|
Post by socold on Mar 14, 2009 21:18:11 GMT
On the level that the power source for electric cars can be nuclear, coal, oil, anything while the possible power sources for combustion engines are greatly lower.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 14, 2009 21:20:14 GMT
Switching to electric vehicles opens the options for the power source. Well actually there are three requirements here. You need some kind of power source that will provide enough energy for millions of cars all probably wanting to charge overnight. There is a need for a distribution system that can carry that extra demand to both domestic and roadside charging points. For those of us that occasionally have to travel more than 100miles from a McDonalds - that may be a challenging requirement. Even in UK I have been in places that are more than 25 miles from a village or gas station. So There will have to be the equivalent of a spare can of gas In the cities it may be that electric cars could operate. For people who regularly drive 500 miles plus in a day carrying people or goods there is currently no real alternative to hydrocarbons. As it now looks like there are brewing capabilities for both diesel and petroleum fuels based on waste vegetation that are almost at the industrial level now. From an infrastructure cost point of view I think the electric car will be limited to urban and golf-cart markets at best.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 14, 2009 21:23:14 GMT
I agree with what you say there
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 15, 2009 0:21:45 GMT
<<Thud>>
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 15, 2009 0:33:29 GMT
Magellan Re: Earlier posts you conclude by saying You are using the classic CO2 AGW argument only CO2 can explain warming of the last 30 years NO I'M NOT. I'm arguing the exact opposite. It's pretty obvious you don't really read anything that you even suspect you might not agree with. To be honest you make most of the AGW crowd seem reasonable and balanced.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 15, 2009 2:08:14 GMT
Methinks thou dost protest too much, glc. A little decorum perhaps...
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Mar 15, 2009 3:05:48 GMT
Switching to electric vehicles opens the options for the power source. On the level of theory (just like CO2 drives temperature), sure. On the level of fact-based reality (like our convectively complex, chaotic atmosphere-ocean system), no. Well, I think your comments about both electric vehicles and the atmosphere are wrong. But I'm particularly interested in why you think some fact-based reality makes electric vehicles not have a choice of power sources. I mean, my reality is pretty real. I really am carbon-negative, and I really do have an electric vehicle, and I really do make a pretty large percentage of my electricity using the solar panels on my roof. So ... what, you know, "fact based reality" is keeping me (and you, if you wished) from doing this?
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Mar 15, 2009 3:12:39 GMT
Switching to electric vehicles opens the options for the power source. Well actually there are three requirements here. You need some kind of power source that will provide enough energy for millions of cars all probably wanting to charge overnight. Already exists. The difference between daytime and nighttime load is more than sufficient to charge vehicles overnight. Doing so would actually LOWER the cost of electricity by reducing the difference between base and peak loads. Doing things I can't discuss because I am working to patent them at the moment (I have 30-some-odd energy related patents in the works right now) will make matters even better. Except for places where there is NO electricity, that already exists. For those places, technology such as the Chevy Volt is now in the pipeline. See comment about Chevy Volt. Fortunately most people don't drive 500 miles a day. The average is significantly less, at something between 10,000 and 12,000 miles a year. Or less per day than my present electric vehicle goes on a charge. Why? I live 15 miles from downtown and I'm able to drive there and back (and bop around a bit ...) on a single charge. I suspect you're pretty out of touch with the existing technology.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 15, 2009 3:13:22 GMT
On the level of theory (just like CO2 drives temperature), sure. On the level of fact-based reality (like our convectively complex, chaotic atmosphere-ocean system), no. Well, I think your comments about both electric vehicles and the atmosphere are wrong. But I'm particularly interested in why you think some fact-based reality makes electric vehicles not have a choice of power sources. I mean, my reality is pretty real. I really am carbon-negative, and I really do have an electric vehicle, and I really do make a pretty large percentage of my electricity using the solar panels on my roof. So ... what, you know, "fact based reality" is keeping me (and you, if you wished) from doing this? If ten percent of vehicles were exchanged for plug-in models tomorrow, the amount of coal-fired electricity devoted to transportation would soar. Currently, internal-combustion engines are the more environmentally friendly option for the overwhelming number of people living in the West. That's the reality that I'm talking about. I'm not talking about "should," I'm talking about "is." By the way, though, too: Carbon dioxide is neither evil nor especially powerful. My family has been breathing it out all day in one another's company and we're doing fine!
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Mar 15, 2009 3:33:49 GMT
We're heck and gone from february temperatures. Heck, we're way past climate issues.
But just to get in my $.02, the grid's plenty big enough for night time charging since the difference between peak/night loads is incredible. And why do people always act as if transitions would be instantaneous. The transition to electric cars would take decades. It would use a lot of coal but of course, me understanding CO2 doesn't do all that much to the climate...my only concern is the increased pollution.
Of course, it sure would be nice if we had nuclear power providing a larger part of our power. Even factoring in the occasional Chernobyl events (which, BTW was gross negligence, they were intentionally disabling the safeties to see how hard they could push it) nuclear is STILL more environmentally friendly. Then we'd live in a cleaner world AND we'd be less reliant on oil.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Mar 15, 2009 4:14:09 GMT
Something like 80% of Americans drive less than 40 miles per day. Perfect for all-electric cars.
In New England, there is enough excess overnight generation and distribution capacity to power more than 8 million vehicles every night. Now. Today.
Sounds like a start. Seems like there might be a few years of ramping up of electric car adoption before it exceeds the capacity, plenty of time to build most forms of generation, even perhaps nuclear in a friendlier political environment.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Mar 15, 2009 4:17:11 GMT
I shoulda read poitsplace's post before posting mine. Suffice to say (and I already have) ditto... as long as we're talking about 4th generation reactors that consume most of the input material.
|
|
|
Post by walterdnes on Mar 15, 2009 7:05:00 GMT
Hadley is in for February, 2009. Here are the results... | Hadley | GISS | UAH | RSS | Predicted | 0.474 | 0.56 | 0.338 | 0.324 | Actual | 0.345 | 0.41 | 0.350 | 0.234 |
So UAH daily anomalies are quite good for predicting UAH monthly anomalies... and not much else ;D I notice that the UAH anomaly is higher than the Hadley anomaly, which only seems to happen during local peaks. This implies lower anomalies over the next few months. We'll see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 15, 2009 10:18:24 GMT
Methinks thou dost protest too much, glc.
A little decorum perhaps... Woodstove This is becoming increasingly bizarre. Have you actually followed the exchange with magellan. I posted some statistics from the GISS Arctic temperature record which showed quite clearly that it's highly unlikely that CO2 is responsible for all (or even some) Arctic warming. Have you understood that. I gave some figures that show CO2 IS (PROBABLY) NOT RESPONSIBLEMagellan then responded with some nonsense about me using "the classic CO2 AGW argument". Now I've occasionally come across this sort of blind, knee jerk response on the more rabid AGW blogs, but thought that sceptics were a much more open minded bunch. I was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 15, 2009 10:38:46 GMT
So UAH daily anomalies are quite good for predicting UAH monthly anomalies... and not much else I notice that the UAH anomaly is higher than the Hadley anomaly, which only seems to happen during local peaks. This implies lower anomalies over the next few months. We'll see what happens. It looks like you've nailed the UAH predictions, but there have been indications that the surface and satellite readings have been heading in different directions over the past couple of months. This is probably due to a different 'lag' in the response to SSTs.
|
|