octave

By all means make changes if they are good for the environment, but don’t make us freeze and starve in the dark.

I don't believe people would accept this anyway. I once heard a quote that was "environmental concerns are a mile wide but on a millimetre thick" I love my modern life and I do want it to continue and that is why I want the problem to be tackled early rather than waiting until the problem is crucial. I do not believe there are many people who want to deindustrialize society however I suspect that frustration at a perceived lack of action causes polarization and on ambit claims.

I am able to accommodate in my mind the possibility that further evidence will disprove the theory and imagine the consequences. The fossil fuel era could never continue forever. If we push the development of alternate technology at a vigorous but sensible pace we could end up with a better world climate change or not.

My problem with the opposite scenario is that if we believe that the evidence is not yet strong enough we do need to decide what evidence is strong enough and at what point we begin to look for alternatives. If the theory turns out to be true surely you would agree that starting the fix late would be much more difficult and would require more drastic action than an early response.

If in 10 years the evidence shows something different we can start fazing out wind farms and solar farms and other renewables and start replacing them with coal plants, the coal will still be there.

Taking vigorous but sensible action now gives us the maximum range of choices in the future.

I don't actually see governments taking anything more than mild action anyway. I think business is more likely to come up with solutions. Fusion research continues with some breakthroughs recently (but still some time away) There is an arms race in battery research as well as other mass energy storage systems. Yes, many (or even most) of these will fail, this is the nature of progress.

Humans with all their faults do have the capacity to achieve difficult things if the will is there. When Kennedy made his famous "by the end of the decade ....moon speech) NASA was apparently unaware of this pledge and apparently were sceptical about whether that could be achieved. Wright brothers to Armstrong 66 years.

Arctic Sea Ice Minimum | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

I am curious about your bar graph. It is always good to go back to the source. The Danish Meteorological Institute had this to say with regard to Arctic Sea Ice minimums

"Since the 1970s the extent of sea ice has been measured from satellites. From these measurements we know that the sea ice extent today is significantly smaller than 30 years ago. During the past 10 years the melting of sea ice has accelerated, and especially during the ice extent minimum in September large changes are observed. The sea ice in the northern hemisphere have never been thinner and more vulnerable."

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Also regarding your graph, I am open-minded about it but it does raise a few questions. The graph does not discuss how this data was collected and from where. This graph must have been accompanied by an explanation of methods. Not doubting it but I am sure you would agree that by itself it does not mean much.

I repeat- many geologists all around the world, who have a deep understanding of the history of climate, do not accept that CO2 drives climate in any significant way.

Whilst some individual geologist may not accept the evidence I did find it difficult to find any geological organisations who do not accept it.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

With all due respect to geologists, if I get cancer I want to see an oncologist

How much information is needed before the general public will consider that we are victims of a political movement?

What do you consider the "political" purpose behind NASAs representation of the evidence? or perhaps CSIRO or the British Academy of science? Do you think I accept the evidence for political reasons? Was Fourier a political player in 1824? How about when Arrhenius published his calculations for the effect on the climate of co2 emissions in 1896?

Whilst it might be true that some loser hippy types may see a bigger agenda this does not mean that the evidence is not solid. I for one do not want to live under a tree with no electricity. I want to live in a technological society that is smart enough to provide the things we enjoy but smart enough to measure the cost and to plan for the future not cling to the past.

The bottom line is for me that any source that traditionally has a fair track record for science and has built-in peer reviews and gives access to the raw data is more convincing than individuals especially when they are consultants for industry. If all these organisations are conspiring to present a false case then perhaps the way to overcome them is to provide evidence of collusion. For example, does NASA tell the Japanese space agency what to say its satellite surface temperature measurements should be so as not contradict theirs?

How does this conspiracy work?

Funnily enough, I am pretty happy with life, I am an optimist, I think the problem can be solved but like rust in a car, always cheaper to begin tackling it early rather than late. I do not think the answer is to go back to the pre fossil fuel era.

I saw an interview with Bill Gates who thinks the situation is becoming critical and although he is supportive of renewables thinks that they can not alone solve the problem. He has put loads of money into developing smaller safer and more economically viable nuclear power plants. There have also been recent breakthroughs in fusion reactors although I would suggest still a little while away.

Anyway bottom line is we can hurl graphs at each other but neither of us can change the situation. I will go out on a limb and say that there are very few scientific organisations who don't accept the evidence. I believe that most politicians also to varying degrees accept the evidence but they are interested in the next 4 years not the next 40 years.

speaking of space junk here is an interesting episode of Real Engineering.

Here is a link.https://inconvenientfacts.xyz/blog/f/statement-to-the-pa-environmental-resources-energy-committee

 

It contains much of the data in graphical form. The author gave evidence to a state committee, he is well qualified to do so. He has been attacked and vilified for his analysis. As have many well-qualified geologists around the world.

I do read every link people post if I am going to comment, I am just on my way out to work but I will definitely read and comment on this. Do you read or view what I post?

Why do you trust this geologist rather than NASA?

The question no one ever answers is this, is NASA and the other organizations guilty of bad science or conspiracy of if the latter to what end?

EV are a great thing and will be fantastic ...in the future when the tech can catch up but as I said drag this thread back out in 10 years or even 20 and lets see where we actually are.

Yes let's see how adoption goes over the next 10 years, Australia is starting from a low base. China is aggressively pursuing EV and Norway is already at 50% of new cars being EV. The targets we are talking about are pretty modest and the timescale long. I see EV adoption only increasing. But as you say we shall see.

Octave,I read your Sceptics link.

 

I am disturbed by all the replies to their statement on climate change. Contrary to the Sceptics stance, All are anti anthropogenic climate change .

 

This is not what I expected.

Yes, but anyone can comment and there are folks who roam the internet looking to comment on anything they disagree with. This doesn't change the data. Just been reading a FB ev group and there are the usual people who say EV batteries only last for 3 years. Again data is everything.

https://www.fpcs.es/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/climate-change-political-pollution.pdf

Worth reading if you still have an open mind.

My problem with this it is a document that contains opinion and no actual data, what can I take from this? I can look at NASA or CSIRO or many other organisations. We would not doubt these organizations when it comes to any other theory or data but when it comes to this one thing suddenly there must be a conspiracy. The NASA data contradicts both sea level, temperature and ice loss assertions in this document. Without data everything else is opinion. The question I ask people is that given the NASA data does support the theory if they are wrong is it merely incompetence or conspiracy. If it is incompetence you would expect data from other sources to contradict NASA. If it is conspiracy then I would be wondering to what end?

The physics is well understood we know that CO2 and other gasses allow visible light to pass through but reflect back the infrared.

The problem is that the arguments used by those who doubt the theory are similar to anti-vaxxers etc. experts don't all agree, therefore.... they have a vested interest, therefore.

I do not use to term climate sceptic because scepticism involves analysing evidence. For many years I was a member of the Australian Skeptics, they have always had pretty tough on standards of evidence, here is there take on it.

Aust Skeptics Inc statement on climate change

I consider myself open-minded but every time someone sends a link to some evidence or a study it turns out to be a misrepresentation. It is important on all sides not to cherry pick data, if you (or I) have to search hard for something to support our argument then perhaps that should be a red flag.

Anyway, who is Fernando del Pino Calvo-Sotelo?

AND $millions from the NRMA.Not even a safety check (Free) for their Members,!.

 

spacesailor

I suspect the NRMA is responding to where the technology is going. If the rest of the world goes EV should we be a quaint country stuck in the past?

“Just as the NRMA was there to help Australia navigate the rise of the automobile 97 years ago, we will be here to help future generations navigate this new era of electric vehicles,” Loades explained."

"operating ranges of up to 350km (220 miles), removing any chance of ‘range angst’ for operators."I'VE Range Angst with my 450 klm range. Always looking at that fuel gauge & the next sero.

 

That's why most serious offroaders have installed Longrange tanks.

 

Some can span a thousand klms between sevo refills.

 

spacesailor

Understood but this argument also applies to my IC Ford Focus. You buy the vehicle that suits your needs. It would be ridiculous for me to tell you what your needs are and.........

when are we going to get a FULL offroad 4X4 EV.

Now

Space the point different vehicle within the IC range are not all equally suited to all situations. I would not drive my Ford Focus off road because it is not suited to that. No one is saying that we are going to get rid of all ICs You are making the point that EVs are not at this point in time suited to EVERY type of use, therefore they are of no use.

BMW to buy cobalt for EV batteries from Australia and Morocco

Yes, I saw that. It seems to me that we should be looking for new opportunities.

Australia's SEA Electric has taken multiple orders for its 2500Nm EV truck - techAU

Fuel cells are a whole different matter and I think they should have been developed a lot faster and implemented long ago. They have been around for a while now..of course you can believe the conspiracy dudes that the big oil companies keep buying out the IP for it. They make far more sense for storage and energy use

There are a few hydrogen fuel cars like the Hyundai Nexo

I found these clips from Real Engineering comparing Hydrogen with battery, it is quite rigorous.

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

You missed my point...with what power generation are you going to charge all of those EV with.....possibly during the day lots of renewables but what about when the sun goes down and the wind certainly up here doesnt blow at night

None around my way and I am half way between the sunshine coast and Brisbane... There is one and its not even anywhere near the main centre of town The others are almost at least 30 to 40 km away so in my little piece of the world..which by the way is a outer north suburb in real terms have 1 hahahahha They better get moving installing a lot more to that dirty filthy coal fired grid

I think we have established that an EV is not right for you and no one is trying to convince you otherwise. I suspect that when the network improves in your area you still will not be interested. I have not a problem with that.

They better get moving installing a lot more to that dirty filthy coal fired grid

Or more likely a mix of generation sources. The grid is getting cleaner, even if we do build new coal-fired plants they will cleaner than the current generation methods. It takes electricity to refine petrol as well.

Let's say theoretically we reach 50% EV and we rely on fossil fuels (still greener than IC engine) at some stage we will probably use fusion or some other method yet to be discovered. The EV is the most versatile vehicle when it comes to fuel. An EV can be powered by coal, gas, biofuel, geothermal, wind, solar, diesel. An IC car can only run on petrol (or diesel) perhaps ethanol or lp gas and you can refuel your car at home.

What are your thoughts on hydrogen fuel cell vehicles?

Are we going to give the same incentives to the electric vehicle makers, as we refused the IC car makers of old.

Perhaps in fairness, we could provide subsidies for a similar time and value to the subsidies we provided them for car makers of old, sounds fair.

then losing out on the fuel ripoff taxes.

I actually agree with you on this, new methods of road tax will have to be developed. Perhaps a per KM charge

Same goes for the service stations, FREE fuel for EV cars. No more servos.

Although some chargers were free (paid for by the manufacturer) they do charge (money) In other countries there are charging stations within petrol stations. In Britain Shell is installing chargers at its stations, and no they are not free to use. service stations already cater for a variety of fuels, I do not see why they won't just change with the demand as any business would do.

here is plenty of time to put in the charge points. No one said petrol stations can't also do charging.

Yes in Britain Shell is installing EV chargers in their servos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nst2RGtgzfk:367

Also what it is easy to overlook are the different patterns of refuelling and the new business opportunities. Hotels and Motels in Europe (and some here) have them. Charge your car while you have a meal in our restaurant. Shop in our shopping mall and charge your car while you shop.

Infrastructure is no where near what it would need to be and neither is the storage tech

I agree that the infrastructure in this country is way behind many other countries but that is why it is important to prepare for the future. Just about all car manufacturers have announced timetables to move towards EV, hybrid or fuel cell technology, the question is will we in this country be a sort of third world car country where we are using technologies that other countries are moving away from.

The Labor policy is for 50% of NEW vehicles to be EV by 2030 that is in 11 years time, seems like quite a long time frame time. I believe Norway has reached 50% recently. Countries like China are aggressively pursuing EV s not because they are hippy greenies but because they have to to keep their larger cities livable. In fact, China produces 43% (in 2016) of EVs.

Infrastructure is no where near what it would need to be and neither is the storage tech

What sort of range do you suggest EVs need before they are competitive with IC cars?

What level of infrastructure is required before you would see it as viable?

There is always a problem with rolling out infrastructure for the future. Perhaps the answer is to instead of subsidies to EV buyers perhaps subsidies go towards improving the infrastructure. We can end up with a situation where we say that there are not enough EVs to justify infrastructure improvements and there is not enough infrastructure to allow people to conveniently charge their EVs.

In 2017 there were 476 dedicated EV charging stations and more coming online all the time. Many EV drivers charge at home overnight, which is, of course, slower but fine for the daily commute to work.

I think what it comes down to is that you believe that an EV is not right for you and the last thing I would do is to try and convince you that it was the right thing for you. I looked at buying an aircraft some years ago but decided it was economically irrational for ME. If the Labor party's incentives are successful then you will still be able to purchase one of the 50% of cars that will still be IC, I don't really see the problem other than the use of subsidies. Personally, I am happy to subsidise the modernisation of our transport systems, certainly more happy subsidising EVs than other things that attract subsidies.

Given the fact that subsidies for EVs in the US are quickly phasing out, it would seem that Ford's $500 million investment and partnership with Rivian must indicate they see a future in EVs.

In Australia, at this point, there are no subsidies that I am aware of, in fact, cars over $61 884 attract a luxury car tax

See this is still the chicken and egg argument..you currently need coal fired power to power the charging stations so if the discussion is ONLY on the EV as a tool then thats fine but the bigger picture and all the hyperbole about EV is the "green" side of them. We don't have hydro here so we cant use "natural" power when the sun goes down as there is no bulk storage for renewables. I see the lot of this all tied together but in different ratios of course

Yes, an EV is only as clean as the electricity generation method. If you live in Tasmania then it is very clean. This varies from state to state. The point is though that an EV gets cleaner as the grid gets cleaner. An IC car starts its life as clean as it can be and degrades throughout its life.

Most states have a growing renewables sector, therefore, the situation is changing. What about states that are heavily coal dependent, does that make an EV a bad choice? Here is a pretty thorough analysis

I have read that Australia has 22 days supply of fuel. Any disruption to the delivery of crude oil would be a big problem. We import loads of crude oil yet our power stations are mostly powered by fuel produced locally, whether it be hydro, solar, wind, or coal. It seems to me that green issues aside there are other benefits.

I am involved in tech and I just cant get excited about EV.....well not for my usage anyway.

No problem with that, it is a matter of what suits you, at some point in the future perhaps it will suit you. Not only am I saying it makes sense for many but not all it would be undoable to change the whole fleet in a short time.

I drive way too many long km stretches for them to be practical. Fine if your a city dweller whose life revolves in about a 30km radius.

I think that is a little tough. I can fully understand that in your circumstances it may be too difficult but to say "it is OK if you stay in the city and only go 30k" is not quite accurate

You can now drive an electric car right around Australia without range anxiety

EV has a long way to go yet as far as I am concerned.

Absolutely fine, I won't be getting one until my present car is done. l did not get an early mobile phone but waited until they were cheaper.

Subsidies are always tricky because some subsidies are not so easy to see. The car manufacturers in this country were heavily subsidised which no doubt fed into the end price for the buyer. Governments built highways. Early aviation was subsidised. There is this idea that EVs must fully compete with IC cars from day 1. If we did this with many technologies they would never get off the ground. Vehicles that would suit you are available but not at a price that would be economically viable for you.

I will go out on a limb and say that EVs are technically superior to IC cars in every sense but the range and filling time. In terms of filling the time it is more about a different model of refuelling. My car has been parked all night, if it were electric it would be full now however I am about to go out and I will have to stop at the servo to fill up.

The range continues to improve as battery technology inevitably improves. The price of batteries continues to fall.

I am not particularly interested in selling the idea to anyone because I think the change is inevitable given the efficiency of an electric motor compared to IC engines:

"Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 17%–21% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels.” An electric motor typically is between 85% and 90% efficient."

How we power those electric motors is an interesting question, whether battery or hydrogen fuel cell or perhaps both will be used or something else.

EVs are not going away and will continue to increase its market share.

I am familiar with the Michael Schellenberger article. I do have a link for a critique of some of his points but I am just heading out and I don't want to post it before I have reread both articles. I will agree though that the answer is not to change all IC vehicles for EVs.

What was it like to drive, Octave? Did it take much getting used to? Was the limited range restrictive? Did you charge it where you wee staying, and were there any special requirements for recharging?

Range - As an early Leaf not huge but we were driving it around town. The young guy who owns it charged it at his place (for free). Very easy to drive, at driving speed you can forget it is electric but when you stop at the lights the first few times it is a bit disconcerting due to the lack of sound. New Zealand is well ahead on charging stations even out of the cities.

We are heading over there again in 2 weeks but since our last trip, my son has bought a BMWI3 so we will be driving that. My son has a Tesla 3 on order so looking forward to driving that but the delivery date is uncertain. The Leaf is pretty nimble with good acceleration compared to similar IC cars.

The interesting things is that the leaf owner and my son are massive petrol heads. My son owns racecar that he races in motorsport regularly but for his daily drive the I3 is the logical choice, the I3 is charged at my sons home and I believe cost $3-4$ a week. Petrol is pretty expensive in NZ. He does enjoy the I3 but is looking forward to the Tesla. (yes unlike me he has more money than god) Maintenance is extremely cheap except the tires are unusual and quite spendy.

I may try and make a road test type video in the I3 if I get around to it and I will post it here.

Whilst I am enthusiastic about EVs, like many here I am not ready to buy one. I don't think the idea of everybody suddenly changing to EV would be practical. It is a bit like any change in-car technology, it was only a few years ago that I got a car that had airbags. By the time I am ready for a new car I suspect that second hand EVs will be much cheaper.

Another (for the RICH)"Lotus Type 130 all-electric hypercar confirmed

 

Lotus reveals $3 million electric hypercar

 

Type 130 name confirmed, first silhouette"[ATTACH]4035[/ATTACH]

 

spacesailor

Yeah, supercars of any type are for the rich. Luckily as with most things, we buy there is a price range to suit most people. Here is the Nissan leaf I drove around in last time I was in NZ. This vehicle was loaned to us by an employee of my son. It was bought second hand for $14 000.

[ATTACH]50029._xfImport[/ATTACH]

I thought I said "UP to $130,000"

So what are petrol driven cars "priced up to"

If you don't want to buy an EV then don't. Only you can decide what is a rational choice for you. For many, it is the rational choice. By the way, it is not yet the rational choice for me.

The EV 's are priced up to $130,000. Enough change to fuel your $ 60k to 80k car for as long as you keep it.

$135 000 really??? where did you get that price from? As I said my son bought a second-hand BMWI3 for $35000 Brand new Leaf 50K, 2013 Leaf $23888. https://www.carsales.com.au/cars/nissan/leaf/ Space no one is urging you to buy an EV it probably would not suit you but to say that the average EV is $130000 is incorrect. Even a standard Tesla model 3 is $49500 and the Performance model is $76000. Yes a top of the line Telsa model S may be around that price but that is a luxury car and I am assuming you would not buy a luxury car.

The proposed cure is worse than the disease.

What is the proposed cure?

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.