The futility of the Prius and the end of the world as we know it
- Thread starter Toshi
- Start date
There is an answer.
More evidence that what I penned above in 2011 continues to hold true:
China's Soaring Coal Consumption Poses Climate Challenge
China's surge, as was the case with America's in the early 20th century, is fueled by carbon. There's no way in hell their leaders will voluntarily turn off the spigot to appease our consciences.
CN: Move to high ground while you can.
Last edited:
Cool. I knew moving to Colorado was a good idea. Gotta get in before demand for our high altitude housing goes ballistic. You should totally get into the market early. You can take advantage of the limitless gains! /sarcasm
The Atlantic: What If We Never Run Out of Oil? New technology and a little-known energy source suggest that fossil fuels may not be finite. This would be a miracleand a nightmare.
This article is a long but a worthwhile read, covering basically all the bases: energy sources including methane hydrate and fracking, geopolitical wrangling and the destabilizing nature of energy independence, energy's and the energy industry's effect on economies for better and worse, and the environmental consequences of our choices.
You all know my outlook, per the original post of this thread. This outlook is unchanged.
My take on it:
This article is a long but a worthwhile read, covering basically all the bases: energy sources including methane hydrate and fracking, geopolitical wrangling and the destabilizing nature of energy independence, energy's and the energy industry's effect on economies for better and worse, and the environmental consequences of our choices.
You all know my outlook, per the original post of this thread. This outlook is unchanged.
Good news my dream to get a V8 next time will not be held back 
Btw is the drive in the Prius as bad as many say it is?
Btw is the drive in the Prius as bad as many say it is?
already heard about the rats on the discovery channel.
Not sure our multi connected global society has much in common with the isolated people on the Easter Islands. I do think humans are good to adapt as described but I think there will be too much inequality for people to forget the good times. That said if it happens very slowly it can be very difficult to notice the change of course. The boiling the frog story. Where if you put a frog in boiling water it jumps out but if you put it in cold water and slowly increase the temperature it will die. Let hope for the slow transition
they have plenty in common, just swap the isolated island for an isolated planet. both have finite resources that are being used faster than can be replaced, and have populations of high consumption species (at the planetary scale it's the human population). end result is an unstable ecosystem
Its a metaphor you know a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action that it does not literally denote in order to imply a resemblance.
That is all fine but there are equally as many difference. You can't just list similarities to prove you point
lol of course
How Much Do Electric Drive Vehicles Matter To Future Emissions?
So reads the title of this paper by Babaee, et al. published online in Environmental Science & Technology ahead of print. For those of you not lucky enough to have institutional access to it, here's a copy for your educational use.
Here are my thoughts on it:
In their words, "[ ] this paper adds to the existing literature by addressing a fundamental question: Does EDV deployment produce a consistent and measurable decline in emissions relative to other changes that may be induced throughout the system in response to a common set of scenario drivers?"
The answer to that key question is no, per their model's assumptions. (It's summed up in Figure 3, on page F, for those following along.)
In short, the answer is that personal vehicle choice, even writ large on a population scale, doesn't really affect total CO2 emissions, and in some particular scenarios we'd see a net increase in non-CO2 pollutants arising from power generation. To be a tiny bit more precise, in a scenario without a national CO2 cap policy, even high EV adoption would lead to but a 0.9% decrease in total system-wide CO2 in 2050, as the reduction in vehicular emissions would be nearly negated by the increase in electricity generation emissions.
0.9%. Let that sink in. (This harkens back to the original point of this thread, on the futility of the Prius, or the LEAF, as it were.)
They explain why this is the case: "There are three reasons for this lack of observed effect: at present the overall share of emissions from the LDV sector is only 20% of U.S. CO2 emissions; EDV charging can still produce comparable emissions to conventional vehicles depending on the grid mix; and the effect of other sectors on emissions is significant."
All hope is not lost for the environment, however, as they go on to mention that adopting a national CO2 policy and (as projected) cheap natural gas prices would lower 2050 system-wide emissions levels. This would be by driving change in the electricity generation mix, and directly forcing emissions reductions--there is no scenario, in their modeling, where NG makes sense as a fuel to directly power light duty vehicles.
Furthermore, their underlying assumptions may be incorrect. One such assumption is that EVs will be charged off of the grid by hyper-rational customers who minimize energy costs above all else. I'm a counterexample: my household pays an elective $12 per month to our local utility in order to offset our already clean mostly-hydroelectric power with 100% wind renewable energy credits. Their model wouldn't capture me, or others like me, and use of renewable energy beyond that expected by a purely rational model would skew results in favor of EVs.
Another big assumption on their part is that CAFE won't be watered down in the future, and that gasoline and hybrid vehicles will thus be quite a bit more efficient than they currently are. In particular they assume that by 2025 our fleet will truly be getting 49.6 (adjusted by 0.8 to reflect reality rather than CAFE-mileage) MPG. I think that with the footprint-based rules that reward large pickups and the like, and the lobbying powers of automakers we'll be lucky to see over 30 MPG combined fleet average by that date, in reality.
A final assumption is that charging will occur evenly distributed throughout the day. Policies to encourage overnight charging could certainly affect their conclusions, given that the "cleanliness" of power generation does indeed vary with time of day and total system load.
In conclusion, I do think this is a valuable study that looks at the overall effect of EV adoption in a different way than I've seen published before. Its conclusions should be enough to temper the hyperbole of many EV drivers--you're not saving the world, bub, at least if you're charging off of grid power in the somewhat plausible future context of regular gasoline cars getting over 40 MPG left and right. Ultimately it should serve to remind us all to look at the big picture, including where the electricity that powers our EVs originates.
So reads the title of this paper by Babaee, et al. published online in Environmental Science & Technology ahead of print. For those of you not lucky enough to have institutional access to it, here's a copy for your educational use.
Here are my thoughts on it:
In their words, "[ ] this paper adds to the existing literature by addressing a fundamental question: Does EDV deployment produce a consistent and measurable decline in emissions relative to other changes that may be induced throughout the system in response to a common set of scenario drivers?"
The answer to that key question is no, per their model's assumptions. (It's summed up in Figure 3, on page F, for those following along.)
In short, the answer is that personal vehicle choice, even writ large on a population scale, doesn't really affect total CO2 emissions, and in some particular scenarios we'd see a net increase in non-CO2 pollutants arising from power generation. To be a tiny bit more precise, in a scenario without a national CO2 cap policy, even high EV adoption would lead to but a 0.9% decrease in total system-wide CO2 in 2050, as the reduction in vehicular emissions would be nearly negated by the increase in electricity generation emissions.
0.9%. Let that sink in. (This harkens back to the original point of this thread, on the futility of the Prius, or the LEAF, as it were.)
They explain why this is the case: "There are three reasons for this lack of observed effect: at present the overall share of emissions from the LDV sector is only 20% of U.S. CO2 emissions; EDV charging can still produce comparable emissions to conventional vehicles depending on the grid mix; and the effect of other sectors on emissions is significant."
All hope is not lost for the environment, however, as they go on to mention that adopting a national CO2 policy and (as projected) cheap natural gas prices would lower 2050 system-wide emissions levels. This would be by driving change in the electricity generation mix, and directly forcing emissions reductions--there is no scenario, in their modeling, where NG makes sense as a fuel to directly power light duty vehicles.
Furthermore, their underlying assumptions may be incorrect. One such assumption is that EVs will be charged off of the grid by hyper-rational customers who minimize energy costs above all else. I'm a counterexample: my household pays an elective $12 per month to our local utility in order to offset our already clean mostly-hydroelectric power with 100% wind renewable energy credits. Their model wouldn't capture me, or others like me, and use of renewable energy beyond that expected by a purely rational model would skew results in favor of EVs.
Another big assumption on their part is that CAFE won't be watered down in the future, and that gasoline and hybrid vehicles will thus be quite a bit more efficient than they currently are. In particular they assume that by 2025 our fleet will truly be getting 49.6 (adjusted by 0.8 to reflect reality rather than CAFE-mileage) MPG. I think that with the footprint-based rules that reward large pickups and the like, and the lobbying powers of automakers we'll be lucky to see over 30 MPG combined fleet average by that date, in reality.
A final assumption is that charging will occur evenly distributed throughout the day. Policies to encourage overnight charging could certainly affect their conclusions, given that the "cleanliness" of power generation does indeed vary with time of day and total system load.
In conclusion, I do think this is a valuable study that looks at the overall effect of EV adoption in a different way than I've seen published before. Its conclusions should be enough to temper the hyperbole of many EV drivers--you're not saving the world, bub, at least if you're charging off of grid power in the somewhat plausible future context of regular gasoline cars getting over 40 MPG left and right. Ultimately it should serve to remind us all to look at the big picture, including where the electricity that powers our EVs originates.
Cliffs Notes: If a number of assumptions hold true, including gasoline fleet economy rising to a real-world 40 MPG from its ~25 MPG figure today, then electric cars a la the LEAF and its successors may not offer much if any of a system-wide emissions advantage.
That ignores the genius of electric cars IMO. They don't care what kind of fuel you burn, the powerplant could be coal, natural gas, hydroelectric (dam), tidal, geothermal, nuclear, wind, garbage, etc. Modern steam generators have also gotten over the longstanding 50% efficiency barrier, so there are lots of good reasons to go electric. Although more infrastructure would be needed, the existing infrastructure of transporting gas everywhere could be lessened to a fraction of what it is now, think of everything that goes into getting gas to your gas station, and then not just the gas that those vehicles and ships use, but the resources used to create them, and so on. Energy density with batteries has actually gotten to the point where it is useful and the technology is becoming more and more accessible. More hybrids will be the key first, but eventually it will switch to all electric, because it simply makes more sense in the long run and is more flexible.
I call BS on the original poster. Wind, solar, and hydro power at this point are massively important I believe. Also an overhaul of our transportation systems to reduce highway needs for national & international shipping lanes will help.
Single occupancy vehicles will always be the downfall. Ride yo bike! Take the train!
Single occupancy vehicles will always be the downfall. Ride yo bike! Take the train!
"Calling BS" and refuting anything in a substantive manner are two different things. If you wade through my latest tome in post #262 it looks as if my original screed has some validation now. 0.9% reduction in CO2.
(Note that my wife and I currently share a single Nissan LEAF between us, and it's powered by 100% wind-offset renewable energy. Most of the time I'm on my electric bicycle or riding on Seattle's electric trolleys and diesel-electric hybrid buses. My path to this point with the EV is not rational in the sense of cost-minimization, though, and I don't expect legions to follow me.)
(Note that my wife and I currently share a single Nissan LEAF between us, and it's powered by 100% wind-offset renewable energy. Most of the time I'm on my electric bicycle or riding on Seattle's electric trolleys and diesel-electric hybrid buses. My path to this point with the EV is not rational in the sense of cost-minimization, though, and I don't expect legions to follow me.)
That's really what I see as the benefit to EVs. While the article is definitely interesting - I would have expected at somewhat higher net effect - the chief benefit is moving the power source away from a dirty, non-renewable fuel in the car.
It doesn't fix things if we still burn dirty, non-renewable fuel in the power plants. But, in order to have EV infrastructure and bring costs down, people have to drive the things, so I still see EV purchases as being a positive trend.
The results could change in relatively short period of time according to NOAA as our energy mix changes.
In addition for either study, what about the impact of the commercialization of a new technology like super capacitors (less waste/quicker recharging), air batteries, flow batteries, or something else. That could drastically change the outcome too.
More here (server seems to be down today, I was looking at the site a week or two ago?): http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/renewable_energy/
In addition for either study, what about the impact of the commercialization of a new technology like super capacitors (less waste/quicker recharging), air batteries, flow batteries, or something else. That could drastically change the outcome too.
Lots of things could happen--people getting environmental consciences as I did, governments adopting and enforcing carbon taxes or at least reduction policies in concert. I don't think they will, however, except in response to monetary pressures, and that's exactly what the paper I posted about modeled.
In this context, it's not surprising that the system's equilibrium, as it were, is pretty agnostic to what kinds of vehicles people are driving about day to day.
In this context, it's not surprising that the system's equilibrium, as it were, is pretty agnostic to what kinds of vehicles people are driving about day to day.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/china-us-fracking-shale-gas?google_editors_picks=true
Cliffs Notes: China burns a lot of coal. In the future they will burn a lot of coal, some gas, and the villagers will pay the price of their overall growth with their health.
Cliffs Notes: China burns a lot of coal. In the future they will burn a lot of coal, some gas, and the villagers will pay the price of their overall growth with their health.
Which is what has already happened here. Mountain top removal for coal is still going on here. Mountains are being leveled for cheap coal and coal mining towns are economic wastelands as it's cheaper just to blow the mountain up. Funny that conservatives only get mad when a Chinese company is doing what's been going on for years in America:
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/03/tennessee-mountaintop-removal-china-conservative
Last edited:
Airborne Ebola will take care of most of the fossil fuel usage. However I fear that rotting corpulent american corpses may produce more greenhouse gasses. Tom to get my Merican rendering plant up and running. Raw materials should be easy to come by.
Jacob of Early Retirement Extreme had similar thoughts to mine, but extended to the decline of civilization, technology, and human specialization:
http://earlyretirementextreme.com/myths-andthe-future.html
Interesting bits in there. I'm going to save money, have solar panels and electric cars... but also continue to work in my highly specialized field that assumes the continued existence of our high level economy.
http://earlyretirementextreme.com/myths-andthe-future.html
Interesting bits in there. I'm going to save money, have solar panels and electric cars... but also continue to work in my highly specialized field that assumes the continued existence of our high level economy.
‘I withdraw': A talk with climate defeatist Paul Kingsnorth
Short: http://grist.org/climate-energy/i-withdraw-a-talk-with-climate-defeatist-paul-kingsnorth/
Long: http://thoreaufarm.org/2012/04/hope-in-the-age-of-collapse/
Short: http://grist.org/climate-energy/i-withdraw-a-talk-with-climate-defeatist-paul-kingsnorth/
Long: http://thoreaufarm.org/2012/04/hope-in-the-age-of-collapse/
Despite you sarcasm... it seems that it's working out just as you predicted.
It is quite amusing isn't it? Our house is valued* almost 40% higher than what we bought it for in 2012. Even if I back out remodeling expense it's stoll up over 20%. But there's no bubble. Don't worry.Despite you sarcasm... it seems that it's working out just as you predicted.
On a side note, I received an email from a client this morning who knows nothing about the markets. He wants to start picking stocks... Time to pack it up guys.
I think there is still time. Despite the meteoric housing price gains in Denver right now, things here remain relatively flat. When stuff starts getting crazy in "less desirable" areas like teh Springs, then it's time to panic.