It seems to me that the press is all in on climate change. Any flood, fire or storm always has a last paragraph referencing it. But then again I only know what I read.
That day is a long ways away BECAUSE of the fossil fuels industry. In the 19th century, a Frenchman invented a refrigeration system that ran on solar power. Guess how long it took the oil interests to not only discredit his invention, but to destroy him personally? So none of this is an accident. This has been the plan all along. Dig, destroy, discredit…profit. And we’re all fucked because of it.
The fossil fuel industry isn’t standing in of the way of solar refrigeration now. Or wind turbines and etc.
If it was such a great invention, it would be in use today. All these refrigerated trailers holding bodies in many cities could be running on solar, they’re not.
That sounds like a real loony idea if you really stop to think about it. It’s like something someone pulled out of their behind and everybody repeats like gospel. Like I said, if solar refrigeration had great practical applications, it would be in use today.
Don’t like the fossil fuel industry? Refuse to have anything to do with their products. If you live up North, I don’t know y’all are gonna heat your home when it’s 30 below zero, cloudy and no wind. Of course, we generally have wind at those temps because the polar vortex also brings some stiff winds to accompany sub -20 below temps. But wind turbines up in Minnesota are shut down at 22 below zero. They can’t operate at that temperature and below.
Having everyone install a 96-98 efficiency furnace and weatherizing their houses will go a long way in cutting down on C02 emissions. So will having the federal government subsidize 30% towards installing geothermal heating//cooling systems.
Jesus pal, use your imagination. You think these died because they weren’t good enough? They were killed by the oil barons of the 19th century.
1 Like
Errr…
2 Likes
So… hydro power isn’t new. My power company has at least three dams within ten miles of my house. I often fish below one of them. (Blanchard Dam) Matter of fact, last winter my power company (Minnesota Power) announced they have achieved over 50% of their power from renewable sources. I pay 0.059 cents per kilowatt for my power. Compare that to your state.
I’m referring to the purists who whine about fossil fuels and then use their products with abandon. Sort of like a fish complaining all that damn water they swim in and need to live.
And most of these whiners don’t even realize what their damn carbon footprint is. Haven’t got a clue. They just consume with abandon and whine when it’s their daily habits that are driving most of the rising C02 emissions.
And that James Bay project is feasible only because of fossil fuels. Cement production contributes about 8% of all global emissions. And most of the cement comes from China or India.
At least the world without fossil.fuels would be habitable. There is a real likelihood that the world with fossil fuels as currently used will not be. Not for ant living thing.
Unfortunately, neither you or I will be around to see that world or know that for sure. Well, I won’t be anyway. Not currently being 70 years old anyway. I’m healthy, but not that damn healthy. 
That world without fossil fuels is about 40 years away. And still, I doubt their use will go away completely.
You don’t think the EV industry isn’t doing everything in their power to promote EVs?
Yes, they are. If they could make BEVs rein supreme and keep FCEVs off the market, they will. And by any means required. Listen to Musk downplay hydrogen. One could say he’s a FCEVs denier.
Any industry is going to promote their own products and do whatever necessary to have an advantage in the market place. Or at least to remain relevant.
The EV industry puts out a lot of articles heavily slanted in their favor. Many of them are mostly BS if you do any checking. Actually, unless you drive a lot, there’s not all much difference in carbon footprints if your ICE gets between 35-45 MPG.
Yes, I’m all for EVs for delivery vehicles, taxis and vehicles that on the road near daily and drive all day. Am I for electric school buses that travel 4-8 thousand miles a year? No.
Waste of money.
There’s still a hell of a carbon footprint in mining and manufacturing a battery. (17.5 tons for 100 kilowatt battery) And still, the US grid is only about 20% renewable and 80% fossil fuel based.
Driving my pickup 1.500 miles a year for 17.5 years @ 16 MPG average, I will have the same carbon footprint as manufacturing a 100 kilowatt battery.
So until they cut that footprint way the hell down, I’m going be an environmentalist and keep driving my pickup. And it’s a little over 90% recyclable using current methods.
Link to Swedish study:
Although I appreciate the thrust of your argument, you are mixing apples and oranges a bit here. You start with the energy to produce an electric battery (17.5 tons for a 100kw battery) and then calculate the energy used to power your ICE. Where’s the calculation for what’s needed to create that internal combustion engine and all it’s ancillary parts (including the copper in the starter, the starter battery, etc)? And then, where’s the calculation for the actual EV energy consumption over the lifetime of the vehicle?
You need both the creation costs and the operating costs for both types to get a “total cost of ownership”. Then, you also need to realize that we are making headway in converting the grid to renewables, so if you’re going to amortize the vehicle over the next 17.5 years, you need to factor in the grid improvements, which would tend to favor the electric vehicle.
Now, I have done none of the above calculations, but we can’t build a case by cherrypicking the numbers that suit our case - we need total cost of ownership over projected lifetime to reach an informed decision (and while we’re trying to do that, we have to acccept that we’re going to have to make some assumptions and guesses)…
1 Like
Edited
Hey, it’s a 2001 Dodge Ram 1500 with a V6. After ten years, it don’t matter. It’s long past its estimated life cycle
I can give you a an example of the carbon footprint of a fully loaded 2010 Land Rover Discovery back in 2010. About 34 metric tonnes.
And a Small Citroën C1 takes 6 metric tons of CO2 to produce. My half ton short bed pickup would be in the 20 ton vicinity.
And check into the amount copper that goes into an EV like a Tesla Model S compared to a ICE vehicle.
No comparison.
Then you have anywhere from 2 to 4 electric motors, (the Hummer will have a motor on each wheel) in addition to the battery. The Hummer is an extreme example, but it will have a 200 kilowatt battery and more than 200 pounds of copper on top of weighing nearly 5 tons.
I certainly hope these motors are made for easy recycling.
ICE vehicles are nearly totally recycled. ( about 92%) Steel can be recycled hundreds of times without any issues. And all car engines and bodies are melted down and reused. Even the fluids are recycled.
Tesla processes the batteries for disposal at their Reno facility, very little materiel is recycled.
Maybe someday things will change with recycling lithium batteries, but that day isn’t here yet.
Added:
The biggest minus to me regarding EVs, is the life of a battery. If it has to be replaced within 8-10 years, that’s going to be at least 15 tonnes to replace (I’m figuring in some renewable energy in the process)
The Swedish study quoted 17.5 tonnes to 20 tonnes for a 100 kilowatt battery. I used the lower figure.
And Tesla is leaning towards omitting cobalt (currently, the only recyclable material) and using non recyclable material in their future batteries.
My engine is actually good for another 20 years. If I drove a lot more, an overhaul kit is just a small box full parts. Or one can order a re manufactured engine (short block) and exchange the old block.
I don’t see using EVs making much difference in CO2 until our grid changes to 75-80 percent renewables.
It took us over twenty years to reach 20% renewable in our grid.
However, coal is responsible for over 40% of our global emissions. Light passenger vehicles only account for about 16% globally.
Currently, we only see about 20-30 % reduction in CO2 by going the battery route. A better solution would be to promote nuclear and cleaner NG plants world wide to phase out coal. A modern NG gas plant will emit less than half of what a coal plant will emit. And carbon capture is doable on NG plants. Nuclear is greener than solar and about dead even with wind power.
And finally, if we have to go with batteries, smaller ones would be better. Only an opinion.I’m thinking hybrids. No reason they can’t achieve 50-60 MPG or better if we cut some damn weight. A 15-30 kilowatt battery is all that’s needed in a hybrid.
Biden has signed more oil and gas leases than trump did in 4 years. He isn’t bothering to fight the federal judge appointed by trump. The good news is that they have legal options to avoid signing the leashes, the bad news is that they are approving the leases anyway. Another campaign promise bites the dust.
The judge’s injunction “didn’t say the Interior Department needed to start leasing again,” said Brettny Hardy, an attorney at Earthjustice. “What it said was you can’t implement the pause Biden called for in his executive order. It didn’t eliminate any of the Interior Department’s regular discretion over whether it should lease, and how much to lease. There’s a number of federal laws that regulate that process and give Interior the power to cancel a lease sale if it determines that’s necessary. There’s a lot of discretion in the law.”
This isn’t the first time the Biden administration has used the courts to justify actions that have helped polluters. In the past eight short months, the administration has frequently gone to bat for fossil fuels interests in court while talking a big climate game to the public. Those actions include upholding a Trump-era decision to drill in the Arctic, suppressing a climate lawsuit brought by young people, refusing to shut down the Line 3 pipeline in Minnesota, and allowed the Dakota Access Pipeline to keep operating. With friends like these, who needs enemies?
A world without people will create a world without fossil fuels and that may certainly happen first.
If it happens fast, we will eventually become fossil fuel.
If another species evolves to burn it, they better hurry. Earth will burn up in about a billion years regardless of CO2 levels due the sun burning hotter as it shrinks.
Market failure accomplished this. Gross distortion of cost vs benefit.
Climate related costs of fossil fuels were NOT included in the price per barrel.
As such Coal, and oil especially have been vastly underpriced. Oil in particular because the Saudis ultra cheap extraction costs have made petroleum the dominant fuel. And every penny spent to stabilize and support the countries where there’s lots of oil, and the companies that extract it, has compounded the market failure.
That all has given it an advantage against other energy sources and in particular has stunted and delayed R&D into alternatives.
Example: Ferdinand Porsche initially developed an electric automobile…
1 Like