The futility of the Prius and the end of the world as we know it
- Thread starter Toshi
- Start date
Isn't battery technology still a fairly significantly limiting factor?
No, NOAA already did a huge study it's completely feasible to rapidly switch to renewables, RTFT:
http://www.ridemonkey.com/threads/the-futility-of-the-prius-and-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it.240305/page-7#post-3954378
Today we have the Telsa and Mercedes commercialized home systems and numerous larger scale systems all the way up to older huge ones like this:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/27/2524501/hydro-pumped-storage-climate-change/
Various new stuff in the wings. Misc recent coverage:
http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/04/21/how-10-innovative-companies-are-giving-energy-storage-jolt
http://gizmodo.com/3-new-kinds-of-battery-that-just-might-change-the-world-1713221624
http://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/energy-storage-solar-em4888/
Care for a smoke, they're good for your health too!
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding
That is where scientists fuck up. Instead of maintaining the same point of views for centuries, those crazy fuckers change their mind every time a new bit of knowledge or evidence shows up. You never know when they are going to come up crazy ideas like computers or stuff. It is like they are constantly on their periods. Amirite?
This isn't an isolated study or two, it's thousands with overwhelming consensus from dozens of fields with countless observations that confirm it. Sticking your head in the sand at this point is exactly that. The deniers are even convinced and have moved on from not happening to not man-made (which is also throughly debunked.):
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
Also there was no pause:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/we-may-see-a-supercharged-surge-in-warming
but i'm not.
China Burns Much More Coal Than Reported, Complicating Climate Talks
>>>>>
Jan Ivar Korsbakken, a senior researcher at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo, said that based on his preliminary analysis, the new data implied that China had released about 900 million metric tons more carbon dioxide from 2011 to 2013.
That would be an 11 percent increase in emissions, he said. For comparison, the International Energy Agency estimated before the revision that China had emitted 8.25 billion tons of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels in 2012. Dr. Korsbakken, a physicist, emphasized that deeper analysis of the new data was needed before firm conclusions could be drawn.
>>>>>
Jan Ivar Korsbakken, a senior researcher at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo, said that based on his preliminary analysis, the new data implied that China had released about 900 million metric tons more carbon dioxide from 2011 to 2013.
That would be an 11 percent increase in emissions, he said. For comparison, the International Energy Agency estimated before the revision that China had emitted 8.25 billion tons of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels in 2012. Dr. Korsbakken, a physicist, emphasized that deeper analysis of the new data was needed before firm conclusions could be drawn.
Highlights:
The above is old hat, just with slightly better numbers compared to prior years, as expected with a gradually greening electrical grid.
This analysis below is new, and notable because these kinds of papers usually just focus on tiny electric cars and their tiny gasoline equivalents. This is a shot across the bow by comparing a Tesla to a full size gasoline car:
This is interesting to me, as I offset all my electricity consumed in Denver with wind power. When I get more solar for the house I'll be dropping in efficiency… hmm.
I'm not sure if people choose to ignore or are just unaware of the manufacturing and recycling of vehicles. These newer vehicles are full of rare earth metals that are mined in china which we all know polutes a lot. All those electronics, lots of wire made of copper, arnt copper mines bad? Then there is the recycling, well people love recycling you say. They don't! Because it's ugly looking. So they regulate the shit out of it. Then the plastics, sure they can be recycled but why? You burn more fuel and produce more waste then it's worth. If you really wanna do good for the enviroment just buy used and take care of shit. Maintain it. They say it takes as much fuel to make a car as it burns in ten years, supposedly more for hibrids and electrics. Not many people keep a car that long though.
Mine: 2001 Volvo XC70 256,000 miles, 2003 F350 129,000 miles, 2011 F350 92,000 miles 2011 VW Jetta 65,000 miles. we will drive them until they fall apart.
Read the linked PDF. Payback time for manufacturing energy cost, etc. is under a year for modern EVs, iirc. 10 years is totally bunk.
Maybe im reading it wrong, but it looks to me they are calculating the emissions of productions where the vehicles are sold. It also seems they are calculating with the miles at 130-170 thousand miles. which to most people is about ten years. Its hard to know how much of the manufacturing is calculated. Like all the shipping on the mined and mining products, the mining tractors and the manufacturing of those tractors. The hauling of the scrap across the oceans. So i have to wonder how much is propaganda. Im not very educated im just in the scrap buisness.
You Fred Sanford???
Subquoting what I quoted above (emphasis added):
"Based on modeling of the two most popular BEVs available today and the regions where they are currently being sold, excess manufacturing emissions are offset within 6 to 16 months of average driving."
"Based on modeling of the two most popular BEVs available today and the regions where they are currently being sold, excess manufacturing emissions are offset within 6 to 16 months of average driving."
Isn't that saying the excess emissions produced for EVs, those above and beyond the emissions inherent in building a car (ie Ford Fusion gas vs hybrid) are offset in that timeline?
Basically that EVs pollute more to make but it's not that bad.
Nope im redd foxx. Oh and that joke is pretty dam old here. Older than me. Technically we prefer the term auto dismantling, wreaking, and recycling. Because none of this stuff is junk, sometimes it may look that way but its just unorganized inventory.
Good point. That does seem to be the fair comparison, though, as the baseline energy to build the gas version has an infinite payback time...
Highest ever annual rise in carbon dioxide levels recorded:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829180-300-weve-reached-a-troubling-carbon-dioxide-milestone/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829180-300-weve-reached-a-troubling-carbon-dioxide-milestone/
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/jul/15/clean-energy-wont-save-us-economic-system-can
"Let’s imagine, just for argument’s sake, that we are able to get off fossil fuels and switch to 100% clean energy. There is no question this would be a vital step in the right direction, but even this best-case scenario wouldn’t be enough to avert climate catastrophe.
Why? Well, first, the burning of fossil fuels only accounts for about 70% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The other 30% comes from a number of causes, including deforestation, and industrial livestock farming, which produces 90m tonnes of methane per year and most of the world’s anthropogenic nitrous oxide. Both of these gases are vastly more potent than CO2 when it comes to global warming. Livestock farming alone contributes more to global warming than all the cars, trains, planes and ships in the world. There are also a number of industrial processes that contribute significantly, and then there are our landfills, which pump out huge amounts of methane – 16% of the world’s total."
"Let’s imagine, just for argument’s sake, that we are able to get off fossil fuels and switch to 100% clean energy. There is no question this would be a vital step in the right direction, but even this best-case scenario wouldn’t be enough to avert climate catastrophe.
Why? Well, first, the burning of fossil fuels only accounts for about 70% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The other 30% comes from a number of causes, including deforestation, and industrial livestock farming, which produces 90m tonnes of methane per year and most of the world’s anthropogenic nitrous oxide. Both of these gases are vastly more potent than CO2 when it comes to global warming. Livestock farming alone contributes more to global warming than all the cars, trains, planes and ships in the world. There are also a number of industrial processes that contribute significantly, and then there are our landfills, which pump out huge amounts of methane – 16% of the world’s total."
Obviously Soilent Green is the answer then......
Now that's fucking cool!!!!
no mention of over population?
don't fuck in the front hole....if you care about the earth.....piihb....
The Cops almost never find asphyxiated corpses in a Prius at the airport that I know of. Unless that sort of news is not reported on the Guardian....
I'm pretty sure that global warming/climate change is humanities Great Filter. We will be our own undoing.
There's always a big ole reset of sorts every now and again. Perhaps the eventual devastation of global warming will be the next. Maybe we come back from it, maybe we don't. Wouldn't be the first time.
This.
The planet has experience 5 mass extinctions that we know about. History is cool. http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-timeline-of-the-mass-extinction-events-on-earth.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
We're currently living in the sixth.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/radical-conservation/2015/oct/20/the-four-horsemen-of-the-sixth-mass-extinction