octave

The issue with carbon about the rate at which we take from the ground and transfer to the atmosphere. The Earth and ocean can re-absorb carbon but the problem is the rate is just too high. The carbon in coal and oil we burn took millions of years to form and we are burning in just a few hundred years. I am not suggesting that we should stop all activities that release carbon but rather to use other methods where they exist and to develop new ways.

At the moment there are no alternatives to airline travel on the horizon. I am not suggesting we ban all air travel, but doesn't it makes sense that the carbon balance would be more favourable if we could decarbonise road transport and save that precious carbon output for the things that at the moment can only be done that way. Likewise, as you rightly point out petrochemicals are extremely useful to us and will be for the foreseeable future. Oil is also a finite resource. Should we really continue to burn vast quantities of the raw material for plastics drugs etc?

It is not all or nothing

There are no simplistic green answers to the problem, so you need to be very sure that there actually is a problem.

Yes, it is a complicated problem. In terms of being very sure that there actually is a problem, I think the weight of evidence says there is. There may be disagreement with the severity of the problem but the physics is well understood. What I am suggesting is not that we go back to the way we lived in the 1700s but that we fast track the new technologies that are coming anyway. I am sure that you would agree that we will not be driving petrol or diesel vehicles in 50 years time, so why wait until the oil runs out to develop new ways of powering vehicles (and making plastic)

Just like maintaining a healthy weight is most easily achieved by tackling the problem early rather than waiting until health problems become totally obvious. Putting on too much weight causes chain reaction of health problems which become harder to fix. If too much ice melts we change the albedo of the planet which then allows more heat to be absorbed. There is a huge amount of co2 and methane trapped in permafrost which could be released as the permafrost melts.

How do we ever get to a stage where everybody accepts the evidence? There are still some that do not believe that smoking has any health problems associated with it. There are companies whose main concern is profit for the shareholders.

My question is other than a few individuals, who is it that does not accept the evidence. ExxonMobil seems to accept the evidence.

Some seem to suggest that if the evidence is correct then we must stop all activities that release greenhouse gasses. This to me is nonsense. To go back to weight, the answer is not to cease eating but to balance eating with energy expenditure. We need to balance carbon release with carbon storage.

It may surprise you to hear that I am an optimist. I believe once humans recognize the need they will do what needs to be done but the earlier we do this the less disruptive it will be.

At $8,000,!Same for me even though my Delica was $20,000, Only $12,000 with trade-in.

 

The wife's Pajero was about the $12,000 mark, but still prefer the Deli.

 

How long to get the new EV's down to the level we the public could afford to pay, without the Business rort's that let the others get away with such a lot.

 

spacesailor

Depends what you mean by the public. Many people buy more expensive cars than you or I. my son bought a 4-year-old BMWI3 for around 30K. Whilst this may seem like big money for you or me it is cheaper than at 60k to 80k Sure you or I might not be able to afford either of those vehicles this does not mean that a car over 20K is too expensive to be viable. My son uses this EV as a daily drive to work and it costs him between $3 and $4 a week to charge. My son is quite a petrol head and does motorsport but the rational choice for him to drive to work is an EV

"the atmosphere is quite finite. Half of the total number of molecules is below 18,000 feet, (6 kms)"Yet we burn our atmosphere, for any excuse, every time I see a rocket launch I wonder how much air gets burnt at the same time.

 

Every Jumbo takeoff see's a ton of fuel burnt, with it's huge plume of pollution trailing behind, !.

 

The EV car's hopefully will save a little of the air (we breath) by Not burning it, & exhaust gas wont "GAS" us.

 

So bring on EV's, they're Just too pricey for me.

 

Any loan or gift EV will be very appreciated.

 

I wont hold my breath. LoL

 

spacesailor

Space prices are dropping and it is predicted that they will fall more rapidly in the near future.

Electric cars cheaper than petrol/diesel from 2022, as battery costs plummet | The Driven

At the moment I would not buy one (but I have never spent more the$8000 on a car)

Consider the first mobile phone in Australia which cost $5000 in 1981. I thought it was cool but assumed I would never own one. My first PC cost me $1200 in 1982 16k of RAM and programs loaded by cassette tape and it did bugger all.

There is no reason not to believe that the price of EVs technology will not follow a similar trajectory.

It seem to me that in the climate debate and the squeaky wheel (ie the radicals)

I have no interest in radical opinion and I think it is a red herring. I think the problem on both sides is getting information filtered through popular media. If someone suggests that the data is flawed because it has been adjusted, that as a proposition is interesting but requires evidence. I posted an admittedly long and dry video about how the data is altered and why and the fact that it is very often altered downwards. The link is provided to the raw data which by the way without being altered still shows warming. I don't expect to change anyone's mind and really it doesn't matter what some individuals think, the science is accepted by most. Of course, the nature of science is that as we measure more data we come closer to the real situation.

It is frustrating to try and post on this subject. You get howled down. It’s like the Salem witch hunts.

Not howled down but is it not reasonable to question statements made by Breitbart editors etc? If I was to suggest that smoking was not detrimental to health it would be fair enough for people to question what evidence I am relying on. To simply say that the majority of scientists are making it up is a proposition that requires evidence and explanation. It is not howling down to ask what evidence someone is relying upon to support their assertions. I always watch or read everything that anyone post if I am going to comment yet I do not suppose people read or watch what I post, that is fair enough but it does not make for a reasonable dialogue.

but on every measure of temperature, sea level, glaciers and so on I find that the facts are different than the numbers presented by alarmists.

It is quite right to be sceptical of some pronouncements and some are prone to presenting the worst-case scenarios however the data is available. In the video, I posted the link was provided to the raw data as well as the homogenised data and the software used to analyse it.

I don't personally care what any individual thinks however I get rather annoyed at the notion that the theory is just a foolish notion that has no evidence. The point in Phil's article that I questioned (and I only chose one point) was that it cited 1 study from 2015 to suggest that real scientist like the NASA folk have disproved it, this is misleading. I did read a summary of the study and it most definitely does not say what the author thinks it says. There is also a paragraph which foresees the deliberate misuse of the study. The fact is NASA believes it has sufficient evidence as does as far I can see pretty much every reputable scientific organisation. You know who else has studied it? The petrochemical industry.

1988 Shell Confidential Report “The Greenhouse Effect”

ExxonMobil climate change controversy - Wikipedia

It seems very unlikely (although not impossible) that just about every scientific organisation in the world plus the petrochemical industry would all have it so very wrong. So what if they are wrong? Petrol is going to run out sooner or later, we could wait until oil does start to run out before we start developing new technologies to drive our vehicles and to make our petrochemicals. Digging up coal and sending around the world in huge ships cannot, in the long run, be the most efficient to create electricity.

The notion that all of those who accept the evidence are people who want to bring down capitalism is a little hard to believe, whilst those kinds of people do exist (and they piss me off) I don't think that the folks at NASA are a bunch of hippies trying to bring down society. Another group who takes climate change seriously are the US military

UPDATE: Chronology of U.S. Military Statements and Actions on Climate Change and Security: 2017-2019

As to where I stand on this, I believe the evidence is overwhelming. I do not think we need to dismantle our way of life but to modify it in ways that hopefully do not create too much disruption. Consider electric vehicles. Whilst I would not say that they are the total solution, they do make sense even if you ignore the pollutants they produce. The model for private transport we have at the moment is that we buy our vehicle from overseas and we power them with petrol. Petrol starts its a journey from the drill site to the tanker ship. After it arrives in Australia we refine it and stick it in a truck and drive it to a distribution point where us motorist buys it. A petrol station is the only option for the purchase of petrol. An EV whilst it is also imported sources its fuel locally. It can be refuelled at home. The electricity can come from renewables, coal, nuclear, hydro etc . It is extremely versatile. I recently read that Australia has 22 days worth of crude oil stockpile at any one time. This is roughly how long it would take for things to break down if supply was cut.

I don't want to live a life without modern conveniences but what is required is to not cling to old ways of doing things but rather forge ahead to the next era. Fossil fuels have been good but that does not mean that we cannot continue to advance.

when you have people adjusting the tempeture to read lower temps to make a case for warming shore make sence for a hotter area

Neil, this video explains in great detail how and why it is done, it presents the raw data before adjustment and even gives you links so that you can download the raw data.

You may dismiss this and choose to accept other sources of information but this explanation does not just make statements, it supports its assertions with links to the raw data.

sigh, I mentioned sport and the other things to make the point that essentially all human activities are in some way pointless whether it be interplanetary research or stamp collecting. I was not particularly making a point about sport. Although I do agree with most of the points made. Now, what about folk dancing.

Why do the electric vehicles have to be the same shape as gasoline powered cars. It should be easy to get e better streamlined shape.

I imagine that one reason is that the streamlining required for an EV probably dosn't vary much from an IC car. Car companies that also produce IC cars probably don't want to deviate too much from what they are already making. Many car buyers have conservative tastes and want something similar to their old car.

Audi has opted for small cameras instead of side mirrors and many vehicles have the door handles which retract into the body of the car.

If you look at the concept cars being displayed at auto shows many of them are quite different in shape to the past.

There are some aerodynamic advantages that we don't tend to see or think about such as the flat underneath of the vehicle due to battery pan.

In a couple of weeks, We are going to NZ to visit my son, this is his daily drive car that he will be lending us. BMWI3 I am very much looking forward to driving it.

[ATTACH]50021._xfImport[/ATTACH]

Homewood: In fact, according to NASA, the Antarctic is actually gaining ice.

Let me just pick one point out of the many because frankly I can't be bothered debating fringe beliefs and let's face it the denier side has lost and will increasingly look more ridiculous as time goes by.

By the way, you neglected to attribute this article which was by James Delingpole who amongst other things is the executive editor of Breitbart London and is a journalist with no scientific qualifications as far as I can see. James Delingpole - Wikipedia The criticisms are by Paul Homewood. There does not seem to be any information about Homewood's qualifications but I would assume if he had any he would be keen to quote them.

You may think it foolish of me but I am going with NASA, you know the folks who can send a probe past Pluto with pinpoint accuracy as well as just about every other reputable scientific organisation.

The study referred to above is from 2015 and must be read carefully. What does NASA say in more recent studies

The decline has slowed lately but never the less still a decline.

The author of this paper Jay Zwally also says this "Zwally said the ice sheets are reacting to climate warming, the question is when receding started and how far it would go."

This paper is one of many papers, the question is where does the scientific consensus lay.

Wintertime Arctic sea ice growth slows long-term decline: NASA – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (2018)

UW glaciologist gets first look at NASA’s new measurements of ice sheet elevation

Arctic Sea Ice Is Growing Faster Than Before, But There's A Catch

Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

The BBC are not a scientific organisation the best they can do is quote the science. I think it is reasonable to quote NASA so what does NASA say? Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet If you want to convince me you will first have to discredit the weight of NASA evidence, can you do that?

Phil, you are entitled to your opinion but that is all it is an opinion. I am not a physicist or an atmospheric scientist. I am sceptical by nature in fact in the 80s and 90s I was an active member of the NSW Skeptics society. For me, it is not about politics it is about the weight of evidence.

What if certain gases do not behave in the atmosphere as physicists expect. We will have moved on to new technologies slightly earlier than strictly needed, so what.

Anywhere but here Is subject to cosmic rays and all sorts of other deadly radiation. Anything you take to MARS is only going to be useful until it fails. No one will come back.. I like it here. Lets fix it up a bit and look after it as we should. we have evolved to it's conditions over a B***y long time, like every other thing that's alive today.The orbiting space junk is now a big danger. to spacecraft. Even a chip of paint can kill you at the sorts of speeds they are going at, if you are outside. It doesn't take us long to fill everywhere we go with rubbish. Just chuck it and leave it for others to clean up. Bunch of little charmers aren't we?. We don't deserve a planet. Nev

I guess it is a matter of personal philosophy. We are essentially doomed, our time will be up one way or another. Human existence is really about finding something interesting to do until the end. Some people like us like to fly little aeroplanes which is a useless activity in the whole scheme of things. You could say of almost all human activities "we should not waste time or money on it until we fix all other problems". Sport, art, travel, literature etc are not strictly useful although people enjoy occupying their time with these activities. Although it is extremely unlikely that I will travel to Mars or even into earth orbit just as I probably won't go to Antarctica but I am glad I can experience it vicariously. If we were to draw up a list of activities to cease doing until we totally fixed up all the other problems I suspect that space exploration would be way down the bottom given the small expenditure (and massive indirect benefits). I vote to abolish sport, warfare and folk dancing until we fix everything else up.

I wonder how much work is being done to develop food production in space? Reducing the amount of food that has to be freighed up there might save squillions.Matt Damon did it on Mars, so it must be easy...

I was going to jokingly suggest potatoes but it seems the answer is at least to some degree potatoes.

NASA Plant Researchers Explore Question of Deep-Space Food Crops

Considering the massive cost of getting each kg of material up there in the first place, a smarter solution would surely be to collect it all up and remanufacture new hardware in space

I was watching a short youtube doco on food aboard the ISS, apparently, when a new shipment arrives they get some goodies like fresh fruit, it has been calculated that it cost $10000 to get one apple to the ISS. It is estimated that the cost of the entire station is $160 Billion dollars, the most expensive machine ever built.

well please explain the battery disposal when it is no longer serviceable

Tesla launches battery recycling at Nevada Gigafactory

BMW sets up end-to-end battery recycling in Europe

Formula E signs on to complete battery recycling

Volvo reuses bus batteries for solar storage

If you are inferring that I was unaware, this is not the case. I have keenly followed all space stories for decades and those of Russia China, India, Japan and recently, Israel.

I grew up watching the Apollo missions, they were, of course, awesome but clearly could not continue in that form due to the inevitability of an accident and the enormous expense. This is not how we do things these days. Firstly we expect space travel to be safe and cheap. The good old days were neither safe or cheap. Mars will obviously take longer than the Moon.

I am not sure what you mean by "wasted years" After Apollo, there was Skylab, Mir etc. then the space shuttle. Some people say the space shuttle was a failure but it did make space flight somewhat more routine and enabled SSI to be built. It was a shame that the US has spent some years without its own launch system but during those years they have been developing new spacecraft which are about to carry humans.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree, I see solid incremental progress perhaps not at the breakneck speed of the past. Soon we will have not just one spacecraft to carry humans to space but three.

space exploration is now very low in most peoples' priorities

Perhaps but this does not mean that progress does not continue. In the past public interest has been crucial for government funding but what we have now are wealthy individuals and their companies. Musk and Space x, Jeff Bezos and Blue Origin, Richard Branson and virgin. We may not have a space race between countries but we do have a Billionaires space race.

Because of the Apollo was fully taxpayer-funded we were always treated to news stories showing achievements. Now that these wealthy individuals and companies are funding research and testing there is less of a need to push the PR. They are quite open about the progress they make but mainly you have to have an interest to be aware of it.

Space X has successfully fired a rocket motor powered by methane and oxygen rather than hydrogen. There are many advantages to this fuel but the most exciting one is that there is plenty of methane on Mars. It is proposed that autonomous fuel factories could be sent to Mars ahead of a manned mission in order to provide fuel for the return journey.

In the future, we will look back at the moon landings as mere short hops. The problems of a Mars mission are so huge that progress may seem slow but the hardware for a Mars landing is being developed now.

The ISS is impressive, but hasn't broken records set by the Soviet Salyut and Mir space stations decades ago.

This is not correct.

Mir was launched in 1986 and re-entered in 2001 a total of 15 years ISS was launched in 1998 and has been continually occupied since 2000. Whilst they are thinking about the end of ISS this is not just a matter of scrapping it. There are plans to reuse many of the modules. ISS has surpassed Mir in duration, size number of occupants etc.

International Space Station - Wikipedia

There are also plans for other space stations and indeed space stations specifically designed to aid interplanetary space travel.

Space research may not be exciting to the public but it is happening. I remember when a rocket launch was a huge event now it happens so often that we almost don't even notice it. I usually watch rocket launches live on the ESA or NASA sites as well as regular video from ISS.

When I was a teenager I was obsessed with astronomy. I still have some of my old books which showed Pluto as a pinprick of light, little did I know that in my lifetime I would get to see detailed pictures of the surface taken by a space probe. Black holes were theoretical objects only seen in books as artists renderings and now we can see a picture of one.

I think it is all too easy to fall into the trap of thinking the past was better than the present. There is no past time in which my life would have been more interesting or easier than today.

All very impressive, Marty, but they're the same sort of baby steps our species was making half a century ago. Today we have nothing approaching the Saturn Five.At launch, the Apollo craft weighed 3,000 tons. The space race inspired the world. If that momentum had been carried thru, we'd have permanent space stations, moon bases and trips to Mars. The spins-offs in technology would have transformed our way of life far more than even the space program did.

 

Where is the visionary leadership that sets lofty goals and galvanises the people to work towards them?

I think things are happening. I don't think the Apollo was fueled by vision but by competition between UAS and USSR, once the goal was achieved politicians and the public lost interest.

The fact that we do not at this point have a rocket as powerful as the Saturn v is not because we can't build one but because without the goal of leaving earth orbit, there has been no use for one. The fact that many people are quite unaware of what is happening is perhaps due to the more routine nature of space flight.

In the 60s the idea of people living in space for extended periods would have been considered science fiction but now many people don't give a second thought to the ISS.

The necessary technology is being worked on for a visit to Mars. Compared to landing on the Moon, the problems of a trip to Mars are so much more difficult. I think after the Moon landings people some people thought that Mars was just a slightly longer hop. The problems are immense from radiation to the physiological problems that would be faced by the astronauts.

We do tend to take for granted the progress that has an is still being made. Launching satellites is much cheaper and more routine than it has ever been. I can find my way around a city or the sky by using satellites, how amazing is that.

The Saturn V was hideously expensive and would not have been sustainable. What is being worked on is economically sustainable space travel. Without reusability, further space exploration will be limited.

Here is a bit of history of space x and where it is heading in the near future.

Using an EV's you pay no fuel tax and you can bet the Men in Suits are looking into it.

Ultimately they will need to replace those lost taxes somehow and that is fair enough. It seems to me that given new technology it may become possible to base tax directly on a vehicles use of the roads.

Very encouraging news, Octave.Electric vehicles are certainly in the news, but the LNP might find it easy to exploit ignorance about their potential. Tonight's local TV news showed lots of people didn't think EVs would be viable in rural areas for decades to come. Limited range and lack of recharging stations was a common complaint.

 

Another colossal furfey: there's a shortage of qualified maintainers. Ignoring the fact that EVs are simple and likely to require little maintenance.

It is a shame that we are so far behind in this country. Whilst travelling around NZ I was amazed at how many charging stations there were. My son lives in NZ and is a car enthusiast. He owns many cars including a motorsport car, his daily drive is a BMWI3. It costs him $3 a week to get to work. Wellington gets around 80% of its electricity from renewables. In a couple of weeks, we will be staying with him for a couple of weeks and we will have the EV for the duration, looking forward to driving it.

well please explain the battery disposal when it is no longer serviceable what are the contents of battery ?copper is reguired how much ? neil

Sigh, I am sure we have had this conversation before.

Firstly EV batteries are lasting longer than many people think. Before recycling is considered these batteries have a second life in stationary power applications as they still have plenty of life left.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot? : Where 3 Million Electric Vehicle Batteries Will Go When They Retire

How long are Tesla batteries lasting?

How Long Will A Tesla, LEAF, Or Other EV Battery Last?

what are the contents of battery ?

I see that you are not very knowledgable about this technology.

The materials in aTesla are:

Graphite (Anode)

Lithium (Electrolyte)

Nickel (Cathode)

Plus copper and plastic.

Here is how Tesla is intends to deal with this problem.

Whilst it may be true that EV battery recycling is in its infancy as batteries do get to the end of their life the cost of recycling will drop. These materials are simply too valuable to throw away. We all got our home PCs before we had the means to economically recycle their components. This is the way progress happens.

The Chinese are well ahead with this.

China Sets Up EV Battery Recycling Scheme | OilPrice.com

Neil, I suspect that your concern is not really about recycling car batteries but that it is more to do with your conservatism. I don't particularly have any interest in changing your mind because regardless of your discomfort with change that change is happening anyway. I guess you will just have to learn to live with it.

I agree, by traditional standards, not so pretty. EVs don't need the front grill although some vehicles have a fake one. Modern lights are also getting smaller due to advances in light technology. I suspect that what we find attractive in a car will change with new technology. I suspect that the modern TV or sound system would have seemed unattractive back in the days when these came in a wooden cabinet.

gee SA not the place to start a business bruce a 650 million dollar has fallen over after getting 110 million dollars from the government oh don't worry neil

I know you don't care about facts but here are a few anyway.

A $650 million solar thermal power plant planned for Port Augusta will not go ahead after the company behind it failed to secure commercial finance for the project.

Sunday and said it would not be able to achieve financial close by the May 31 deadline set by the Government.

Earlier in 2017, the Federal Government confirmed it would grant $110 million in a concessional equity loan to support the project.

A Commonwealth concession loan of up to $110 million will be made available for the project, at a 3 per cent interest rate.

You seem to be suggesting that $650 Millon has somehow been wasted, this is what the project would have cost the developer. The $110 Million was a promise of a loan at 3% interest. So what is your problem? This is not an unusual scenario. Governments invest via loans or tax credits in all sorts of businesses including in the mining industry.

How big is the fuel tank on those hydrogen trucks? and is it in gas or liquid form?

Here is an interesting clip from "Real Engineering" which discusses the pros and cons of hydrogen vs battery. Japan seems to favour hydrogen and has petrol stations that dispense hydrogen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY:783

Back to electric cars...or at least vehicles. (typing when you posted, Marty.)

All-electric pickup

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMfxJEfb4lw:666