Don't forget about phytoplankton, which is also a major consumer of CO2. The verdict is out as to whether productivity will increase with increased CO2 or not, due to a variety of factors.
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseu ... 06_3.shtml
Global warming my butt...
Moderator: Available
Well-timed (for this discussion) article here...
From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype
from the New York Times (Registration Required)
Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.
But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore's central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.
"I don’t want to pick on Al Gore," Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. "But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data."
To read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html
Or: http://tinyurl.com/2elt4z
From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype
from the New York Times (Registration Required)
Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.
But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore's central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.
"I don’t want to pick on Al Gore," Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. "But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data."
To read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html
Or: http://tinyurl.com/2elt4z
Mike
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
This is good, Justin.Valkenar wrote:
Current science says global warming leads to things we don't like (coastal flooding, displacement of people whose arable land converts to desert, violent storms, etc.). On that basis, it makes sense to take steps to avoid things we don't like. If not, oh well, I'm sure New York's will make a lovely coral reef.
*****
Life is flexible and adapts over time, and in a million years our emissions levels will not have created a dead world or any such extravagance. But it does seem that our emissions levels are likely to cause us problems.
So you are saying in effect that the biggest reasons to act in any direction are selfish ones. I would argue that this very model is playing itself out as we type our visions and opinions.
A touch of hyperbole, no?Valkenar wrote:
Heading down a path of mutually assured disaster...
I see no disaster from my perspective. I don't own land in a low lying area. For that matter, I think we're stupid to spend a lot of money re-creating New Orleans only to have it drown all over again. But politics are politics...
"Just because" is a strawman red flag, Justin.Valkenar wrote:
just because we don't want someone else to get an economic advantage seems a little short-sighted.
People and countries act in their own self interest. There are many, many drivers of human behavior. Assuming that this isn't true because you don't think it's fair or right won't change human behavior. There IS an inevitability working itself out here.
It isn't fruitful to piss in the wind. Put a windmill up, for Christ's sake!
(Note to Justin - that is both metaphor and pun.)
NOW we're talking...Valkenar wrote:
I would tend to go down the road of economic alliances.
Here's the thing though. China's economy today lives and dies by US consumption. Do the math...
Wind technology pisses off the bird lovers.Valkenar wrote:
Alternative energy sources? Wind, water, sun, geothermal, nuclear? Lots of potential options that result in less CO2.
Water technology pisses off the lovers of environments which are destroyed when you dam rivers.
Geothermal energy will cool off the earth's core. Do that long enough, and we're heading for a sustained ice age like you've never seen before. By that point, we'll gladly release as much CO2 as we can to get some of that greenhouse warmth. Ironic, no?
Nuclear? Joke, right? What about telling Iran and North Korea they can't have nuke, and yet we build more? What about the NIMBY syndrome? What about nuclear proliferation? What about heating up the rivers and killing all the fishies? What about people who just think nuclear is evil?
If you're looking for a magic bullet, it doesn't exist. Yet...
Love an engineer though. (S)he may just create a place for your great, great, great grandchildren to live.
- Bill
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
IMO...
The biggest obstacle to change is a lack of pain. Oil and coal are cheap. Energy from them is cheap and easy.
The pain will come. The earth will change a bit with carbon redistribution. We will either stop consuming fossil fuels, or accept and live with the consequences the best way we know how. I can't see us completely halting using fossil fuels. It's just too easy... So I see us eventually consuming it all. The only question IMO is when.
Then again, come up with a way to make things with carbon and maybe we have a win-win.
Ultimately though we're going to have to stop using fossil fuels because the supply isn't endless. So ultimately we'll have to change the way we make energy. When that happens depends upon when the necessity is perceived.
- Bill
The biggest obstacle to change is a lack of pain. Oil and coal are cheap. Energy from them is cheap and easy.
The pain will come. The earth will change a bit with carbon redistribution. We will either stop consuming fossil fuels, or accept and live with the consequences the best way we know how. I can't see us completely halting using fossil fuels. It's just too easy... So I see us eventually consuming it all. The only question IMO is when.
Then again, come up with a way to make things with carbon and maybe we have a win-win.
Ultimately though we're going to have to stop using fossil fuels because the supply isn't endless. So ultimately we'll have to change the way we make energy. When that happens depends upon when the necessity is perceived.
- Bill
-
jorvik
My Dad was an engineer with General Motors for 20 years 
.and he always talks to me about steam engines, tells me how himmler had a steam car, and that as a lad in the 30's he would watch steam engines go by..his thoughts now are that steam would be great...with the new insulating materials available today a steam car would be viable ,cheap and eco friendly..........but there is too much interest in profit for it to be made available, the big car producers like their "built in obsolescence"...........so ( a little off topic I know) therin lies part of the problem.
There is a problem with Global warming, I agree.the solution seems to be some way to cool the Sun
....once we do that we are laughing 
.and he always talks to me about steam engines, tells me how himmler had a steam car, and that as a lad in the 30's he would watch steam engines go by..his thoughts now are that steam would be great...with the new insulating materials available today a steam car would be viable ,cheap and eco friendly..........but there is too much interest in profit for it to be made available, the big car producers like their "built in obsolescence"...........so ( a little off topic I know) therin lies part of the problem.There is a problem with Global warming, I agree.the solution seems to be some way to cool the Sun
....once we do that we are laughing -
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Better yet, jorvik, would be to create the sun on earth.
Nuclear fusion COULD be the silver bullet. Right now however we're a long way off. But if we found a way to do that, then we could convert that energy to whatever kind made sense for any particular application.
There are other interesting sources. I'm not completely down on the idea of capturing energy from the movement of air or water. I also like the idea of energy production becoming more regional/local. Got water movement? Use it. Live with wind? Tap it. Live where photons and nutrients are plentiful? Farm it.
When the price of oil goes up, it's amazing how innovative people get. As they say, necessity is the mother of invention.
- Bill
Nuclear fusion COULD be the silver bullet. Right now however we're a long way off. But if we found a way to do that, then we could convert that energy to whatever kind made sense for any particular application.
There are other interesting sources. I'm not completely down on the idea of capturing energy from the movement of air or water. I also like the idea of energy production becoming more regional/local. Got water movement? Use it. Live with wind? Tap it. Live where photons and nutrients are plentiful? Farm it.
When the price of oil goes up, it's amazing how innovative people get. As they say, necessity is the mother of invention.
- Bill
-
jorvik
Bill
I know you are a guitarist ....years ago the guitar was invented because they couldn't easily make the back for a lute ( too round and complex).then along came "ovation" and used modern polymer technology to make rould back guitars ....I think that is really cool and great business...going back to look at old problems but with new technologies.that is the basis of a lot of what is now called "green"...I think it is cool ............but you have to know the problem before you address it ( as with Global warming 
)
I know you are a guitarist
....years ago the guitar was invented because they couldn't easily make the back for a lute ( too round and complex).then along came "ovation" and used modern polymer technology to make rould back guitars ....I think that is really cool and great business...going back to look at old problems but with new technologies.that is the basis of a lot of what is now called "green"...I think it is cool ............but you have to know the problem before you address it ( as with Global warming )Interesting stuff going back and forth. I'm curious to know whether CO2 induced growth will counterbalance our exploding population and loss of habitat. At a minimum, the earth's lungs haven't countered the rise in CO2. The level is fluctuating yearly as the larger landmass in the north gets more than less sun, but steadily going up. As for late replies to earlier posts:
"Newsflash... Where's the electricity going to come from, dude? Try doing a little research and find out where those electrons come from that are in the wall waiting for you to use them."
I'm aware that electrons must be moved to a higher potential for them to move my car. What's worth pointing out, what I assumed needed no mention, was that centrally producing electricity is more efficient than separate internal combustion engines even if done from fossil fuels, that other benefits exist (less pollution, less junked replacement parts, and so on), and that many are working on better wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear options that can produce electricity whereas none of those things make gasoline.
"I have an iceblock construction home (yay!). The insulation in my walls (R30) is better than what you have in your roof (yay!). I have a tankless hot water heater that uses about a fifth the energy of a standard hot water heater (yay!). I have a 14 SEER dual zone heat pump system that I guarantee will run circles around the efficiency of what you have to cool your home (bzzzz! wrong--I have used zero joules to cool my home, I just open the windows). I've resisted buying a gas-guzzling SUV (yay, horrible misstep averted!).... Did Big Business stop me from doing the right thing? What's your excuse, Ian? What's your excuse, Justin? Did Big Business make you consume more energy than you should have?"
What a nonsequitor! One person has a less energy wasting lifestyle and so the fact that big industry lobbying has resulted in dismal mileage for our cars and the death of the electric car and a host of other problems is... what, not a problem? Until recently (or are we still?) we were giving huge tax subsidies for Hummers, the stupidest cars (or nearly so) on the road, cars that no one needs, that waste fuel, and so on. There ought to be huge penalties instead. When politicians suggest improvements, industry replies. Californian law induced the creation of the electric car; revision of that law killed it. Clinton's pushes for hybrid technology in the US induced Japanese invention of amazing hybrid technology out of competitive impulses (little did the Japs know the americans were basically faking it, but now they've got cars in demand and even more so as gas goes over 3$ a gallon again. Congressional CAFE standards boosted the mileage of our cars and similar laws do so in other countries--and we've been stagnant since because the laws were stagnant. Bad policy! The free market isn't the solution to everything--left alone, it encourages pollution, waste, silly products like hummers for nonthinking consumers--to get the cheapest most shortsighted products to market and thus to profit. People don't start buying more reasonable vehicles until gas prices shoot up--that's some short term thinking! Government can and should encourage better.
References: Who killed the electric car; An inconvenient truth.
"You've just countered your own argument, Ian. Why do they call it "fossil fuel" anyhow?"
No, I didn't. I was clear. I understand covered biomass made the fossil fuels long ago and that using them puts the CO2 back in the air where it came from, and made that clear. What I said was that the CO2 from those fossil fuels might have been stored for a very very long time in an equilibrium in and out of the crust which we are NOW over a short term disturbing by moving it all out at once. That's not an unreasonable issue to raise. I don't know the answer. But just because the CO2 was once in the air doesn't mean we should burn all the fossil fuels over St Patrick's day. One other reason is that the plant and animal life had great amounts of time to adapt to changing CO2 levels, and now, things may be moving very quickly. That's something to think about, and just because it can also happen with supervolcanoes and other events doesn't make it wise.
"Newsflash... Where's the electricity going to come from, dude? Try doing a little research and find out where those electrons come from that are in the wall waiting for you to use them."
I'm aware that electrons must be moved to a higher potential for them to move my car. What's worth pointing out, what I assumed needed no mention, was that centrally producing electricity is more efficient than separate internal combustion engines even if done from fossil fuels, that other benefits exist (less pollution, less junked replacement parts, and so on), and that many are working on better wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear options that can produce electricity whereas none of those things make gasoline.
"I have an iceblock construction home (yay!). The insulation in my walls (R30) is better than what you have in your roof (yay!). I have a tankless hot water heater that uses about a fifth the energy of a standard hot water heater (yay!). I have a 14 SEER dual zone heat pump system that I guarantee will run circles around the efficiency of what you have to cool your home (bzzzz! wrong--I have used zero joules to cool my home, I just open the windows). I've resisted buying a gas-guzzling SUV (yay, horrible misstep averted!).... Did Big Business stop me from doing the right thing? What's your excuse, Ian? What's your excuse, Justin? Did Big Business make you consume more energy than you should have?"
What a nonsequitor! One person has a less energy wasting lifestyle and so the fact that big industry lobbying has resulted in dismal mileage for our cars and the death of the electric car and a host of other problems is... what, not a problem? Until recently (or are we still?) we were giving huge tax subsidies for Hummers, the stupidest cars (or nearly so) on the road, cars that no one needs, that waste fuel, and so on. There ought to be huge penalties instead. When politicians suggest improvements, industry replies. Californian law induced the creation of the electric car; revision of that law killed it. Clinton's pushes for hybrid technology in the US induced Japanese invention of amazing hybrid technology out of competitive impulses (little did the Japs know the americans were basically faking it, but now they've got cars in demand and even more so as gas goes over 3$ a gallon again. Congressional CAFE standards boosted the mileage of our cars and similar laws do so in other countries--and we've been stagnant since because the laws were stagnant. Bad policy! The free market isn't the solution to everything--left alone, it encourages pollution, waste, silly products like hummers for nonthinking consumers--to get the cheapest most shortsighted products to market and thus to profit. People don't start buying more reasonable vehicles until gas prices shoot up--that's some short term thinking! Government can and should encourage better.
References: Who killed the electric car; An inconvenient truth.
"You've just countered your own argument, Ian. Why do they call it "fossil fuel" anyhow?"
No, I didn't. I was clear. I understand covered biomass made the fossil fuels long ago and that using them puts the CO2 back in the air where it came from, and made that clear. What I said was that the CO2 from those fossil fuels might have been stored for a very very long time in an equilibrium in and out of the crust which we are NOW over a short term disturbing by moving it all out at once. That's not an unreasonable issue to raise. I don't know the answer. But just because the CO2 was once in the air doesn't mean we should burn all the fossil fuels over St Patrick's day. One other reason is that the plant and animal life had great amounts of time to adapt to changing CO2 levels, and now, things may be moving very quickly. That's something to think about, and just because it can also happen with supervolcanoes and other events doesn't make it wise.
--Ian
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Are you suggesting that God started the earth in this kind of equiplibrium? I'm not feeling the love of science from you, Ian...Ian wrote:
What I said was that the CO2 from those fossil fuels might have been stored for a very very long time in an equilibrium in and out of the crust which we are NOW over a short term disturbing by moving it all out at once.
I've been suggesting for some time that having that much biomass stored beneath the surface of the earth is the exception rather than the rule. Take a look at the plots Glenn produced. They suggest that we're actually in somewhat of a cold spell on this earth.Not a nonsequitor at all, Ian. You blame Hummers on Big Business. All they do is produce products that consumers buy. I'm being a good consumer, Ian. In the free market AND in government, we produce desirable results one citizen at a time.Ian wrote:
What a nonsequitor! One person has a less energy wasting lifestyle
Actually I agree with you here, Ian.Ian wrote:
we were giving huge tax subsidies for Hummers, the stupidest cars (or nearly so) on the road, cars that no one needs, that waste fuel, and so on. There ought to be huge penalties instead.
SUVs are not trucks to be given subsidies to keep the family farm and industry going. They are officially consumer products, and they avoided CAFE restrictions for quite some time because of a quirk in the law.
I have no problem with people who use more gas per vehicle mile paying more to the government to support the troops we send over in the godforsaken hellholes on earth to keep petroleum flowing and out of the hands of Islamofascists. Call it the al qaeda tax. Paying it is as patriotic as buying Savings Bonds.
I also have no problem with an oil tax used to fund research on alternative energy sources. We already tax idiots in just about every state to pay for education. (a.k.a. the lottery)
As for the electric car, well sorry. My gut tells me it isn't the answer, Ian. I have more faith in fuel cell technology than I do in electric cars. I disagree with my friend Rich on how that will happen (I believe they will use regen; Rich is allergic to that complexity). But we're on the same page here. Batteries to store enough energy to take you 300 miles just don't exist and I don't see it possible any time in the near future.
I also believe biodiesel hybrids will be in our future. So does the military, BTW. They appear to be funding research for diesel hybrid military vehicles. And this is a carbon neutral technology.
Something tells me however that there's another technology yet to be developed which will trump it all. Just a hunch... It'll rear its head when the price of energy gets high enough.
- Bill
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
This is true. The pure hydrogen fuel cell car is the way to go. Keep it simple. I must admit the plug-in version hybrid makes more sense to me as drawing energy from the grid every night is an inexpensive way to fuel up, However, the complexity is still there and you need to charge up frequently to take advantage of this type of car.I have more faith in fuel cell technology than I do in electric cars. I disagree with my friend Rich on how that will happen (I believe they will use regen; Rich is allergic to that complexity).
The consumers are now voting with their dollars. Even Toyota is now heavily discounting hybrids. The hybrid vehicle market share has dropped from 2.1% last fall to 1.8% today. Not what the tree huggers predicted.
Read on:
For the story in BusinessWeek:Why Hybrids Are Such A Hard Sell
They haven't crossed over to the mainstream
Given all the buzz about hybrids, not to mention the greening of the citizenry, you'd think they would be easy to sell. They're not. After growing nicely through much of 2006, hybrid sales began to slow early this year. The gasoline-electric vehicles now make up 1.8% of all vehicle sales, says Edmunds.com, down from a peak of 2.1% in October.
One major reason is that hybrids typically cost $3,000-plus more than conventional cars. As a result, automakers in recent weeks have been slashing prices. Less than a year ago, Toyota dealers got full price for the Prius. Now you can immediately lease one for a slim $219 a month. Ford Motor Co. (F ) is also cutting the price of the latest version of its Escape hybrid. In fact, in February, carmakers spent an average of $1,500 on incentives per hybrid, says Edmunds--triple what they laid out in January.
The discounting helped the likes of Toyota Motor Corp. (TM ) and Ford post decent sales in February, but, as the Big Three know all too well, ladling out incentives is no way to make decent profits. Making matters worse, just as hybrid sales start slowing, automakers are gearing up to launch a slew of new models. At least 30 hybrids will hit the market in the next 20 months. That will bring the number to more than 40, up from 12 today, says Boston research firm Global Insight. "Now that the automakers have tapped the early adopters, they're going after the mass market," says Jesse Toprak, an Edmunds analyst. "For consumers, the answer is often no."
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/co ... han=search
Member of the world's premier gun club, the USMC!
"What are you smoking out there? We need less government 'encouragement'."
Well, absent controls on the free market, we have some pretty sick environmental problems out there. Are we supposed to wait until its economically preferable to a subsistence farmer to replant the rainforest to do something about its destruction, for example? If so, much of its vast treasures will be gone first.
"While CO2 may be rising, oxygen content is not falling. Life will go on."
Well, no one has raised the specter of global deoxygenation, so that issue's been resolved
Meanwhile, the question is not whether life will go on, but what kind of life and what quality of life and whether someone living in some Borg future city is going to invent a time machine just to punish us for not caring.
"Are you suggesting that God started the earth in this kind of equiplibrium? I'm not feeling the love of science from you, Ian... I've been suggesting for some time that having that much biomass stored beneath the surface of the earth is the exception rather than the rule. Take a look at the plots Glenn produced. They suggest that we're actually in somewhat of a cold spell on this earth."
Obviously no such suggestion in my posts, Bill. They're clear. The suggestion is appreciated but such a thinly supported hypothesis is too little data when such large possible errors are at stake. I haven't seen powerful data to sugges there haven't been some fossil fuels below the crust for a long time and I also mentioned my concern about releasing them in a geologic split second, which has been ignored for obvious reasons--nobody knows what problems that will unleash.
"You blame Hummers on Big Business. All they do is produce products that consumers buy. I'm being a good consumer, Ian. In the free market AND in government, we produce desirable results one citizen at a time."
You suggested that because you try to live greenER, there is no role for government influence on the kinds of products we buy. That IS a nonsequitor, real deal anecdotal evidence with a relevance = 1/260 million (the US population). We do produce changes one citizen at a time--but we do that with policies that incentivize good choices. The government has played a key role in improving the safety of our cars, for example. It wasn't the free market that suddenly created crash testing and safety standards, although it played a role. And CAFE standards directly influence the efficiency of the vehicles on the road--obviously--and I fail to see why this is bad or why the possibility of individuals making good choices without CAFE standards being upped negates the wisdom of making them more strict. Nor would this kill American automakers. Everyone has been pushing performance over efficiency and that's been at great cost in our energy deficit. A mere distaste for anything government among some forum attendees is not a sufficient explanation as to why our government shouldn't make our roads more fuel efficient. If drunk driving were legal, it wouldn't make any sense to demand that Americans start convincing one another not to do it when the simpler solution--and the one shown effective--is to change a policy.
"Call it the al qaeda tax."
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't it the MONEY from the oil, and not the oil, that these nuts want? Bin Laden didn't finance his network with gas, he did it with american (etc) $ spent on that gas.
"But we're on the same page here. Batteries to store enough energy to take you 300 miles just don't exist and I don't see it possible any time in the near future."
True. But not required. I, like many (most?) americans live in a two car home. Both of us drive almost exclusively in the city. In fact, we've never, in the last 6 years, needed more driving than an electric could provide. But we could, as needed, have a biodiesel plug in hybrid and an electric and simply take the hybrid together whenever we went farther than that. It's not perfect but I'm not expecting perfect. Plus, superbatteries may not be in our future, but last I heard, cheap, energy efficient fuelcells weren't either. Modest batteries aren't in our future on the other hand--they're in our NOW. If california would will it, anyway.
"The consumers are now voting with their dollars. Even Toyota is now heavily discounting hybrids. The hybrid vehicle market share has dropped from 2.1% last fall to 1.8% today. Not what the tree huggers predicted."
Last I checked there was a big wait list everywhere Alan went to find his hybrid camry. He also got a tax benefit roughly equal to the increased cost (although, unlike with almost any car you have to pay sticker for a hybrid because they are still in demand). All the american hybrids get kinda lousy mileage for the technology so I'm not stunned that hybrid fans aren't their fans. And predictions are always tough, but consumers are going to wonder about that hybrid option as gas prices two blocks from my house remain 3.20$--and, if any of them start thinking about the future of gas, and the future of our foreign policy, perhaps that will continue even if gas prices drop. However, the fact that consumer whim on purchasing changes nearly as fast as gas prices suggests that someone other than single short sighted consumers ought to think about the kinds of cars we should buy as a nation.
Well, absent controls on the free market, we have some pretty sick environmental problems out there. Are we supposed to wait until its economically preferable to a subsistence farmer to replant the rainforest to do something about its destruction, for example? If so, much of its vast treasures will be gone first.
"While CO2 may be rising, oxygen content is not falling. Life will go on."
Well, no one has raised the specter of global deoxygenation, so that issue's been resolved
Meanwhile, the question is not whether life will go on, but what kind of life and what quality of life and whether someone living in some Borg future city is going to invent a time machine just to punish us for not caring. "Are you suggesting that God started the earth in this kind of equiplibrium? I'm not feeling the love of science from you, Ian... I've been suggesting for some time that having that much biomass stored beneath the surface of the earth is the exception rather than the rule. Take a look at the plots Glenn produced. They suggest that we're actually in somewhat of a cold spell on this earth."
Obviously no such suggestion in my posts, Bill. They're clear. The suggestion is appreciated but such a thinly supported hypothesis is too little data when such large possible errors are at stake. I haven't seen powerful data to sugges there haven't been some fossil fuels below the crust for a long time and I also mentioned my concern about releasing them in a geologic split second, which has been ignored for obvious reasons--nobody knows what problems that will unleash.
"You blame Hummers on Big Business. All they do is produce products that consumers buy. I'm being a good consumer, Ian. In the free market AND in government, we produce desirable results one citizen at a time."
You suggested that because you try to live greenER, there is no role for government influence on the kinds of products we buy. That IS a nonsequitor, real deal anecdotal evidence with a relevance = 1/260 million (the US population). We do produce changes one citizen at a time--but we do that with policies that incentivize good choices. The government has played a key role in improving the safety of our cars, for example. It wasn't the free market that suddenly created crash testing and safety standards, although it played a role. And CAFE standards directly influence the efficiency of the vehicles on the road--obviously--and I fail to see why this is bad or why the possibility of individuals making good choices without CAFE standards being upped negates the wisdom of making them more strict. Nor would this kill American automakers. Everyone has been pushing performance over efficiency and that's been at great cost in our energy deficit. A mere distaste for anything government among some forum attendees is not a sufficient explanation as to why our government shouldn't make our roads more fuel efficient. If drunk driving were legal, it wouldn't make any sense to demand that Americans start convincing one another not to do it when the simpler solution--and the one shown effective--is to change a policy.
"Call it the al qaeda tax."
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't it the MONEY from the oil, and not the oil, that these nuts want? Bin Laden didn't finance his network with gas, he did it with american (etc) $ spent on that gas.
"But we're on the same page here. Batteries to store enough energy to take you 300 miles just don't exist and I don't see it possible any time in the near future."
True. But not required. I, like many (most?) americans live in a two car home. Both of us drive almost exclusively in the city. In fact, we've never, in the last 6 years, needed more driving than an electric could provide. But we could, as needed, have a biodiesel plug in hybrid and an electric and simply take the hybrid together whenever we went farther than that. It's not perfect but I'm not expecting perfect. Plus, superbatteries may not be in our future, but last I heard, cheap, energy efficient fuelcells weren't either. Modest batteries aren't in our future on the other hand--they're in our NOW. If california would will it, anyway.
"The consumers are now voting with their dollars. Even Toyota is now heavily discounting hybrids. The hybrid vehicle market share has dropped from 2.1% last fall to 1.8% today. Not what the tree huggers predicted."
Last I checked there was a big wait list everywhere Alan went to find his hybrid camry. He also got a tax benefit roughly equal to the increased cost (although, unlike with almost any car you have to pay sticker for a hybrid because they are still in demand). All the american hybrids get kinda lousy mileage for the technology so I'm not stunned that hybrid fans aren't their fans. And predictions are always tough, but consumers are going to wonder about that hybrid option as gas prices two blocks from my house remain 3.20$--and, if any of them start thinking about the future of gas, and the future of our foreign policy, perhaps that will continue even if gas prices drop. However, the fact that consumer whim on purchasing changes nearly as fast as gas prices suggests that someone other than single short sighted consumers ought to think about the kinds of cars we should buy as a nation.
--Ian
A news article from 3/15 that relates to this discussion. The quotes I have extracted highlight that the scientists don't jump on every little thing as proof of global warming like the media and environmentalists tend to. This article illustrates that the scientists are aware of the complexity of global climate changes, as well as that everything going on in the short-term may not be due to greenhouse gases.
"Winter has been world's warmest on record"
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/03 ... index.html
"Winter has been world's warmest on record"
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/03 ... index.html
This has been the world's warmest winter since record-keeping began more than a century ago
A record-warm January was responsible for pushing up the combined winter temperature, according to the agency's Web site.
"Contributing factors were the long-term trend toward warmer temperatures as well as a moderate El Nino in the Pacific," Jay Lawrimore of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center said in a telephone interview from Asheville, North Carolina.
"We don't say this winter is evidence of the influence of greenhouse gases," Lawrimore said.
However, he noted that his center's work is part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change process, which released a report on global warming last month that found climate change is occurring and that human activities quite likely play a role in the change.
"So we know as a part of that, the conclusions have been reached and the warming trend is due in part to rises in greenhouse gas emissions," Lawrimore said. "By looking at long-term trends and long-term changes, we are able to better understand natural and anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change."
Glenn
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
I've already posted quite a few articles from the auto industry news, Rich, which support the use of regen for fuel cells. You just can't get enough hydrogen in a typical vehicle and get 300 mile range - the standard necessary for most drivers. Regen makes it possible.
Have you taken a gander at the thread Van started on the Bimmer he's looking at, Rich? That isn't a hybrid vehicle, but even they are using regen. It's their own spin on how to use regen. Basically all the technology now demanded by consumer and safety concerns have upped the electrical requirements in vehicles steadily over the last few decades.
The demand is so much that BMW has elected to get some of it now through regen.
Basically there are several truisms at work here.
1) As gridlock goes up, energy lost from braking goes up.
2) Regen sales has gone up pretty steadily, and the technology is getting more prevalent and cheaper as a result. (Economies of scale.)
3) Part of the reason for rotten efficiency of any auto - particularly in the city where people such as yours truly drive every single day - is because of stop-and-go traffic. Regen captures much of those losses.
You'll be telling us it won't happen from now until the day almost all vehicles have it, Rich. Same with airbags. It'll be a standard soon.
The thing about the Bimmer is that it doesn't have a separate electric motor. However in a fuel cell vehicle, it's already there. I've told you all along (to your protests) that the auto engineers KNEW that hybrids were a stepping stone to the ultimate fuel cell vehicles. Regen with a fuel cell is actually simpler in some ways than a hybrid. When and if they ever can get the massive storage of H2 down, the regen and some simple batteries will make it all work better. And it's likely the only way you'll get high amperage electricy on demand (needed for torque and fast starts) and range.
Mark my word. What do you want to bet?
Anyhow... Fuel cells in a way STILL aren't the ultimate solution. Somewhere, somehow, you need the power plants to produce the H2 stored energy. That means some other kind of energy source. Fossil fuel? Nuclear? Biomass? Something else?
As for all the typical poo-pooing about hybrids... I've been waiting for the very time period you're describing, Rich. My wife is already eyeing the Lexus 400h. I don't think she'll be able to afford it. (She has other things she burns money on...) But she's looking.
I'm still waiting for an auto manufacturer which understands front-to-rear balance to produce a good hybrid. If not that, then I'll likely buy a diesel when the technology FINALLY breaks through in the states. The Germans have banded together with the might of all their auto companies to bring clean diesel (Blutec) to the US. They're talking about a really nice engine coming in the Cherokee. That just might make me buy an SUV.
And don't be surprised to find a little regen in these new diesels to support the electronics. It's only a matter of time.
- Bill
Have you taken a gander at the thread Van started on the Bimmer he's looking at, Rich? That isn't a hybrid vehicle, but even they are using regen. It's their own spin on how to use regen. Basically all the technology now demanded by consumer and safety concerns have upped the electrical requirements in vehicles steadily over the last few decades.
The demand is so much that BMW has elected to get some of it now through regen.
Basically there are several truisms at work here.
1) As gridlock goes up, energy lost from braking goes up.
2) Regen sales has gone up pretty steadily, and the technology is getting more prevalent and cheaper as a result. (Economies of scale.)
3) Part of the reason for rotten efficiency of any auto - particularly in the city where people such as yours truly drive every single day - is because of stop-and-go traffic. Regen captures much of those losses.
You'll be telling us it won't happen from now until the day almost all vehicles have it, Rich. Same with airbags. It'll be a standard soon.
The thing about the Bimmer is that it doesn't have a separate electric motor. However in a fuel cell vehicle, it's already there. I've told you all along (to your protests) that the auto engineers KNEW that hybrids were a stepping stone to the ultimate fuel cell vehicles. Regen with a fuel cell is actually simpler in some ways than a hybrid. When and if they ever can get the massive storage of H2 down, the regen and some simple batteries will make it all work better. And it's likely the only way you'll get high amperage electricy on demand (needed for torque and fast starts) and range.
Mark my word. What do you want to bet?
Anyhow... Fuel cells in a way STILL aren't the ultimate solution. Somewhere, somehow, you need the power plants to produce the H2 stored energy. That means some other kind of energy source. Fossil fuel? Nuclear? Biomass? Something else?
As for all the typical poo-pooing about hybrids... I've been waiting for the very time period you're describing, Rich. My wife is already eyeing the Lexus 400h. I don't think she'll be able to afford it. (She has other things she burns money on...) But she's looking.
I'm still waiting for an auto manufacturer which understands front-to-rear balance to produce a good hybrid. If not that, then I'll likely buy a diesel when the technology FINALLY breaks through in the states. The Germans have banded together with the might of all their auto companies to bring clean diesel (Blutec) to the US. They're talking about a really nice engine coming in the Cherokee. That just might make me buy an SUV.
And don't be surprised to find a little regen in these new diesels to support the electronics. It's only a matter of time.
- Bill
