Printable View
Been seeing a lot of echo recently regarding climate change activists/leaders having "inflexible views on climate change"
Is this a new talking point that's being tested? Who or what is it it implying that we're supposed to have give and take with? The atmosphere?
#earthinthebalance
#algore
We have known about this for decades.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
I’m reasonably well read on the subject, am in local government, and am a strong advocate for the changes required to prevent complete ecosystem collapse. However it also seems pretty clear that our democratic governance, our capitalist economy, and the heuristic limitations of human nature don’t currently permit the magnitude of change required to address what the science tells us is necessary. The most ambitious measures currently being considered by our governments aren’t nearly enough, and even more critically they aren’t sophisticated enough to account for the the economic and social feedback loops that will quickly negate them. Here’s a primer:Quote:
Originally Posted by WMD
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...21800919304203
If you have ideas for how to get the majority of voters to support the fundamental economic restructuring required, I’m all ears.
the only inflexible views on the environment are those of the deniersQuote:
Originally Posted by joeshek
care to decipher the incoherent last sentence?
I agree there are structural barriers to staying within climate and other environmental limits. But, did we give up when the German's bombed Pearl Harbor? It will be hard but nothing is impossible, and this is kinda important so we gotta try.Quote:
Originally Posted by kootenayskier
Currently most experts agree that enacted policies around the world put us on a path to 3C of warming by 2100, with continued warming into the next centuries. This would be catastrophic.
Proposed policies, if enacted, could keep that to 2.4C. Still awful, but way better. We need to make sure those policies are put in place and followed through. Then, we try to chip away at more and get the market to kick in to help us switch to EVs, etc, rapidly. Then get a few more aggressive policies enacted and maybe we stay to 2C.
Giving up leads to catastrophe. We have to do better than that and it
takes all of us working together to get anywhere. Failure is not an option, especially if you are young or have kids or grandkids or nephews/nieces. If you are old and don't have relatives who will experience this shitty future, I don't blame you for giving up. But please just shut up and enjoy your life and don't stop the rest of us from doing what is necessary.
Edit to add: Check out Naomi Klein's "This Changes Everything" for ideas on how we make the necessary structural changes.
Patagonia says “fuck you Jackson Hole”:
https://unofficialnetworks.com/2021/...le-break-ties/
That's funny that they decide this now. I'm pretty sure the Kemmerer's made their money in coal to begin with, but good for Patagonia. I'm glad some corporatations, particularly in the outdoor industries have grown a backbone and aren't all talk when it comes to the environment.Quote:
Originally Posted by The SnowShow
And fuck anyone that associates with that Georgia congresswoman.
So, are you saying that you personally don't ever ski J.H. due to the political beliefs of the owner?Quote:
Originally Posted by brutah
"That's a fact jack"Quote:
Originally Posted by WMD
Naw, just that I support a company that stands behind their convictions. We won't have the opportunity to ski much longer if we keep supporting the far right and stay scared of making changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanoT
Change seems to be what the far right is most afraid and they scared of a lot
First ever recorded rain at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet (10,500' amsl): https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/to...cid=uxbndlbing
some good pics albeit a dark tone:
https://www.landdesk.org/p/guest-pos...-in-the-desert
WMD, I appreciate your optimistic outlook and for sharing ideas with the community here to try and redirect the attitude from one of pure demise. I do have a question for you regarding EVs out of sincere curiosity, as that is one of the things you listed being a shift in the market towards a better energy solution. My question is, are EVs all that much better than internal combustion vehicles? I know batteries are getting better but they still have a lifespan, and the mining for materials is obviously quite invasive. They roll on rubber tires and drive on roads made from asphalt & concrete. So how much of a positive impact would an entire societal shift to EVs actually be? And is it realistic in the next 2 or 3 decades? Thanks again.
what happened? The ex-communist world went backwards. You can bitch about capitalism, but authoritarians give fewer fucks about the environment, and absolutely hate the civil society groups that do care about the environment. Despite lip service, China, Russia, hate the fucking environment and want it paved under. India doesn’t give that many fucks either. Their poverty let us pretend in5e 90sQuote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn
I found it inspiring.Quote:
Originally Posted by ml242
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
We’re not betterQuote:
Originally Posted by dunfree
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
EV's are much better for addressing climate change as their life cycle emissions are much lower than those of internal combustion engines. EV's are much more efficient at converting energy to motion, thus they require a lot less energy to travel than ICE's. They really make a difference when we clean up the grid so that they are powered by clean electricity. They actually can even help to clean up the grid by providing energy storage to help even out the intermittent nature of wind and solar, helping move to grids with more and more wind and solar. Vehicle to Grid power is already possible, and when there are lots of EV's in service they can provide a huge amount of electricity storage. When manufacturing is also powered by clean energy, their life cycle footprint gets better still.Quote:
Originally Posted by thefrush
(Colorado’s most powerful climate tool isn’t what you think: Electric vehicles can reduce the state’s emissions more than anything else)
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envir...newable-energy
I bet EV's will replace ICE vehicles working two decades almost completely, just as the automobile replaced the horse and buggy quite rapidly. There will be tipping points where manufacturers will go all in on EV's and stop producing ICE's, and as more people get EV's the charging infrastructure will develop rapidly so that they are practical for long range travel. Fast charging will improve, and it will compete with other business models where you pull into a shop and they swap your drained battery for a charged one in minutes (there are companies working on this now). I know many on here will disagree, but the future is electric.
Here are some excerpts from a study comparing life cycle emissions of EV's to ICE's in different scenarios in different parts of the world. EV's are better in all scenarios.
https://theicct.org/publications/glo...r-cars-jul2021Quote:
This wide-ranging life-cycle assessment (LCA) examines the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of passenger cars, including SUVs. Performed separately and in depth for Europe, the United States, China, and India, the analysis captures the differences among those markets, which are home to about 70% of global new passenger car sales. It considers present and projected future GHG emissions attributable to every stage in the life cycles of both vehicles and fuels, from extracting and processing raw materials through refining and manufacture to operation and eventual recycling or disposal. . .
Results show that even for cars registered today, battery electric vehicles (BEVs) have by far the lowest life-cycle GHG emissions. As illustrated in the figure below, emissions over the lifetime of average medium-size BEVs registered today are already lower than comparable gasoline cars by 66%–69% in Europe, 60%–68% in the United States, 37%–45% in China, and 19%–34% in India. Additionally, as the electricity mix continues to decarbonize, the life-cycle emissions gap between BEVs and gasoline vehicles increases substantially when considering medium-size cars projected to be registered in 2030.
Highlights of the paper are in the fact sheets attached below, one covering the full scope of the analysis and the other, in German, focused on Europe. See here for the Europe-focused fact sheet in English. This work is also incorporated in a briefing that’s part of our work with the Zero Emission Vehicles Transition Council.
As some have pointed out there is a difference between limiting greenhouse gases to mitigate climate change and other environmental impacts of overconsumption. We really need to consume less, so hopefully we will get car sharing going so that we can eliminate the need for everyone to own their own car. Most cars sit parked all day and with better ride and car sharing apps they could be used more and we wouldn't all need our own cars.
We have a chance to pass real climate legislation this year. Call your Senators and Congressional Reps and urge them to support it.
"The $3.5 trillion budget bill could transform the US power sector—and slash climate pollution"
https://www.technologyreview.com/202...mpression=trueQuote:
“If we want to achieve real, deep cuts in emissions, we’ve got to do it through clean electricity,” says Leah Stokes, an assistant professor of political science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who has consulted on the policy.
Meanwhile, other studies have found the shift to around 80% carbon-free electricity would spur $1.5 trillion of investments into clean energy, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and save hundreds of thousands of lives over the coming decades through reduced air pollution.
Americans buy more shit from China than any other country so talking shit about their pollution is pretty funny.
Good luck getting Americans to give up their auto addictions.Quote:
Originally Posted by WMD
Old people won't do it but I am constantly surprised by how much young people are willing to share cars, bikes, skis, ski boots, etc. I think they will have no problems not owning cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by raisingarizona13
Hey now.
I am not sharing ski boots
Nobody touches my ski boots eitherQuote:
Originally Posted by Core Shot
There's several good analyses out there on the lifecycle carbon emissions of an EV compared to an ICE car, and obviously you need to make a bunch of assumptions in those analyses, but the estimates are generally that the break even point for carbon emissions on an EV is around 15,000-20,000 miles of driving. The EV has more carbon emissions to produce it, but after 10-20k the emissions savings catch up (even using the current US energy mix of fossil fuels vs renewables in the calculations).Quote:
Originally Posted by thefrush
EV demand will skyrocket as soon as the average carbuyer figures out that EVs are actually a superior experience for what most people want out of a car, which is comfortable and hassle free way to get from point A to point B. EVs are quiet, smooth, maintenance free, and easy to drive. All the things that made manual transmissions extinct? EVs do those things even better. The biggest hurdle is that most people are still intimidated by slow charging times - we're just accustomed to ignoring our fuel gauge until the warning light comes on, and relying on the fact that there is a gas station on every corner - even though they shouldn't be since you wake up every morning with full fuel if you're plugging in and charging at home (and I'm willing to bet that most new car buyers are also homeowners that can install charging equipment). The only issue is road tripping which A) most people don't do and B) the infrastructure is very quickly improving, making long distance trips easier and more reasonable and that is going to continue.
One of our three vehicles is currently an EV, and within 5 years one of the ICE cars will almost certainly be replaced by a second EV. The truck is hard to say, but I'm pretty positive I won't ever purchase another new ICE automobile again.
I agree that things have to change, and that EV’s have a place in the current equation. However, I am not convinced that it is the, be all, end all, type solution. There are other ways to carry energy in vehicles that batteries. Toyota seem to be deep into hydrogen fuel cells, with all their complications and limitations. Some others have a different (and somewhat simpler) approach to achieve zero CO2 emmissions in certain uses. I appreciate that discussion and those initiatives, and also find them really interesting.
Check what’s going on at JCB and their perspective for their products:
http://youtu.be/19Q7nAYjAJY
Hmm, I kind of doubt it. How do you own watt-hours or joules or solar for that matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by Core Shot
Wow, this is so demonstrably untrue in so many ways. Impressive to see so much uneducated horseshit into three sentences, respectfully. One by one...Quote:
Originally Posted by Core Shot
- Natural gas is not clean from a climate change perspective. If this thread was about smog, or acid rain, or particulate matter, sure! But it does almost nothing to reduce greenhouse gases. When accounting for fugitive emissions of the natural gas grid, it is quite possibly worse for climate change than coal. Both "natural" and "clean" are marketing fodder from the gas industry.
- Go look up "exergy." In short, moving electrons > moving gases > moving liquids > moving solids. Electricity > gas > oil > coal.
- Transmission losses in the electric grid are pretty darn low. 3-5%
- Electric vehicles are damn efficient due to regen braking and exergy. A Tesla, for example, only uses about 12HP on average over a given year.
- Electric buildings with heat pumps are damn efficient because heat pump. It actually uses less gas to power a gas-fired power plant and use that to run a heat pump water heater or space heater than it does to run a gas furnace or water heater in your house. Yes, with transmission losses. Put 100 BTU of gas into the grid to power a heat pump, get 166 BTU of heat out. Put 100 BTU into your furnace, get 80 BTU of heat out.
Fossil fuel use is not a step on the path to the end of fossil fuel use.
Put 100 BTU of gas into the grid to power a heat pump, get 166 BTU of heat out.
Can you post any links? That seems like a perpetual motion/energy machine.
PS. As I corrected many pages earlier, I mistyped. I own 150kW of solar not mW. Yes. Mistake hit a M instead of a K. But your comment is silly. Max production is 150kWh. Which is what a 150kW array can produce in an hour. I own all the joules pouring out of the system. Which I resell for cash money to buy jewels and binoculars to hang from the head of a mule.
Check out the Wikipedia article on Coefficient of Performance here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeffi...of_performanceQuote:
Originally Posted by Core Shot
Essentially, a heat pump uses electricity to transfer heat from outside your house into your house. This is similar to how a fridge or an A/C works (but in reverse) and is fundamentally different from burning natural gas for heat or using a resistive heater to convert electrons into heat. It is also much more efficient (100 kWh of electricity can transfer 100-500+ kWh of heat depending on the outside temperature).
Of course, there are efficiency losses in converting natural gas to electricity, but these losses (a combined cycle natural gas plant has overall losses of about 40-60%) tend to be smaller than the efficiency gains a heat pump provides. For instance, 100 kWh of natural gas can be converted to 55 kWh of electricity in a combined cycle natural gas plant; after transmission losses you still have 50 + kWh. Those 50+ kWh can give you 200+ kWh of heat when using a heat pump. That beats using 100 kWh of natural gas in a home furnace heater and getting 80-90 kWh of useful heat.
Quoted for truthQuote:
Originally Posted by shaft
Gerritkwood has it going on. Here's a visual representation using a Sankey Diagram and average infra/system efficiencies in the US.
Attachment 383456
Point is heat pumps are just crazy efficient. They're just air conditioners running in reverse. The electrification industry treats them like hot new tech, but it was actually invented in 1857. Abe Lincoln was not yet president.
The most low-cost thing a homeowner can do to reduce the carbon footprint in their home* is to specify a heat pump when they replace their AC unit. Costs about $1,000 at time of replacement, energy costs are a wash, reduces home carbon emissions by 40-50% (assuming you buy green power or eventually get green power.)
*without a lifestyle change
It's worth mentioning that heat pumps do struggle when it's really cold outside (efficiency drops a lot and it becomes close to resistive heater), and in some places gas is so cheap (as compared to electricity) that heat pump energy costs can be more expensive than using a gas furnace. However, for the large majority of Americans the first point is not an issue (most Americans don't live in MT/NH/... ; TGR might be an exception here) , and the second point can be addressed with subsidies and/or putting a price on carbon.
At 40* a HP starts to lose efficiency, at 25* it's less efficient than a furnace. We're on the cusp of a HP, 5 months a year it would be running at less than peak efficiency.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerritkwood
We're close to replacing our gas furnace and AC unit so I've recently researched this
https://www.moncriefair.com/blog/at-...ing-effective/
One thing to keep in mind, it's not homeowners heating with natural gas that's causing the most CO2 output, it's electrical generation plants that are the biggest offenders of burning natural gas. Yes everything makes a difference, but the largest emitters should be the first to change
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sou...-gas-emissions
Attachment 383460
PS-$1,000 for a HP vs a furnace is way low, probably closer to 2 or 3k more. We're still leaning toward a HP
Good stuff here, Thanks G & Shaft for adding to the conversation.
RE: ICE VS EV VS Hydrogen. Like all new industry, vehicle manufacturers will stake out a type of propulsion be it EV or H and we will see what innovation and technology will bring to market, H Fuel Cells see like a great idea.
Most experts I read say that EV's are the answer for light vehicles and even short haul trucks. Green hydrogen (gray and blue are worse than gas) could be a solution for long distance heavy transportation.
Hydrogen is less efficient, as there are energy losses at multiple steps from using electricity to create hydrogen through electrolysis and then converting it back to electricity to power a vehicle. Just using electricity is more efficient.
"Green Hydrogen — Where Is It Useful? Where Is It Not?"
https://cleantechnica.com/2021/01/31...mpression=trueQuote:
In this episode of our CleanTech Talk podcast interview series, Zach Shahan sits down with Mark Z. Jacobson, professor at Stanford University and co-founder of The Solutions Project, to discuss green hydrogen. ..
Zach’s focus for this episode of CleanTech Talk is everything green hydrogen from the perspective of Mark, one of the world’s top renewable energy scientists. As a hot topic in clean energy circles, Zach was concerned green hydrogen technology might not deserve the hype it’s been getting as a significant sustainable energy solution. They also dabble in the topic of carbon capture and storage (CCS).
Zach and Mark start their discussion on green hydrogen by exploring where it is particularly useful today and where it might be useful in the future. Hydrogen, as Mark explains, is mainly beneficial when talking about long-distance, heavy transport. And, he emphasizes, it is typically only a good solution if it is created by clean renewable energy in the first place. Why long-distance, heavy transport? According to Mark, it is much easier, more energy efficient, and more cost efficient to use conventional batteries in personal electric vehicles. However, there is a crossover point at which carrying around too many batteries means a loss of efficiency due to how heavy they are, indicating the point at which green hydrogen fuel cells become a more sustainable option.
Gonna start with a very loud, THIS IS NOT TRUE! Just in case the casual reader doesn't return.Quote:
Originally Posted by k2skier112
Hey man, where do you live? There are cold-climate heat pumps, and there are standard ones.
- Standard - built and optimized for FL, or for use with a backup system. Backup will either be gas or electric resistance. Gas sucks because it is a fossil fuel, but is good because it provides higher supply air temperatures.. Electric sucks because you are talking big amperage requirements. Maybe 60-80A just for the backup. These are the ones that lose efficiency at the rate you are talking. $2-3k cost increase vs. AC is higher than I'm seeing. In Norway, where there is no gas, and the electricity is clean, the standard backup heating system is wood.
- Cold climate - built and optimized to run down to low temperatures. If you're talking a central system, these can start to lose efficiency (still ~3x as efficient as gas) around 17F, then stop working at about 4F. Mitsubishi Hyperheat and Bosch IDS are some cold climate heat pumps that I like, but there are many. In most US climates, cold climate heat pumps do not need a backup system
- Cold climate, ductless split systems will operate down to -13F. I'm assuming above you have a central system and are trying to stick with that. Just noting this.
PM me if you wanna talk it through. I'm a mech engineer with a PE in HVAC. I very often help people electrify their homes. I got 30-60m to help anyone on TGR with that. There is so much variation in houses, it can be not always easy. You're right that a cold climate should set you back an extra $2-3k, but will also be super efficient.
FWIW, 25% of homes in the US are all-electric. My conservative in-laws own two, just by happenstance, and one is in a climate that gets pretty cold. Both on heat pumps, not backup.
Super important to include this chart, but I argue it is incorrect. Def a solid source, but the assumptions are all wonky. What are the problems?:Quote:
Originally Posted by k2skier112
- Lack of leakage in the gas system accounted for. On a 20-yr time-horizon, methane (aka natural gas) is ~84x worse for the environment than CO2. This means a little leakage goes a long way. By my math, this increases the gas pie by about 75%
- Including electricity is confusing. It is important for accounting backwards, and for avoiding 2degC, but not good for planning. The grid gets cleaner, so lifecycle grid emissions factors are critical for equipment selection. Essentially, you care about average grid emissions factor over the 15-yr life of your heating system going through 2036; not what it looked like last year.
- There are places in the US with 100% carbon free electricity, and Norway/Iceland have been there my entire career. Once you get to carbon free electricity, and include methane leakage gas in our buildings accounts for 30% of national emissions
Bottom line, for climate planning it is safe to assume 30-40% of emissions in 2030 will be from gas in buildings unless we do something. The grid is getting cleaner, the buildings are not.
BTW, I'm not an electrification junky. My dream car is a 1969 Firebird with a v8. I'm a mechanical eng, not electrical. If there was a solution within combustion, I would've found it. There isn't. Ditch the gas. Shit is whack.
We've got a Mitsubishi high efficiency mini split heat pump for part of our home in WY, and it is supposedly 100% efficient to 15 degrees or lower. It still works at -13, but it isn't efficient at that temperature. It works great and we love it.
Been lurkin this thread from inception.
Got nothin to bring to this table cept maintaining a low impact life style.
And complimenting y'all on not only edjumicating a buncha fellow mags, but doing it amicably.
One of few threads where the next post compliments and adds to the last...
Thanks, Jimmy
Thx for the info shaft et al.
Have a few split systems and they are awesome.
Even more efficient when you typically end up with more zones than a typical forced air or water. Just heat or cool the rooms you are using.
Anyone with resistance heat should convert. A small office conversion has saved so much money last winter on electric Bill.
Payback in a few years.
And running in dehu mode is awesome when it’s only humid and not raging hot.
Great info here on the heat pumps.
We have gas heat, which I’m not going to change right now, but the gas water heater is coming due.
I’ve been lead to believe that I should get an electric heat pump water heater. It would be in the conditioned space. Anyone have good info on that front? We are in IECC zone 4c I think and have pretty cheap electricity.
Some DJ was spouting off yesterday about how much cleaner gas vehicles are running these days and EV are worse for the environment because of the batteries...creation and disposal. Horseshit, right?