Climate Change(d)?

[Jimmy Higgins]

The big benefit of EVs isn't that they reduce pollution, but rather that they move the pollution they generate out of our cities, so that far fewer people are exposed to it.

I thought it was the sense of self-righteousness for liberals or cult status among the Muskers.

This is great for pollutants that are unwanted due to their toxic and/or unwanted acute effects on individuals exposed to them; But it does nothing for pollutants whose impact is global, such as greenhouse gases - the atomosphere doesn't care whereabouts you emitted your carbon dioxide, only on how much of it you emitted in total, when deciding how much heat to retain and how much to radiate back into space.

EVs result in less pollution, just not enough less to make a difference, and there still is the recycling issue that we have been told is going to be just fine... like plastic recycling.

This push for electrics right now is like a Government's response to flooding river waters by buying bags for sand... but not the sand. The worse part is listening to Muskers acting like their EV makes a fucking damn.

 

[Shadowy Man]

"2023 is the year when humanity crossed into a new climate era"

https://wapo.st/3RFL0qU

“It felt like the earth was about to explode,” Dinas said.
Even if its extremes are ultimately eclipsed, as seems inevitable, 2023 will mark a point when humanity crossed into a new climate era — an age of “global boiling,” as United Nations Secretary General António Guterres called it. The year included the hottest single day on record (July 6) and the hottest ever month (July), not to mention the hottest June, the hottest August, the hottest September, the hottest October, the hottest November, and probably the hottest December. It included a day, Nov. 17, when global temperatures, for the first time ever, reached 2 degrees Celsius above the preindustrial levels.
Discomfort, destruction, and death are the legacy of those records.

In Phoenix, a heat wave went on for so long, with 31 consecutive days above 110 Fahrenheit, that one NASA atmospheric scientist called it “mind-boggling.” The surrounding county recorded a record number of heat deaths, nearly 600.

In Brazil, drought sapped the normally lush Amazon, causing towns to ration drinking water, contributing to the deaths of endangered pink dolphins, and choking off the river-based system of travel and commerce.
In the Antarctic, wintertime sea ice was at an all-time low. An unprecedented marine heat wave upended coral ecosystems. At one point the coastal Florida Keys waters reached 100 degrees, comparable to a hot tub.

One explanation for 2023’s extreme heat is El Niño — a recurring oceanic phenomenon that warms the waters in the Pacific and causes a global ripple of consequences. But the scale of this year’s heat — amplified by human-caused factors and the burning of fossil fuels — is still well beyond what most scientists had thought possible. Some have theorized that planetary warming may be accelerating. Others have said there’s not enough evidence. What they agree upon, though, is that the earth is trending toward more extreme heat.

Of course there have been exceptions. The weather here in Georgia, other than the tornado we had last January followed by an extreme cold spell for about two days, that killed some trees, hasn't been that weird, but read the entire article to get a picture as to how the climate is changing around the world.

Sure, but Santa Monica is still ok, right?

 

[TSwizzle]

"2023 is the year when humanity crossed into a new climate era"

Oh noes!!!!11!!!!1!!!!!!

“It felt like the earth was about to explode,” Dinas said.

Oh the drama!!!111!!!! (thankfully, like, literally, like, the earth, like literally did not explode, literally)

Even if its extremes are ultimately eclipsed, as seems inevitable, 2023 will mark a point when humanity crossed into a new climate era — an age of global boiling,” as United Nations Secretary General António Guterres called it.

"global boiling"?

A rapture like cult.


It is a catastrophic 62 degrees in Santa Monica and we had *gasp* rain!!!111!!!!!1111!! It never rains on Wednesdays so this is obviously a sign the planet is going to explode, boil, melt or something.

 

[southernhybrid]

"2023 is the year when humanity crossed into a new climate era"

Oh noes!!!!11!!!!1!!!!!!

“It felt like the earth was about to explode,” Dinas said.

Oh the drama!!!111!!!! (thankfully, like, literally, like, the earth, like literally did not explode, literally)

Even if its extremes are ultimately eclipsed, as seems inevitable, 2023 will mark a point when humanity crossed into a new climate era — an age of global boiling,” as United Nations Secretary General António Guterres called it.

"global boiling"?

A rapture like cult.


It is a catastrophic 62 degrees in Santa Monica and we had *gasp* rain!!!111!!!!!1111!! It never rains on Wednesdays so this is obviously a sign the planet is going to explode, boil, melt or something.

What would we do without our little climate science denier? Thank you for your important contribution and reminding us that the weather is always perfect in Santa Monica. /s. ( at least for now.....)

For some reason, I thought the world was bigger than Santa Monica and there were actually people suffering from water shortages and heat related illnesses in other places in the world, but as long as Santa Monica has lovely weather, it couldn't possibly be true that climate change exists.

 

[TSwizzle]

"2023 is the year when humanity crossed into a new climate era"

Oh noes!!!!11!!!!1!!!!!!

“It felt like the earth was about to explode,” Dinas said.

Oh the drama!!!111!!!! (thankfully, like, literally, like, the earth, like literally did not explode, literally)

Even if its extremes are ultimately eclipsed, as seems inevitable, 2023 will mark a point when humanity crossed into a new climate era — an age of global boiling,” as United Nations Secretary General António Guterres called it.

"global boiling"?

A rapture like cult.


It is a catastrophic 62 degrees in Santa Monica and we had *gasp* rain!!!111!!!!!1111!! It never rains on Wednesdays so this is obviously a sign the planet is going to explode, boil, melt or something.

What would we do without our little climate science denier?

Behave yourself. "it felt like the earth was about to explode", "an age of global boiling" is not science. I am mocking the hysteria because "the science" says no such thing.

Thank you for your important contribution and reminding us that the weather is always perfect in Santa Monica. /s. ( at least for now.....)

Eh?!! Don't you understand what catastrophic means?!!!

For some reason, I thought the world was bigger than Santa Monica and there were actually people suffering from water shortages and heat related illnesses in other places in the world, but as long as Santa Monica has lovely weather, it couldn't possibly be true that climate change exists.

Climate change has always existed. Do you think installing a few bike lanes on Santa Monica Blvd is going to stop the climate from changing? Or spending billions of dollars on high speed rail in California is going to have a dramatic impact on the weather?

A rapture like cult.

 

[bilby]

EVs result in less pollution

That's not generally true; It might be locally true, but that depends on how electricity is generated on your local grid, and (in some cases) on what time of day you charge your EV.

Essentially, if you charge your vehicle overnight (as most people do), and your grid power mostly comes from hydro, nuclear, and/or geothermal, then an EV is generally less polluting than a gasoline powered vehicle.

If your grid power mostly comes from coal or oil, an EV is more polluting than a gasoline vehicle; If your grid power comes mostly from gas, then it depends in more detail on what else contributes to your grid at nighttime, and (if wind power is a significant contributor) on how windy it is on a given night.

Where I live, an EV is essentially a coal powered vehicle. It's much less carbon positive to just have a gasoline engine.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I believe most of America, it is generally less polluting. The difference isn't remotely enough. I'd imagine driving a huge SUV but living within 10 miles of most destinations would cause less pollution than driving an EV 70 miles a day for work.

 

[bilby]

I believe most of America, it is generally less polluting.

It's VERY patchy.

The best month I could find on the Electricity Map app from the past year was May:


In the green and yellow areas an EV is probably less polluting; In the brown areas, probably not.


In the worst month, August, there are far fewer places where it's better to drive an EV.

Europe is patchy too:

France and Scandinavia, with their high proportion of hydro and nuclear, are great places to run an EV. The UK or Spain are marginal; Germany, not so much. Don't bother even thinking about it if you live in Poland.


If you live in NZ or Tasmania, an EV is an Environmentally-friendly Vehicle. It's marginal in SA; The rest of Australia you are better sticking to gasoline power.

 

[robnisch]

EV Sales Are in a Slump — Why Aren’t More Car Buyers Going Electric?

Sales of electric cars are underperforming, even with price cuts and $7,500 tax credits.

money.com

EV sales down.
Toyota is pushing hybrids more than EV's.
If we could build a hybrid that got 50 60mpg they would sell.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

EV Sales Are in a Slump — Why Aren’t More Car Buyers Going Electric?

Sales of electric cars are underperforming, even with price cuts and $7,500 tax credits.

money.com

EV sales down.
Toyota is pushing hybrids more than EV's.
If we could build a hybrid that got 50 60mpg they would sell.

Hybrid makes good sense--recover some of the energy that otherwise is wasted on city driving. Electric isn't there yet because of the refueling problem.

 

[bilby]

EV Sales Are in a Slump — Why Aren’t More Car Buyers Going Electric?

Sales of electric cars are underperforming, even with price cuts and $7,500 tax credits.

money.com

EV sales down.
Toyota is pushing hybrids more than EV's.
If we could build a hybrid that got 50 60mpg they would sell.

Hybrid makes good sense--recover some of the energy that otherwise is wasted on city driving. Electric isn't there yet because of the refueling problem.

It may never be there.

A litre of gasoline provides 31.5MJ of energy, and in the US a pump transfers 38 litres (10 USgal) per minute, or 0.633 litres per second.

That's an energy throughput of 31.5MJ/l x 0.633 l/s = 19.95MW

That's equivalent to the electricity needed to power about 16,400 homes.

It seems highly implausible that the average motorist would ever have ready access to a 20MW electricity charger for his car, or to a battery that could charge at that rate without exploding.

And US gasoline pumps are, by law, slow. In the civilised world, petrol pumps can deliver 30% more (50l/minute). Hi-flow diesel pumps used to fill trucks and buses are even faster - between 80 and 120 litres per minute.

120 litres per minute of diesel fuel is an energy transfer rate of about 76MW.

By comparison, the fastest 3-phase AC chargers for the Tesla model 3 charge at 11kW; Pumping gas is about 2,000 times faster at getting energy into a car than this.

The fastest single phase chargers are 7.4kW; While a standard wall socket charger can manage a paltry 2.3kW, (around a ten-thousandth of the energy transfer rate of a gas pump).

The "super" DC charging stations achieve an "impressive" 250kW, making pumping gas at a regular gas station about eighty times faster than using one of these.

 

[Jokodo]

EV Sales Are in a Slump — Why Aren’t More Car Buyers Going Electric?

Sales of electric cars are underperforming, even with price cuts and $7,500 tax credits.

money.com

EV sales down.
Toyota is pushing hybrids more than EV's.
If we could build a hybrid that got 50 60mpg they would sell.

Hybrid makes good sense--recover some of the energy that otherwise is wasted on city driving. Electric isn't there yet because of the refueling problem.

It may never be there.

A litre of gasoline provides 31.5MJ of energy, and in the US a pump transfers 38 litres (10 USgal) per minute, or 0.633 litres per second.

That's an energy throughput of 31.5MJ/l x 0.633 l/s = 19.95MW

That's equivalent to the electricity needed to power about 16,400 homes.

It seems highly implausible that the average motorist would ever have ready access to a 20MW electricity charger for his car, or to a battery that could charge at that rate without exploding.

And US gasoline pumps are, by law, slow. In the civilised world, petrol pumps can deliver 30% more (50l/minute). Hi-flow diesel pumps used to fill trucks and buses are even faster - between 80 and 120 litres per minute.

120 litres per minute of diesel fuel is an energy transfer rate of about 76MW.

By comparison, the fastest 3-phase AC chargers for the Tesla model 3 charge at 11kW; Pumping gas is about 2,000 times faster at getting energy into a car than this.

The fastest single phase chargers are 7.4kW; While a standard wall socket charger can manage a paltry 2.3kW, (around a ten-thousandth of the energy transfer rate of a gas pump).

The "super" DC charging stations achieve an "impressive" 250kW, making pumping gas at a regular gas station about eighty times faster than using one of these.

With a universal battery standard, instead of recharging your battery, you could swap your empty battery for a full one, in less time than filling a diesel tank.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

EV Sales Are in a Slump — Why Aren’t More Car Buyers Going Electric?

Sales of electric cars are underperforming, even with price cuts and $7,500 tax credits.

money.com

EV sales down.
Toyota is pushing hybrids more than EV's.
If we could build a hybrid that got 50 60mpg they would sell.

Hybrid makes good sense--recover some of the energy that otherwise is wasted on city driving. Electric isn't there yet because of the refueling problem.

They do. Electric being an emerging tech, has that adoption issues and while Tesla is rolling out super charging stations, there is still the issue of range and station access, that hybrids don't have. Chargers near home aren't the issue, chargers in the middle of empty PA is. We also need a green electrical infrastructure before going to EVs, and not just offsetting some pollution for maybe a little less. Personally, I don't want to own an electric that gets less than 300 miles on a charge, but I also don't need to drive 300 miles that often, but battery tech can fast charge only to a certain percent, so having 300 miles makes it easier to drive long distances. There is also the issue that there aren't enough electrics even if the demand existed.

Reduce, reuse, recycle, re-don't live so far away from stuff. Hybrids see to reducing usage. Toyota is also trying to make Hydrogen a thing, but Hydrogen suffers from issues such as supply, rare earth metals, temperature operation issues.

 

[steve_bank]

EVs were pushed before there was sufficient infrastructure to support charging on the road.

Anther half assed not well thought out government program. People have tried getting around the PNW in EVs and reporting on it. Not nearly enogh charging stations for general transportation.

Climate law opponents file 400,000 signatures to get repeal on ballot

Backers of an effort to repeal Washington’s carbon market said Tuesday they have enough signatures to put it before lawmakers and possibly voters next year.

www.seattletimes.com

KENT — In one of the busiest travel weeks of the year, in one of the most expensive states for gasoline, backers of an effort to repeal Washington’s carbon market said Tuesday they have enough signatures to put it before lawmakers and possibly voters next year.

They submitted more than 400,000 signatures for Initiative 2117, which would repeal the climate law, they said. The initiative will require 324,516 valid signatures to make it to the ballot and the signatures must be verified by the Secretary of State’s Office.

It’s one of six initiatives mostly seeking to roll back laws passed by the Democratic-majority Legislature that supporters of Let’s Go Washington, bankrolled by Redmond businessman Brian Heywood, are trying to get before voters next year.

Our possessive governor pushed the quick reduction of gasoline powered cars without considering consequences and drawbacks. Emergency vehicles and construction vehicles.

 

[bilby]

EV Sales Are in a Slump — Why Aren’t More Car Buyers Going Electric?

Sales of electric cars are underperforming, even with price cuts and $7,500 tax credits.

money.com

EV sales down.
Toyota is pushing hybrids more than EV's.
If we could build a hybrid that got 50 60mpg they would sell.

Hybrid makes good sense--recover some of the energy that otherwise is wasted on city driving. Electric isn't there yet because of the refueling problem.

It may never be there.

A litre of gasoline provides 31.5MJ of energy, and in the US a pump transfers 38 litres (10 USgal) per minute, or 0.633 litres per second.

That's an energy throughput of 31.5MJ/l x 0.633 l/s = 19.95MW

That's equivalent to the electricity needed to power about 16,400 homes.

It seems highly implausible that the average motorist would ever have ready access to a 20MW electricity charger for his car, or to a battery that could charge at that rate without exploding.

And US gasoline pumps are, by law, slow. In the civilised world, petrol pumps can deliver 30% more (50l/minute). Hi-flow diesel pumps used to fill trucks and buses are even faster - between 80 and 120 litres per minute.

120 litres per minute of diesel fuel is an energy transfer rate of about 76MW.

By comparison, the fastest 3-phase AC chargers for the Tesla model 3 charge at 11kW; Pumping gas is about 2,000 times faster at getting energy into a car than this.

The fastest single phase chargers are 7.4kW; While a standard wall socket charger can manage a paltry 2.3kW, (around a ten-thousandth of the energy transfer rate of a gas pump).

The "super" DC charging stations achieve an "impressive" 250kW, making pumping gas at a regular gas station about eighty times faster than using one of these.

With a universal battery standard, instead of recharging your battery, you could swap your empty battery for a full one, in less time than filling a diesel tank.

Well, maybe. Or maybe in "about the same time"; Or "rather more time".

And it's not as simple as that.

Modern electric cars have batteries that fill most of the 'available' space in the car, and form the floor of the vehicle; As such they would require disassembly of the entire vehicle to replace, and are an essential structural element whose incorrect fitting and securing would compromise the crash resilience of the vehicle.

A car could, certainly, be designed with a replacable battery pack, but this pack would necessarily be rather smaller than an integrated battery (that's why they integrate them); So range between swaps/charges would be lower.

High storage density batteries are also fragile. Even slight damage during handling and storage could render them highly dangerous; Would you be happy to swap your brand new battery for a beaten up old battery that has been abused by the employees of hundreds of battery swapping facilities?

Even if the replacement is not damaged enough to be dangerous (or can be designed to be robust without becoming too heavy to be practical), it likely has far less capacity than the new unit does - you're swapping a valuable unit for an almost worthless one, and paying for the privilege.

 

[bilby]

Hydrogen suffers from issues such as supply, rare earth metals, temperature operation issues.

Safety, storage, transportation...

Hydrogen isn't a very good fuel at all.

IMO the best zero carbon transportation fuel will be synthetic gasoline, made from carbon dioxide extracted from air. It can fuel existing vehicles using existing infrastructure, and requires no changes to motorist behaviour whatsoever.

Los Alamos National Laboratory produced a paper outlining this process back in 2007; It uses the cooling towers at a nuclear power plant to collect carbon dioxide from the air, and the energy from the plant to turn that into gasoline or methanol for fuel and/or industrial use.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Turning carbon dioxide into gasoline efficiently

Captured CO2 can be turned into carbon-neutral fuels, but technological advances are needed. In new research, a new catalyst increased the production of long-chain hydrocarbons in chemical reactions by some 1,000 times over existing methods.

news.stanford.edu

I think if we can get energy from smugness or road rage, it'd be greener.

 

[bilby]

Turning carbon dioxide into gasoline efficiently

Captured CO2 can be turned into carbon-neutral fuels, but technological advances are needed. In new research, a new catalyst increased the production of long-chain hydrocarbons in chemical reactions by some 1,000 times over existing methods.

news.stanford.edu

I think if we can get energy from smugness or road rage, it'd be greener.

Making gasoline from fossil fuels (even if that's not done until those fossil fuels have been burned once at a power plant first) does exactly nothing to mitigate climate change.

If you are going to make synthetic gasoline, you have to extract the carbon directly from air, and not from the smokestacks of fossil fuelled power plants; Any carbon taken from those smokestacks needs to be permanently locked away, which conversion to gasoline doesn't achieve.

Better still, eliminate those power plants completely.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Turning carbon dioxide into gasoline efficiently

Captured CO2 can be turned into carbon-neutral fuels, but technological advances are needed. In new research, a new catalyst increased the production of long-chain hydrocarbons in chemical reactions by some 1,000 times over existing methods.

news.stanford.edu

I think if we can get energy from smugness or road rage, it'd be greener.

Making gasoline from fossil fuels (even if that's not done until those fossil fuels have been burned once at a power plant first) does exactly nothing to mitigate climate change.

If you are going to make synthetic gasoline, you have to extract the carbon directly from air, and not from the smokestacks of fossil fuelled power plants; Any carbon taken from those smokestacks needs to be permanently locked away, which conversion to gasoline doesn't achieve.

Better still, eliminate those power plants completely.

Cooling towers of a nuclear power plant. Apparently low density heat was enough for their process.

 

[TSwizzle]

No surprise that the jew baiting Gruaniad are running this piece;

Emissions from Israel’s war in Gaza have ‘immense’ effect on climate catastrophe. Israel’s unprecedented bombardment of Gaza since Hamas killed as many as 1,200 Israelis has caused widespread death and destruction. According to the Gaza health authority, almost 23,000 Palestinians – mostly women and children – have been killed, with thousands more buried under the rubble presumed dead. About 85% of the population has been forcibly displaced and faces life-threatening food and water shortages, according to UN agencies. More than 100 Israeli hostages remain captive in Gaza and hundreds of Israeli soldiers have been killed.

In addition to the immediate suffering, the conflict is exacerbating the global climate emergency, which goes far beyond the CO2 emissions from bombs and planes. The new research calculates that the carbon cost of rebuilding Gaza’s 100,000 damaged buildings using contemporary construction techniques will generate at least 30m metric tonnes of warming gases. This is on a par with New Zealand’s annual CO2 emissions and higher than 135 other countries and territories including Sri Lanka, Lebanon and Uruguay.

Teh Gruaniad

Takeaway, jews are making climate change much worse. What a despicable rag Teh Gruaniad is.

Bloody hell, it is a catastrophic 46 degrees in Santa Monica. Must be the jews bombing Gaza again.