• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Zero-emission vehicles, their batteries & subsidies/rebates for them.- No politics regarding the subsidies!

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,134
Likes
14,561
Location
Oxfordshire
Apparently it increases compression strength but there was not mention of tension. A sooper way to get rid of carbon...
Concrete effectively has negligible tensile strength, hence the use of steel reinforcing rods though I believe concrete structures are normally designed to only react compression loads through the concrete parts.
 

Suffolkhifinut

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 8, 2021
Messages
872
Likes
554
It doesn’t work because it doesn’t generate enough energy. Self levelling dampers use this energy to “pump themselves up” but it takes quite a distance to re-level itself after loading the boot, for example.
We looked into it in Formula 1 when active suspension was banned, it was laughably small amount of energy, I wish I could remember how much but it was 35 years ago.
Didn’t know it had been tried, thanks for the information.
Ron
 

pseudoid

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Messages
2,515
Likes
1,508
Location
33.6, -117.9
There is carbon sequestering concrete now, should they choose to use it.
There have been too many cement "Eureka" moments from too many concerned corners of the world, which have pitted countries between "growth" versus "GHGs".
Due to the chemical-CO2 emissions that occur during limestone decarbonation, CCS/CCU (CarbonCapture Storage/Utilization) is often portrayed as necessary to achieve zero cement GHG emissions.

First some "staggering" [you be the judge] numbers for Cement:
(Current news of NordStream popping a huge methane leak is not inclusive)
*The majority of the CO2 emissions from cement production of 4.5e+9 metric tons (w/consumption >10X population growth, global) are from fossil (i.e., non-renewable mineral or energy) resources.
*Cement's relative contribution to total fossil-derived CO2 emissions has doubled since 1990.
*Translating to 2.7e+9 metric tons of global carbon-dioxide contribution.
*This output is considered to be ~50% contribution of all transport sector.
*The magnitude of cement production leads to more than 7% of annual anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, resulting from both energy use and chemical reactions, which impose a notable barrier to reach net zero emissions by 2050.
*Due to the chemical-CO2 emissions that occur during limestone decarbonation,
Quicklime >> CaO: CaCO3 + heat -> CaO + CO2
Hydrated lime >> Ca(OH)2: CaCO3 + H2O + heat -> Ca(OH)2 + CO2
(Heat @~1,450°C for Portland cement:: CaCO3 = Calcination of raw lime)
*Cement (~1:7 ratio for the constituent in concrete and mortar) currently has no substitute that can meet all its functional capacity.
Eureaka Moment Awards:
Eureka Moment #2
: One promising solution is calcium sulphoaluminate cement, in which a large portion of the limestone is replaced by bauxite. Together with Brazilian mineralogists, the a (MLU) team has now found an alternative to the alternative, so to speak: They do not use pure bauxite, but rather an overburden: Belterra clay, which is plenty and is really a by(pre?)product before digging 30m of it to get to the bauxite deposits. Even though cement cannot be entirely produced without calcium carbonate, at least 50 to 60 percent of the limestone can be replaced by Belterra clay (@~1,250°C).
Eureka Moment #3: Chemists at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) in Germany have now developed a method that could drastically reduce CO2 emissions from cement production in the long run. In this process, the raw lime (CaCO3) is no longer converted into burnt lime in coal-fired kilns but is simply milled with solid sodium silicate (Na2SiO3). Bypassing the calcination process (via hi temperatures), milling is done at room temps. "The process is potentially suitable for producing cement for large-scale processes," said the two JGU "However, carrying it out on a technical scale would take many years and thus would not provide a short- or medium-term remedy for CO2 emissions."
Eureka Moment #4: CCS tech such as ‘amine scrubbing’ is costly, w/unknown storage sites
Eureka Moment #N: Bioderived resources have also been proposed to reduce cement and concrete GHG emissions. Most of these proposals revolve around uptake of CO2 through photosynthesis or microbial metabolic processes.
Eureka Moment #N+x: More recent and emerging approaches include *carbonation of recycled concrete aggregates, *CCU?, *CO2 sequestration in alternative MgO based binders, *CO2 mineralization in industrial waste-derived aggregates and fillers, and *CO2 dissolution in mixing water.
Bonus Eureka Moment: Even MIT Concrete Sustainability Hub had stated “Calcium silicate phases, alite and belite, are among the main components of modern portland cements. Alite reacts relatively rapidly with water and is responsible for most of the early strength development of concretes. Belite is less reactive at early ages, but can contribute appreciably to strength at later ages.” MIT/CSH had posted this on their website in early 2011 and appears to have gone quiet dark.

In the Interim, I am okay blaming the Romans for the ills of cement ; yet, cement is still shrouded in many a chemical mystery, waiting for a miracle real Eureka Moment.:confused:
 

Suffolkhifinut

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 8, 2021
Messages
872
Likes
554
There have been too many cement "Eureka" moments from too many concerned corners of the world, which have pitted countries between "growth" versus "GHGs".
Due to the chemical-CO2 emissions that occur during limestone decarbonation, CCS/CCU (CarbonCapture Storage/Utilization) is often portrayed as necessary to achieve zero cement GHG emissions.

First some "staggering" [you be the judge] numbers for Cement:
(Current news of NordStream popping a huge methane leak is not inclusive)
*The majority of the CO2 emissions from cement production of 4.5e+9 metric tons (w/consumption >10X population growth, global) are from fossil (i.e., non-renewable mineral or energy) resources.
*Cement's relative contribution to total fossil-derived CO2 emissions has doubled since 1990.
*Translating to 2.7e+9 metric tons of global carbon-dioxide contribution.
*This output is considered to be ~50% contribution of all transport sector.
*The magnitude of cement production leads to more than 7% of annual anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, resulting from both energy use and chemical reactions, which impose a notable barrier to reach net zero emissions by 2050.
*Due to the chemical-CO2 emissions that occur during limestone decarbonation,
Quicklime >> CaO: CaCO3 + heat -> CaO + CO2
Hydrated lime >> Ca(OH)2: CaCO3 + H2O + heat -> Ca(OH)2 + CO2
(Heat @~1,450°C for Portland cement:: CaCO3 = Calcination of raw lime)
*Cement (~1:7 ratio for the constituent in concrete and mortar) currently has no substitute that can meet all its functional capacity.
Eureaka Moment Awards:
Eureka Moment #2
: One promising solution is calcium sulphoaluminate cement, in which a large portion of the limestone is replaced by bauxite. Together with Brazilian mineralogists, the a (MLU) team has now found an alternative to the alternative, so to speak: They do not use pure bauxite, but rather an overburden: Belterra clay, which is plenty and is really a by(pre?)product before digging 30m of it to get to the bauxite deposits. Even though cement cannot be entirely produced without calcium carbonate, at least 50 to 60 percent of the limestone can be replaced by Belterra clay (@~1,250°C).
Eureka Moment #3: Chemists at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) in Germany have now developed a method that could drastically reduce CO2 emissions from cement production in the long run. In this process, the raw lime (CaCO3) is no longer converted into burnt lime in coal-fired kilns but is simply milled with solid sodium silicate (Na2SiO3). Bypassing the calcination process (via hi temperatures), milling is done at room temps. "The process is potentially suitable for producing cement for large-scale processes," said the two JGU "However, carrying it out on a technical scale would take many years and thus would not provide a short- or medium-term remedy for CO2 emissions."
Eureka Moment #4: CCS tech such as ‘amine scrubbing’ is costly, w/unknown storage sites
Eureka Moment #N: Bioderived resources have also been proposed to reduce cement and concrete GHG emissions. Most of these proposals revolve around uptake of CO2 through photosynthesis or microbial metabolic processes.
Eureka Moment #N+x: More recent and emerging approaches include *carbonation of recycled concrete aggregates, *CCU?, *CO2 sequestration in alternative MgO based binders, *CO2 mineralization in industrial waste-derived aggregates and fillers, and *CO2 dissolution in mixing water.
Bonus Eureka Moment: Even MIT Concrete Sustainability Hub had stated “Calcium silicate phases, alite and belite, are among the main components of modern portland cements. Alite reacts relatively rapidly with water and is responsible for most of the early strength development of concretes. Belite is less reactive at early ages, but can contribute appreciably to strength at later ages.” MIT/CSH had posted this on their website in early 2011 and appears to have gone quiet dark.

In the Interim, I am okay blaming the Romans for the ills of cement ; yet, cement is still shrouded in many a chemical mystery, waiting for a miracle real Eureka Moment.:confused:
More leaks keep being detected in the Nordstream 1 pipeline. To a degree you can blame the Kyoto agreement for the increase of fossil fuel based CO2 emissions. In the UK and in many other Western economies, heavy energy use industries shut up shop as governments penalised them for their usage. The work was transferred to countries such as India and China who continue to build coal fired power stations by the hundreds. Global CO2 emissions increase due to this + CO2 emissions from the transportation,
When it comes to concrete‘s Eureka moments, in the East of England we have hospitals were you have to dodge around the ACROs to get anywhere, thanks to Eureka moment #2. Your post highlights how concerns over CO2 emissions leads down alleys leading to even greater pollution.
It’s not all bad news on CO2 emissions a report published a few days ago said trees are growing faster and have more foliage. They soak up CO2 at a much faster rate than the used too.
 

Suffolkhifinut

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 8, 2021
Messages
872
Likes
554
I hope you understand how vague this sounds without a citation or even a location where this was observed?
Sure, read it in either the Sunday Times or the ‘I’ newspaper. Will have a look for accreditation later, although didn’t feel the need to record my source as it’s how trees are, they take in CO2 are are healthier for it.
The article was published on the 10th, September, 2020 in the Science Times. On the 29th, October, 2020 the Argentine Government confirmed the results of the research carried out in the University of Leeds, by a team of International Scientists. A caveat was issued, increasing CO2 makes trees grow quicker but they die sooner. Further to this they warn the trend of replacing slow growing trees with quicker growing types which don’t absorb as much CO2 is happening.
 
Last edited:

pseudoid

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Messages
2,515
Likes
1,508
Location
33.6, -117.9
I hope you understand how vague this sounds without a citation or even a location where this was observed?
I was hoping that no one called-on me to produce citations/references/links to the aggregate assemblage I had conjured up.
I meant it to be as apolitical as possible but my sources that I had to rummage thru for my 'thesis' development can be had for a dime/link.;)
I was in the hopes that some of the rudimentary math to take the above (seed) numbers and apply it globally to other pertinent CO2 data is your business.. but not mine.

It should be mentioned that I am with Toyoda-san when it comes to eVs, Hybrids, ICE choices; which are best 'driven' by markets (supply/demand) not mighty-pen 'fiats'!
 

earlevel

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2020
Messages
396
Likes
559
I was hoping that no one called-on me to produce citations/references/links to the aggregate assemblage I had conjured up.
I meant it to be as apolitical as possible but my sources that I had to rummage thru for my 'thesis' development can be had for a dime/link.;)
I was in the hopes that some of the rudimentary math to take the above (seed) numbers and apply it globally to other pertinent CO2 data is your business.. but not mine.

It should be mentioned that I am with Toyoda-san when it comes to eVs, Hybrids, ICE choices; which are best 'driven' by markets (supply/demand) not mighty-pen 'fiats'!
Disclaimer: Not watching this thread, peeked at it for tech discussion, I don't want to get involved in pointless political debates.

That said, if people are truly wondering if it's true that there is evidence that trees grow faster with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, yes, this is a slam dunk. Not only do we know for sure there is more growth than 30 years ago, with more CO2, but we also know for sure that the Little Ice Age (which ended ~1850 or so, depending on where you draw the line), which had low CO2 (er, maybe more background—a colder planet has less CO2 in the air because colder water can hold more CO2, just like soda in the fridge versus room temperature), had markedly lower tree growth (easily measurable by tree rings).

OK, that just means the correlation is attractive, but the fact is that trees are mode almost entirely of carbon from the air—by weight there is also water, and a relatively small amount of minerals from the ground, but largely trees come from what's in the air. Here, I'm just saying it shouldn't a surprise this is possible—we know plants grow faster in a CO2 rich environment, and we know there is a starvation level where plants won't grow if there isn't enough. It's one of the critical factors in mountains having a "tree line". When the air gets thin, it doesn't mater how much water and minerals are available, tree won't grow.

You can do an internet search on something like "is carbon dioxide making trees grow faster"—on duckduckgo I see hits within the past two days on mainstream news outlets. "Carbon Dioxide Seems to Be Making Trees Grow Faster, Scientists Say", says msn. Or, look for something like "greening of the planet"—there's a NASA page titled "Greening of the Earth Mitigates Surface Warming", 2020. Another NASA page, "Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds", 2016. "Deserts 'greening' from rising CO2", phys.org 2013—this is not anything new. I'm not posting links because I only pay attention to actual studies, and that brings up another level of complication (you can find a study that says anything you want, so it requires more discussion). What I'm saying by pointing to the mainstream study is that if you think this is a fringe idea, it isn't, and it doesn't require much internet skill to verify that.

But this has been old news for a long time. We've had satellites up since the late '70s, taking pictures. I'm out of time, but there are gif animations of the earth year by year, with stunning increase of the green area of the planet. OK, in absence of finding that quick, here's a chart showing increase from 1982-2015, from the NASA dot gov site:

change_in_leaf_area.jpg
 
OP
Doodski

Doodski

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
14,829
Likes
14,550
Location
Canada
Disclaimer: Not watching this thread, peeked at it for tech discussion, I don't want to get involved in pointless political debates.

That said, if people are truly wondering if it's true that there is evidence that trees grow faster with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, yes, this is a slam dunk. Not only do we know for sure there is more growth than 30 years ago, with more CO2, but we also know for sure that the Little Ice Age (which ended ~1850 or so, depending on where you draw the line), which had low CO2 (er, maybe more background—a colder planet has less CO2 in the air because colder water can hold more CO2, just like soda in the fridge versus room temperature), had markedly lower tree growth (easily measurable by tree rings).

OK, that just means the correlation is attractive, but the fact is that trees are mode almost entirely of carbon from the air—by weight there is also water, and a relatively small amount of minerals from the ground, but largely trees come from what's in the air. Here, I'm just saying it shouldn't a surprise this is possible—we know plants grow faster in a CO2 rich environment, and we know there is a starvation level where plants won't grow if there isn't enough. It's one of the critical factors in mountains having a "tree line". When the air gets thin, it doesn't mater how much water and minerals are available, tree won't grow.

You can do an internet search on something like "is carbon dioxide making trees grow faster"—on duckduckgo I see hits within the past two days on mainstream news outlets. "Carbon Dioxide Seems to Be Making Trees Grow Faster, Scientists Say", says msn. Or, look for something like "greening of the planet"—there's a NASA page titled "Greening of the Earth Mitigates Surface Warming", 2020. Another NASA page, "Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds", 2016. "Deserts 'greening' from rising CO2", phys.org 2013—this is not anything new. I'm not posting links because I only pay attention to actual studies, and that brings up another level of complication (you can find a study that says anything you want, so it requires more discussion). What I'm saying by pointing to the mainstream study is that if you think this is a fringe idea, it isn't, and it doesn't require much internet skill to verify that.

But this has been old news for a long time. We've had satellites up since the late '70s, taking pictures. I'm out of time, but there are gif animations of the earth year by year, with stunning increase of the green area of the planet. OK, in absence of finding that quick, here's a chart showing increase from 1982-2015, from the NASA dot gov site:

View attachment 234182
The boreal forests in Canada and Russia are huge in this map...
 

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,238
Likes
3,182
Disclaimer: Not watching this thread, peeked at it for tech discussion, I don't want to get involved in pointless political debates.

That said, if people are truly wondering if it's true that there is evidence that trees grow faster with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, yes, this is a slam dunk. Not only do we know for sure there is more growth than 30 years ago, with more CO2, but we also know for sure that the Little Ice Age (which ended ~1850 or so, depending on where you draw the line), which had low CO2 (er, maybe more background—a colder planet has less CO2 in the air because colder water can hold more CO2, just like soda in the fridge versus room temperature), had markedly lower tree growth (easily measurable by tree rings).

OK, that just means the correlation is attractive, but the fact is that trees are mode almost entirely of carbon from the air—by weight there is also water, and a relatively small amount of minerals from the ground, but largely trees come from what's in the air. Here, I'm just saying it shouldn't a surprise this is possible—we know plants grow faster in a CO2 rich environment, and we know there is a starvation level where plants won't grow if there isn't enough. It's one of the critical factors in mountains having a "tree line". When the air gets thin, it doesn't mater how much water and minerals are available, tree won't grow.

You can do an internet search on something like "is carbon dioxide making trees grow faster"—on duckduckgo I see hits within the past two days on mainstream news outlets. "Carbon Dioxide Seems to Be Making Trees Grow Faster, Scientists Say", says msn. Or, look for something like "greening of the planet"—there's a NASA page titled "Greening of the Earth Mitigates Surface Warming", 2020. Another NASA page, "Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds", 2016. "Deserts 'greening' from rising CO2", phys.org 2013—this is not anything new. I'm not posting links because I only pay attention to actual studies, and that brings up another level of complication (you can find a study that says anything you want, so it requires more discussion). What I'm saying by pointing to the mainstream study is that if you think this is a fringe idea, it isn't, and it doesn't require much internet skill to verify that.

But this has been old news for a long time. We've had satellites up since the late '70s, taking pictures. I'm out of time, but there are gif animations of the earth year by year, with stunning increase of the green area of the planet. OK, in absence of finding that quick, here's a chart showing increase from 1982-2015, from the NASA dot gov site:

View attachment 234182
Thanks for the info. Of course, no one is disputing that CO2 is needed for plant growth. But we're so used to cherry-picked arguments that it's easy to assume that was one of them.

I mean look, the Sahara desert is getting bigger, so one could make a counter-point there.

Also, as with most things in this field of science, there are feedback effects: warming northern regions are causing the thawing of permafrost, which holds vast amounts of CO2 and methane, frozen for thousands of years. Those gases will cause more warming, which causes more melting, which causes more...you get the idea.
 

pseudoid

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Messages
2,515
Likes
1,508
Location
33.6, -117.9
Disclaimer: Not watching this thread, peeked at it for tech discussion, I don't want to get involved in pointless political debates.
That said, if people are truly wondering if it's true that there is evidence that trees grow faster with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, yes, this is a slam dunk. Not only do we know for sure there is more growth than 30 years ago
Would you kindly stoop down to my ear-level and tell me exactly where you find (A)pointless, or (B)political, or (C)debates, in this thread. Refer to the title of the thread.

Standford.edu (earth) website makes the following statement about "Carbon Credits" and specifically "Forest Offsets" in California (not cherry-picked for argument' sake):
"For each additional ton of carbon dioxide their trees store, forest owners can earn a credit – worth about $10 currently – to sell to California companies required to reduce or offset their greenhouse gas emissions. Since it started in 2013, the program has earned forest owners about $250 million, while offsetting 25 million tons of carbon – an amount equal to 5 percent of California’s annual passenger vehicle emissions."
The whole C02 mitigation efforts has become a circle-jerk: They give you $10 for the tree (upon a 'grace period'), while someone polluter is coughing up penaltie$ for C02 emissions or that polluter is paying you more greenback$ for his sins. But that Money-tree now has been found to be the gross polluter.
Now, CA is probably thinking to "tax that b*st*rd tree"!
 

earlevel

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2020
Messages
396
Likes
559
Would you kindly stoop down to my ear-level and tell me exactly where you find (A)pointless, or (B)political, or (C)debates, in this thread. Refer to the title of the thread.

Standford.edu (earth) website makes the following statement about "Carbon Credits" and specifically "Forest Offsets" in California (not cherry-picked for argument' sake):
"For each additional ton of carbon dioxide their trees store, forest owners can earn a credit – worth about $10 currently – to sell to California companies required to reduce or offset their greenhouse gas emissions. Since it started in 2013, the program has earned forest owners about $250 million, while offsetting 25 million tons of carbon – an amount equal to 5 percent of California’s annual passenger vehicle emissions."
The whole C02 mitigation efforts has become a circle-jerk: They give you $10 for the tree (upon a 'grace period'), while someone polluter is coughing up penaltie$ for C02 emissions or that polluter is paying you more greenback$ for his sins. But that Money-tree now has been found to be the gross polluter.
Now, CA is probably thinking to "tax that b*st*rd tree"!
Maybe you misunderstood me. I haven't read the thread ("not watching this thread, peeked at it..."), but I don't want my comment to it to drag me into a pointless debate ("I don't want to get involved in pointless political debates"). Pointless as in nothing in the world changes from it. I did not say the thread is a pointless political debate. And yes, I did read the title of the thread, that why I looked at it ("peeked at it for tech discussion"); it's about zero-emissions vehicles, which largely means electric vehicles, I'm an electrical engineer).

I totally agree that carbon credits are an absurdity, and the result in primarily moving money out of some pockets into others. There is zero "science" involved, it's a business ploy that moves money out of some pockets into others. And trees are just a wrinkle on top of that. Even if trees were a legit "solution" (we could all argue about what is being solved"—planting more trees will offset industrial CO2—what happens when you've planted trees, they grow old, the forest density invites wildfires, and all those tree burn up and return their carbon to the atmosphere? :p
Thanks for the info. Of course, no one is disputing that CO2 is needed for plant growth. But we're so used to cherry-picked arguments that it's easy to assume that was one of them.

I mean look, the Sahara desert is getting bigger, so one could make a counter-point there.

Also, as with most things in this field of science, there are feedback effects: warming northern regions are causing the thawing of permafrost, which holds vast amounts of CO2 and methane, frozen for thousands of years. Those gases will cause more warming, which causes more melting, which causes more...you get the idea.
OK, but you're not going far enough. Those effects are logarithmic—doubling GHGs increases temperature incrementally, after the first doubling it's already incredibly hard to move to the next, then even harder. The biggest GHG by far is water vapor (and suspended droplets). So, the "catastrophic global warming" scenario must include something like, "and as it gets hotter, more water vapor is in the air, so it gets even hotter".

The problem with the feedbacks story is that for it to be a good story, you have to leave out the biggest driver of diverse climate, clouds. And clouds are water vapor and droplets. So, water in the makes it hotter, and it makes it colder. It's complex and chaotic, it can't be modeled with any certainty at all. Anyone who tell you we model clouds is fibbing, they are essentially using a fudge factor.

The one thing I'm sure of is that politicians will never enact anything that will make a measurable change. They can't really, but the worst part is that they will benefit while they make the majority of people suffer. If you think I'm wrong, let me know what congress bans their own use of private jets. Let me know when they are unable to get to work and earn money because blackouts have kept the from charging their electric cars. Let me know whey some aren't making windfall profits because "climate change", or when those aren't major donors to the legislators. :D

Even though the legislation will have no effect or benefit to citizens, they'll sell the fear because it's so easy. I see it this week, with "news" channels explaining that Ian is a sign of the climate change times. It doesn't matter that hurricane frequency is expected to drop with increased warming, as it has the past century. (We're a maritime country, we've tracked hurricanes for a long time.) I'm reluctant to get this wordy, but someone will say, "no, that can't be, warmer water feeds hurricanes". I heard that on the news myself. But it's wrong. Cyclones come from the temperature differential between the poles and equator. GHGs make the poles heat faster than the equator ("polar amplification"—the equator has a massive amount of water vapor in the air, adding CO2 doesn't even tick the needle there, but it does at the dry poles). The differential drops in a warming world.

I spent, conservatively, over 10k hours over 10 years studying this stuff—reading research, downloading huge data sets and poring through them with spreadsheets and code, etc. Those are hours I'll never get back (lol). I'm not here to carry on an argument, just giving a little counterpoint (that I'm sure I'll regret, <sigh>). Global warming is real. But it won't be catastrophic, and we won't succeed at doing anything about it. We could do some things that makes sense, but we won't. For instance, if we really had to save the planet, we'd be building nuclear power plants. Even "the father of global warming", James Hansen has said this. But nuclear power plants are politically unpopular, so they won't happen. Instead we'll mandate expensive intermittent power, which will be insufficient to charge the mandated change to electric vehicles (at a huge GHG cost to replace the gasoline fleet in a timely matter)...at some point the masses will not put up with the intolerable burden, unfelt by the wealthy and powerful, and if democracy still exists will vote someone in that will roll it all back, and and we'll be back a square one. But, we'll have never left square one anyway, because China and India will never play the game, and GHGs will continue up either way.

Honestly, I'm a pretty cheerful guy, sorry for painting a bleak picture for some! :) I just know someone is going to blame me for killing their future grandchildren or something, I gave up these discussions a dozen years ago...
 

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,238
Likes
3,182
Even though the legislation will have no effect or benefit to citizens, they'll sell the fear because it's so easy. I see it this week, with "news" channels explaining that Ian is a sign of the climate change times. It doesn't matter that hurricane frequency is expected to drop with increased warming, as it has the past century.
Go on, tell the whole story. While frequency could decrease, the ones that do form become stronger thanks to warmer ocean waters. So, we get more superstorms.
 

earlevel

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2020
Messages
396
Likes
559
Go on, tell the whole story. While frequency could decrease, the ones that do form become stronger thanks to warmer ocean waters. So, we get more superstorms.
Excellent come back. I was going to head that off, but I wanted to both cut back on writing a book-sized post, and see who would bring that point. :D

We know for sure global cyclonic energy decreases because it has over the past century or so of warming (which started before mass industrialization, btw). It also appears there may be an increase in intensity, while they happen less often. But it's not a large increase, and there is uncertainty. In the spirit of consensus, the general line is "less frequent, with possible increased intensity". But again, no large increase in intensity is expected, that would be difficult to justify in a system with less potential energy.

"thanks to warmer ocean waters"—again, that's not how it works. Temperature differential between the poles and equator is the driver. A uniformly hot or cold planet would have no cyclonic activity. The bigger the temperature difference, the more air needs to be moved to try to equalize the difference. The earth rotates, a point on the equator is moving while the pole doesn't, that wind develops a spin (of course, that's why it's always counterclockwise for us). I know it's seductive to think that the warmer the water, the more energy it has to impart to a hurricane, but you'd have to explain how that energy causes the hurricane to spin more. It doesn't, the spin is the north-south wind from the temperature differential, along with the rotation of the earth. This is a bit like voltage across a component—no current flows if there is no voltage differential, regardless of where those endpoints may sit relative to something else.

Anyway, my point is that news and politicians aren't saying "yes, we expect hurricanes less often, but dammit they will be more intense!" They are saying, "these hurricanes are coming more often and they are more intense, and it will just get worse unless we tax and spend a lot more!" :p Worse, they re saying things like, "We expect more heat deaths. Now please don't use your air conditioner because we are building more intermittent power at great cost, which necessitate blackouts." (Actually, we'd still have fewer total deaths, since we expect a far greater reduction in cold deaths in a warming world. 10-20 times more people die of cold every year than heat, depending on what you consider.)

Again, I'm not saying do nothing, but I see a lot of "we know the world is warming, and there are a lot of bad things associated, because science. Now let politicians do whatever they want." Scientific reasons for concern, economic solutions provided by politicians. What could go wrong? You might like to read Bjorn Lomborg, a staunch believer in the IPCC's assessments, an economist who pays attention to cost versus benefit.

I've made the point I care to, and I don't mind reading yours. It's always hard to tell on these discussions whether someone is on an angry rant, I don't feel that way, don't want to sound that way. It's an incredibly beautiful day here, hope it is for most of you.
 

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,238
Likes
3,182
Excellent come back. I was going to head that off, but I wanted to both cut back on writing a book-sized post, and see who would bring that point. :D

We know for sure global cyclonic energy decreases because it has over the past century or so of warming (which started before mass industrialization, btw). It also appears there may be an increase in intensity, while they happen less often. But it's not a large increase, and there is uncertainty. In the spirit of consensus, the general line is "less frequent, with possible increased intensity". But again, no large increase in intensity is expected, that would be difficult to justify in a system with less potential energy.

"thanks to warmer ocean waters"—again, that's not how it works. Temperature differential between the poles and equator is the driver. A uniformly hot or cold planet would have no cyclonic activity. The bigger the temperature difference, the more air needs to be moved to try to equalize the difference. The earth rotates, a point on the equator is moving while the pole doesn't, that wind develops a spin (of course, that's why it's always counterclockwise for us). I know it's seductive to think that the warmer the water, the more energy it has to impart to a hurricane, but you'd have to explain how that energy causes the hurricane to spin more. It doesn't, the spin is the north-south wind from the temperature differential, along with the rotation of the earth. This is a bit like voltage across a component—no current flows if there is no voltage differential, regardless of where those endpoints may sit relative to something else.

Anyway, my point is that news and politicians aren't saying "yes, we expect hurricanes less often, but dammit they will be more intense!" They are saying, "these hurricanes are coming more often and they are more intense, and it will just get worse unless we tax and spend a lot more!" :p Worse, they re saying things like, "We expect more heat deaths. Now please don't use your air conditioner because we are building more intermittent power at great cost, which necessitate blackouts." (Actually, we'd still have fewer total deaths, since we expect a far greater reduction in cold deaths in a warming world. 10-20 times more people die of cold every year than heat, depending on what you consider.)

Again, I'm not saying do nothing, but I see a lot of "we know the world is warming, and there are a lot of bad things associated, because science. Now let politicians do whatever they want." Scientific reasons for concern, economic solutions provided by politicians. What could go wrong? You might like to read Bjorn Lomborg, a staunch believer in the IPCC's assessments, an economist who pays attention to cost versus benefit.

I've made the point I care to, and I don't mind reading yours. It's always hard to tell on these discussions whether someone is on an angry rant, I don't feel that way, don't want to sound that way. It's an incredibly beautiful day here, hope it is for most of you.
It is very nice here, as well. Unfortunately I can't say the same for the southeastern U.S. at the moment :(

I was only quoting nasa.gov:

"Moreover, according to Knutson, most models show that climate change brings a slight increase in hurricane wind intensity. This change is likely related to warming ocean temperatures and more moisture in the air, both of which fuel hurricanes. While most models show either no change or a decrease in hurricane frequency in a warmer climate, a greater proportion of the storms that form will reach very intense (Category 4 or 5) levels. In other words, while there may be fewer storms, the ones that form have a greater chance of becoming stronger."
 

Marc v E

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 9, 2021
Messages
593
Likes
618
Location
The Netherlands (Holland)
Just read an article in the Wageningen University magazine for alumni, sharing that with better forest and agriculture management, we can achieve a 15% reduction on greenhouse gas emmisions.

The same article states that based on their research the 1.5 C degrees increase cannot be averted anymore. In fact we're heading toward 3 C degrees increase by 2100.
 

TonyJZX

Active Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2021
Messages
236
Likes
179
I think people over think EVs... this is typified by views like how some driving games like Forza, Gran Turismo are being 'politicised' by... having EVs in them.

Driving EVs in a game environment is political!

I would love to get into a debate about the environmental issues of making EVs but yet we dont seem to get our panties in a bunch about the realities of making conventional ICE cars or even our everyday electronics.... do I think my SMSL or Topping or my Playstation Xbox is entirely 'ethical'?

If we want to limit it to what the site proprietor wants as to minimise conflict then in reality... an EV works for me... just say I live in a standard house here... I have a solar cell system on the roof... my local shops are literally less than a mile away... my work commute is less than 10 miles... my friends and relatives are less than 20 miles... I own an EV and it takes power directly from my roof during the day... I have a spare gasoline SUV for long trips the EV cannot do... I dont want to use public charge stations because... why buy milk when I have a cow at home?

I have a funny happy feeling in my gut when I pass a service station in my EV.

The only downside here is the government charges say 0.025c per mile road charge... so on a 20,000 mile per year average travel I'm up for... $500.

Do you think a guy who owns a house that's a $1 mil. (average house price here) and has a $50,000 EV cares about a $500 yearly road tax???
 

FrantzM

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
3,462
Likes
5,662
A nuclear power plant takes on average 6 years to build iirc. There simply wouldn't be enough time to build them in time. A solar farm is a matter of months. 15 iirc
My first post in this immensely instructive, educative and eye-opening thread. I , actually would like to open a thread on energy production and invite the people here to it...

Let's take the example of a 1000 MW plant... From what I researched and this is an ignoramus speaking, about $7 Billions. 365/24 operations
Solar at current prices.. about $1,5 Billions... 365/???? operations. Power delivery will fluctuate immensely and that 1000 MW would be reached only at certain time of the day and even then... At night? Nothing. Zero output
Storage is a serious issue when it comes to solar. Storage carbon footprint is not trivial. Storage is expensive and its logistics monumental, at even a city block level. For EV.. It is a different issue. an EV is actually stored electricity vehicle

EV rely on that cheap power from , mostly ICE, since most plants on the planet and even in the USA are ICE-based be they coal or Diesel. I am asking the question in all honesty. How much power/energy to charge an average EV (No SUV please :) ) for say 50 miles/day? From there I could deduct how much solar would be required for my use case.

Peace.
 

Suffolkhifinut

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 8, 2021
Messages
872
Likes
554
My first post in this immensely instructive, educative and eye-opening thread. I , actually would like to open a thread on energy production and invite the people here to it...

Let's take the example of a 1000 MW plant... From what I researched and this is an ignoramus speaking, about $7 Billions. 365/24 operations
Solar at current prices.. about $1,5 Billions... 365/???? operations. Power delivery will fluctuate immensely and that 1000 MW would be reached only at certain time of the day and even then... At night? Nothing. Zero output
Storage is a serious issue when it comes to solar. Storage carbon footprint is not trivial. Storage is expensive and its logistics monumental, at even a city block level. For EV.. It is a different issue. an EV is actually stored electricity vehicle

EV rely on that cheap power from , mostly ICE, since most plants on the planet and even in the USA are ICE-based be they coal or Diesel. I am asking the question in all honesty. How much power/energy to charge an average EV (No SUV please :) ) for say 50 miles/day? From there I could deduct how much solar would be required for my use case.

Peace.
Look forward to your new thread, we need to bring some light onto the subject. One point on renewables in 2020 the UK got 24% of its electrical energy from wind in 2022 the total output for nuclear/solar/wind is likely to be 16% with more wind turbines in operation.
Ref: ucl.ac.uk
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom