Climate Change

[The SnowShow]

Patagonia says “fuck you Jackson Hole”:

https://unofficialnetworks.com/2021/...le-break-ties/

[brutah]

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.

And fuck anyone that associates with that Georgia congresswoman.

[DanoT]

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.

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?

[AirheadD8]

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.

"That's a fact jack"

[brutah]

So, are you saying that you personally don't ever ski J.H. due to the political beliefs of the owner?

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.

Change seems to be what the far right is most afraid and they scared of a lot

[Dantheman]

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

[ex-powderbroker]

some good pics albeit a dark tone:

https://www.landdesk.org/p/guest-pos...-in-the-desert

[thefrush]

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.

[dunfree]

I was talking about this the other day at the pub. We were reminiscing about the ‘90s, post Reagan/Bush, and how it seemed there was more hope for the future in regards to the planet and society. What happened? I think in large part it was the tech revolution.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

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 90s

[MagnificentUnicorn]

some good pics albeit a dark tone:

https://www.landdesk.org/p/guest-pos...-in-the-desert

I found it inspiring.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[MagnificentUnicorn]

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 90s

We’re not better


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[WMD]

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.

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.

(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.

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.

https://theicct.org/publications/glo...r-cars-jul2021

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.

[WMD]

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"

“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.

https://www.technologyreview.com/202...mpression=true

[raisingarizona13]

Americans buy more shit from China than any other country so talking shit about their pollution is pretty funny.

[raisingarizona13]

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.

(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-jul2021

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.

Good luck getting Americans to give up their auto addictions.

[WMD]

Good luck getting Americans to give up their auto addictions.

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.

[Core Shot]

Hey now.

I am not sharing ski boots

[WMD]

Hey now.

I am not sharing ski boots

Nobody touches my ski boots either

[adrenalated]

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.

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).

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.

[waxoff]

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:

[shaft]

I own 150 Mwh of solar.

Hmm, I kind of doubt it. How do you own watt-hours or joules or solar for that matter?

But Nat gas is not evil. Its clean burning and efficient. And better burned locally in your high efficiency boiler or water heater than being run through a peaker to generate electricity miles from your home, with transmission losses.
Or more likely, your Tesla is running on coal

Wow, this is so demonstrably untrue in so many ways. Impressive to see so much uneducated horseshit into three sentences, respectfully. One by one...

1. 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.
2. Go look up "exergy." In short, moving electrons > moving gases > moving liquids > moving solids. Electricity > gas > oil > coal.
3. Transmission losses in the electric grid are pretty darn low. 3-5%
4. 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.
5. 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.

[Core Shot]

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.

[GKWood]

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_performance
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.

[WMD]

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.

Fossil fuel use is not a step on the path to the end of fossil fuel use.

Quoted for truth

[shaft]

Gerritkwood has it going on. Here's a visual representation using a Sankey Diagram and average infra/system efficiencies in the US.



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