# Could it be true????



## NateB (May 18, 2018)

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2018/05/15/are-electric-cars-worse-for-the-environment-000660

I hope this is right place to put this.  I am not trying to ruffle feathers.  Just offering a different point of view.


----------



## begreen (May 18, 2018)

This is an opinion piece. There are lots of ways to look at the transportation issue and its environmental impacts.  The author ignores health benefits from dramatically reduced emissions. There's no mention of longer lifespan for components like brakes, less components too.

Are there other solutions? Yes, more rail freight and less cars on the road are options. 

Moving to the Green Room for objective discussion as long as it doesn't get political.

And a rebuttal
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...er-for-the-environment-than-gas-powered-ones/


----------



## jebatty (May 19, 2018)

I focused on the opinion that the wealthy are the ones that benefit from the electric car to the detriment of the less wealthy. That brought me back to 1963 and 10th grade in high school, 55 years ago, and just 16 years after the invention of the transistor. That's when I bought my first battery operated transistor radio. Maybe you recall the vacuum tube, battery operated (A and B batteries, expensive), portable radios. My new transistor radio operated for months on two D cells, and the now nearly impossible to find carbon-zinc D cell. And that same transistor radio in 1965 became the amp-speaker output for one channel of my jerry-rigged stereo system, the other channel being from my also jerry-rigged vacuum tube plug-in table radio.

Now, I was by no means one of the wealthy ones, nor was my family. But I clearly was an early adopter, and a person who had a passion for technology. That transistor morphed into the multi-layer microprocessor of today, many other kinds of semiconductors, and even the solar PV cells of today. Marvels of technology. And truly penny cheap compared to the price of the first semiconductors. 

All of this leads to the fact that even nearly the poorest among us not only have semiconductor radios, but also TVs, computers, monitors and the ubiquitous smart phone, along with the myriad of other devices and IOTs that affect (or infect) people's lives world-wide. So for the EV, I too am an early adopter. I look at the EV as a step towards a more innovative transportation system, which in its final iteration likely will be radically different from four wheels rolling down a highway, and one which likely also will be quite minimal in its environmental impact.

By the way, my Bolt is mostly powered by our PV system, which either makes me double not good or double good, depending on a person's perspective from the POV of the Politico article. What's next on the early adopter agenda?


----------



## woodgeek (May 19, 2018)

Poorly reasoned hit piece by a think tank shill.

Says very misleading things like...

'coal is the second largest supplier of electricity' 'will be for some time' without any numbers, CO2 emissions from the US electricity sector are falling rapidly while the transportation sector is still rising (and now higher). CO2 emission per mile for EVs with the current electricity generation mix are already much less than for fleet average new ICE cars.  The factor is about 50-60% lower CO2 emissions per mile today, contra the thesis of his headline.

'EVs subsidies benefit rich people only'.  Class warfare.  Early adopters of tech are always wealthier, and tax benefits have always been used to get new technology that benefits society off the ground.  The point he elides is that EVs are getting cheaper as batteries get cheaper.  So total cost of ownership of (short range) EVs is already lower than median price new ICE cars.  And long range one should be there (according to many analysts) in a few years.  So the EV industry will lead to cheaper car and transportation options for everyone.

Not to mention reduced tailpipe emissions helping everyone, especially people living in cities.  Car and truck exhaust causes cardiovascular disease and cancer (#1 and #2 killers) and is implicated in Alzheimers.

'EVs will only reduce emissions by x% by 2030'.  Mostly true.  Projections vary a lot. EIA and the oil majors are on the low end, independent analysts project much higher adoption.  But the nature of exponential growth is that is starts out low....you can always pick an early enough time to make it look small.  We don't need to get rid of all emissions by 2030, 12 years from now, when many new 2018 cars will still be on the road.  We need to cut emissions by 80% by 2050 or so.  And with light transport being 30% of emissions (and rising) that won't be possible without EVs.

'todays cars only emit 1% as much pollution as older cars', which references non-CO2 emissions only, and which still sounds overstated....modern cars emit lots of smog forming pollutants until the catalytic converters 'warm up'...what fraction of miles are driven with the CC still 'cold'?

Good Morning


----------



## NateB (May 19, 2018)

Jebatty what do you see as the semiconductors of the EV car development?


----------



## jebatty (May 19, 2018)

NateB, I wish I had that foresight. The wheel has been around for a long time. As population continues to grow, congestion increases, and transportation becomes more and more expensive, especially in lost time and cost of road and bridge infrastructure, both new and maintenance on existing -- something major has to give. Taxpayer reticence to fund roads and bridges grows. Paving over gardens and agricultural fields to build new roads and parking lots cannot be the answer.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (May 19, 2018)

no mention that this atitcle is just shy of 5 years old. with today's changes in tech, it might as well be a light year behind us? just a thought


----------



## semipro (May 19, 2018)

With fossil-fueled vehicles they get dirtier with time as the engine wears and parts fail.
With EVs there is the potential for them to "burn" cleaner with time as the grid gains more renewables, more efficient hydro, and cleaner fossil sources.
You also have the option to create the power for EVs at your house via solar/wind/hydro -- not so with fossil/liquid fuels (except bio-diesel).


----------



## woodgeek (May 19, 2018)

NateB said:


> Jebatty what do you see as the semiconductors of the EV car development?



The concept of an electric drivetrain is obvious (efficiency, simplicity, etc) but the necessary tech really wasn't there until quite recently.

1. Semiconductors are a big thing.  Building a 10 Watt transistor for your stereo amplifier is one thing.  My EV contains three >150 kW (200 hp) semiconductor amplifiers to drive the motor!  The cost of this unit or 'inverter', which converts DC into multiple high current, high voltage waveforms that drive the motor is a significant portion of the EV cost.  And it takes a LOT of silicon mass to make that work.  It would have been cost prohibitive more than a decade ago, but the volume of semi production has gone through the roof with consumer electronics and PV rollout.

2. Battery tech is obviously the other.  Lithium battery costs have been falling exponentially for years, and building the BIG cells for EVs is new tech.  The cells in my car are the size of a hard-cover book, store several hundred Watt-hours, and cost about $200/kWh, and are good for >1000 full discharge cycles.  Scale that to a 10Wh iPhone battery, and it would cost just $2.  Right now the materials cost are only about 1/3rd of that...so there is still room to fall.

Both of these technologies getting cheaper leads to cheap/effective stationary energy storage (grid batteries) as a spinoff, which will be necessary as wind+solar power continue to grow.  Wind+solar is currently at 10+2 = 12% of total US electrical energy, and on track to cross 20% in 4-5 years from now.  Much beyond that....we'll need some grid storage to keep going.


----------



## begreen (May 19, 2018)

A more recent and neutral study:
https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2017_10_EV_LCA_briefing_final.pdf


----------



## CaptSpiff (May 21, 2018)

NateB said:


> Jebatty what do you see as the semiconductors of the EV car development?



For me, the computer RAM and VLSI discussions of the 1980's sits in my mind as equivalent to the "transistor revolution" in the 1960's. There were very smart people at the time shouting "640K is all we'll ever need" for computer memory processing. They did not see, or did not want to see, the potential effects the price reduction of their technology would have in wide, if not all, areas of society. Today I have an advanced navigation system, voice & video conferencing system, personal time & fitness manager, and (although I don't use it yet) a personal purchasing, banking & accounting feature, all in a pocket sized smart phone. Who would have thought?

I think the advancements in Battery Technology is today's kernel that will lead to wide area societal changes which we do not even conceive today because of our personal historical paradigms. In example, smaller longer lasting batteries will transition our wrist worn FitBits into a tiny capsule injected under our skin for complete body health monitoring with 5-10 year trending. Some closer to now items we see are the batteries powering tools in our home centers. Who thought that we'd have 80v batteries powering lawn mowers and chain saws? Not me! And we are only on the first rung of the ladder.

And as for this article, the author argues that the rich advantage themselves to benefit from these technologies. I say it is that very path which brings the product out of the laboratory, into the boutique manufacturing environment (where EV's presently are at). Then, if there is demand, into mass market development, where the cost efficiencies enter to drive prices down to where all begin to afford the benefits. That is the time when BEV's will cost 60-70% of today's equivalent ICE stablemates (ie the future Nissan Rogue BEV will cost 60-70% of the present ICE version). And those ends scare a lot of people, many of them presently rich.


----------



## Cast Iron (Jun 18, 2018)

Nice discussion, though there's no need for divisive class partisan polarization---"the rich", "the poor".
Think this: where is the $$$$ for infrastructure ( bridges, roads, etc...) that now comes from gas taxes with EV vehicles ?
Also, we never know what technology will develop in the next decade.; not just battery tech. A decade ago, SmartFons !
Last: when the concentration on only wind and solar don't fill the grid, then what ? It is now barely 10% of the need.


----------



## blades (Jun 18, 2018)

Storage of wind or solar is the limiting factor, Do not know that batteries per say are the optimum solution, Perhaps Capacitors might eventually become the top storage function. Then again there is always the possibility of a completely different energy source and transmission ( think something along the line of microwaves) an area the just beginning to be explored, or maybe something to do with ion generation  & proportion.  Maybe the prospect of cold fusion will become a reality.  Just thinking a bit out side the box.


----------



## begreen (Jun 18, 2018)

Cast Iron said:


> Think this: where is the $$$$ for infrastructure ( bridges, roads, etc...) that now comes from gas taxes with EV vehicles ?


Our state has gone from incentivizing electric vehicles to penalizing them. Starting last year we have been paying a $150 excise tax for our electric vehicle at license renewal. If this was a gas vehicle then the equivalent gas taxes would be $64. About 17 or 18 states now charge an electric vehicle fee. Of course funding needs to be raised to support roads and bridges and transit, but penalizing electric vehicles is not the best way to solve the problem. 


Cast Iron said:


> when the concentration on only wind and solar don't fill the grid, then what ? It is now barely 10% of the need.


There is also hydro in some areas. Tidal and geothermal power are still underutilized. Other areas with abundant solar/wind can use pumped storage for overnight demand. Battery tech is also starting to show faster improvement and could very likely be a preferred storage medium in the future. Nothing is going to happen overnight, but incrementally working toward shedding the fossil fuel yoke has to happen.


----------



## Cast Iron (Jun 24, 2018)

Until the problem with storage and battery tech is solved, the race to the only two "renewables" wind and solar, will never provide 100%, 24/7 grid needs. EV vehicles may make some feel virtuous but it ain't the solution to demand.
Biomass and wood, tidal, hydro, and the most carbon-free source of electricity have been foolishly ignored. In New England for example, the total hydro potential is all but ignored as is nuclear.
Forgotten is the total carbon use of solar and wind turbines in manufacturing....and yes, EV vehicles..
Excerpt in Iceland, *large scale* geothermal can never provide cost effective power.
The issue of class division and affordability is rarely discussed.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jun 24, 2018)

I agree.  The potential of tidal, and micro hydro would lead to a stable and very decentralized power supply.


----------



## begreen (Jun 24, 2018)

The US is a world leader,  generating about 3,800 megawatts of geothermal power with good potential for growth, especially in the west. The University of Utah just got a grant to develop practical working solutions for more plants across the country.
https://www.elp.com/articles/2018/06/utah-to-receive-140-million-for-geothermal-energy-lab.html
DoE is also investing in the development of new drilling technology for geothermal. 
https://www.renewableenergyworld.co...-for-innovative-geothermal-drilling-tech.html
Canada is also moving forward in geothermal.


----------



## Cast Iron (Jun 25, 2018)

Hydro.
Nuclear.
Tidal.
Biomass.
Fact: wind and solar ALONE can never supply anywhere close to the needs of the civilised world. The concentration of what is an in reality intermittent source of power is non science. 
Iceland.


----------



## bholler (Jun 25, 2018)

Cast Iron said:


> Hydro.
> Nuclear.
> Tidal.
> Biomass.
> ...


So because they cant do it alone they should be ignored??  And you are right in part.  With our current tech those surces cannot do it alone.  But if we keep working at it they may be able to.  Especially if we add in geothermal hydro tidal etc.  Many said ic motors would never replace horses as well. Or clean burn stoves would never work.  The fact is these sources can contribute allot of power to our grid and if we keep at it we can be the innovators in the feild which would be good for everyone here.  So why so much resistance?


----------



## begreen (Jun 25, 2018)

Cast Iron said:


> Hydro.
> Nuclear.
> Tidal.
> Biomass.
> ...


Can be done. Iceland is a small case. Portugal, Denmark, Norway, Costa Rica all have reached 100% renewable power generation. A country or region uses what is available. Geothermal might not make sense in VT, just like tidal doesn't make a bit of sense for the mid-west. In the west there is abundant geothermal potential and it works 24/7. 

Point being, the US is way behind here in comparison to the rest of the world. This because we have allowed the fossil fuel industries to dominate our energy supply and politics.


----------



## woodgeek (Jun 25, 2018)

Not buying it Cast Iron.  Study after study and the low costs of actual mega-projects are contrary to your flat assertions.

There is no reason whatsoever that solar can't supply most of society's energy needs in a sustainable way, with modest land use.  The cost of solar (without storage) as primary energy is already competitive.  The materials are all earth abundant.

The cost of storage is still falling.  Earth abundance remains an open question, but there are multiple technologies.

Wind is complementary to solar on a daily and seasonal and geographic basis, the cost is even lower, and the ultimate size of the wind resource has expanded immensely in the last few years.

Light transportation can be electrified, the costs are still falling.  The result is lower carbon even with current grid electricity.  And EVs DO help with intermittency of wind and solar through demand management, and are synergistic with the declining cost of grid storage.


----------



## CaptSpiff (Jun 25, 2018)

woodgeek said:


> ....  And EVs do help with intermittency of wind and solar through demand management, and are synergistic with the declining cost of grid storage.


I agree on the EVs with demand management, like turning their charging off similar to Utility controlled pool pumps and water heaters. What I'm disapointed about is the total lack of vision in the V2G (vehicle to grid) area. The more I try to learn about V2G tech and research, the more I see a clear willingness to punt it down the five year road.

The reason I'm bothered by that is I envision V2G being a significant revenue stream of the public/private charger buildout. Margins look thin to negative without it.


----------



## woodgeek (Jun 26, 2018)

CaptSpiff said:


> I agree on the EVs with demand management, like turning their charging off similar to Utility controlled pool pumps and water heaters. What I'm disapointed about is the total lack of vision in the V2G (vehicle to grid) area. The more I try to learn about V2G tech and research, the more I see a clear willingness to punt it down the five year road.
> 
> The reason I'm bothered by that is I envision V2G being a significant revenue stream of the public/private charger buildout. Margins look thin to negative without it.



I used to feel similarly, V2G is a no-brainer right?

The numbers are a little different.  In round figures for 2018, the batteries in my EV cost $200/kWh and are likely good for ~1000 full discharge cycles (or their equivalent).  This means that the lifecycle cost of each kWh to the motor is the cost of charging (with a 8% charging cycle loss) plus 20 cents/kWh.  So if I was going to do V2G....why would I do that for less than 20 cents/kWh?

We can quibble on the math....2000 cycles at low power and gentle SOC, etc. but in the end, current V2G is just way too expensive.

Demand management....entirely different story.  I'm going to charge, and if the battery is big enough, I can be really flexible with when.

Stationary solutions can use different chemistry, different charge controllers (to get more cycles), don't care about weight, etc.   And they aren't really there yet either price-wise.


----------



## Cast Iron (Jun 26, 2018)

No nation has 100% renewable power. Fact check please.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Jun 26, 2018)

begreen said:


> Can be done. Iceland is a small case. Portugal, Denmark, Norway, Costa Rica all have reached 100% renewable power generation. A country or region uses what is available. Geothermal might not make sense in VT, just like tidal doesn't make a bit of sense for the mid-west. In the west there is abundant geothermal potential and it works 24/7.
> 
> Point being, the US is way behind here in comparison to the rest of the world. This because we have allowed the fossil fuel industries to dominate our energy supply and politics.
> 
> View attachment 227478


What price is the rest of the world paying for electricity?  One of the reasons we are are world power is our access to affordable power to make things.

I've rented homes across all of Europe.  Few have AC.  Few have a even medium sized refrigerator.  Electricity is expensive, has massive taxes and you can be sure, stifles manufacturing/economy.

This site is mostly German.
https://1-stromvergleich.com/electricity-prices-europe/

Note Germany has had a 39% increase in 10 years.



Germans pay a 23% renewable surcharge on their bill + all of the other taxes and transmission fees before they even get to pay for the rest of the bill.

Isn't it a little disingenuous to say that a place like Costa Rica is 100% renewables when over 80% of that is hydro followed up by geothermal?  Hydro gets fought tooth and nail by environmentalists because it changes the landscape, floods valleys and prevents normal aquatic migration.  Now it is something that gets lumped into 'renewables' because wind and solar have (so far) been vastly inferior.
It leads people to believe that wind and solar have made vast strides in overall power generation, when they really are a very small amount of total grid energy supply.  Sure seems like the environmentalists are taking credit for 'renewables' when in reality, they fight the best, most cost effective and best renewable out there.

Many of those countires you say are now 100% rewewables, have a GDP lower then one of our rural states.  They don't make much.
Denmark: 2017 GDP = $306B
Ireland: 2017 GDP = $334B
*Colorado*: 2017 GDP = $342B
ect....

Something to chew on.


----------



## begreen (Jun 26, 2018)

Cast Iron said:


> No nation has 100% renewable power. Fact check please.


Didn't say that, but they are having days and in Portugal this last March where 100% of the nation's power was generated by renewables. Costa Rica has done even better. Denmark has had days where it is exporting wind driven power after 100% of the nation's needs have been met.
https://qz.com/1245048/portugal-gen...e-energy-to-power-the-whole-country-in-march/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...7-record-wind-hydro-solar-water-a8069111.html
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...wind-windfarm-power-exceed-electricity-demand
Actually Cast, I don't think anyone disagrees with your assessment that for the time being a steady state of power be it nuclear or gas is required for the valleys when renewable energy is low. But with time, more solutions are coming forth and will become practical. In the meantime, just dramatically reducing losses and aggressively working on conservation will reduce those dependencies. If you compare where the world was at the turn of the century and now, a lot of progress has been made.


----------



## begreen (Jun 26, 2018)

sportbikerider78 said:


> What price is the rest of the world paying for electricity?  One of the reasons we are are world power is our access to affordable power to make things.
> 
> I've rented homes across all of Europe.  Few have AC.  Few have a even medium sized refrigerator.  Electricity is expensive, has massive taxes and you can be sure, stifles manufacturing/economy.
> 
> ...


Germany's economy is flourishing. GDP $3.46 Trillion Their manufacturing is not suffering. Treehugger argument is a strawman.* "Renewable energy* is energy that is generated from natural processes that are continuously replenished. This includes sunlight, geothermal heat, wind, tides, water, and various forms of biomass. This energy cannot be exhausted and is constantly renewed."
https://extension.psu.edu/what-is-renewable-energy


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Jun 26, 2018)

begreen said:


> Germany's economy is flourishing. GDP $3.46 Trillion Their manufacturing is not suffering. Treehugger argument is a strawman.* "Renewable energy* is energy that is generated from natural processes that are continuously replenished. This includes sunlight, geothermal heat, wind, tides, water, and various forms of biomass. This energy cannot be exhausted and is constantly renewed."
> https://extension.psu.edu/what-is-renewable-energy



Really?  
Google "environmental opposition to hydro power" and see what comes up.  
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...rt_HbAhWMuFMKHWNqDA4QBQgmKAA&biw=1920&bih=947

I think you completely misunderstand correlation and causation. 
Just because they are using renewables at a high cost and having a growing GDP does not mean they are having a growing GDP because of high renewable cost.


----------



## begreen (Jun 26, 2018)

Environmental opposition does not change the definition of renewable.

They are having a growing economy in spite of the cost of transitioning to renewables. Like it or not, we don't have a choice. During the last century the world population grew from 1.65 billion to 6 billion. It's projected to reach 8 billion in just 6 more years. There are too many people now on the planet to sustain past practices. We need a sustainable model for the survival of the planet and the human race.


----------



## Ashful (Jun 26, 2018)

One thing I’ve always wondered, since you’re discussing Geothermal on very large (national) scales, is the potential geological impact.  Folks have their head in the sand when they consider it an infinite heat source without consequence, as much as many once considered hydro, prior to realizing the havoc dams create on the environment.


----------



## begreen (Jun 26, 2018)

Noted above that geothermal is a regional solution for most areas unless the country is small and sitting on a hot spot.  AFAIK the geological impact is tiny, but if drilling technologies like fracking were used then there could be a local impact. The environmental impact is worth noting depending on the conversion and cooling technology used and the sulfur, salt and mineral content of the water.

Anything we do short of fusion power is going to have an impact. We're seeing this in WA state as solar farms are sometimes taking over cropland. The goal has to be to keep these impacts minimal. For emissions, in comparison to coal power generation it's no contest. Even compared to the cleanest natural gas power generation geothermal is a win.
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy...l-impacts-geothermal-energy.html#.WzJNJxJKhE4


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Jun 27, 2018)

begreen said:


> Environmental opposition does not change the definition of renewable.
> 
> They are having a growing economy in spite of the cost of transitioning to renewables. Like it or not, we don't have a choice. During the last century the world population grew from 1.65 billion to 6 billion. It's projected to reach 8 billion in just 6 more years. There are too many people now on the planet to sustain past practices. We need a sustainable model for the survival of the planet and the human race.



I understand you believe this.  I'm always amazed people believe in global overpopulation.


----------



## begreen (Jun 27, 2018)

Be amazed.  I don't think humanity's current course is sustainable  or that the earth will do well with a 33% increase in human population in the next 6 yrs.. Not with the current species extinction rate accelerating like it has been. 2 billion more consumers + climate change migration is going to change the landscape in more ways than many can imagine.


----------



## bholler (Jun 28, 2018)

sportbikerider78 said:


> I understand you believe this.  I'm always amazed people believe in global overpopulation.


I wasnt aware it was something that people doubted.  You can debate the timeline sure but we live on a planet with a defined ammout of liveable space.  There is no possible way that it can support indefinate population growth.


----------



## Ashful (Jun 28, 2018)

bholler said:


> I wasnt aware it was something that people doubted.  You can debate the timeline sure but we live on a planet with a defined ammout of liveable space.  There is no possible way that it can support indefinate population growth.



In the future, people will be quartered in height, you can fit twice as many in the same building size.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Jun 28, 2018)

bholler said:


> I wasnt aware it was something that people doubted.  You can debate the timeline sure but we live on a planet with a defined ammout of liveable space.  There is no possible way that it can support indefinate population growth.


I think once in my life I have talked with someone about overpopulation.  They were really on the fence if it was an issue or not..and then we quickly moved to another topic because people are going to reproduce and there is nothing anyone will do about that...nor should they.  Of course, you see it in lots of news outlets, but that doesn't mean it is on anyone's mind.

The amount of rural areas, even in a state like NY, are just incredible.  Country everywhere. Space everywhere.
The human race is very resourceful.  Farming methods are always evolving and people can product a huge amount of food on a very small plot.  I read an article this morning about a guy in CA that produces 7000lbs of food each year on 1/10th of an acre without any enclosures or synthetic fertilizer.  He sells most of it and eats the rest.  

To say that current methods aren't sustainable is sort of confusing to me.  What methods 50 years ago to process anything do we currently use now?  How about 100 years ago?  Everything changes and becomes much more efficient and productive.  To worry about how we are going to do things 200+ years from now when (we think) there will be way more people on the earth then now, is a total waste of time.  One technology blows comes in and totally changes the game. Just to name one...how many trees do you think email has saved?  How about fossil fuel savings with video conferencing?  

All of our methods on how we live on this earth will change.  We just don't know what they are yet.

In modern times, plague and war have wiped people out.  After that, dramatic weather events.  I'm sure we haven't seen the last of either.


----------



## peakbagger (Jun 28, 2018)

Overpopulation isn't as much of an issue in first world countries as the birth rate is low. Its the third world that is exploding. Overconcentration of population  is also occurring, rural populations are getting driven to the edges of cities in third world emerging economies to provide cheap labor. The big problem is that dense populations with poor infrastructure breeds epidemics. There have already been a few close calls where common diseases have mutated and hopped from animals to people. Overpopulation issues can suddenly become under population if the right bug pops up. The latest Ebola outbreak got real close to a large city with ready poor medical and infrastructure with river access to other large cities. Once a bad disease gets into a large population they tend to flee and local epidemic can get real big like the last Ebola epidemic. The flu vaccines are getting less and less effective every year. Unfortunately its takes far too long to come up with altered vaccine. There is an effort to come up with universal vaccine but its may take years to hit. Even Tamiflu which was the wonder drug several years ago doesn't work with certain recent strains. They had it out like candy at the nursing home my parents live in.

The world went through a pandemic in 1920 where 3 to 5% of the world population died as a result of mutated flu virus called the Spanish Flu.  Aids is far more difficult to transmit and it still took out a lot of the African population.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Jun 28, 2018)

200 years ago, we were the 3rd world country having 5-10 kids per couple.  Disease took many for lots of reasons...mostly similar to 3rd world countries of today....IF they have a government that lets them make money.  If not...life continues in misery.  Give them 50 years and things change very rapidly.  Look at South Korea.  Most of the 40 yr olds can't drive because being able to afford a car is a new phenomenon.  Their cities are booming and people are moving in.  Kids still poop in the city streets and much of it is still very underdeveloped, but as their new found capitalism takes hold, their infrastructure will improve.  In 20 years, it will be counter-culture to poop in the streets.  Disease will lessen and people will adopt western habits to go along with 1st world facilities.


----------



## CaptSpiff (Jun 28, 2018)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Look at South Korea.  .....  Kids still poop in the city streets and much of it is still very underdeveloped, but as their new found capitalism takes hold, their infrastructure will improve.


Where in South Korea are you seeing this???


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Jun 28, 2018)

CaptSpiff said:


> Where in South Korea are you seeing this???


Outskirts of Seoul.  Still the city.  
Country of 1000 bad smells.  lol


----------



## bholler (Jun 28, 2018)

sportbikerider78 said:


> I think once in my life I have talked with someone about overpopulation.  They were really on the fence if it was an issue or not..and then we quickly moved to another topic because people are going to reproduce and there is nothing anyone will do about that...nor should they.  Of course, you see it in lots of news outlets, but that doesn't mean it is on anyone's mind.
> 
> The amount of rural areas, even in a state like NY, are just incredible.  Country everywhere. Space everywhere.
> The human race is very resourceful.  Farming methods are always evolving and people can product a huge amount of food on a very small plot.  I read an article this morning about a guy in CA that produces 7000lbs of food each year on 1/10th of an acre without any enclosures or synthetic fertilizer.  He sells most of it and eats the rest.
> ...


So you really think that the finite space of our planet can indefinatly support population growth???  

And yes much of our food supply has moved to high yeild factory farms.  And that makes our food supply more vulnerable to disease or natual disasters.  For example in summers holidays etc during college i worked at a dairy plant.  When i started there they bought from many small local farms.  The one summer when i came back they had switched to 2 large factory dairy operations.  It worked good for a while and was cheaper.  But then one of the farms herds got an infection that spread through the heard.  They needed to give them all antibiotics which means their milk cant be used.  That meant our plant only had access to half the milk it needed.  And we couldnt fill the orders for our stores.  It also meant we didnt have enough cream for the icecream plant either.  Luckily that only lasted 3 weeks but it could be much worse.  And that was only on a small scale.  So yes we can produce more food on less land but it comes at a cost.


----------



## Where2 (Jun 28, 2018)

EatenByLimestone said:


> I agree.  The potential of tidal, and micro hydro would lead to a stable and very decentralized power supply.


The monopoly power companies will not appreciate the addition of a secondary decentralized structure, and neither will the government who skims a percentage of the cost of said electrical energy in the form of taxes.

Do I think decentralized power supply will grow in availability in the future? Sure.
Do I think the monopolies heavily lobbying the government will impose "excise taxes" on property owners who are trying to decentralize the power system? Absolutely!



begreen said:


> Our state has gone from incentivizing electric vehicles to penalizing them. Starting last year we have been paying a $150 excise tax for our electric vehicle at license renewal. If this was a gas vehicle then the equivalent gas taxes would be $64. About 17 or 18 states now charge an electric vehicle fee. Of course funding needs to be raised to support roads and bridges and transit, but penalizing electric vehicles is not the best way to solve the problem.


Just look at the EV tax structure quoted above as a great example of how a system will evolve to collect what is missing from the tax collection system.

Am I planning on owning an EV in the future? The 5.6kW of PV in my garage (to be DIY installed), coupled to the 4.4kW presently on my roof is more than my house alone needs, but not more than an EV plus house will easily consume. Having a little less grass to mow in the backyard with the IC engined mower won't hurt either...


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Jun 29, 2018)

bholler said:


> So you really think that the finite space of our planet can indefinatly support population growth???



For the next couple hundred years?  Yeah...most likely with advances in technology.  

But if it couldn't, what would you do about it right now?  Any plan would have to be based on actionable facts, which we have none.  Life is too short to try and change things you can't change.


----------



## bholler (Jun 29, 2018)

sportbikerider78 said:


> For the next couple hundred years?  Yeah...most likely with advances in technology.
> 
> But if it couldn't, what would you do about it right now?  Any plan would have to be based on actionable facts, which we have none.  Life is too short to try and change things you can't change.


Yes we do have facts supporting you jusr choose to ignore them


----------



## Cast Iron (Jun 29, 2018)

Do we really need to emphasize that wood is the ONLY renewable, sustainable, and carbon-free source of heat for temperate zones ?
Yes, limited to a very few.
Is this hearthnet ?


----------



## pdf27 (Jun 30, 2018)

Cast Iron said:


> Fact: wind and solar ALONE can never supply anywhere close to the needs of the civilised world. The concentration of what is an in reality intermittent source of power is non science.


It could, but you have to do so on a very, very big scale. Yes, that's a solar array the size of Portugal and storage would have to be equivalently massive (probably as natural gas in depleted gas fields).






woodgeek said:


> Light transportation can be electrified, the costs are still falling.  The result is lower carbon even with current grid electricity.  And EVs DO help with intermittency of wind and solar through demand management, and are synergistic with the declining cost of grid storage.


EVs are pushing at an open door with the shift to self-driving cars and on-demand mobility. When you open the app and call a car, the system knows exactly how far you want to go and can send a car with the right stage of charge. Going a long way? It can send one of a small number of cars with either a very big battery or an IC engine - but only a tiny fraction of journeys will need this. For this sort of thing electric cars are hugely attractive to fleet managers - total cost of ownership is radically reduced and reliability increased, plus they don't have to worry about mixed fleets to deal with cities that have tight air pollution restrictions.



woodgeek said:


> I used to feel similarly, V2G is a no-brainer right?
> 
> The numbers are a little different.  In round figures for 2018, the batteries in my EV cost $200/kWh and are likely good for ~1000 full discharge cycles (or their equivalent).  This means that the lifecycle cost of each kWh to the motor is the cost of charging (with a 8% charging cycle loss) plus 20 cents/kWh.  So if I was going to do V2G....why would I do that for less than 20 cents/kWh?
> 
> We can quibble on the math....2000 cycles at low power and gentle SOC, etc. but in the end, current V2G is just way too expensive.


Interestingly, it turns out if you do V2G right it actually improves battery life slightly - see https://warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/clean_energy_stored/ .



Ashful said:


> One thing I’ve always wondered, since you’re discussing Geothermal on very large (national) scales, is the potential geological impact.  Folks have their head in the sand when they consider it an infinite heat source without consequence, as much as many once considered hydro, prior to realizing the havoc dams create on the environment.


Ummm.... if the earth was purely hot from when it was first formed, the core would have frozen solid millions of years ago. It's heated by radioactive decay in the core, and has long since reached a steady state temperature. Taking geothermal power from it will only have a local effect (the thermal conductivity of rock is pretty poor so you might get local cold-spots where you take heat out), rather than a global one.


----------



## bholler (Jun 30, 2018)

Cast Iron said:


> Do we really need to emphasize that wood is the ONLY renewable, sustainable, and carbon-free source of heat for temperate zones ?
> Yes, limited to a very few.
> Is this hearthnet ?


No wood is not carbon free.  It is closer than almost anything else but not carbon free.  This is also not hearthnet.  It is hearth.com


----------



## Easy Livin’ 3000 (Jul 2, 2018)

When I was a kid, I always put too many fish in the fish tank, and it would always end the same way. Either they would start to eat one another, or an invisible build-up of some fatal chemical would result in a mass die-off. 

The atmosphere is our aquarium glass walls.  Hopefully we don't resort to Soylent green, or make the atmosphere so poisonous, like I learned about as a kid with the fish tank. Education and technology are the solutions, our will to do something as a global society is the weak link. 

I try not to worry too much about it. I probably wont be around to experience the outcome, or maybe an asteroid will render it all moot anyway.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jul 2, 2018)

Nature was taking care of the out of balance fish tank.  Either fish were turned into biomass, and/or bacteria reproduced to consume the ammonia and convert it to nitrite.  Then a different bacteria will convert it to nitrate.  If you had a deep enough substrate, the nitrate would be handled by anaerobic bacteria.  

Nature will always win.  Humans can win the small battles, but long term, nature will win. 

You needed to give your fish tank time to cycle.


----------



## bholler (Jul 2, 2018)

EatenByLimestone said:


> Nature was taking care of the out of balance fish tank.  Either fish were turned into biomass, and/or bacteria reproduced to consume the ammonia and convert it to nitrite.  Then a different bacteria will convert it to nitrate.  If you had a deep enough substrate, the nitrate would be handled by anaerobic bacteria.
> 
> Nature will always win.  Humans can win the small battles, but long term, nature will win.
> 
> You needed to give your fish tank time to cycle.


Yes eventually nature will win.  Who do you think looses? And nature will find its balance again after we are gone.


----------



## Ashful (Jul 2, 2018)

pdf27 said:


> Ummm.... if the earth was purely hot from when it was first formed, the core would have frozen solid millions of years ago. It's heated by radioactive decay in the core, and has long since reached a steady state temperature. Taking geothermal power from it will only have a local effect (the thermal conductivity of rock is pretty poor so you might get local cold-spots where you take heat out), rather than a global one.


Why do I feel you'd have given me a similarly confident answer about air quality or ocean temperatures, if I had asked those questions 100 years ago?  Yes, I was talking about localized impact of city-scale thermal draws.  Nothing on a mass-population scale happens without impact.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jul 3, 2018)

I imagine nobody loses, as people seem content to win the small battles.  It's not good, or bad.  It's just how it is.


----------



## bholler (Jul 3, 2018)

EatenByLimestone said:


> I imagine nobody loses, as people seem content to win the small battles.  It's not good, or bad.  It's just how it is.


When the earth becomes much less habitable for humans we lose and that is bad.  It's just how it is.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jul 3, 2018)

Let me know when that happens.


----------



## bholler (Jul 3, 2018)

EatenByLimestone said:


> Let me know when that happens.


Unless we change our ways it will happen eventually.  I am not going to pretend to know when but it will happen with our current path.  It may be hundreds of years from now or 50 i dont know.


----------



## begreen (Jul 3, 2018)

EatenByLimestone said:


> Let me know when that happens.


Move to the Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico and ask that question. Locally we just had the driest May/June on record, in wet WA. We have an 80ft coastal redwood dying due to lack of moisture. It's thrived for decades, but now can't make it after 3 drought summers. If you are dealing with insect migrations devastating woodland, or disease creeping northward, you will be feeling the effects of climate change. Wildfire seasons are getting longer and doing a lot more damage as heat waves get longer and hotter. Miami has seawater in the streets on a regular basis. And this is just the beginning.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 3, 2018)

All this boils down to the population. Unless we can invent our way out of it ,a rising population will consume everything,and pollute everything at some point. Im not sure what the sustainable number is, just that were probably beyond it.


----------



## bholler (Jul 3, 2018)

Seasoned Oak said:


> All this boils down to the population. Unless we can invent our way out of it ,a rising population will consume everything,and pollute everything at some point. Im not sure what the sustainable number is, just that were probably beyond it.


Yes it is a very simple concept.  I cant beleive people would claim it isnt true


----------



## begreen (Jul 3, 2018)

New head of NASA has seen the light. He went in a climate change denier, but now says the science has convinced him it is real and here.


----------



## bholler (Jul 4, 2018)

begreen said:


> New head of NASA has seen the light. He went in a climate change denier, but now says the science has convinced him it is real and here.


Just about The only scientists who still deny it are on energy company payrolls


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jul 4, 2018)

begreen said:


> Locally we just had the driest May/June on record, in wet WA



Wet Wa?  this 1977 paper talks 19 drought occurrences since 1900. '77  end of last ice age warning?  http://ltrr.arizona.edu/sites/ltrr.arizona.edu/files/bibliodocs/History of Droughts in Washington State_1977.pdf



begreen said:


> Miami has seawater in the streets on a regular basis[/QUOTE
> 
> Miami has lived with their "King Tides" for many years. Left out of the discussion are two factors, subsidence and simple heavy rain. many of the worst visual examples we are presented with are combinations of all three together. the only regular thing about King Tides is they usually occur in the fall and are forecasted. that is I guess brings the referral to, "regular basis"
> 
> ...


----------



## begreen (Jul 4, 2018)

I should have said Western WA, my bad. Wet WA is what most people perceive of this state. People think WA state and think the Seattle/Tacoma area mostly.  Normally May and June are damp cool months here. Overall, only 0.75 inches of rain fell in the two months, which marks just the third time in more than 120 years the Seattle area didn't record at least an inch of rain in May and June. The previous record was 1932. And we are just starting our driest months.

Note that paper covers both sides of the state. Eastern WA being about 2/3ds the total area and is a high desert plateau. You can't really compare Western to Eastern WA weather. They are very different climate zones separated by the Cascades. Western WA weather is more coastal whereas Eastern is more continental. This shows up in the maps in the report ( Figure 4). This year on the western side soil moisture is already at very low levels, more typical of mid-August. Yet last month Eastern WA saw some significant wet weather late in the month. That rain never made it to Western WA. The year is only half over, so we shall see what happens.

Droughts in Eastern WA are more common especially when there is low snowpack and much more noticeable prior to mass irrigation by damming the Columbia and Yakima rivers. Not so in Western WA. Also note the data for tree growth is only from Eastern WA. In fall and winter Western WA gets the most moisture and that makes up the balance as snowpacks rebuild. The Palmer charts show there were 4 significant drought periods in Western WA up to 1977. These have become more frequent in recent years and hotter. 1981 was a very dry year also.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jul 4, 2018)

begreen said:


> I should have said Western WA, my bad. Wet WA is what most people perceive of this state. People think WA state and think the Seattle/Tacoma area mostly.  Normally May and June are damp cool months here. Overall, only 0.75 inches of rain fell in the two months, which marks just the third time in more than 120 years the Seattle area didn't record at least an inch of rain in May and June. The previous record was 1935. And we are just starting our driest months.
> 
> Note that paper covers both sides of the state. Eastern WA being about 2/3ds the total area and is a high desert plateau. You can't really compare Western to Eastern WA weather. They are very different climate zones separated by the Cascades. Western WA weather is more coastal whereas Eastern is more continental. This shows up in the maps in the report ( Figure 4). This year on the western side soil moisture is already at very low levels, more typical of mid-August. Yet last month Eastern WA saw some significant wet weather late in the month. That rain never made it to Western WA. The year is only half over, so we shall see what happens.
> 
> Droughts in Eastern WA are more common especially when there is low snowpack and much more noticeable prior to mass irrigation by damming the Columbia and Yakima rivers. Not so in Western WA. Also note the data for tree growth is only from Eastern WA. In fall and winter Western WA gets the most moisture and that makes up the balance as snowpacks rebuild. The Palmer charts show there were 4 significant drought periods in Western WA up to 1977. These have become more frequent in recent years and hotter.


 as you always point out Climate Change really isn't about  local  variances.


----------



## begreen (Jul 4, 2018)

Doug MacIVER said:


> as you always point out Climate Change really isn't about  local  variances.


yes, point taken. it is a long term trend and the region is trending drier and hotter so far, but that may change.
http://www.washington.edu/news/2017/10/20/mountain-glaciers-shrinking-across-the-west/


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jul 4, 2018)

begreen said:


> yes, point taken. it is a long term trend and the region is trending drier and hotter so far, but that may change.
> http://www.washington.edu/news/2017/10/20/mountain-glaciers-shrinking-across-the-west/


I'm really not trying to be a pain in the butt, but? there are some questions one could ask, USGS has a quick answer. one would guess those glaciers  came after the pleistocene epoch, slower to grow, faster to recede?  https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/are-today...s_science_products=3#qt-news_science_products

Happy 4th, great to enjoy part of our freedoms in discussion


----------



## begreen (Jul 4, 2018)

Getting back to the original posting. Here is a counterpoint about the arguments against electric cars.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriqu...ric-vehicles-and-disinformation/#21d0e8a231e5
and this backstory
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/ele...vail-despite-oil-industry-misinformation.html


----------



## Ashful (Jul 4, 2018)

begreen said:


> The previous record was 1932. And we are just starting our driest months.



What was to blame in 1932?


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jul 4, 2018)

begreen said:


> Move to the Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico and ask that question. Locally we just had the driest May/June on record, in wet WA. We have an 80ft coastal redwood dying due to lack of moisture. It's thrived for decades, but now can't make it after 3 drought summers. If you are dealing with insect migrations devastating woodland, or disease creeping northward, you will be feeling the effects of climate change. Wildfire seasons are getting longer and doing a lot more damage as heat waves get longer and hotter. Miami has seawater in the streets on a regular basis. And this is just the beginning.




How come, when cold weather happens and jokes are made about global warming, you state that the event is weather event and not a climate event?  Yet a warm weather event is automatic evidence of global warming and is not a weather event?


----------



## begreen (Jul 4, 2018)

Ashful said:


> What was to blame in 1932?


A separate topic and still under study. Bring it up in the Inglenook.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddar...wl.html?sess=c1b9386f067f1f270bfd1e5ca837d7bc



EatenByLimestone said:


> How come, when cold weather happens and jokes are made about global warming, you state that the event is weather event and not a climate event?  Yet a warm weather event is automatic evidence of global warming and is not a weather event?


The cold weather experienced last winter in the east was countered by extreme warm temperatures elsewhere on the planet. Our NW summers are getting drier and our snowpack is shrinking. This is a multi-year trend so far. Extreme weather, more intense storms, heavy downpour increases, high seasonal average temps, lengthening frost-free seasons are all examples of trends being watched around the world. This is not a linear progression. There always will be deviations along the way.

2014 article but consistent with current trends
http://komonews.com/weather/scotts-...-shrinking-snowpacks-drier-summers-12-20-2015


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jul 4, 2018)

Ashful said:


> What was to blame in 1932?



Well, Herbert Hoover was the Republican President, and I'll add, a mining engineer specializing in the most profitable ways of ripping valuable minerals from the womb of the Earth.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jul 4, 2018)

only using part of your discussion #69 " Extreme weather, more intense storms"  tornadoes are world wide but that stat hard to find. Us from wiki, " The year has been unusually quiet so far, with near record low tornado amounts in the typical peak month of May."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornadoes_of_2018.  one article sates lowest in 13 years. think tornadoes qualify as extreme.

the other would be hurricane ACE, should be rising , true world wide phenom,  from Dr Maue. you be the judge.

that includes last years 3 monsters, with Harvey being the odd ball, being trapped by high pressures east and west.

just some more info for thought.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jul 4, 2018)

I'd like to go back to an earlier BG comment. " Wildfire seasons are getting longer and doing a lot more damage as heat waves get longer and hotter."
 Now Joe Bastardi  doesn't hold water here, still he put the following piece out in May. It addresses a lot of what is said in part of  BG's  post. While he has a Calif. focus notice the increased rain Apr-May on the whole of the west coast, easy to see Calif. with the most. Read if you wish , if you want a spoiler , he predicts a bad season with his reasons why. https://patriotpost.us/opinion/5600...another-big-wildfire-season-may-be-on-the-way


----------



## begreen (Jul 5, 2018)

Yes, nothing to see here, move along.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...he-world-in-last-week/?utm_term=.8f3c622114d1


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 5, 2018)

Maybe im just getting old but i cant take the heat anymore. Cold im OK with to a certain extent. Not much in the way of production at high temps out of me. The house has to be below 80 or i cant sleep. Had to install a couple ACs  in a house im rehabbing just so i could work. No retiring in florida for this old dog. Finally come to appreciate the cooler climate of central Pa. At least most of the year.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jul 7, 2018)

begreen said:


> Yes, nothing to see here, move along.
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...he-world-in-last-week/?utm_term=.8f3c622114d1


 man didn't the globe cool of fast? NCEP 2 meter anomaly    forgot to add the depiction of temps from  the night of July 2. same cite that  gave us the max temp


----------



## begreen (Jul 7, 2018)

Never followed the bastardi. Of course, like I said, nothing to see here.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/global-temperatures-reach-extreme-highs-breaking-records


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 7, 2018)

Will reach a pleasant 54 degrees here overnight tonight. We must be in the right place. 50s and low60s overnight for next 5 days.


----------



## venator260 (Jul 7, 2018)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Maybe im just getting old but i cant take the heat anymore. Cold im OK with to a certain extent. Not much in the way of production at high temps out of me. The house has to be below 80 or i cant sleep. Had to install a couple ACs  in a house im rehabbing just so i could work. No retiring in florida for this old dog. Finally come to appreciate the cooler climate of central Pa. At least most of the year.




I've known a few people that have lived in Florida. Nothing they have told me makes me want to live there. Even the people that liked it and tried to put a positive spin on the place.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jul 7, 2018)

Ashful said:


> What was to blame in 1932?



Newspaper article in 1932.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Jul 8, 2018)

bholler said:


> Just about The only scientists who still deny it are on energy company payrolls


Aaaa...yes.  the old rhetoric that since most "scientists" agree..it must be true!  This is a settled science and must be believed!  

And how many with absolute conviction of man made climate theory are on federal grants?


----------



## begreen (Jul 8, 2018)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Aaaa...yes.  the old rhetoric that since most "scientists" agree..it must be true!  This is a settled science and must be believed!
> 
> And how many with absolute conviction of man made climate theory are on federal grants?


And that matters because...? Hypotheticals are easy. For example, how many oil company scientists knew this, but were paid to keep quiet?

The answer about federal grant scientists when considered globally? A small percentage.


----------



## Ashful (Jul 8, 2018)

This is one debate that will never be solved by logic, because it has become religion, on both sides.  We all owe it to ourselves and our kids to innovate and conserve, where it's convenient and practical.  Whether we've reached a tipping point or not, it's very easy to see the likelihood that someday we will.  It's also easy to look back 50 years on things that once were, which are no more, especially when traveling coastal areas.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 8, 2018)

venator260 said:


> I've known a few people that have lived in Florida. Nothing they have told me makes me want to live there. Even the people that liked it and tried to put a positive spin on the place.


Its nice in the winter


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jul 8, 2018)

Ashful said:


> This is one debate that will never be solved by logic, because it has become religion, on both sides.  We all owe it to ourselves and our kids to innovate and conserve, where it's convenient and practical.  Whether we've reached a tipping point or not, it's very easy to see the likelihood that someday we will.  It's also easy to look back 50 years on things that once were, which are no more, especially when traveling coastal areas.


totally agree with what you have said, then there are somethings like the following article that stick just to the cause of California's heat wave .mother nature does still have an affect. what ever you want to call a down slope wind it causes heat in CA. those that tie it to  a  AGW world wide heatwave are just ignoring nature. imagine a heat wave article with no mention of AGW, here is one!https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/weather/weather-watch/article214502154.html


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 8, 2018)

Haven't heard a lot in the way of practical solutions on this from anyone.That's if there is one. Only option is to prepare for change. Since were pretty bad at preparing for anything,that wont happen either.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jul 8, 2018)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Haven't heard a lot in the way of practical solutions on this from anyone.That's if there is one. Only option is to prepare for change. Since were pretty bad at preparing for anything,that wont happen either.


sure you have(solutions). you've read stuff here and elsewhere . i assume you've read what the ipcc has to said, articles on the Paris accord, Copenhagen, ect. point , change is happening, are we the main cause or a piece of it?  one side has it that with every breath you take ( what a great song title) you CONTRIBUTE to it.  try living in doggerland, wonder where all the neanderthal and humans went. jmo


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jul 8, 2018)

maybe co2 makes'em smaller too? think this would have been noticed before satellites. they were probably there but how would we have known? hhttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-06/tiny-hurricane-beryl-is-smaller-than-manhattan-but-packs-a-punchave 

just an additional bit of info? would we have ever known, still will be included in the ACE total!


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 9, 2018)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Haven't heard a lot in the way of practical solutions on this from anyone.That's if there is one. Only option is to prepare for change. Since were pretty bad at preparing for anything,that wont happen either.



The solution is out there....renewable energy, RE, growing it and applying it universally.  Right now, in 2018, we can see a reasonable (near-zero) cost path to a >50% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions with our current 'lifestyle' with existing RE technology, or plausible near term improvements. No energy revolution required.

It will just take 15-30 years to roll out.

So you are correct the climate will change.  Species will go extinct.  Most humans will simply adapt even if they notice at all.  There will be a few winners and losers.

Solar is doubling in output every 2 years.  Not rooftop, which has cost issues....utility solar.  Huge PV farms are being built all around the world at rock-bottom prices.

And wind is booming too, and improvements to wind tech (mostly bigger turbines) are leading to vastly increased wind resource, higher capacity factor and lower prices than previously imaginable.  The UK is now at ~20% wind energy.

And unlike AGW, RE is popular....with more than 80% of Americans in favor of growing it....somewhat ahead of puppies and kittens in popularity.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jul 9, 2018)

woodgeek said:


> The solution is out there....renewable energy, RE, growing it and applying it universally.  Right now, in 2018, we can see a reasonable (near-zero) cost path to a >50% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions with our current 'lifestyle' with existing RE technology, or plausible near term improvements. No energy revolution required.
> 
> It will just take 15-30 years to roll out.
> 
> ...


so true, just hope the powers that be do this transition in an orderly factor. New England continues to be a laggard in RE while closing high carbon plants before having viable  (ready and cost efficient) replacement.  with out  well laid out plan, New England could well be the Germany of the US. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power


----------



## begreen (Jul 9, 2018)

There are other solutions developing, particularly in Europe. I just spent an hour going through cradle to grave operations for bio-plastics being developed and sold for a wide range of applications. The carbon emissions are majorly lower than petroleum based plastics.  Alliances have developed that are building a circular economy based on completely recyclable plastics and also fully compostable plastics for use in the hospitality and event, grocery and agricultural markets. The scope of products now on the market is encouraging. A lot of the innovation has taken place in the US but Europe provides a much more ready market so far with its stricter cradle to grave (and cradle to cradle) manufacturing regulations.
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/ambitious-alliance-mobilizes-value-chain-bio-based-polymers
https://www.genomatica.com/
http://materbi.com/en/


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jul 13, 2018)

/QUOTE]
here comes your heat, mean while not so hot WW. the east on the local side will , well lets say cool off
The snowpack at Paradise Ranger Station at Mt. Rainier (5,500') officially melted out on Wednesday. July 11th is right about the 102-year median, according to @markalbrightwx Makes sense, we had about a spot-on normal snowpack this year. #wawx.
 while you bake, out east we may start a fire in some places?

 the desert having classic monsoon+cool!


----------



## begreen (Jul 13, 2018)

Believe someone pointed this out recently...


Doug MacIVER said:


> as you always point out Climate Change really isn't about local variances.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jul 13, 2018)

point taken, yesterdays temp worldwide, only one day,  let's compare examples?
/
	

		
			
		

		
	



nothing to see here? your image from july 3rd?


----------



## begreen (Jul 13, 2018)

Different mapping systems, but the hot spots in Siberia and Antarctica are troubling. That said, this thread is about as far away from electric cars as possible. G'night Gracie.

https://www.sciencealert.com/us-heatwave-burning-up-media-climate-change


----------

