anything but a Tesla, keeps most people from buying them.

2) The better cars take about 11 years or 200k miles before they need replacing. EVs could be all magic awesomeness today and 5 years from now most of the cars out there will be standard petrol using CO2 spewers.

Did I say two? I meant three.

3) No EVs are also big-### trucks. There are a crapton of big-### trucks on the roads. They also get the worst mileage. EVs are too sleek and quite to appeal to a significant chunk of vehicle owners.

I know this seems unrealated to cars but it's on the general topic of this thread. I commute a different route this summer since I have a different summer job. There are six new warehouse or office style buildings along my route and can you guess how many have solar?

If you picked 0 then you are almost right. The one somewhat smaller and much older office park building that got bulldozed this last spring had solar panels, the new building that replaces it does not.

Go figure.

Yeah, someone good at math will say what I've witnessed doesn't count because of small sample size. But that ignores my point, which is, if solar is such a great investment it becomes hard to explain a -1 for 6 result.

Except, humans = lazy/cheap/selfish/etc. Even when we know beyond a reasonable doubt what the best course of action is we don't take it because... reasons.

[Quark Blast]

Tesla's heralded $35,000 model 3 electric car will really likely set you back at least $42,000

the DM wrote:

Bloomberg's Dana Hull later pointed out in a tweet: 'So if you want a Model 3 in a color besides black with longer range battery, options and autopilot you are looking at $58K.'

...
A longer-range version of the car is priced at $44,000 and will drive 310 miles on a single charge.

Well, Musk didn't get to be a billionaire by giving people sweet deals.

With targeted sales of 500k units next year, if you're not already in the queue to buy one, there is no chance of getting the tax credit at this point. Not for a Tesla anyway. So you'll be paying the full price.

[CBDunkerson]

Quark Blast wrote:

Well, unless you put your name on the Tesla 3 list years ago you won't be getting one that is eligible for the Tax Credit.

So... your position is that EVs won't have much impact because few people will buy them... but so many people are going to buy them that the tax credit will expire before you can get it?

Quote:

1) Mentioned this already but no one touched it. The mileage sucks for an EV and sucks even worse if you have to use the AC or heat. This, along with the large recharging time for anything but a Tesla, keeps most people from buying them.

As has already been pointed out, Tesla fast charging stations work with most EVs... NOT just Teslas. Non Tesla fast charging is also common. Older / low range EVs charged slowly, but the technology is improving significantly every year.

As to mileage... EVs get better mileage than ICEVs. Even if you ran a gasoline generator to recharge your EV battery you'd be getting better mileage per gallon than you would with an ICEV.

I can't figure out what you were trying to say with your second and third points. People won't buy EVs because they are sleek, quiet, and require less maintenance?

Quote:

Yeah, someone good at math will say what I've witnessed doesn't count because of small sample size. But that ignores my point, which is, if solar is such a great investment it becomes hard to explain a -1 for 6 result.

Your problem isn't just being bad at math, it is being bad at reality.

Solar was the largest source of new electricity generation last year... surpassing wind power for the first time. Your attempt to suggest solar is shrinking... based on six buildings, is desperately self-delusional.

Quote:

humans = lazy/cheap/selfish/etc. Even when we know beyond a reasonable doubt what the best course of action is we don't take it because... reasons.

No matter how many times you repeat your belief that humans will never switch to developing solar power as the primary means of electricity production, the fact that we already have will remain reality.

[Quark Blast]

CBDunkerson wrote:

So... your position is that EVs won't have much impact because few people will buy them... but so many people are going to buy them that the tax credit will expire before you can get it?

Yes, if actually read what I posted up thread(!), EV Tax Credits are routinely taken away too early to have much of an impact.

The same will be true of the Tesla 3.

By far most Tesla 3 owners will not get a Tax Credit. This time next year no one who isn't getting one already will be past the eligibility mark (assuming Tesla produces even half as fast as they hope to).

Quark Blast wrote:

1) Mentioned this already but no one touched it. The mileage sucks for an EV and sucks even worse if you have to use the AC or heat. This, along with the large recharging time for anything but a Tesla, keeps most people from buying them.

CBDunkerson wrote:

As has already been pointed out, Tesla fast charging stations work with most EVs... NOT just Teslas. Non Tesla fast charging is also common. Older / low range EVs charged slowly, but the technology is improving significantly every year.

As to mileage... EVs get better mileage than ICEVs. Even if you ran a gasoline generator to recharge your EV battery you'd be getting better mileage per gallon than you would with an ICEV.

I can't figure out what you were trying to say with your second and third points. People won't buy EVs because they are sleek, quiet, and require less maintenance?

Something you demonstrate often when debating those with whom you disagree.

Right now the "half hour to mostly recharge" a Tesla is fine. But you still have to interrupt your trip, get in the queue at the charging station, charge, then get back on the open road heading to your destination.

Reasonably, very reasonably, that will add an hour to your trip and it won't be uncommon (for years anyway) for a recharge pit stop to add well more than an hour to your road trip.

Quark Blast wrote:

Yeah, someone good at math will say what I've witnessed doesn't count because of small sample size. But that ignores my point, which is, if solar is such a great investment it becomes hard to explain a -1 for 6 result.

CBDunkerson wrote:

Your problem isn't just being bad at math, it is being bad at reality.

Solar was the largest source of new electricity generation last year... surpassing wind power for the first time. Your attempt to suggest solar is shrinking... based on six buildings, is desperately self-delusional.

Bad at reality? If you say so. I prefer to say I'm good at human history. And the best predictor of future behavior will be past behavior.

Humans don't have a great track record.

Besides, I never said solar is shrinking. I said, using the example from my commute, that solar is growing nothing like it should based on the hype.

Based on the hype, a new office, mall, or warehouse type building developer would have to be the biggest, ######st, most #######ing, ####ass the world has ever seen not to put solar on the roof of their new construction. Even if it's being built in Anchorage!

But here I see 6 new complexes, one of which is multiple buildings taking up several "city blocks" worth of space, and not a single solar panel among them all.

Let me reiterate: Humans don't have a great track record.

Quark Blast wrote:

humans = lazy/cheap/selfish/etc. Even when we know beyond a reasonable doubt what the best course of action is we don't take it because... reasons.

CBDunkerson wrote:

No matter how many times you repeat your belief that humans will never switch to developing solar power as the primary means of electricity production, the fact that we already have will remain reality.

"Already have"? Well yes, in that very narrow pedantic sense, what you say about power development is true. But so!??!

By far most power consumption on the global scale is from fossil fuels. It will remain that way for at least two more decades. Transportation in the aggregate will likely switch over first, with power grid electricity following a few years to perhaps a decade+ later.

For purposes of AGW:
Humanity's use of fossil fuels should have been at (what will be) 2030 levels in 1995. We, as a species, could not reasonably have slowed down our switch to renewables any more than we actually have.

Oh sure, hypothetically "yes, it could be worse" but practically speaking human behavior at the aggregate scale is never our theoretical worst. If for no other reason than we cannot cooperate that well on such a scale.

For the same reason we will never be at our theoretical best. Though because of human nature our aggregate results will always skew towards our worst instead of our best.

So whether you like it or not the year 2100 will see, at minimum, a +2.5°C over preindustrial times. And again, see my post up thread, because hitting that "mere" +2.5°C is dependent on a loooong line of assumptions. Most likely the number will be worse than that.

If you want to see what I mean writ on a shorter time scale, just use the Interwebs to see what the wonks were saying about the BRIC countries just 10 years ago. Brazil in particular. Then look at Brazil today and see how far they missed the mark.

Another gauge would be to look at where big money is being invested and then look at how much money is being hedged against the success of those big money endeavors. Rich people gonna be rich. Just follow the money, all of it, and that will tell you about how things will turn out.*

* Catastrophes not included in that assessment. YMMV. Look both ways when crossing the street.

[Kirth Gersen]

CBDunkerson wrote:

I can't figure out what you were trying to say with your second and third points. People won't buy EVs because they are sleek, quiet, and require less maintenance?

This is actually dead-on true for a large percentage of drivers. Most of the people who commute around Houston, for example, insist on driving the biggest, noisiest, most gas-guzzling trucks imaginable. More than one of my co-workers has seen my tiny car and very earnestly explained to me that I *NEED* a 3/4 ton truck (at minimum), extended cab preferred, and that my very survival is at dire risk until I get one. And these are educated scientists -- the hicks are even worse. It's an image/lifestyle thing -- if these people could legally drive Abrams tanks downtown, they would all totally do that. So, yes, the reality is that, to a very large proportion of drivers, size does matter.

If you want people to all buy EVs, make them look like more like this (with a deer-killer on the front and dual rear wheels, if possible) and make sure they belch huge clouds of fake smoke, and create incredible amounts of totally unnecessary engine-revving noises.

[Coriat]

Coriat wrote:

doc roc wrote:

Naaaahhh....

As has so often been the case, humans (like other organisms) will follow the path of least resistance.....aka nuclear.... the utopian and logistically unrealistic idea of persuading the planet to go over to solar wont win out. Not a chance.

Plus it has the benefit for certain countries of facilitating nuclear weapons production.....

Current money in nuclear power, at least in the U.S., is in milking more lifetime out of existing plants. Building new nuclear power plants is so not the path of least resistance here that the only company to try it, Westinghouse, just went bankrupt due to its attempt to build new plants, and went bankrupt so deeply that they threatened to drag their owner Toshiba down with them.

More fallout from this happened to be in the news today.

U.S. Nuclear Comeback Stalls as Two Reactors Are Abandoned

Nuclear power is so not the path of least resistance here that South Carolina utilities are abandoning nine billion dollars worth of work already done rather than finish building two of the first new US reactor units in decades.

[CBDunkerson]

Quark Blast wrote:

Another gauge would be to look at where big money is being invested and then look at how much money is being hedged against the success of those big money endeavors. Rich people gonna be rich. Just follow the money, all of it, and that will tell you about how things will turn out.

I gather that you didn't read the World Energy Investment report I linked to earlier.

Investment in oil and gas fell 38% just from 2014 to 2016. Coal (and nuclear) investment is all but non-existent. Meanwhile, there is growing investment in renewable power, energy efficiency, and improved electricity networks (needed to address renewable intermittency).

You are right about people acting in their own selfish interest. You are right about following the money. It is just that those things do not lead where you want them to.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

This is actually dead-on true for a large percentage of drivers. Most of the people who commute around Houston, for example, insist on driving the biggest, noisiest, most gas-guzzling trucks imaginable.

I would question the premise that "people who commute around Houston" are indicative of a "large percentage of drivers".

Yes, such people exist, but the vast majority prefer more practical vehicles... and that disparity will only grow as the cost differential does.

[thejeff]

CBDunkerson wrote:

Quark Blast wrote:

Another gauge would be to look at where big money is being invested and then look at how much money is being hedged against the success of those big money endeavors. Rich people gonna be rich. Just follow the money, all of it, and that will tell you about how things will turn out.

I gather that you didn't read the World Energy Investment report I linked to earlier.

Investment in oil and gas fell 38% just from 2014 to 2016. Coal (and nuclear) investment is all but non-existent. Meanwhile, there is growing investment in renewable power, energy efficiency, and improved electricity networks (needed to address renewable intermittency).

You are right about people acting in their own selfish interest. You are right about following the money. It is just that those things do not lead where you want them to.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

This is actually dead-on true for a large percentage of drivers. Most of the people who commute around Houston, for example, insist on driving the biggest, noisiest, most gas-guzzling trucks imaginable.

I would question the premise that "people who commute around Houston" are indicative of a "large percentage of drivers".

Yes, such people exist, but the vast majority prefer more practical vehicles... and that disparity will only grow as the cost differential does.

Well, it's not that uncommon. Trucks and SUVs are still the big sellers across the US. Spikes in gas prices will change that - we've seen it in the past, but when they stabilize the effect seems to wear off.

OTOH, as the tech gets better, we'll likely see electric trucks and SUVs - much like we've seen hybrid SUVs (at least, not sure about trucks).

As for investment, it depends on whether you look at trends or at total amounts - oil and gas are dropping while renewables are growing, but they are still much higher than renewables.

[Kirth Gersen]

CBDunkerson wrote:

Yes, such people exist, but the vast majority prefer more practical vehicles...

In blue-state urban centers, maybe, but outside of those small oases, I'm not seeing it. I've lived in 8 different states (and worked in more), and a common theme is that, outside of densely-crowded cities, huge SUVs and pickups are the rule, not the exception.

[CBDunkerson]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

CBDunkerson wrote:

Yes, such people exist, but the vast majority prefer more practical vehicles...

In blue-state urban centers, maybe, but outside of those small oases, I'm not seeing it. I've lived in 8 different states (and worked in more), and a common theme is that, outside of densely-crowded cities, huge SUVs and pickups are the rule, not the exception.

Two-thirds of the US population lives on 3.5% of its land mass (i.e. in cities). Ergo, your statement about 'only people in urban areas' in no way contradicts my statement about 'the vast majority of people'.

BTW, SUVs are not exactly "the biggest, noisiest, most gas-guzzling trucks imaginable". Rather, they make every effort to be "sleek, quiet, and require less maintenance"... within the limits imposed by being able to transport a small soccer team.

thejeff wrote:

OTOH, as the tech gets better, we'll likely see electric trucks and SUVs - much like we've seen hybrid SUVs (at least, not sure about trucks).

Electric pickups and semis are already a thing. Indeed, self-driving electric semis are poised to cause massive disruption within the next decade if the trucking union doesn't manage to block them with regulations. I don't see that working for long as virtually every industry would see significant cost savings if driver salaries were taken out of trucking transport costs.

[Irontruth]

I've said it before (mostly in a different, locked thread), but 3.5 million people work as professional truck drivers. That doesn't count the various support staff (which is roughly another 5 million). The US workforce is about 160 million. That means about 5% of working Americans are employed in the trucking industry and it's going to collapse in the next 5-20 years. Right now, that would take our unemployment rate from 4.4% to 9.4%.

Any initial cost savings are going to be more than offset by reduced demand. Of course if this is done incrementally it would help reduce the shock.