What does it take to succesfully transition to a green energy economy?

[Timcognito]

Also bikes, Ubers, one Wheels Etc all become completely useless when you become an adult and have children and/or pets in a larger home out in the suburbs.

I've had several peers at work go through a dramatic lifestyle change once they got married and had kids.

I think the Dutch would disagree

.

 

[pablolie]

But an Uber burns more fuel for the same amount of travel than a personal car.

True for now - but once you have a fleet of self-driving EV "taxis", you can algorithmically optimize routes. And producing cars so everybody can own one, but only drives them around -estimate?- 1.5 hours a day on average also seems inefficient. I am perfectly aware of the psychological element there -feeling of independence, pride of ownership, etc- but I bet that's how people used to feel about owning a horse, too...

 

[Bob from Florida]

"What does it take to successfully transition to a green energy economy?"

I think perhaps the most important single device would be to price fossil fuels to include the cost of their use to the environment. Consumers need to feel the bite now. Governments need to impose carbon taxes. Such "Pigouvian taxes" dove tail ideally with market mechanisms and, I would guess, would be more effective than subsidies or arbitrary restrictions, (e.g. limiting pipe lines, construction of coal plants, requiring EVs or heat pumps by such & such date, etc.).

Further, I suggest that if nations, (e.g. the USA), are thinking of imposing tariffs, these ought to be applied exclusively on the basis that producing countries aren't imposing fossil fuel taxes on exports, or other measures to comparable effect.

This idea fails to take into account the ripple effect of raising prices artificially on a necessity. Unless you can afford the extra money spent on energy, you will have to cut back on "non-essentials" first then scrimp on essentials as needed second. Since the majority will be "cutting back", the re-directed money to pay for energy will cause work force reductions for the companies supplying products other than energy. Push hard enough and the economy crashes from folks out of work. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

 

[DLS79]

I drive in the rain just not backwards. I go forward I have wipers. You're aware sedans don't have rear wipers? They're not safe? Why is it exclusive for SUV's to have them?

It's not just SUVs, minivans and some cars have them as well.

I belive it's an aerodynamic situation, where the more vertical rear of the vehicle, causes a low pressure area that allows fine mist to get to the rear window and stay there.

 

[DLS79]

I think the Dutch would disagree
View attachment 398075.

I won't comment on the dutch. I detest Verstappen.

 

[Timcognito]

It's not just SUVs, minivans and some cars have them as well.

I belive it's an aerodynamic situation, where the more vertical rear of the vehicle, causes a low pressure area that allows fine mist the get to the rear window and stay there.

Come on cameras and sensors are much better than rear wipers. All new cars for the last ten years have them.

 

[Tinker]

It's not just SUVs, minivans and some cars have them as well.

I belive it's an aerodynamic situation, where the more vertical rear of the vehicle, causes a low pressure area that allows fine mist the get to the rear window and stay there.

Try some 'Rain x'. Water rolls right off. Clear vision. I could drive with no wipers. It's that good.

 

[pablolie]

Come on cameras and sensors are much better than rear wipers. All new cars for the last ten years have them.

In May, I was in a pretty bad pile-up, caught in the middle. I was surprised when they told me my car was totaled, since the airbags didn't deploy and the damage was not visible in the back, and the only major indentation was on the front right. The reason? All those sensors and such. It was a nearly new car, it'd cost me a chunk of money, and what I got from the insurance was a joke even after they put some extra up. I am no longer a fan of sensors. In fact I had turned all those things (lane assist, proximity warnings) off because I find them extremely annoying. I prefer full control, and I hate the fact a car is easily totaled these days due to the cost sunk into those gimmicks.

 

[DLS79]

Try some 'Rain x'. Water rolls right off. Clear vision. I could drive with no wipers. It's that good.

I use Rain x, just got a new bottle yesterday. in my opinion a rear wiper is still needed.

 

[Doodski]

In May, I was in a pretty bad pile-up, caught in the middle. I was surprised when they told me my car was totaled, since the airbags didn't deploy and the damage was not visible in the back, and the only major indentation was on the front right. The reason? All those sensors and such. It was a nearly new car, it'd cost me a chunk of money, and what I got from the insurance was a joke even after they put some extra up. I am no longer a fan of sensors. In fact I had turned all those things (lane assist, proximity warnings) off because I find them extremely annoying. I prefer full control, and I hate the fact a car is easily totaled these days due to the cost sunk into those gimmicks.

... and... The front and rear lighting assemblies are worth a ton too.

 

[DLS79]

Come on cameras and sensors are much better than rear wipers. All new cars for the last ten years have them.

I'm aware my SUV has both. With that being said i have 2 counter points.

1. In my opinion a rear facing camera is a piss poor substitute for a clean window, and rear view mirror. I've yet to drive a vehicle with a rear facing camera that provided good situational awareness.
2. I find it ironic in a thread about being green, that people are fine having the camera & large center console screen on and sucking power. For example I regularly turn the center console screen off because it doesn't need to be on.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I drive in the rain just not backwards. I go forward I have wipers. You're aware sedans don't have rear wipers? They're not safe? Why is it exclusive for SUV's to have them?

The last 3 coupes or sedans I've owned had rear wipers. What are you going on about?

 

[Tinker]

I'm aware my SUV has both. With that being said i have 2 counter points.

1. In my opinion a rear facing camera is a piss poor substitute for a clean window, and rear view mirror. I've yet to drive a vehicle with a rear facing camera that provided good situational awareness.
2. I find it ironic in a thread about being green, that people are fine having the camera & large center console screen on and sucking power. For example I regularly turn the center console screen off because it doesn't need to be on.

Agreed! Strip it down. Take out all the fluff stuff. I'd even take hand crank windows if I could buy a brand new, good quality commuter car for $11,500. Could we agree to leave the radio?

 

[EJ3]

They are still a decade away, just as they have been since the 1950s. I was even taught at school in 1973 that small nuclear reactors would be in use by 1990 and would be the bridge to fusion power in the early 21st century, and that electricity would be effectively free by now!

They are being developed by private industry, as far as I'm aware, not countries, but I'm willing to be corrected on that.

I was taught in school in 1971-1975 that we were going into an ice age within 20 years. Ahmm? Yeah, something else that they were wrong about.
Nuke reactors and FREE or close to free, electricity? That's about as feasible as the ICE AGE thing was, I think.

 

[JustJones]

I was taught in school in 1971-1975 that we were going into an ice age within 20 years. Ahmm? Yeah, something else that they were wrong about.
Nuke reactors and FREE or close to free, electricity? That's about as feasible as the ICE AGE thing was, I think.

The lie that never dies.

The Ice Age that never happened - Scienceline

Global cooling forecasts from the 1970s don’t discredit today’s climate science

scienceline.org

But Earth was not cooling. An ice age was never imminent. And few scientists agreed with Bryson’s claims, although this hasn’t prevented climate change deniers from using these unfulfilled cooling forecasts to attack the legitimacy of climate scientists today. The new op-ed hire at The New York Times, Bret Stephens, perpetuated the idea on Fox News. “This is just the next stage of preposterous in the global warming story,” said Stephens. “In the 1970s we were supposed to believe in global cooling, in the 1980s it was a nuclear winter, in the 1990s it was mad cow disease. Global warming was the flavor of the decade – I can’t wait to see what the next scare is going to be.”

What Stephens gets wrong is that most scientists never predicted global cooling. “It’s a myth that scientists in the 1970s widely predicted global cooling,” says Sarah Greene, an environmental chemist at Michigan Tech University. She points to an exhaustive review of climate studies published between 1965 and 1979, which showed that 44 studies predicted global warming and just seven forecasted cooling.

 

[Tinker]

The last 3 coupes or sedans I've owned had rear wipers. What are you going on about?

The biggest EV manufacturers in the world (BYD, Tesla,) don't see a need for rear window wipers on sedans and even some hatchbacks. Sedans are no less safe because they don't have a wiper and just adds unnecessary cost, increased wind drag and noise. That is their opinion, not mine.

What sedans did you have with rear wipers? Just curious.

 

[pablolie]

The lie that never dies.

The Ice Age that never happened - Scienceline

Global cooling forecasts from the 1970s don’t discredit today’s climate science

scienceline.org

But Earth was not cooling. An ice age was never imminent. And few scientists agreed with Bryson’s claims, although this hasn’t prevented climate change deniers from using these unfulfilled cooling forecasts to attack the legitimacy of climate scientists today. The new op-ed hire at The New York Times, Bret Stephens, perpetuated the idea on Fox News. “This is just the next stage of preposterous in the global warming story,” said Stephens. “In the 1970s we were supposed to believe in global cooling, in the 1980s it was a nuclear winter, in the 1990s it was mad cow disease. Global warming was the flavor of the decade – I can’t wait to see what the next scare is going to be.”

What Stephens gets wrong is that most scientists never predicted global cooling. “It’s a myth that scientists in the 1970s widely predicted global cooling,” says Sarah Greene, an environmental chemist at Michigan Tech University. She points to an exhaustive review of climate studies published between 1965 and 1979, which showed that 44 studies predicted global warming and just seven forecasted cooling.

OTOH the models back then were primitive. The supercomputers that powered those models were ridiculously slow compared to what we have today, and hence unable to process the data required for more accurate modeling.

 

[EJ3]

In this discussion I notice some things. First, the American interest in cars, as if they are the biggest part of the story. They are an important part, but other sectors play a bigger role. In the Netherlands the biggest CO2 polluter by far is a large Tata steel plant, and carbon neutral steel making is still in its infancy. I hear nobody about heating and cooling. Second, much of Western Europe is geographically quite distinct from much of the US. We are so much further north that our winter days are much shorter and our summer days much longer. So using batteries to even out the 24 hour cycle may help a bit, but not to deal with the simple fact that for a few months every winter our PV panels do not produce remotely enough, even the very best ones. Therefore, for us wind power is more important, because the wind is mostly strongest at night and in the winter. The challenge is that it requires a much beefier grid, and ugly power lines that people do not want to have in their area. In the Netherlands big investments are being made to upgrade the grid - the challenge is not really the money but a shortage of engineers on a overheated labour market. In the end, to deal with the imbalance between summer and winter we shall have to increase efforts and tighten mandatory standards to insulate homes and reduce their energy consumption in the winter. In much of the US it would probably be building houses in a more Mediteranean style to deal with the summer heat. I once lived in Jerusalem and did not need air conditioning. Reducing energy consumption is in some ways the easiest bit of the solution, and it is happening.
If the challenge is indeed to flatten the peaks we will also have to use dynamic pricing for energy. As an economic historian I like markets and the price mechanism, and this can flatten demand appreciably. Domestically, it would mean smart home chargers for your EV to use the surplus production of your your solar panels, and smart appliances that wash the dishes etc when the energy price is lowest. Right now we try to do this manually, but getting this done automaticaly is more effective and less of a hassle. It does require that authorities set mandatory standards for the communication between the various systems. These are being developed, but more slowly than I would like.

The interest in cars is because they are attacked the most and if you do not & don't ever want to live in a city, you do need to use a vehicle (even just to get work done on your own place). But it get's much less "hours on" use & the use that it gets is generally at steadier speeds, and thus is vastly less polluting than cars sitting in heavy traffic.
With my home family home having been designed by my parents and built by them in 1964 it is way more efficient than most newer homes. And I don't know about Mediterranean style being necessary, but IF it were safe to leave the windows and doors (using only screen the doors open), it would be even much more efficient. But it is no longer safe to do so.
However, the home that I currently reside in, was built in 1972 (which was built to some odd specs [all the electrical breakers are 20 amp]) BUT I am having to seal & insulate quite a bit to get it to anything that resembles a modern home in efficiency from that perspective. After I do that, then modern insulated windows will be next up.
I have seen this same problem in other homes built from the 1950's through NOW!
This, I believe, is a major problem for the excessive use of power: the LACK of proper insulating qualities to homes.
Costing home owners or renters a lot in direct costs and the power grid (no matter the type of power) excess capacity needs and (due to that, more pollution than necessary)
I believe that a lot could be done if people understood better that their utilities expenses will go down, giving them more monthly income for themselves and their families after these insulations are done. Appealing to their self serving interests may work better than some of the other plans that have been tried.
Not to mention it helping the environment overall by lessening the need for MORE utilities production.

 

[EJ3]

Subsidies and arbitrary taxes are to market economy what production quotas are in a Communist economy, though. It's a way to force markets to go in a direction that market economy principles left to themselves don't support.

Part of me thinks EVs are a mechanism to force upgrades in a stagnant car industry, i.e. drive a profit cycle in the car industry. The environmental considerations may well be secondary. If one checks the sources of green gas emissions, transport clocks in at only 20% or so, and around 10% (I have read anywhere from 8-15%) of that are cars. I know we also have to consider factors like air quality in large urban areas and such. But all in all it is special interests working there, because it seems the 80% rest is not addressed as aggressively. Wonder if the Chevrons and BPs etc of the world have something to do with that... :-D

Perhaps because insulating the existing places we have that are older is not as exiting as having a culture clash about cars is why I think that a lot that can be done isn't being done. As you say, there is a lot of money flowing on both sides of that culture clash. But a lot of it could be going to actually making things better.

 

[EJ3]

I think the Dutch would disagree
View attachment 398075.

So, does everyone travel 20 miles a day by bicycle, no matter the weather or do they all live within a mile or so of where they work. It's a crowded country (I was born in Salzburg Austria, so I do have a perspective on this. And there is absolutely no comparison to most of the USA. (except in certain larger cities).
Which many of us would never live in.
Do you people not understand that many millions of us do not want to live in any city on this planet?
And what works for some people in one place, while it may be good for that place or other places like that, is not good for every other place on the planet>
It's like comparing avocado's to orangutan's. They are not even similar.
Although it makes for some good virtue signaling.