No, this is not a political idea, it's strictly a scientific and engineering message. The idea that the world can convert and massively re-engineer our entire energy system in a few short years is best called a "pipe dream" and the evidence is piling up. In California and Illinois that I know of the government is telling electric vehicle drivers to NOT charge their vehicles right now because it could bring down the electric grid. In France they are working to restart a number of mothballed nuclear power plants to deal with an expected energy shortage now and this winter. A nephew of mine was a nuclear power plant operator in Iowa till he had to find another job (not in nuclear power) because the plant where he worked was scheduled to be shutdown very soon.
I have worked in and around electric power generation systems and know our electric grid is massive, vulnerable, fragile, widely distributed and nearly impossible to rework on short notice (meaning decades or even centuries of years at minimum). There is little margin for error as when you flip that light switch, the electricity you need is generated almost instantly. That leaves little room for error.
Green energy has just too many issues right now to be a viable complete alternative. Green energy is subject to mother nature's whims which can be location specific. With the widely distributed geography of this country, a widely distributed reliable energy grid is going to require either a viable storage system or many more electrical distribution lines to transport electricity from the haves to the have nots. Wishful thinking is not going to be enough. Then on top of the basic electric demand right now, if we try to add the energy demands of transportation on top of existing electric demand, it's just too much to expect in a short time frame.
Here is what is going on in Europe today which will be coming to this country soon.
The 'illusion' of green energy has come 'crumbling' down in Europe (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgVmBZb7QnY)
Much of this is very promising and will be the future but not soon as you've stated. It will be interesting to see how things develop over the next 50-100 years and how subject to software issues future technology will be. I'm still a big fan of breaker points and carburetors but outside of a few vintage engines (mostly chainsaws in my case) such ignition & induction systems together have seen their last production days quite a while ago.
One of the problems is what's called "spinning reserve". That's generating capacity that's running, but not at full load, so it can be ramped up very quickly to cover spikes in power demand.
Traditional thermal stations (boiler / turbine) take hours to get an idle unit back online, and Nukes would be days. They do best running as "base load" with the units running at 90+% for efficiency. Natural gas or even diesel generators have a much faster startup, so are more often used as "peak" or backup. NZ has a couple of small diesel stations that are simply used as "smoothing", they can be run at low power and tweaked up and down slightly as demand (or the wind) changes.
NZ is in a fortunate position to make almost 100% renewable electricty possible. But that's not the same as simple, and certainly not the same as cheap. The largest power generation here is hydro, which is pretty predictable short term, so generation can be ramped up in minutes (drawing on the stored water in lakes). The issue we have is a dry season, less rain going into the lakes over winter. If the lakes get too low (and the wind drops), we would run short on generation. That's a different problem from the "spinning reserve", it's more a "power storage" issue.
One solution put forward is a big pumped hydro system, and it's in the early planning stages. It would basically double the existing hydro storage, with water being pumped up into the lake when there was excess generating capacity. Thus giving that long term reserve.
But it won't be a cheap solution. Cost of electricity will have to go up to cover the cost.
https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/low-emissions-economy/nz-battery/lake-onslow-option/
Was CA telling its citizens not to charge electric vehicles? Or not to charge them at times of high demand? There is a big difference.
An electric vehicle that doesn't use it's full range every day could be part of the solution. They can be charged at times of day when demand is lowest then backfeed that power to the house or grid when demand is high while hanging on to enough charge to cover much more than the driver uses on a typical day. That way even though the house is using the same amount of energy it is able to shift almost all of it's consumption to times of lowest demand and none durring peek hours.
Not sure I want to walk up to a 1/4 full pickup after I filled it up in the morning and I need to run a bunch of errands an hour away before places close for the weekend, especially when we are talking about hours to refill the battery.
There is no substitution for grid capacity. If we are going to add demand, we need to add even more capacity to account for disruptions, fluctuations, etc. Basically look at the Colorado River issue right now, at the end of the day it's the additional demand (people) that are causing the shortage, not the supply fluctuation.
Instead of sole dependency on electricity, why not explore possible substitutes for fossil fuel ? Maybe bio fuel?
For the past 10 year i have been using upto 40% vegetable oils in my turbo diesel car and nearly 70% in my car with a naturally aspirated diesel car. The latter has a higher compression ratio.
I collect used cooking oils, unsellable cooking oils from oil mills and even the accumulated sediments of mills, use a regular deep fat fryer set at its lowest temperature to allow heat to clarify the oil.
I use this clarified oil as fuel. Sometimes I blend in .5% gasoline to lower the flash point of the oil. No adverse effects , no visible pollution if the vehicle pollution testing center results are to be believed. And, it reduces my fuel bills quite a bit. Works bests in my non turbo car since the 21:1 compression ratio ensures clean burn at all engine speeds and engine smoothness
My LBZ has never run better, or had better economy than when it runs on B99 diesel, and that's the pump stuff. I am familiar with gasoline / diesel blending like you mention using cold pressed sunflower oil and up to 20% gasoline - produces more HP in equipment than dino diesel. Pretty obvious when you can pull a 40' fallow master in one gear higher by just changing what went into the tank.
I have a small solar set-up at my off-grid farm and have dozens of solar lights on my various outbuildings. I am plenty supportive of the concept. I was also a very early user of cell phones(Motorola bag-phone in the mid 90s) and no longer have a landline telephone. Time and technology marches on. Electronic ignition has proven to be much more reliable than points. I am very pleased with my electronic Stihl's and my battery powered hand tools but there is no alternative for a felling chainsaw as of yet so don't outlaw the gas model I depend on or the diesel tractor on my farm that has no electric service.
I am a firm believer that the market will deliver solutions if allowed. I also believe Isaac Newton summed things quite nicely with his "Equal and Opposite Reaction" theory and that some amongst seem to buy into the idea that government can provide a free lunch. Somebody somewhere has to pay and the ecological savings from "clean power" in LA will be paid for with sand dredging, copper mining, aluminum smelting somewhere else and the third world miners doing the mining and smelting will someday want their own air conditioners and cell phones too.
If the world lies at a tipping point it is because too many are consuming too much and that people fighting for survival in Sri Lanka or Somalia have their own concerns and air quality or a temp rise in LA probably isn't too high on their list of priorities. The money being spent to "outlaw" fossil fuel in the developed world will achieve nothing on the gobal scale as the third world will be glad to gobble up and burn the oil we abandoned. Let the "Alternatives" develop on their own, spend a few tax dollars to subsidize research and help the less developed become more efficient.
If electric cars and solar power prove to be superior the market will adapt without coercion or management by government "experts".
Quote from: stavebuyer on September 13, 2022, 04:47:37 AMf electric cars and solar power prove to be superior the market will adapt without coercion or management by government "experts".
I understand your point, but if you rely 100% on pure economic forces you might not like the results. It's pretty well accepted that uncontrolled burning of coal is a bad idea. General air pollution / acid rain / cancerous chemicals etc, without even getting started on CO2.
So Govt policies discourage coal use for sensible reasons. Same with car air pollution standards, airline safety standards etc.
Quote from: joe_indi on September 12, 2022, 10:36:52 PMInstead of sole dependency on electricity, why not explore possible substitutes for fossil fuel ? Maybe bio fuel?
It's being done. Air NZ has been working with Boeing / Airbus and the engine makers to test various vegetable oils in jet engines. It can be done, but there are of course issues with certifying the fuels and engine to make sure they work. No good if the fuel turns solid at -50C when you are in the middle of the Pacific Ocean etc.
Brazil is already a big user of Ethanol Fuel, with regular gas being E25 and most new cars able to run on E100 (pure Ethanol). This has of course required some Govt "encouragement" in the form of higher taxes in gas vs ethanol. But once that playing field is set up car makers have had no problem producing vehicles that work properly on "flex fuel".
But like a lot of things, what's technically possible and what scales up to large scale adoption are two different things. Like where is all the vege oil and ethanol going to come from? Maybe rows of sugar beet planted between the solar panels ???
Quote from: stavebuyer on September 13, 2022, 04:47:37 AMThe money being spent to "outlaw" fossil fuel in the developed world will achieve nothing on the gobal scale as the third world will be glad to gobble up and burn the oil we abandoned. Let the "Alternatives" develop on their own, spend a few tax dollars to subsidize research and help the less developed become more efficient.
If electric cars and solar power prove to be superior the market will adapt without coercion or management by government "experts".
Truer words have never be written.
The ethanol thing was great in concept and poor in execution, again, not political but as explained by a fellow engineer.
America Was Wrong About Ethanol - Study Shows - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-yDKeya4SU)
Electric cars are nothing new! 1909 Baker electric car that Jay Leno owns and drives
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OhnjMdzGusc (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OhnjMdzGusc)
Interesting comparison of E 85 to Gasoline from Edmunds. In the long run the E 85 cost $30 for for the same trip even though the initial cost/gallon was lower. Also the lbs of CO2 emitted was only 3.5lbs more with gasoline because of the increased use / efficiency of the ethanol. https://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/e85-vs-gasoline-comparison-test.html
It also can be a range issue if you're in the middle of nowhere, like 300 miles between stations and your vehilce will go 350m on E0 but only 290 miles on E85, makes the last leg walking with a gas can a bit more unpleasant.
Quote from: Southside on September 12, 2022, 10:30:02 PM
Not sure I want to walk up to a 1/4 full pickup after I filled it up in the morning and I need to run a bunch of errands an hour away before places close for the weekend, especially when we are talking about hours to refill the battery.
There is no substitution for grid capacity. If we are going to add demand, we need to add even more capacity to account for disruptions, fluctuations, etc. Basically look at the Colorado River issue right now, at the end of the day it's the additional demand (people) that are causing the shortage, not the supply fluctuation.
That is where you plan in advance, if you know tomorrow you will need to drive more than what you usually do you keep more of a charge in your battery. The average EV has a range of 250 miles at 40kwh. The average daily commute in America is 40 miles.
Lets knock off the top and bottom 10% of the battery and say the realistic range is 200 miles or 32kwh. If you want to keep 100 miles of range in your battery that leaves you 16 kwh of electricity that you can use to power your home or back feed the grid during peak hours. Since the average home use 30kwh's per day that 16 kwh would cover half the needs of the house and still allow you to drive 100 mile. If you have an energy efficient house and conserve due to shortages you could reduce that 30kwh down to 20 or even less without making huge sacrifices.
I don't disagree that more load means they need more production, but batteries in every drive way can help to even out when the load is needed and not require more expensive peaker plants to switch on reduce the rick of power outages, and if there are power outages the houses can use the power from the battery to continue life as normal.
Quote from: joe_indi on September 12, 2022, 10:36:52 PM
Instead of sole dependency on electricity, why not explore possible substitutes for fossil fuel ? Maybe bio fuel?
For the past 10 year i have been using upto 40% vegetable oils in my turbo diesel car and nearly 70% in my car with a naturally aspirated diesel car. The latter has a higher compression ratio.
I collect used cooking oils, unsellable cooking oils from oil mills and even the accumulated sediments of mills, use a regular deep fat fryer set at its lowest temperature to allow heat to clarify the oil.
I use this clarified oil as fuel. Sometimes I blend in .5% gasoline to lower the flash point of the oil. No adverse effects , no visible pollution if the vehicle pollution testing center results are to be believed. And, it reduces my fuel bills quite a bit. Works bests in my non turbo car since the 21:1 compression ratio ensures clean burn at all engine speeds and engine smoothness
For some reason biofuel was mostly skipped in the attempted switch from gasoline and diesel to electricity. Even though gas vehicles being made and sold to day may still be working 20-30 or 40 years from now so having a way to power them on man made fuels from renewables feels like it should have been a priority.
Especially since there are many applications where electric simply won't work, It would be easier to run farm equipment that is run 20 hours a day at harvest time with some type of liquid fuel than it would be to run it on electricity due to the charging time and the fact that most fields don't have charging stations set up for the two times a year that a bunch of equipment will be needing to recharge in a very short window. A fuel that can be brought out in a fuel truck and fuel things up in minutes is what is needed for most farm and construction equipment and isn't possible with batteries YET. Man made fuels from renewables would be a great midway point between diesel and electricity.
How come we hear very little, actually nothing about tidal energy.
Nobody makes any money that way?
Quote from: Jeff on September 13, 2022, 03:34:48 PM
How come we hear very little, actually nothing about tidal energy.
As I understand, several demonstration projects have shown just how harsh a salt water environment is for generators. The robustness needed for this makes the resulting economics laughable.
You mean, like wind.
So how much energy do you feel is expended to lift a 1200ft fully loaded container ship twice at dock for 24 hrs if you had to do it without the tide? How much would it generate when it went back down, without the tide.
I'm in the neighbourhood of some of the worlds highest tides (Bay of Fundy), there is a tidal generator in Annapolis Royal on the river where they trap the tide going up but it was shut down a few years ago after running for almost 40 years.
There has been testing on in stream generators around Brier Island near Digby (they look like stout windmills) but I think all of them have failed before they ever got corroded by getting beat up by the tides and big rocks moving around. I think that the engineers under estimated the power of the water there.
I have thought of the idea of large containers being floated up and down with the tide actuating a generator, I figure if they were on a pole of some sort you could have one that fills up and goes down with the tide (or shortly after) then empties to float up again and another that fills up and waits until the tide is down so it can generate power when the other one is at ebb tide then empty and wait to go up to generate power when the other is at flood tide that way there would always be power generated with no interruptions at ebb and flood tide.
The tide height at Digby is about 20' further up the bay it gets to 50'.
Quote from: Jeff on September 13, 2022, 03:34:48 PM
How come we hear very little, actually nothing about tidal energy.
There is actually a fairly active industry trying to come up with tidal energy projects that are affordable and durable. To date the most promising units are capturing power from underwater currents. The problem is its very rough environment. There are some prototypes that go for tidal action but they tend to be very complex and dependent on incentives.
DDT was a "wonder chemical" until it wasn't. California's Imperial Valley can feed us all. Hydro is the solution, but now we are tearing out the dams. Atoms will power the future; we are smart enough to build failsafe systems and deal with the waste. Coal causes acid rain; but Wyoming's cleaner coal can fix that. Natural gas is clean and abundant. Thats the path to energy independence.
I am uneducated yet smart enough to know that I don't know. Seems to take the highly educated a while longer to come to that conclusion. Anything new and implemented on a grand scale is going to generate unintended consequences because we are nowhere near as omnipotent as we imagine ourselves to be. A lesson we seem unable to learn.
But this time will be different. :D
It's amazing the amount of education that goes into becoming totally oblivious and void of common sense.
Quote from: stavebuyer on September 13, 2022, 07:45:42 PMAnything new and implemented on a grand scale is going to generate unintended consequences because we are nowhere near as omnipotent as we imagine ourselves to be. A lesson we seem unable to learn.
I agree.
But you have to wonder if burning a zillion tons of previously buried hydrocarbons doesn't fall into that class. 100 years is "new" in geologic terms where changes occur over tens / hundreds of thousand years.
Mt Tambora, 1815, The Little Ice Age. Our impact is but a grain of sand in the desert if mother nature decides to say "Hold my beer". Yes we need to be mindful of our natural resources, and that includes the economic security of our society, because folks don't give a Dang, and rules don't matter, when people are cold, hungry, and broke.
Quote from: Jeff on September 13, 2022, 03:59:50 PM
You mean, like wind.
So how much energy do you feel is expended to lift a 1200ft fully loaded container ship twice at dock for 24 hrs if you had to do it without the tide? How much would it generate when it went back down, without the tide.
Good question. There is obviously going to be gravitational potential energy there, in the same way that there is with water in a hydro dam.
Say for example your container ship weighs 50,000 tons and your tide moves it by 6 metres
The formula is mass (kg) x gravity force (9.8 m/s
2) x height (m) = energy (joules)
50,000,000 x 9.8 x 6 = 2940000000 joules. (sounds like a lot)
A joule of energy is equal to 1 watt for 1 second.
So it works out to 817 kw/hours. That's the theoretical potential power available in the system, so subtract a bit because it won't be 100% efficient. So maybe you can get 750 kw, for 2 hours a day? Maybe some extra generation can be had as the tide lifts the ship again? Not sure on the maths of that, but assume it's potentially similar, but relates to the volume / buoyancy of the ship. So hold the ship down until high tide then let if float and generate on the way up?
But feel free to check my rough maths here, but I Think it's about right.
So while it's physically possible, no laws of physics are being bent etc. I can't see the economics working out. It's a freaking huge generator that's going to produce less power than one medium size windmill, or a small field of solar panels, and while it's output is predictable, it's intermittent on a rolling schedule. (Tides)
You could of course also mount some Tesla batteries, a windmill and solar panels on your tidal float and really boost the output? You have a few acres of open space to work with.
Yeah Southside, I was just explaining to my kids that typically people only care about the environment when they are well fed and comfortable. I told them if I was starving, I would probably shoot the last buffalo. Either it's going extinct, or I am🤷♂️
Quote from: Southside on September 14, 2022, 12:18:43 AM
Mt Tambora, 1815, The Little Ice Age. Our impact is but a grain of sand in the desert if mother nature decides to say "Hold my beer". Yes we need to be mindful of our natural resources, and that includes the economic security of our society, because folks don't give a Dang, and rules don't matter, when people are cold, hungry, and broke.
As you say, a large volcano can produce a noticeable change, but it's temporary. If one of the Super-volcanoes (Yellowstone or Taupo) lets rip it might be opposite of global warming for a while. It's happened before (and will probably happen again)
But as humans are dumping about 33,000 million tons of CO2 into the air each year, do you really think that has zero effect?
The climate does change over time, we know this. The issue is that if it changes over say 100 years, the disruption will be serious. The Earth is still actually in a cooler than average period, but has gone from -4C below average to -3 over the last ~100 years. Not enough for us to really notice, but a pretty rapid change on a geological scale.
It's not the end of the world, but people can also end up cold / hungry / broke due to the rapid changes.
I am not saying that burning carbon doesn't have negatives. I am saying that anything done on a global scale will also have drawbacks that may prove to be every bit has harmful. Setting those arguments aside there also lies the reality that the current system isn't adequate to meet current demand. Increasing demand by wholesale mandated conversion of vehicles while shuttering CO2, Nuclear, and in some cases Hydro generation will not end well.
Build the solar arrays and the Tesla's but don't pull the plug on IC's, hybrids, and Natural gas until the "new" stuff actually exists.
I remember an old M.A.S.H episode when they burned every stick of furniture trying to stay warm. Thats the only possible outcome of increasing demand while diminishing supply. There is going to be angry folks without power looking to take out their frustrations. We may see an increase in CO2 emissions from politicians being burned at the stake.
Never said it was going to be easy or cheap.
IC engines ARE going to be around for the foreseeable future, because there are still ~70 year old cars on the road. No reason too think you won't be able to buy gas for your 70-2022 vehicle in 20 years time. Just there might be one fuel pump and 5 charging stations?
Never thought one or two degrees over a few decades or a century as a crisis, could just as easily swing the other way as it did from the 30's into the 70's. Look at the UK, the jet stream shifted since the war toward the north making winters milder. CO2 didn't move it north or I'd like to see the half baked math on that theory. Hurricanes, have not had a real intense one since 2014, hardly hear of one this year up until recently nothing to speak of and not all that much to them. Interesting how the planet is actually getting greener. Means you can grow more acreage, not less. Had a couple dry years here, this year as normal as it can get, only 2 days around 90F, lots of cool stretches as I've always recalled in 50 years. Frost hardiness maps of this region has had no change in the last two 30 year averages. The last map introduced two new zones, so tiny they don't show on the map. Highly suspicious data. It's like comparing temperature in a city to 5 miles away in the country, it's a lot hotter in a city of tar and concrete, and at an airport surrounding by pavement. This is biased data, big time. One thing that is certain is that a crisis is what some of us perceive and push as such. Not everyone agrees.
The bottom line is it's cheaper to conserve energy than to make it. There has to be a shift towards conservation of resources and away from conspicuous consumption.
The issue is conservation is contrary to our culture. You need to convince people that they don't want to live in McMansions and drive oversized SUV 4WD minivans and fly around the world for weekend holidays and eat out-of-season foods imported from around the world. Personally I don't find guys like Al Gore credible telling us we need to do more to go green as he flies around in a private jet and his home consumes more energy than a small town.
The whole going green and carbon tax/credit movement is simply a money grab and and effort to create a market where there isn't one.
Quote from: mike dee on September 27, 2022, 07:25:40 AM
The bottom line is it's cheaper to conserve energy than to make it. There has to be a shift towards conservation of resources and away from conspicuous consumption.
We have a winner. 8)
The future is going to depend on the efforts to conserve energy, not on picking energy sources, green or otherwise. When governments try to influence the future, things will go wrong. Trying to "play God" with nature is never going to succeed.
Yes, I know when I started this topic I said it was not political but unfortunately the information age we are in is always tainted by politics. I have read all the very good analysis of various energy sources expressed here but there are points in all the information presented for each energy source that is always tainted by politically correct bias.
For example, nuclear is discounted because of fears of accidents and the spent fuel storage problem. But there are a couple of new types of nuclear reactors under development that may cancel those fears. Also when comparing ethanol to other fuels they charge the cost of producing ethanol going all the way back to clearing the land to grow the corn. The basis for comparison is never equal.
A planned economy for the energy future can lead you to being on "the ash heap of civilization." Especially when it is based on politically biased information.
Picked up two baskets of peaches today at the grocery, Okanogan grown from British Columbia. Not everyone out there had a failed crop it seems. ;)
Ever notice bad things happen when we dig up stuff? Whether its long lost glittery star dust or buried ancient forests and mud puddles.
Burning coal and oil was not popular when they were introduced. They are nasty, explosive, sooty. They were the new alternative fuel to disappearing forests a century or so ago. The wood was clean and didn't freaking explode! Who needs coal and oil, how times change, and change.
Someone mentioned that a few degrees one way or the other isn't a big deal. An ice age is triggered if we drop about 5 degrees from what was "normal". All it takes is a little more white every year and a number of repeats. I suspect cooking off the water is about the same. How much liquid water do you see in the neighborhood? We live in an incredibly narrow band of conditions, don't fool yourself.
Every creek is full of water around here. None of the lakes are dried up. And if you stand outside in the rain, well, it's wet. :D
In the 70's apparently it only took one or two bad winters of blizzards to make it an ice age. That's all Suzuki needed. And that isn't very good science. :D Apparently by 2050 we will be into a mini ice age, sun is heading to a cooling phase.
How do you feel about seeing windmills out in the ocean when you are at the beach? Reason I ask is every trip we make to our Delaware house there are stories in the local papers and people claiming the windmills will destroy the tourist industry saying people will quit coming if there are windmills out there. I will add that the proposed windmills are huge but the closest to shore would be about 9 miles with most being further. Personally I think while some may be offended by the sight I feel others like myself may enjoy seeing distant windmills.
I can see 3 windmills from my house, 2 smaller ones are 4 miles away and one much larger one is 7 miles away, I barely notice them on land in the ocean they may stand out a bit more.
Did you ever notice that folks scream about climate change when a temperature breaks a record?
That is the time I blow these arguments up. What, it broke a record from 1896? Wonder what they did to really heat things up? What did they do to stop climate change from happening? We should do it too! Crickets.
I recently read in The Atlantic where the US Forest Service is going to give out multiple mining permits in the Salmon-Challis National Forest in Idaho. There is a huge deposit of Cobalt in the mountains there, enough to supply the needs of the US for years. The Biden administration deems it a national security priority to mine there as the military has a huge need for the metal too. Most of the cobalt in the world is mined in the Congo and 84% of it goes to China. There are current claims in the area that are said to contain 40,000 lbs of cobalt, enough to last the US 5 years. A pristine forested mountain area about to go under the knife.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/01/cobalt-clean-energy-climate-change-idaho/621321/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/01/cobalt-clean-energy-climate-change-idaho/621321/)
The double edged sword. EVs need batteries, batteries need rare earth metals and you've got to mine to get them. Save the environment by gashing the environment. Where do all the materials come to build the latest Apple products or Tesla vehicles and batteries, wind turbines or solar panels? By gashing the environment. Cradle to grave, its all environmentally damaging no matter which side you are on.
Quote from: mike dee on September 27, 2022, 07:25:40 AM
The bottom line is it's cheaper to conserve energy than to make it. There has to be a shift towards conservation of resources and away from conspicuous consumption.
The issue is conservation is contrary to our culture. You need to convince people that they don't want to live in McMansions and drive oversized SUV 4WD minivans and fly around the world for weekend holidays and eat out-of-season foods imported from around the world. Personally I don't find guys like Al Gore credible telling us we need to do more to go green as he flies around in a private jet and his home consumes more energy than a small town.
The whole going green and carbon tax/credit movement is simply a money grab and and effort to create a market where there isn't one.
Conservation is key, but our entire economy is built on the idea of: spend more, do more, make more, consume more than you did the year before. At this point it is literately growth for the sake of growth. And if growth slows down, or worse, doesn't happen our economy grinds to a halt.
There is so much propaganda floating about concerning the European energy shortages so I would like to add a bit to it from a Finnish/Swedish horizon. I live by the border being of Swedish ethnicity living on the Finnish side of the border. Those who drew the border on the map in 1809 did not ask us where to draw it. Therefore I know a bit about both countries.
The main and urgent problem is the reliance on Russian energy. This is not a matter of partisan politics in Europe. Or...well...it is..... there are some extremist groups on the outermost right wing fringe and some extreme pacifist groups on the left wing fringe who don't care.
However for the vast mayority of the population and the politicians the debate is concerned with how much and in what way we shall support the Ukrainans and end our depencency on Russian energy. Of cause people are more concerned about the Russian problem the further east you go in Europe. We have seen the propaganda spilling over the border from Russia and rekon that if Putin can show off a victory of sorts in Ukraine there will be further invasions elsewhere in Europe.
The reliance on Russian energy was in part a failed political attempt at strenghtening the ties with Russia in order to avoid a new cold war and in part it was the result of NIMBY politics and in part a result of free market ideology. Anyway now we are in the thick of it and need to find a way out.
-Nuclear power plants have proven to be prime bomb targets in the eyes of the Russian czar. Not to mention the unsolved environmental problems with the nuclear waste
-Hydroelectric cannot be developed any further than there is water to power it. What could be done at the moment would be converting old abandoned mill dams and such to run small power plants producing 10-200 horsepowers apiece. Big business isn't that interrested in such small scale activities and the NIMBY environmentalists want to have their rivers untouched.
-Wind power is at the moment heavily subsidixed and new power plants pop up everywhere. However the production is highly intermittent.
-Solar power is also heavily subsidized and people are installing solar panels on their roofs everywhere but this is also a very intermittent supply. In mid wither with 4 hours of gloomy daylight a day and snow on top of the panels they don't produce much.
-Tidal power is still in the experiment stage. In the Baltic we have no tides worth rekoning with but there are some places along the Norwegian and Irish and British and French and Dutch coasts where it might work.
-Coal caused mayor air pollution in the past and is now identified as a threat to the climate. Up here the ongoing climate change is very obvious to anyone who is over the age of 40.
-The easily exploitable oil sources are running dry worldwide and oil also contributed to climate change.
-Naural gas was for a long time marketed as a solution though it also affects the climate. The gas in the pipelines is Russian and the revenues feed Putin's empire.
So..... we are pretty much caught between a rock and a hard place. We have been there before and we have a good supply of jacks and pit props so we will make it through but at the moment there is a bit of a pinch.
Various political groups promote one energy source over another and usually promote their source as the key to continued growth and total electrification of everything and soaring consumption in the future but in reality there is no such magical solution on a planet with finite resources.
We must learn to use less and rebuild the economy to become less reliant on exponential growth in consumption while making the best of the energy sources on hand. Electric cars are now becoming a pie in the sky as they would use more lithium and more electricty than this planet can supply. Just like nationwide gas pipeline networks became 20 years ago when global warming became obvious. We just have to face the reality and make do. Some haven't yet realized and are still caught in a dream from the past.
One day you Americans will be in this situation too. Unfortunately.
On the ground informative. Thanks for the post!
Quote from: TW on October 17, 2022, 08:00:21 AM
We must learn to use less and rebuild the economy to become less reliant on exponential growth in consumption while making the best of the energy sources on hand. . . . . . . . .
One day you Americans will be in this situation too. Unfortunately.
I'm under no false illusion we aren't already.
Learning to use less is tricky, there's much that I want and can afford without financing that self restraint can be difficult at times. I've been shopping for something between a 3/4 ton a 1 1/4 ton truck but it's a want and not a need, for many in this country a want is more than enough justification to act. I see 3/4 and 1 ton trucks with a only a driver, hauling nor towing anything with the vast majority of miles they've accrued just being used to get from point A to point B. If they accelerate, stop or handle too well or they aren't inefficient enough from the factory, a lift kit with huge mud tires will fix those problems and does wonders for Exxon stock. This conspicuous consumption will help lead us into dire straits at an accelerated rate. I felt a little guilty going from a 65% to 70% aspect ratio on the new tires I got for my little truck 4 years ago as I knew it was working in the wrong direction when efficiency is the goal. I've put less than 16K miles on those tires now as I drive the car @25+mpg when I don't need the truck so the extra fuel is in the $10-20 range over those 4 years.
My next car will likely be a Stanley Steamer with a good horse as a backup.
To me it sounds like you are suggesting that either our quality of life or our population must be reduced.
I am standing about 2 hours from the ocean right now. A couple of hundred million years ago the ocean was 5 miles from here.
There are shark teeth in a dirt mound 8 miles from our place in north western Kansas, lots of shark teeth, you really can't get any further from the ocean than there.
The climate has always changed and always will. I am all for conserving our natural resources, but not at the expense of my pretty simple existence so that elites can fly around in private jets and tell me how evil I am.
I'm not for a reduction of either, that does weigh heavily on what might some subjectively consider "quality of life" and all that entails. The folks in the jets, yeah, they are the problem. Flying all over the world in a private jet to talk about climate change and emissions reductions is ludacrous.
It seems that green or clean energy in the average person's mind is changing nothing about your lifestyle, and putting up solar panels and windmills to "fix" everything🙄
Case in point. We have friends that have a college aged daughter. She became caught up in fighting climate change with evangelistic fervor. I even heard her on the local public radio station one day, giving folks helpful tips on how to fight climate change. You know, take a vacation close to home instead of flying somewhere and that sort of thing. Not long after that, mine told me this girl was flying out to California for 3 weeks to nanny for a family she knew. Now I thought if fighting climate change was important, there's gotta be someone local in CA that can nanny. But who am I to judge. After this incident, one of my daughters mentioned this girl had drove to Duluth (about 80 miles one way) to go to a fast food restaurant that had a menu item she wanted. Drove over there, ordered, came back🤔 At this point, I was beginning to suspect that either- A. She doesn't take climate change as seriously as she claims, or -B. She has already counted herself among the elite climate overlords that blast out carbon dioxide as much as they please while peasants like myself go back to living in huts.
I haven't got to have a conversation with this young lady since, but I assure you if she gives me any lifestyle/climate advice it will get very interesting😁
It's not malice, but it is cussed ignorance :-\
That sort of ignorant and blind climate warriors are a threat to climate I rekon. They turn people away from a good cause. Pestering us who produce stuff all while they pretend to be so independent of the fossil fuel that brings them everything they buy at the supermarket.
I am doing what little I can. Haven't been inside an aeroplane in 10 years. Drive a minivan that uses extremely little fuel for being a functional builder's work van. Use a bicykle for short distances. Have quit using the outboard motor and only row or sail on the water. Saving energy and cuting down consumption whenever I can witout making it a hindrance.
I am fully aware that I cannot save the planet alone but if we all tried to do what we can it would put pressure on politicians and businesses to make it possible to go further. Little by litle we could turn the ship around I rekon.
Quote from: Joe Hillmann on September 13, 2022, 12:48:56 PM
For some reason biofuel was mostly skipped in the attempted switch from gasoline and diesel to electricity. Even though gas vehicles being made and sold to day may still be working 20-30 or 40 years from now so having a way to power them on man made fuels from renewables feels like it should have been a priority.
Especially since there are many applications where electric simply won't work, It would be easier to run farm equipment that is run 20 hours a day at harvest time with some type of liquid fuel than it would be to run it on electricity due to the charging time and the fact that most fields don't have charging stations set up for the two times a year that a bunch of equipment will be needing to recharge in a very short window. A fuel that can be brought out in a fuel truck and fuel things up in minutes is what is needed for most farm and construction equipment and isn't possible with batteries YET. Man made fuels from renewables would be a great midway point between diesel and electricity.
Well actually the answer is simple. The harvest machine tows a wagon with the 6 or whatever ton battery. After 4 or whatever hours then unhitch the wagon & unplug the battery to switch in a different one. As always the economics of such are an issue and not the engineering.
TW, I can appreciate the views of someone who backs them up with actions, I will say that much👍
On the tow behind battery pack. I've seen pictures of tow behind woodgas units hooked to trucks and busses, and even German training tanks during WWII. We had liquid fuel in enough volume not to switch but a good bit of the world was running on woodgas
Logistically there are differences between our countries as well. For us it's a 15 mile trip to "town" or the nearest shop of any type, and that's a pretty small town, so something like a bicycle is not a practical option. Busses, trains, etc do not exist in most of rural America so the automobile is really the only option if we are going to maintain a modern / commerce based society.
Especially in Kansas😁
I will have to see the exact mileage but I think it's actually about the same distance, and the town actually is a bit bigger. One thing for sure - the road is a lot straighter. :D
We've got villages nearby, closest real town here is 30 miles. Nearest small city is over 100 miles. Villages have groceries and gas and very basic hardware. Most villages have volunteer fire departments. If you go dead centre of the province, nothing for 50 miles in any direction. :D
Your village describes our "town"
Quote from: brianJ on October 17, 2022, 03:25:52 PM
Quote from: Joe Hillmann on September 13, 2022, 12:48:56 PM
For some reason biofuel was mostly skipped in the attempted switch from gasoline and diesel to electricity. Even though gas vehicles being made and sold to day may still be working 20-30 or 40 years from now so having a way to power them on man made fuels from renewables feels like it should have been a priority.
Especially since there are many applications where electric simply won't work, It would be easier to run farm equipment that is run 20 hours a day at harvest time with some type of liquid fuel than it would be to run it on electricity due to the charging time and the fact that most fields don't have charging stations set up for the two times a year that a bunch of equipment will be needing to recharge in a very short window. A fuel that can be brought out in a fuel truck and fuel things up in minutes is what is needed for most farm and construction equipment and isn't possible with batteries YET. Man made fuels from renewables would be a great midway point between diesel and electricity.
Well actually the answer is simple. The harvest machine tows a wagon with the 6 or whatever ton battery. After 4 or whatever hours then unhitch the wagon & unplug the battery to switch in a different one. As always the economics of such are an issue and not the engineering.
That sounds like a great way to make a $16 ear of corn.
Problem with biofuels is they generally cost more than petroleum. You can sell an electric car for more than a gas one, because it's running costs are lower. People can therefore justify buying it, as long as it's suitable for their needs. Same way you could justify buying a smaller economical car for 90% of your driving, AND keep a truck for the times you actually need it. Up front cost is more, but you save money over time.
Sure you can small scale produce bio-diesel from used cooking oil, but it only makes sense if you get the cooking oil for really cheap. If you have farm and process the soy beans / olives / jatoba to produce the oils, it's going to cost more. Same with ethanol from corn, it's technically practical, just not really currently economical.
During the fuel crisis in the 80's NZ Govt built a large plant to convert natural gas into petrol. It worked, but by the time they got it running, the fuel prices had stabilised and it wasn't needed (or economic to run). But what they found was that the first part of the process, converting methane to methanol could produce pure industrial grade methanol, which is more valuable than the gasoline they had been converting it to. Like, take $1m of methanol, and produce $500k of gasoline. The 2nd part of the plant was scrapped, and more methanol production was built, and the plant is still operating. But the point is the methanol is worth more as an industrial chemical (making plastics and as a solvent) than it is as a fuel. Fresh cooking oil is worth more as cooking oil than bio-diesel. Ethanol is worth more as Vodka than fuel etc.
I don't think the distances and lack of public transport is specific to the US, more a "rural" issue. People living in larger cities can actually get by without a car because there is decent public transport, and cars are often more of a nuisance. My son lives in Wellington, and has never owned a car. Where I live in small town NZ, there is pretty much zero public transport, and it's 1/2 hour to the nearest city or larger town, and we aren't "remote". Road sign at the end of the street reminds drivers there is no gas station (or car charger) for 170 km down SH43, and there isn't even a bus. So I can 100% understand that many people DO actually need a car of some description.
In regards to trips to town and being green. A tale of 2 States. One has a bottle redemption law and the other doesn't. One has 1.3 million residents returning their cans and bottles by vehicle and taking an hour out of their day minimum. The other State has waste management truck pick up recycle bins every Tuesday. Which State is more green? ;)
In Virginia, there is ethanol in our regular gasoline(corn liquor) at around 10%.
The problem with biofuels is that they don't burn cleanly and don't create nearly as much usable energy. True biofuels absolutely destroy catalytic converters. When it was proven how destructive they were to the environment, the lefties dropped it.
Economics aside, it's hard to burn cleaner than good moonshine. Part of the reason for the Model T's dashboard adjustable ignition advance, aside from just being primitive, was because gas was not yet readily available or of uniform quality. Henry Sr made the Model T a Flex Fuel vehicle assuming that John D's gasoline was available in town but with a good bit more advance you could run on moonshine in the country.
We are at, what, about 10x pre industrial population levels. I sorta doubt that is a sustainable level for the long haul.
The Ranger makes about 10 more hp on E85 than E10 but it uses more of it. I'm not sure it pencils out cause its more fun to drive on 'shine.
The car dependancy is pretty much the same in rural Finland as in rural USA or rural New Zeeland. We can of cause not replace cars with bicykles. It is just plain impossible.
Just like the chainsaw and the old tractor one uses to bring the firewood home are bound to burn around 10-15% of the heating oil one doesn't burn when using firewood instead. Just plain unavoidable at the moment.
What we can do is for instance to keep a bicykle just inside the shed or barn door ready to go. Whenever the distance is less than a couple of American miles and no heavy load is to be brought take the bicykle. Else take the car.
This makes only a mariginal reduction in the distances driven by car annually but it makes a notiseable cut in annual fuel consumption. Short trips by car to the neighbour and to the timber landing and to the river and to various fields use up surprizing amounts of fuel per kilometre/mile.
Or we can walk into the woods hauling the chainsaw and equipment on a small toboggan instead of going by tractor every time. Once the trees are felled, limbed and bucked one can bring the tractor and winch and skid logs all day. Getting a lot more work done per litre of tractor fuel spent.
Extended bus lines can also reduce the annual fuel consumtion a bit. Not that one can sell the car and make do without it but it may be possible to do some errands in some directions by bus saving a couple of car trips a week.
We pay between 2.00 and 2.50 euros per litre for both diesel and petrol (gasoline) and between 1.70 and 1.90 for agricultural diesel in Finland since the Ukraine war started. A very cheap price to pay for avoiding future Russian occupation and mass executions and mass deportations at home but one has to think outside the old boxes to make ends meet.
The same sort of thinking applies to reducing carbon dioxide emissions and saving the planet.
Years ago work was within a couple of miles (or you boarded) and travel long distances was by rail as well as shipments to the stores, as the rail sidings where behind the stores and beside the warehouses and potato sheds. Cars gave independence and allowed workers to go further for better jobs and enjoy a Sunday drive. Not everyone wants to farm, cut trees, weave blankets and so on. But a heck of a lot of fuel is spent recreational driving and some people will drive to town every day just to see what's going on, visiting, picking up 2 items in the grocery store, 2 bolts at the hardware store and the like. Personally, this time of year until May, I never go near town but once every two weeks. I know lots of people in that previous sentence, and they ain't there to work. Change is mighty difficult if you're an unwilling participant.
Quote from: rusticretreater on October 17, 2022, 07:49:47 PMThe problem with biofuels is that they don't burn cleanly and don't create nearly as much usable energy.
Not sure about that, Ethanol is a pretty pure chemical, and burns clean. Less energy per gallon than regular gas, but it's higher octane and can actually make more power if you up the compression or boost. Less MPG of course, and if it costs more, then there is little incentive to adopt it. See the "practical" vs "Economic" thing. It's if you dump it into an engine that's not designed for it, then all bets are off. Less power, corrosion , failing gaskets and fuel lines are all real issues. But that's because the engine wasn't deigned to run on that fuel.
Brazil has "flex fuel" and new vehicles there can run on 25 to 100% ethanol, I know "special case", because Brazil can grow a zillion tons of sugar cane, and make ethanol cheap. They also tax imported fuel and local at different rates to make it more desirable. But the point is that have reduced their dependence on expansive imported oil
I'm splitting hairs here, but doesn't a gallon of ethanol have less available energy than a gallon of gasoline, just like a gallon of gasoline has less available energy than a gallon of diesel? You might be able to make a higher horsepower engine because of ethanol's burning characteristics, but it will still take more of it to do the same work.
A gallon of ethanol contains ~80,000 btu's
A gallon of straight unleaded ~120,000 btu's
That's the hair I guess but there is more going on. I haven't run enough nor do I have correct tires/odometer but I don't lose that much mileage. I can shove something harder and farther than I can knock it. It lights the charge very early on alcohol compared to gas. I think something along those lines is going on in the "burn". That engine was designed around alcohol and does better on it than on gas, which is what I've heard of the Brazilian motors as well.
The use of ethanol changes a lot of things for the refiners of gasoline. Ethanol adds octane to fuel. Octane is a stability number. The higher the octane, the more you can compress the fuel/air mixture without bad things happening. By adding ethanol, refiners don't have to distill the oil as much to make a higher grade fuel. The ethanol makes up the difference. That is more profitable and economical for them. Computers in cars make the changes necessary to handle the differences in the various fuels.
Quote from: rusticretreater on October 18, 2022, 01:20:46 PMBy adding ethanol, refiners don't have to distill the oil as much to make a higher grade fuel. The ethanol makes up the difference. That is more profitable and economical for them
It's kind of a rule not to quote right below a conversation, but what you state here really explains a lot about why the idea of using so much prime found ground to make a fuel product does not fall out of favor. Both teams benefit from it.
One question I like to pose is: At point in the earth's past was the climate ideal? What earth temperature is ideal?
2007
"Québec's Minister for Natural Resources, Claude Béchard, promised that the 120-million-litre-per year Varennes plant would be the first and the last of its kind. "It is necessary to turn to other [feedstock] sources," he said. No other ethanol factory based on corn will be built in Québec." [Radio Canada]
"Environment Canada Research Director, Greg Rideout, suggested there are no differences between the emissions which are produced by a car running with or without 10 % ethanol. According to him, adding ethanol would reduce carbon monoxyde but this would be cancelled by an increase of ozone emissions, which causes smog." [reported by CBC]
2020
Cars and light trucks that burn petroleum will be banned in Quebec by 2035.
Quote from: snobdds on October 18, 2022, 02:51:15 PM
One question I like to pose is: At point in the earth's past was the climate ideal? What earth temperature is ideal?
Historically the Earth has averaged a few degrees warmer than it currently is. The climate has of course changed over time, ice ages and warmer periods etc. And life in general copes with that because the changes are slow.
It's a sudden change that would cause chaos, changes in sea level, weather patterns, agriculture etc.
Quote from: Ianab on October 18, 2022, 03:09:24 PM life in general copes with that
Have you lined that up with the major extinction periods in our past?
Quote from: Ianab on October 18, 2022, 03:09:24 PM
Quote from: snobdds on October 18, 2022, 02:51:15 PM
One question I like to pose is: At point in the earth's past was the climate ideal? What earth temperature is ideal?
Historically the Earth has averaged a few degrees warmer than it currently is. The climate has of course changed over time, ice ages and warmer periods etc. And life in general copes with that because the changes are slow.
It's a sudden change that would cause chaos, changes in sea level, weather patterns, agriculture etc.
I guess my devils advocate point would be...
Earth has always had cycles, and it's been warmer than it is now and conversely, cooler than we are now. Anything falling into a historical range would be considered normal. It's not the sudden change, but a change outside the historical range where nobody knows if it could survive as the problem.
Take asteroids for example, they have hit here before and put up so much particulate in the atmosphere that the temperature cooled and killed a lot of life. Yet, the earth recovered and even thrived later on. The flip side of the same coin is, when Pangaea broke up and the tectonic plates separating caused so much co2 to release that life stalled out for a period. Yet again, the earth recovered and even thrived later on. The biggest factor is time. Man has no real concept of geological time. Yet time seems to cure all. I have watched the pine Beatle move through the forest around my cabin back around 2005, which killed every tree for miles. Yet almost 20 years later, the forest has recovered and there is more life and abundance than there was before. Looking back I now realize the old forest was a dead forest. Very little life as no sunlight reached much and the regeneration rate was very slow.
I just think the secret to mother nature is not trying to keep it one static temperature or climate. History has showed us it thrives on change, good and bad. Also we should cheer on change, but strive to snuff out pollution. Change and pollution are mutually exclusive and we should no lump either into each other.
Renewable energy (which is often less pollutant) is also a path to national security for most countries, I like the idea of no more oil wars.
Still lots of room for improvement in the "generating" of renewable energy but now it is not so much of how to generate but how to store it to make it consistent. I doubt there will be a single one size fits all answer for generating or storing energy.
QuoteCars and light trucks that burn petroleum will be banned in Quebec by 2035.
Time will tell, but I suspect it is just idle talk now. Any ban will be controlled more by the people who are in need of energy and modes of transportation. Will have to wait and see what our great grand kids have to say about that. :snowball: 8)Wasn't but 60 years ago that the "scientists" were predicting another ice age about to happen (late 60's and early 70's). Many want to just spread some fear, IMO.
Quote from: snobdds on October 18, 2022, 06:25:42 PMarth has always had cycles, and it's been warmer than it is now and conversely, cooler than we are now. Anything falling into a historical range would be considered normal. It's not the sudden change, but a change outside the historical range where nobody knows if it could survive as the problem
I can't see things getting to "un-survivable" temperatures, although some locations may get too hot to be liveable, and increased temperatures bring more violent storm system. But if we manage to melt the Antarctic ice, which has happened before, sea levels could rise by ~200 ft. Now if that were to happen over 50,000 years, no big deal. People (and most animals) would move and adapt like they have in the past. Set up a banana farm in Greenland etc. But if it happens over a couple of hundred, well we see the chaos a pesky virus can cause, imagine the chaos if whole cities (and even countries) had to be abandoned
Here's a map of the world with an extra 60m of water added.
Flood Map: Elevation Map, Sea Level Rise Map (https://www.floodmap.net/?ll=55.825973,-52.372698&z=4&e=60)
Quote from: Ianab on October 18, 2022, 09:01:26 PM
Quote from: snobdds on October 18, 2022, 06:25:42 PMarth has always had cycles, and it's been warmer than it is now and conversely, cooler than we are now. Anything falling into a historical range would be considered normal. It's not the sudden change, but a change outside the historical range where nobody knows if it could survive as the problem
I can't see things getting to "un-survivable" temperatures, although some locations may get too hot to be liveable, and increased temperatures bring more violent storm system. But if we manage to melt the Antarctic ice, which has happened before, sea levels could rise by ~200 ft. Now if that were to happen over 50,000 years, no big deal. People (and most animals) would move and adapt like they have in the past. Set up a banana farm in Greenland etc. But if it happens over a couple of hundred, well we see the chaos a pesky virus can cause, imagine the chaos if whole cities (and even countries) had to be abandoned
Here's a map of the world with an extra 60m of water added.
Flood Map: Elevation Map, Sea Level Rise Map (https://www.floodmap.net/?ll=55.825973,-52.372698&z=4&e=60)
I feel like we have enough evidence at this point to understand that earth events do not happen in a vacuum. Like the newton's 3rd law, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The artic for example, it had a few years where temps went up and melted a lot of glaciers. That extra water put more moisture in the atmosphere and created some epic storms in Alaska this past winter. I have friends in Alaska where I snowboard that said they never saw a more sever winter than last year. Snow never fully melted all summer from the prior winter. Earth climate works in cycles and I think it's crazy to want to keep the climate the same year after year.
The only climate change I worry about is that big nuclear reactor in the sky. If for some reason that fails to shine, then were in trouble and that is a real climate threat. Sun is life and as long as it shines, we're good.
QuoteSun is life and as long as it shines, we're good.
And if it doesn't, we're gone. For sure, nothing to worry about. :D :D
Quote from: beenthere on October 19, 2022, 12:15:47 PM
QuoteSun is life and as long as it shines, we're good.
And if it doesn't, we're gone. For sure, nothing to worry about. :D :D
Our sun at some point will die and turn into a giant red star that will consume earth. At that point the nuclear reactor is gone and so is our galaxy.
Quote from: beenthere on October 18, 2022, 07:37:35 PM
QuoteCars and light trucks that burn petroleum will be banned in Quebec by 2035.
Time will tell, but I suspect it is just idle talk now. Any ban will be controlled more by the people who are in need of energy and modes of transportation. Will have to wait and see what our great grand kids have to say about that.
:snowball: 8)
All it takes is another election cycle to change gears. :D
All the Alaska Shows are saying the past Winter was brutal and extremely long. The previous season they were concerned because it was warmer. The sun wobbled back. It's a Parallel World. Who's on first?
Yeah, I follow an Alaska couple up there. Trouble is, they have not been there more than 4 years. Not a lot of experience with the cycles in extremes up there. :D
The energy crisis in Germany is becoming front and center for this winter. The Germans are even taking "Blackout Courses" to learn how to survive.
Germans Attend 'Blackout Courses' as Energy Crisis Worsens Ahead of Christmas (https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/11/germans-attend-blackout-courses-as-energy-crisis-worsens-ahead-of-christmas/)
Is the new green climate agenda going to survive this winter?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue7wM0QC5LE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue7wM0QC5LE)
Quote from: beenthere on October 18, 2022, 07:37:35 PM
:snowball: 8)
Wasn't but 60 years ago that the "scientists" were predicting another ice age about to happen (late 60's and early 70's). Many want to just spread some fear, IMO
IMO spreading fear is more about the ratings and the ad dollars attached to them than the 'purposely' want to spread fear. The other two powerful emotions that draw in ratings are disgust and outrage. If any of these three emotions are being provoked you know you are being lied to.
Quote from: Mooseherder on October 19, 2022, 02:26:35 PM
All the Alaska Shows are saying the past Winter was brutal and extremely long. The previous season they were concerned because it was warmer. The sun wobbled back. It's a Parallel World. Who's on first?
I moved to Alaska in 1986,and have barely been away from here since (a handful of weeks at most in all this time).
For nearly 30 years of this i live in the Western Interior portion of the State,normally a very dry and cold region,very typical for the Alaska of romantic literature.
The winters are decidedly warmer and warmer,we've barely seen Any days of -40F for Many years now,whereas even in my time weeks and weeks of -50F and many consequitive days of -60F and lower used to be the norm.
I live in a Native village where this sort of casual observation goes back many generations,so my impression of how relatively warm or cold a winter is bases itself on a fairly wide and broad consensus...
Please disregard anything and everything you may glean from the "Alaska shows" as remotely factual.
These reality shows have the worst possible reputation locally,they're considered absolutely awful and sad. Those participating in these are viewed with pity and disdain, they'll themselves will be the first to tell you to disregard any and all interpretable info or data,and the only reason that some of the locals participate is solely for the money these shows offer.
Alaska IS warming up radically,the water temperature in the Yukon r. where i fish have risen over 10 deg.F. The satellite images of the tundra lakes everywhere tell a stark story,their contours diminish visibly every year as the underlying permafrost is melting and the water is getting absorbed.
As a builder even i can vouch for both the soil conditions and the air temperatures and many other factors are changing so rapidly that it makes a difference and forces changes in approach to building this far north...And so on and so forth too many factors all confirming the same trend,and NO chance for any kind of doubt anymore.
My current electric bill for my vacant office at my old log yard. 146 KW of usage($14.06) now costs $43.09
People who rely on electricity are screwed.
They won't ration it; they will just jack up the cost so you will. :snowball:
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/25189/C5232134-97C6-4D06-BF1A-E5BDC9937D27.jpeg?easyrotate_cache=1669421532)
I am a scientist and have not seen any compelling evidence of climate emergency. the life of the planet relative to our short time here is infinite. seeing a change in your own lifetime would not even make a blip on the scale of the earth. I am surprised folks are not commenting "It sure is hot this afternoon and was cool this morning". variation and trends over time is normal. much of the energy grief/emergency/higher cost is due to politicians pushing the green agenda. self-fulfilling prophecy. how does it make less CO2 to have our fossil fuels "shipped" from other parts of the world.
I think that great big nuclear reactor in the sky that is how many times larger than our rock impacts climate in ways it's not politically correct to discuss.
Just look at the temperature difference between day and night, now imagine we are 1 mile closer or further away due to orbit fluctuations, size of the sun, tilt angle, output intensity and how many things are going to be impacted?
Land on the sun, tell me exactly what is happening, account for all of those variables, account for Earths magnet field and pole shift, our orbit and it's changes, volcanoes, etc. then get back to me and explain how my cows impact the temperature in Europe and me paying more taxes fixes it all.
Until then, I am not buying it at all.
Problem solved, just have shorter lifetimes. 8) 8) 8)
SE
Quote from: doc henderson on November 26, 2022, 09:26:29 AM
I am a scientist and have not seen any compelling evidence of climate emergency. the life of the planet relative to our short time here is infinite. seeing a change in your own lifetime would not even make a blip on the scale of the earth. I am surprised folks are not commenting "It sure is hot this afternoon and was cool this morning". variation and trends over time is normal. much of the energy grief/emergency/higher cost is due to politicians pushing the green agenda. self-fulfilling prophecy. how does it make less CO2 to have our fossil fuels "shipped" from other parts of the world.
Maybe you're the kind of scientist that studies who pushes what agenda and for what nefarious reasons...I dunno,i haven't graduated high school myself and am not a judge of scientists (or political agendas).
However,as a subsistence fisherman i can say with 100% certainty that all the Pacific salmon runs are now dead in the Yukon river (the 5th largest in N. America),as of 3 years ago.
As a logger and a user of river in ways many and sundry i can also assure you that changes to water-levels and the dynamics of what the banks are doing are Way beyond precedented (going by the dendrochronological record that i believe extends now a bit beyond 1600 years,as well as ethnographic data that also corroborates it).
The changes are recent,they're severe,and most definitely have a powerful influence on everyone who's not sitting on their duff in an electrified and oil-heated space worrying about "politics" and "prophesies".
Anthropogenic or not is Way outside my competence and that's a fact,but a "scientist" that takes such a categorical view on such a complex matter seems suspect even to an uneducated dolt such as meself.
Nothing personal,just sayin'.
I agree with Doc Henderson. When I was in school in the 70ies the science said another ice age was coming. Now they say nope, its warming. I don't think they really can know.
We haven't been keeping records long enough to know much of how and why the climate changes happen. We do know they HAVE always been changing and likely always will. The idea that any climate change is man made or caused is laughable. One volcano, or even one huge forest fire puts more gas and dust into the air than every internal combustion engine ever run since we started fooling with them.
Green energy just aint gonna cut it any time soon.
Jake, I have no doubt you know lots of stuff. I was not trying brag but point out I have seen no evidence but heard a lot of politicians with an agenda. How will we know what to trust vs be fooled by politicians. remember Jimmy Carter and the 55-mph speed limit. Remember I just said I have not seen this evidence that is uncontrovertible. It is more like if you do not believe without question, you will be shamed and ridiculed. In the life of the world, we are but a speck. I am also not sure that the green new deal will not harm more people and more environmental issues. Unintended consequences. Other countries are still using diesel trucks to mine for materials to make wire and batteries. Reportedly using child and slave labor. I do not know first-hand. The idea that the world will end if we do not consider this an emergency is part of what is making people suffer this winter. We are decades away from being sufficient at renewable energy. trees are a renewable resource, but not if everyone started burning wood for heat. there are not enough materials available to make an electric car for everyone. and if we did the electricity is still made by coal, NG, Nuclear, some water and solar. you cannot save the world by moving the behavior to another part of the world. I believe in being smart about resources. Forcing people to follow a few people's ideas about the environment is unreasonable. I agree it is complex. i did not say that there is no truth to some of the concerns. I did say I have never seen or heard this elusive incontrovertible evidence. We should all do our part, which is more than I can say for the leaders that fly around the world telling everyone the sky is falling.
I remember when:
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10180/c63f35c4ccd1fb68.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1669501902)
The world around us is so complex that no one can claim to actually "know" which side is up.
It's no more presumptive to say that the world is ending because of our conspicuous consumption of hydrocarbons than the opposite...
Scientists' job,so i was always led to believe is not to issue a verdict but to impartially consider what data is available for whatever subject,see definition of "scientific inquiry" et c...
Whosoever uses any product of scientific process for their nefarious purposes is of course out of line,that's just kinda one of the basic building blocks of what makes a decent human being,to not pull that crap and should go without saying.
Having all that out of the way we humans are pretty bright in an instinctive sort of way,we Do have a sense of what's what,however intuitive and hazy.
This country,the USA,had began from and to a large degree still espouses what can roughly be termed "Quakerism", where ostentation of any kind was strongly frowned upon.
A natural enough attitude,most of us would not be proud of ourselves if we commit an obvious "waste" of whatever resource.
Petroleum and the energy contained in it is downright "magic",they say that it compares to the physical energy our muscles generate as 1:10 000 (used in an internal combustion engine).
Using it in an arguably wasteful manner that we have been gives many the heebie-jeebies,as did/does lots of stuff that we see going on around us,like (for me at least) was using all those magnificent Doug firs in the PNW in a ridiculous disposable manner and so on.
I just happen to live far enough north where the effects of the climate change are most noticeable (again,with the "naked eye",science being secondary to observing it in real time).
I don't see anything strange or unnatural in that so many people believe in whatever degree alarming findings of science climate-wise. Yes,there's a nasty exploitive political bend on both sides of the issue,but it don't cancel out the gut-feeling that the people react to it with. We're certainly cavalier with our resources,and the climate Is heating up,the further towards the Poles the more obviously.
(Look at the ice situation in both N.E. and N.W. Passages,a hundred years ago impassable and today have close on a steady navigation throughout).
All change maybe begins with worrying about the consequences of over-using the resource.
When i lived in the woods year-round gasoline for pressurized lanterns was our biggest expenditure,5-6 gallons a month,affording and hauling it was a real hardship.
Then a small Honda OHV genset+battery+LED lights suddenly reduced it to 1 gallon. Then a small PV panel made it pretty much Zero.
A huge difference in my short/nasty/brutish life.
Science,inventiveness,responsible stewardship of surrounding resources-don't knock it,don't help the detractors who by definition are as heinous as the alarmists,both being essentially Un-scientific,bias is not good science...
jake pogg,
I'm really not even sure what you are trying to say. You say the world is too complex to know what side is up, but then it seems you are telling us, what is up.
I don't doubt the changes you're seeing on the ground for a second. Is it the result of human fossil fuel use? I don't know. I have no way of knowing, all I can do is listen to the scientists that should know...but I don't trust most of them. I don't trust them because of the tendency many of them have to drift from scientific facts to political biases. We all had a front row seat to watch country's "finest" disease scientists over the past couple of years with the Covid situation. I was not impressed with their performance.
Not long ago it was observed by everyone that the earth was flat. Scientists (and science) of the era confirmed that this was true. There is a difference between fact and belief. Belief is comfortable though, especially if it's reinforced constantly. Climate change is and has always been occurring and the rate of change also varies.
Follow the money is still a relevant concept. Now and from the dawn of man.
The money has always been a very powerful motivator.
It is hard to take world leaders seriously when they say we are facing a climate emergency, when their private jets are directly contributing to it in a big way- going by the information that they spew.
Quote from: B.C.C. Lapp on November 26, 2022, 04:56:57 PMWe haven't been keeping records long enough to know much of how and why the climate changes happen
While true, there are historical records of CO2 levels dating back a LONG time (Ice cores in Antarctic glaciers etc). Historically (last million years) this has varied from about 170ppm (ice age) to 300 ppm (Not an ice age). It's currently over 400 ppm, which hasn't happened for the last million years. This is a man made change, and has occurred very fast in geological time.
We know that all sorts of things can change the climate, volcanoes, suns output etc, and obviously the climate HAS changed in the past (and will change in the future). It's the speed that it could change that's the issue. Thinking that the CO2 level practically doubling from the historical average, over the last ~100 year will have zero effect, now that is wishful thinking.
We assume we can't see the changes. But that doesn't mean they aren't there. This is Tasman lake, photo taken a few years back. In 1970 this lake didn't exist. It's now about 4 miles to the glacier terminus (the dark band by Lil's shoulder. Glaciers aren't affected by weather, they are affected by the climate over decades or longer. When you can actually SEE the effect you have to wonder if something is going on. I think there are old pics at mum's house taken when I was the kids age. There was no lake....
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10460/Tasman_Glacier1.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1483605451)
And NASA image comparison from 1990 to 2017
Tasman Glacier Retreats (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/89901/tasman-glacier-retreats)
Quote from: barbender on November 26, 2022, 06:45:57 PM
jake pogg,
I'm really not even sure what you are trying to say. You say the world is too complex to know what side is up, but then it seems you are telling us, what is up.
I don't doubt the changes you're seeing on the ground for a second. Is it the result of human fossil fuel use? I don't know. I have no way of knowing, all I can do is listen to the scientists that should know...but I don't trust most of them. I don't trust them because of the tendency many of them have to drift from scientific facts to political biases. We all had a front row seat to watch country's "finest" disease scientists over the past couple of years with the Covid situation. I was not impressed with their performance.
I'm too dumb to properly use the "quote" function so will try to not make it too confusing...
"Trust" is a tricky deal when it comes to something way outside one's expertise.
For example i'm not an M.D. What do i (can i) make of a doctor's advice?
Where myself solely is concerned it's a bit easier,i live like an animal and pull my own teeth and will die like one(stupidly and unnecessarily and good riddance),but what about someone else that may depend on me? (i've had a number of anus-clenching adventures taking my own kid as well as a neighbor to get medical help in spite of my own attitude towards the business).
Similarly with Covid epidemic. I live in an unaccessible part of the state with no road connecting us to anywhere.
The population is predominantly Native,everyone remembers only too well how just about 100 years ago the period between 1900 and 1920 was one continuous series of epidemics,typhus,diphteria,measles et c. That period is known as the Great Death,and no one knows just how many died,the concervative estimate is about 2/5ths of population.
So during Covid most remote villages including mine were shut down tight,and vaccinated early and thoroughly.
Science worked,there were very few losses,and no adverse effects from vaccinations.
I don't know just how harmful fossil fuel usage by humans is, Can't know it or certain.
But it's been brought up,and in fairness i can no easier discard it wholesale than i can buy into it ditto,so says the common sense that i'm born with (cain't help that).
None of us are stupid,we all know that some information sources are more reliable than others.
The Time magazine covers posted above are a silly example,i'd not take a general publication like that seriously on a subject like that.
But many vastly more responsible sources speak otherwise,among those many scientists that are very careful to steer clear of anything sensational or political. What's worse is that the data coming from many very different disciplines often seconds that from an unrelated field.
To a non-scientist any technical data must be necessarily in a popularised/dumbed-down format,and it's up to us to try to remain impartial and selective of our sources and it ain't easy.
In the late '80-ies i worked the winter on the North Slope,where the continent ends and you're looking over the Beufort Sea towards the Arctic ice. There's a wide dirty-brown band over the horizon,360 deg. around ya. (they say worse than LA,but never been to see that myself).
Pollution they say concentrates around both poles,and it sure appeared to be some filthy stuff,and lots of it,and it's doubtful that it was generated locally.
Again,from where i'm looking from i just can't dismiss it.
Quote from: btulloh on November 26, 2022, 06:47:17 PMNot long ago it was observed by everyone that the earth was flat. Scientists (and science) of the era confirmed that this was true.
Well the first person to work out the diameter of the Earth was Eratosthenes, around 200 BC. and he also calculated the tilt of it's rotation. He got both about as close as you can expect with the measurement tools he had available. Since then various people have Believed the Earth was flat (and some still do), without trying to emulate a 2200 year old experiment that showed not only that is it round, but lets you measure the size.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Measurement_of_Earth's_circumference
Why did(do) some people believe the Earth was flat? Because they blindly believe what they have been told. Science CAN be wrong about things, because of insufficient or incorrect data. Difference between science and dogma is that if new and better data turns up, you have to adjust your theory. Not use dogma (political / economic ./ religious) to explain away that evidence away.
Galileo (1564-1646) was the guy that worked out that the Earth was orbiting the Sun, and got into a lot of trouble with the local Church, who insisted that it worked the other way, because that's what their book said. In the end it turned out Galileo's observed facts and maths were correct, and the Church's belief in that regard were incorrect.
So see my post above about the Tasman Lake above. When you can actually see a 4 mile long lake appear in your own lifetime, maybe the climate IS changing, and it might be faster than we can comfortably adjust to.
How far has magnetic north shifted east over the past 25 years? Did humans do that too? What impact does that have on climate as it relates to solar energy passing through the atmosphere? I grew up in northern Maine - it's all rocks and lousy dirt to farm. Know why? Because the last ice age moved all the top soil south and created New Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware, where they have nice dirt and no rock. What caused that glacier to melt?
We don't know what we don't know. To claim the appearance of a lake over the span of a few years in a 4+ billion year history is a direct consequence of our activity is a far stretch and exactly what causes "climate science" to have a credibility problem.
At the risk of repeating myself I will again say, I can dig up shark teeth 8 miles from our farm in Kansas. Great BIG shark teeth in Kansas. They didn't swim across the prairie to just die there.
100% agree that the Earth's climate changes naturally, same as it's geography has changed over millions of years.
You can dig fossil oysters and crabs out of the stream banks a few miles inland from me too, places that are now ~500ft above sea level. That's tectonic action at work there, which although a different effect is a real one. Something you don't usually observe, because it takes a million years to make much change. But even then you can sometimes directly observe it. There is a spot on the coast of the Sth Island that suddenly popped ~20ft out of the ocean in a few seconds. Only 20ft, but repeat that every few hundred years, and that former beach soon becomes a small Mt range. But we don't notice, because the change is relatively gradual. Same as your Kansas shark teeth. X million years ago that part of Kansas would have been underwater. Maybe Kansas was lower, or the sea higher? Don't know, but whatever changed took millions of years.
We KNOW that certain natural events, like a large volcano can temporarily change the climate. If Yellowstone or Taupo let loose again it will affect the whole world climate, but there isn't much we can do about that. Volcanic ash has the opposite effect of CO2 to the climate. A super-volcano WOULD affect the climate, and probably create multi year crop failures, not an extinction event, but serious famine / economic / social upheaval. If you dump a comparable amount of CO2 into the air as a super-volcano can eject ash, then maybe you might expect a different effect but on that sort of scale?
So the fact that natural events can change the climate actually makes it more plausible that man made effects could as well. The main issue is the speed that the change could occur. Change the climate over a 50,000+ years and you can easily abandon Florida and start growing bananas in Greenland and Alaska. If the change happens in a 100 years, that's a problem.
They only look at weather events as their evidence, things that have happened naturally for ever and really beat the drums over it. There were just as severe events in the past as now, long stretches of bad weather, followed by calmer times. The talk now is that PEI is eroding. It's been happening all along. It has no rugged rocky coastline, it is a giant sand spit on shallow ocean. They have this idea that things are always constant. Some people don't understand the dynamics of sand spits all the sudden. There are some places on the planet where a earth quake caused tsunami will wipe out a town, there is no elevation there. When you flaunt with nature on the edge of harms way, what do you expect in your lifetime? The floods in Pakistan, huge population on a natural flood plain, no elevation, has been flooding there a very long time. Their agricultural practices with make shift levees and berms have proven to be no match for monsoons. Those people are continually being made destitute because they periodically lose everything and still want to live in it. Nothing new there. Look at Bangladesh, they have lifted themselves up, once considered a basket case. Companies are scrambling for resources to fulfill pipe dreams. We need to continue research and development, we can not afford to come full stop. It will result in economic collapse. You can see what turning off the gas line is doing to Europe.
100 years back the world's population was under 2 billion. Now we are at around 8 billion. I am certain an extra 6 billion or so probably has an impact and not sure that it will be possible to sustain that many people. Assuming that the "Al Gore-Greta Thunberg" disciples are correct and fossil fuels are the cause of all evil I remain skeptical that any current alternatives present a realistic solution on the scale required. I also strongly believe that the "change" required to mine, manufacture and build the infrastructure to replace all fossil fuels in a couple decades on such a massive scale represents impacts that very well could be worse than the issues they intend to "fix".
I also have an inkling that the poor peasants being regulated into starvation may decide that while they agree that something must change, they may have a slightly different view of what or who actually threatens their existence. The ones going to round up the cows and gas scooters from the peasants for the "greater good" might well add to global warming as they find themselves burned at the stake.
Yes for sure, the impact on resources is real, way more demands on them with 8 billion people, especially with most of them concentrated in one large region. Mitigation and remediation with infrastructure improvements will go a longer way than shutting off the gas line.
A friend of mine stopped by the shop last night and this topic came up. He's an engineer/manager for a big company that produces filters and parts of all types, small engine oil filters right up through def, dpf filters and everything in between. Some of their customers are CAT,John Deere,Kubota to name a few. He was saying they essentially have two lines of product the ones that get painted the buyers trademarked colors and ones that get painted olive drab or some military color that they use on government contracts.
Everyone of the parts painted to military spec has zero emissions compliance none,stripped down this is what works best we don't want anything complicated type. Anything painted company colors is and has to be within regulations for US needs. If it's headed overseas apparently it's hit or miss depending on final destination.
Wasn't surprised but when the same group that's ordering non compliant parts and telling me that by not using them I'm them problem.Hang on a second. What am I missing here? I don't get it.
The whole cow argument and the thought that they're killing the planet is another one I can't wrap my head around. Does that mean that shooting off all the buffalo was a good thing? They have the same digestive system as cows. Imagine if they were still around contributing to our demise.
I fully agree things are changing they have been since time started ,just went through one of if not the hottest and driest summers I can remember. Also have noticed it's not uncommon to get early October weather in mid November the last few years. But when the weather man can't accurately tell me what will happen in 3-4 days I'm not sure I'm gonna listen to intently to his buddy telling me what the weather will be in 100-200 years.
We went though several wet cool summers here 2008-2012, then 3 hot dry spells 2018-2020 with hardly any rain. Last two summers here have been normal, not that many 90 degree days, a few 60's in July as well. All normal from my 55 year experience. However I have seen the seasons shift. The spring now is colder, the early fall is warmer. Net effect is we can't grow any more, it's only shifting the season. My dad used to plant grains in mid-late April up here, that is rare now.
no one is dismissing the "evidence". I choose to dismiss the hyperbolic rhetoric and talking points. We do dumb things when we panic, and the goal of the green agenda is to make people panic. I choose not to panic.
Temperatures are forecast to drop 30-40 degrees here over the next week or so. Seems we never hear much about the polar shift these days but I have topo maps, purchased new, that are no longer accurate with respect to magnetic deviation.
I don't believe that isn't impacting us in a significant way, but nobody can point the finger at anyone over it and witch hunt guilt, so it stays in the shadows.
I wonder if anyone has correlated the movement of the magnetic poles with historical climate data? It's possible that there is a link, so the scientific approach would be to look at the data and see if it supports (or disproves) the hypothesis. Like I know the magnetic poles have even reversed at various times, do those correspond with a hot or cold period? I haven't dug into the subject, but I'm sure someone will have looked at it.
Well pole shift accompanies magnetic field fluctuations, which allows more or less solar radiation to penetrate through the atmosphere, so there has to be a link. If you are standing by a camp fire and someone crosses between you and the fire that's the same effect the magnetic field has on solar radiation, you feel less heat, the planet must feel less heat.
I get the theory, it's just that previous magnetic field fluctuations and even full reversals haven't caused any serious climate effects. The climate events and magnetic field disruptions don't align.
That's not to say there is zero effect, just that it's too small to really count. The particles the magnetic field blocks are the high energy charged ones (that can be problematic to staying alive). But they are only a small % of the total energy, and would mostly interact with the upper atmosphere anyway. 99% of the suns energy comes as light (UV through IR), and the magnetic field has zero effect on that.
The other thing is that even in a pole reversal event, the field is still there, just more jumbled. Your compass might point any direction from year to year, and aurora would follow the temporary poles (there might be several) as they moved. Last time this happened was about 45,500 years ago. The poles actually reversed for about 500 years, before flipping back. But there was no major disruption to the climate during this period.
Here is sea ice coverage in the Arctic in March 2022. The red outline is a 30 year median 1980-2010. You can see Canada has gained more sea ice in northern Quebec and lost way less around the Maritime region, a net gain in sea ice in Canada. NB and PEI and the Gaspe is still locked solid in ice every winter. The losses are Asian and European and some off Alaska. I'm not convinced this gives a stark picture. I also question methodology, how is the 30 year snapshot chosen? Why is that significant over any other 30 year period?
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/March2022-sea-ice.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1669712412)
Now look at March 1981, my region is practically ice free and Northern Quebec and NFLD is less ice. :D
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/March1981-sea-ice.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1669712722)
SD, you are supposed to pick the 30 years or whatever time period that best fits the narrative you're pushing.
That proved that fresh water off the caps freezes quicker than salt water. This is what I understood back then.
SE
Warm water freezes faster than cold water I used to help lay down ice at the Skating Rink. :D
This is all sea ice. Baffin Island is a big ice mountain, that is glacier. Adventure tourists go there to climb those ice mountains and look at polar bears down on the sea ice, not up on top of those ice mountains, no seals up there. And lemmings don't go up there to jump off like Walt Disney told ya. ;D Although one place Attenborough dared suggest walrus somehow fell off a cliff because of climate or something and what really happened was a family of polar bears moved in on them and they had no escape but over a sea side cliff and they jumped, rather than face being eating alive. Evidence showed the film drones also spooked some of the walrus enough to go over the cliff. These cliffs are not glaciated.
Icebergs floating by Newfoundland every spring is an annual event going back further than industrialization. Most are from Greenland, the rest from Canadian glaciated Islands. And the journey can take 3 years.
This is all sea ice. Fresh water don't melt in freezing cold winter. Baffin Island is a big ice mountain, that is glacier. Adventure tourists go there to climb those ice mountains and look at polar bears down on the sea ice, not up on top of those ice mountains, no seals up there. ;D
Quote from: SwampDonkey on November 29, 2022, 04:07:10 AMHere is sea ice coverage in the Arctic in March 2022. The red outline is a 30 year median 1980-2010.
Sorry there boss,it Can't be right-the Bering Strait part of the map is WAY off-the ice has never extended that far South (frozen coast to coast clear to Aleutians-those seas haven't frozen Ever,i don't think!:))
I think you interpret that map wrong,possibly what's meant by it being a map of "ice and Snow" is a possibility of snowfall at some point in winter?
Looking at the ice-cover in March i don't think is a great way to calculate how much Arctic ice remains,it Isn't a question of how big an area forms on some cold night but how much of the old,permanent ice is left.
I know where ocean water is and where an island is. All mainland is shown in green. Doesn't change the extent of sea ice. I'm quite certain that the Hudson Bay exists as a water body, and Baffin Island or Greenland are a glaciated land masses. The red line indicates 30 year median. It's not an over night observation, it's month long data and the median for the month displayed. That means an equal number data points is to the left as to the right. March is very representative because winter is several months long, not just the first month of winter and say the rest of winter doesn't count. ::) If I measure river ice here in Dec 21, it might be 12", the shore line not solid. In March it's 6 feet thick and that shoreline is solid.
The Bearing Sea is actually the one place it hasn't retreated a bit when comparing the 30 year median.
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/bearing-straight-sea-ice.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1669825822)
NASA notes that ice extent is the area with at least 15 percent ice cover, the minimum at which space-based measurements give a reliable measurement.
July 2022
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/sea-ice-July2022.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1669826917)
July 1981
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/sea-ice-July81.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1669826916)
July 1979
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/sea-ice-July1979.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1669827223)
I see similar ice from Greenland toward Canada in 1979 and 2022. Most losses again are in Asia and Europe. That straight up by Greenland can be froze in one year and maybe not the next, looking at 79 and 81 data there. But it changes back and forth.
Look at the sea ice in 2022 around the northern and southern tips of Newfoundland. Not there in the other photos shown.
Quote from: SwampDonkey on November 30, 2022, 11:33:54 AMThe Bearing Sea is actually the one place it hasn't retreated a bit when comparing the 30 year median.
I'm not in the habit of processing scientific data,and will not argue. (i even find it reassuring,and hope that's the trend indeed).
It's Not the impression that i'm left with however, for whatever reason, but again-would like to hope that i'm wrong.
Jake it's constantly changing boundaries because weather, the thing we observe day by day is always changing and seasonal changes within. Some areas like Asia and Europe are loosing ice, in Canada I see no significant loss. Some, yes. Furtwängler Glacier in Africa is considered ephemeral, on the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro and only existed continuously since about 1650. So it comes and goes over the centuries.That's no 1000 years by the way. ;)
the problem I have with the "argument", is that one side claims to have already won the argument. "Unconvertable evidence". that is what I hear, not the actual evidence. So you go to a college with Left leaning professors. You get a liberal arts degree say in political science (as an example). one of the requirements is satisfied by taking an ethics course. to teach ethics, they choose climate as a topic for an exercise to learn from. they leave the class not understanding ethics, but think they are a climate geniuses. They cannot get a job with their degree so they go into "public service" (government job) or politics. they then shout down anyone who dare have a different view or caution "not to throw the baby out with the bath water". If you want to move slow on wind and solar, and not have it subsidized by our tax dollars, you must hate humanity. attacking the person who asks a question. think cancel culture and wokeness. It used to be called political correctness, but that made it sound like "not a good idea". And in my opinion it is not! to be clear this is not directed at anyone here on the forum, but to the political climate. I apologize for brushing the edge of politics here. If I crossed the line, admin. can delete my post.
I read it as a definition / explanation, no need for it to go.
Thanks
Here is a up side to electric vehicles. My BIL got a Ford lighting recently, he will drive to the city for work one or two times a week which is 400 miles round trip says it cost him $12 to $14 dollars return trip which is a fraction of the cost that his chev 1500 with a 6.2 was, He figures that he will save enough in 4 years to pay for the truck.
So who is paying the electric bill on the recharges??
He does, he has a plug at his business and is getting one put in at home were he will be able to charge it for less at night. He will also put in a plug at his daughters in the city as sometimes he stays there for several days otherwise i believe the truck has enough range to make the return trip.
EV's will be paying road taxes, possibly extra for annual registration, what ever it takes to make up shortfalls in infrastructure revenue. It's already being discussed in various jurisdictions. I would only consider current savings as breathing room to develop the EV market. It's only a matter of time ,and not very far off either. As they say, enjoy it while it lasts. One positive from it will be no weekly fluctuations in energy prices like on gas, but then again how certain can we be of that? :D
And again, 'clean energy' is only measured by not emitting CO2 from the tail pipe. Ignores all the CO2 to get it to market. Which studies show it would take 280,000 miles on a 400 mile range vehicle to overcome CO2 penalties during manufacture in comparison to a gas powered vehicle.
Electricity is much more stable than gas but it is always going up a bit at a time, on the other hand it would be easier and cheaper to make your own electricity than gas for the DIYer.
Theoretically you can generate it. Cheaper? There's some coin to be spent on infrastructure to do it and maintenance, ideal weather (sun, wind), and how long do you want to wait for the charge. The quicker to charge the more money to make it happen.
Cheaper than making gas. I don't see many mini refineries out there although some burn fryer oil but that is a pretty limited supply of raw product and vehicles that can use it.
I give up Donkey, are the polar caps melting or not? would think height or just volume would have something to do with it to.
SE
I'm comparing with gas someone else already provides with their refineries and deliveries. Obviously we have to have our own source to even refine it. Wind and solar depends on weather to deliver to your yard. But it has to be captured by some sort of infrastructure.
Ultimately, the government will always have a way to get your contribution to use the roads and bridges.
Quote from: sharp edge on November 30, 2022, 04:20:42 PM
I give up Donkey, are the polar caps melting or not? would think height or just volume would have something to do with it to.
SE
Polar caps fluctuate, some areas add volume others loose. All tied to seasons and weather of course, which is always in flux. Some of the deepest ice on Greenland is over 2 miles thick. To get an idea on volume change I think we need more than a handful of cores. I think we need to stratify the locations we sample and randomize the locations to sample. Right now I'm not sure that samples come from more than just a couple stratum, the coldest interior regions of polar ice sheets.
The maps I showed only indicate sea ice changes compared to a 30 year median. You can see huge flux in coverage during July between 79 and 81 with more ice in 81, and 2022 is more than in '79. Ice is going to melt quicker from the southern edges and at lower elevations versus on top of an ice mountain at points north of there.
It's amazing they are pushing the new electric cars of new unveiled models from different manufacturers that are no where to be found and for as many gas stations as we have and electric cars needing charged where is all the infrastructure for them
Shouldn't need as many charge stations as there are gas pumps, most people with shorter commutes will charge their car at home however there will need to be more than there is now.
I'm betting that the convenience / gas pump companies already have a plan if they still want to sell junk food, coffee and lots tickets.
It will also be easy to put charge stations at other places like malls, hotels, work....
Lot of folks in cities have road side parking only, city owns the sidewalk between their land and the road. That would be a legal nightmare to set up charging stations.
Work and other places don't have 1,000's of spare amps available for employees to plug in. Upgrade transformers to the business, lines, entrances, distribution panels, trench parking lots, maintenance of the chargers. You can bet if I own a business and I am providing a plug in location I will make a profit on both my capital investment and the juice consumed.
Easy it won't be for sure.
I am sure everyone will just let you set there and charge up for free... in the dreams of the folks that think this will happen in a few years. We do not have enough wire, let alone battery components. I would get the truck so I can haul my gas or diesel generator with me. wait, maybe i should just drive a vehicle powered by those in the first place. Maybe in 20 or 30 years. we still need someone with diesel trucks and equipment to do the mining and transport of materials. and smelting of ore. Best to do that in other countries, as it is not like the CO2 and all the toxic gases can circle the earth... well I guess they can. At least all the children in other countries are learning trades. sorry for the sarcasm. Listening to AOC is not thinking.
On our recent trip there would be 40 cars in a loves truck stop trying to fuel up. we half the time filled in the truck line, so we did not have to wait. if 40 cars were filling with a fast charge (do not know the time or amps) Hundreds of cars would pile up and would need a big transformer station there on site. I guess the real hope is we all go back to one vehicle and only go to work and home. Not enough mass transit or air capacity either. of course, jets use fuel as well.
Quote from: Joe Hillmann on September 12, 2022, 08:46:59 PM
Was CA telling its citizens not to charge electric vehicles? Or not to charge them at times of high demand? There is a big difference.
An electric vehicle that doesn't use it's full range every day could be part of the solution. They can be charged at times of day when demand is lowest then backfeed that power to the house or grid when demand is high while hanging on to enough charge to cover much more than the driver uses on a typical day. That way even though the house is using the same amount of energy it is able to shift almost all of it's consumption to times of lowest demand and none durring peek hours.
Not to charge them at the peak demand because...wait for it...the grid is a mess and they also tell people to stop running ACs and not to wash clothes. It was a big nothing burger and the OP is making much ado about nothing.
Our grids are a mess. So they will get stronger. Power will be very distributed and grid management will take on a new role as pipeline management declines in importance. Our pipelines fail all the time and last year one failed on the east coast and thousands could not drive (hundreds of thousands). I could go on but the only point here is that power systems are integrated and break. Petro or electric. You want to be independent. make your own power.
Quote from: doc henderson on November 30, 2022, 08:56:11 PM
On our recent trip there would be 40 cars in a loves truck stop trying to fuel up. we half the time filled in the truck line, so we did not have to wait. if 40 cars were filling with a fast charge (do not know the time or amps) Hundreds of cars would pile up and would need a big transformer station there on site. I guess the real hope is we all go back to one vehicle and only go to work and home. Not enough mass transit or air capacity either. of course, jets use fuel as well.
The larger charging stations are up to 100 stalls, avg charge time is 15 mins. On holidays they are completely full all day. About 7000 cars charged in 1 day at the one station. That's pretty abnormal and really only with Teslas at this point but it won't be that unusual in 4 years. They have over 100k charging ports setup so far and they are expanding in the number of plug in spots and the voltage (super fast chargers are 350volts), lots of juice.
Levelized costs of solar continue to plunge and in 3 years will be approaching 0. At that point the solar farms really need to have battery capacity to shift power to non peak generation periods because the farms will all be fighting over demand. If they are competing with fossil fuels they'll suck all the market away between 9am and 5pm and with that will go the ability of the fossil plants to stay in business which is a huge risk for the grid. For some time we'll have very inefficient fossil fuel plants staying open to provide power between peak solar and peak wind. At some point the battery capacity comes online to allow the farms to shift power and then the fossil fuel plants will close.
The less the govt intervenes in that process the better for all. The market can figure it out.
You can go on sites like plugshare and see where the charging stations are if you are curious. 54,000 charging station locations so far. Lot less than gas stations at 140k but most of that is in 10 years. Then again, most homes can support home charging.
go to plugshare.com and look at your hometown to see if there is a charging station nearby.
Just last week there was an article that said how many KW a charging station will need, basically it's the same amount of juice as a small town. Ever driven north of Salt Lake City and seen the new power lines that were put in for the NSA facility south of the city? Just picture that all over the place. It's not going to happen.
Quote from: doc henderson on November 30, 2022, 08:56:11 PMif 40 cars were filling with a fast charge
A by far larger % of electric car owners charge at home, it's generally a cheaper rate than the commercial chargers. They may rely on public fast chargers if they are making a longer trip, but day to day driving relies on an overnight home charger. I think the nearest public charging is ~30 miles from here, but several people own electric cars. (Tesla and Leaf etc). Lil's friend lives a ways South of us, and has a ~100 mile round trip commute. The Tesla can easily do it twice on a full charge, but it gets topped up at home each night, so seldom gets below 50%. Even if he did extra driving and got home with ~10%, it would be recharged enough to get to work and back next day. So I don't know if he's ever used a fast charger?
It's a mind shift, that you don't normally need to go to a station to "refuel". They are there so you can drive more than x00 miles.
Of course changes in power usage and generation are going to need changes (upgrades) to the grid. That's always been the case. But those are technical problems, with technical solutions. I know Cali for example was having issues with home solar panels sometimes producing more power than the local grid was able to distribute. Again a technical problem, that's fixed with some new transformers and switchgear. That stuff gets replaced and upgraded from time to time anyway, it's not like it all needs to ripped out and replaced in the next year.
Texas grid problems was another example. There was some finger pointing at the wind turbines, but they hadn't been expecting much wind power at that time. It was the natural gas fired stations that actually let them down. Some control systems froze up and shut down stations. That caused some gas fields to lose power and hence shut down, taking down other gas power stations. But again those are technical problems. Their system wasn't designed for the sub-zero temperatures, and it costs money to cold proof and install backup power generation.
Well as to the technical problem of transformers and such, I was told there is a 54 week wait for transformers on new 3 phase installations right now when I looked to add power to the mill shed, that's without trying to add all these new stations. You think copper is expensive now? How many battles happen every time a utility tries to put in a new transmission line? There has been a war over CMP bringing hydro power from Quebec, along side existing lines, for YEARS now and the end is nowhere in sight. The EV driving NIMBYS are not going to go quietly into that dark night, unless they are out of juice in there EV of course.
Quote from: Hilltop366 on November 30, 2022, 06:46:41 PMI'm betting that the convenience / gas pump companies already have a plan if they still want to sell junk food, coffee and lots tickets
You got it. They are already big on takeaway food and barista coffee here. Margins on gas sales aren't great, but coffee / soda etc has a pretty good markup. Still going to take 1/2 hour to fast charge your car, so what are you gonna do? Selling them lunch, or at least a coffee and snack, is the business opportunity they have in mind. They have the prime real estate right there by the busy road, so how do you maximise the return?
Gas cars aren't going away any time soon (if ever), it will be a transition over decades. Some businesses will adapt to it, some wont.
Current charging stations in my area of operations, yes even way out there in the east end around Napadogan area. Not a single one, one 'planned' at the new Amsterdam, which is 1 km off the 4-lane, none at filling stations so far. I bet you have to be an overnight guest to, and not help yourself. ;) I was cutting last fall out their in Chapmanville to the NE on the map. There's a power line to about 3 km from where I was working.
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/charging-stations-NB.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1669870343)
I guess I'm a tight whad, I haven't bought a food item or coffee in a gas bar in 20 years or more. I have not eaten at many restaurants either, I'd say 4 in 5 years maybe. And during work travel, my grub for the day comes from home including any beverage. I don't fit their model too good. ;)
Quote from: SwampDonkey on November 30, 2022, 12:20:08 PMJake it's constantly changing boundaries because weather, the thing we observe day by day is always changing and seasonal changes within. Some areas like Asia and Europe are loosing ice, in Canada I see no significant loss. Some, yes. Furtwängler Glacier in Africa is considered ephemeral, on the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro and only existed continuously since about 1650. So it comes and goes over the centuries.That's no 1000 years by the way.
I must say i do find it Very tough to reconcile all those maps and stats with any empirical knowledge that i come into contact with on a daily basis.
Today i talked with a friend of a friend who is a seal hunter in the village of Shishmaref. On those maps the area ice appears solid and up against the beach. In reality it's been several years since the shore-ice has formed at all,making seal hunting impossible. The sea-ice is very far offshore if present at all,and all the marime mammal species along those coastlines are in a process of adaptation to a completely alien environment,the walrus in particular are radically changing their diet to that of a carnivore,the ice-shelf they need to haul out on is either too far out over the too-deep water or not there at all,with it goes their diet of mollusks forcing them to prey on seal instead.
Shish is one of the more ancient continuously occupied sites,it's there solely because of the sea-mammal harvest. The oral record there is pretty long and solid,and is often corroborated by archaeology.
I'm at present spending some weeks in Fairbanks helping some friends in working on their house. Both of them teach at the University of AK/Fbks,and are in various ways a part of the system known as the Arctic Studies Program.
This program is a very extensive international cooperative effort of quite a long standing,the participating universities are places like Sorbonne,Oxford,StPetersburg,Tromso,Reyjavik and so on (not sure what Canadian institutions are also a part of this).
I'm friends with this group of scientists purely on a personal basis,and rarely if ever discuss the "climate change" with them.
But what i do pick up (by osmosis,one may say:)) is anything But something like "hum-de-dum,the Arctic is rolling along business as usual".
This is a very large group of people that work Very hard at keeping themselves VERY informed in their respective fields. I'll not even stoop to defending them by saying that they're not a bunch of "marxists" that are flogging some alarmist theories for some nefarious political ends,or any such silliness.
Yet my own take on things (that of an illiterate dolt who really can't see far beyond "it's a colder/warmer winter this year by golly,i jes Feels it in me bones!":)) seems quite in line what these folks,And their very numerous peers in related fields.
Another large group whose thinking also tends rather along these lines are the indigenous folks and their communities (people not generally known for their inclination to any "liberal" views and speaking generally with very little love for whiteman science and scientists).
Why is all that apprehension about the warming trend "in the air"?
(and yes,i Do know what a "confirmation bias" is :))
To chalk all that up to "wokeism" (i've only learned that word recently and it seems both rude and ignorant somehow) would be akin to baselessly suspecting any other professional of deliberate incompetence. For me it'd be like disrespect to some aged miller who's been operating this ancient steam sawmill for a lifetime, ascribing some action of his you happen to not appreciate to some twisted politicized motiff,i.e. blatant disrespect...
Quote from: SwampDonkey on November 30, 2022, 11:54:56 PMI guess I'm a tight whad, I haven't bought a food item or coffee in a gas bar in 20 years or more. I have not eaten at many restaurants either, I'd say 4 in 5 years maybe. And during work travel, my grub for the day comes from home including any beverage. I don't fit their model too good
But if you don't travel out of your local area, then you charge at home. Sure you can't run a 50kw charger off a house supply. You run a more sensible slow charger that tops up the battery overnight, and does run off a domestic supply. You need a charger network so people can travel longer distances, and in that case a 30 min stop for lunch is pretty much a given. Heck you don't need to even buy their over priced coffee, you can use your card at the charger, buy $20 of charge, and eat your sandwich in the car if you like.
Local map shows 5 x 50kw fast chargers within an hour, and we are off the beaten track. In New Plymouth there are probably a dozen public chargers (not "fast") outside various stores and supermarkets. Of course you pay for the power you take, hence the public access.
Cities with limited parking? Yeah, that's a problem, but it affects a fairly small % of the population. And they are probably the people that can actually use public transport. (Trains, busses and ferries can be electric too)
We have been down this road before (no pun intended). Who will ever buy a self-driving carriage? Where will I buy this poisonous, explosive stuff that powers it, and who will invest in a filling station when everyone still has a horse?
...back in 1899 a bus line was announced to operate between Chicago and St. Louis. All of us believed bus lines would come some day, but we knew the public was not ready to accept such a dream. And, indeed, E.P. Ingersoll, a reporter on automobile topics, wrote the following widely circulated opinion piece:
"The notion that electric vehicles, or vehicles of any other kind, will be able to compete with railroad trains for long-distance traffic is visionary to the point of lunacy. The fool who hatched out this latest motor canard was conscience-stricken enough to add that the whole matter was still in an exceedingly hazy state. But,if it ever emerges from the nebulous state,it will be in a world where natural laws are all turned topsy-turvy, and time and space are no more. Were it not for the surprising persistence of this delusion, the yarn would not be worthy of notice."
Alexander Winton, Saturday Evening Post, February 8, 1930
https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2017/01/get-horse-americas-skepticism-toward-first-automobiles/
It's circular arguments and always comes back to increased consumption of what you want reduced consumption of. As you increase demand on energy, consumption of resources to add infrastructure increases even faster. Your converting a resource into something else before you can get electricity from it, which is not an efficient path. Resources are material things as well as space. Production of plastics is going to skyrocket. Since we recycle very little of it, it's going to eventually go up in smoke to generate electricity. It is a tremendous cost, whether you want to walk blindly or not it doesn't change the facts.
The impending disaster has already set sail. Pipelines cancelled, coal plants shuttered, automakers abandoning IC development etc. Not sure where the natural gas is going to come from to generate the extra electricity during the transition. I posted a picture of my office electric bill that went from $14 to $43 because of line-item up charges related to the utility needing to recoup costs incurred from dumping coal. Come Jan 1 the state is adding sales tax of 6% to all non-residential bills. The higher my energy bill the greater the states take. Parasite heaven.
I am no climate scientist, but I can guarantee that increased demand for electricity(EVs) coupled with decreased means of providing supply(oil/gas/coal) will lead to shortages. Shortages mean a bidding war for available supply and rationing. Most likely both.
This forum tends to lean toward the older and conservative crowd. A politician I hold in low regard famously stated "elections have consequences". They do and those who argued for restraint lost to those who demanded we shutter fossil fuels immediately. It's a crisis! (Never let a good crisis go to waste without implementing social reform don't ya know.) I agree there is a crisis, but it will be the one we inflicted upon ourselves by prematurely abandoning what we rely upon before the alternative has been developed. Back in the computer stone age I used to run the mainframe for a major company. We had two parallel systems. One for operations and the other for testing updates/upgrades. Took years to verify and implement a major system change. It was a sound practice.
Marxists always have a plan for the "greater good". Problem is those plans never work and this will be a failure of epic proportions. Have we already forgotten the chaos at the ports over Covid lockdowns? Surely there will be natural or man-made disaster that disrupts or delays the long list of things that need to converge in the next decade.
Building backyard power generation will become essential to savings one's own existence long before the planets.
We told you so ain't much; but it's all we got left.
And yes I think electric vehicles might well be successful. I have an electric bike. The range without peddling is about 25 miles and takes 5 hours to recharge on a 110 outlet. No doubt batteries and charging will improve but we aren't there yet. I have about a dozen cell phone trail cameras mostly for keeping watch on properties without electric service. They need lithium batteries to have much battery life. I order the batteries bulk on Amazon. Price of the batteries has tripled in less than a year's time. What was economical two years ago will be where when the big three are all fighting over lithium and copper like they are for antique computer chips for heated seats today?
It's not electric versus gas its government mandate versus market driven. Build the electric model T and people will line up to buy one. No need to shoot the horse.
"Ye shall plant beans instead of corn" because the enlightened sayeth. Until the emerald bean borer arrives from Tasmania and we all starve.
Thinking the city folks are a "small percentage of the population" and telling them they can use public transportation instead of owning a vehicle is right up there with "let them eat cake".
Didn't work out then, and the same approach won't work out this time for the same reason nobody is successfully going to tell us out in the boonies what we "must do". It's human nature. Sensible solutions are one thing, this forced transition isn't.
Quote from: SwampDonkey on December 01, 2022, 05:40:09 AMalways comes back to increased consumption
Yes, it does.
Years ago when I had kids in school, they learned
Reduce, Re-use and
Recycle (ordered by declining environmental benefit). We have been pretty good (at least better) with the last one. Even the poorer countries in Europe have a system for sorting and recycling. And though the environmental benefits can at times be questionable, it does make us feel better.
Re-use has become popular in some areas (e.g. some clothes, building material), but re-use face several challenges and still amounts to a microscopic % of total consumption.
And then there is
Reduce. There are very few voices, regardless of political color, that say, "Do not buy that new <insert product>". The <product> dealer needs to make a living and meet payroll (and taxes need to be paid to make society's economic cake bigger).
Instead a new "R" is introduced;
Replace the gas car with an EV. Replace your old boat, camper, sofa, TV... with a "green" one, produced in an "environmentally responsible" way. But by all means, continue consuming.
The country of Denmark does "everything right"; high % of renewable energy, bicycles, organically produced food, green certification, etc. etc. Italy does some, but much, much less (per capita) than Denmark. Who has the greater carbon footprint? The Dane by about 25%, because he/she consumes more. And Denmark's windmills and organic tomatoes are not going to change that.
But the problem is that 'replace' is not offsetting or paring consumption for the same transport capacity, it's adding more CO2 to produce it. Adding more windmills and solar to make more power consumes more, the plastics into them comes from oil. You have to use oil to make them before a single kilowatt is sent down the line.
EVs over the long haul will dramatically reduce overall consumption. They are more efficient, require 40% less labor to assemble, have fewer parts, drive further per unit of energy applied. We're just going to go through an industrial replacement cycle like we did with coal in 1900 moving to oil. Took 40 years.
Most people don't really get the implications of charging at home. 95% of charging will occur at home. You'll have lots of charging stations but most of the power is coming from the house. The actual charging needs for most are low, the average commute/daily drive is low so the equivalent of a dollar or two in electricity at offpeak is about what it takes to "fuel" up the EV. The charging stations are for longer distance drives. How many days a month do you or your spouse drive over 200 miles one way?
In terms of city residents there are lots of good points raised in this thread; lots of solutions being implemented. Cities are mostly wealthy and have dense networks and many options. They'll figure out how to get chargers just as they figured out how to install petro stations. People in cities will only need to charge infrequently. I suspect most parking garages will have stations retrofitted.
2 million people have home chargers already. The long slow rollout has been informative. Take the new Ford Lightning- you can actually run your house off the truck for a couple of days while the power is out through a special charger. Ford implemented something others had only talked about so far. It's big part of the potential solution, there is the possibility that we jam electrons into EVs everyday during peak solar and use that combined battery pack to power the grid at night.
The battery capacity is being built to supply over 10 million cars year just in the USA. Tesla alone will have 2+ million annual production in the USA by end of next year. A couple of years ago I posted the same thing, in 2 years we can come back to this thread and post how it actually happened but by 2026 Tesla will no longer be supplying most of the EVs in the USA.
FYI. Today Tesla delivers the first semi truck to Pepsi. They are 4 years late, no spare battery capacity. The order book is over 100k units with deposits. They hope to make 50k a year in 2024. The combined heavy truck market is 250k units a year I think. I've done the math on the semi truck and it is mind boggling how much money the trucking firms will save.
Quote from: SwampDonkey on December 01, 2022, 07:53:37 AM
But the problem is that 'replace' is not offsetting or paring consumption for the same transport capacity, it's adding more CO2 to produce it. Adding more windmills and solar to make more power consumes more, the plastics into them comes from oil. You have to use oil to make them before a single kilowatt is sent down the line.
at this point in the industrial process it is a dramatic net reduction.
Quote from: nativewolf on December 01, 2022, 07:59:02 AMCities are mostly wealthy and have dense networks and many options. They'll figure out how to get chargers just as they figured out how to install petro stations. I suspect most parking garages will have stations retrofitted.
That does not describe many north east cities, especially parking garages in residential neighborhoods. Midwest, younger cities where there is room to grow, maybe, but look at the population density in the north east and tell me how you overcome the logistics of no ground left?
I don't see much difference in producing solar panels or wind turbines as what you or I do to heat our houses, we bought a chain saw and a tractor/ATV made from metal and plastic then for a few dollars for fuel and chain oil we heat our houses all winter.
If it pencils out as a saving in total cost in the long run and does the job why not.
Anyway I thought I would mention my BIL's experience with his electric truck so far, it was ordered a long time ago he willingly bought it, no one forced him, he pays for his electricity and the company that supplies the electricity does so at a profit to its share holders (it is regulated and the profit is capped) He figures it should save him the cost of the truck in about 4 years so we will see what happens.
I will stick to my story until proven wrong. I don't mind being wrong, if it comes that, not in the least. :)
Musk is the same guy that Tweeted, 'if we have to have regime change to get a certain resource, deal with it'. Not an exact quote.
I would add that If I had to buy a new tractor, winch, wood boiler, chain saw..... for about 50k it probably would not pencil out well. :D
Yeah, if I had to buy a tractor just the cut wood, no deal. I have a SxS and chain saw, I figure 8-years to come ahead, 4 years left. Next year's wood is all staged outside my door to stack in spring. ;D I cut 8-10 cords a year. To buy it, it would be over $3200 a year I'm sure. $1000 chain saw, 2 gallons of gas and chain oil, 10 gallons SxS gas a year. Two gallons of gas for saw right now is $12, 10 gallons of SxS gas is $57 and two gallons of chain oil is $54. ;D Wood furnace with electric side unit $3500. In 4 more years, it's mostly all gravy here. Even beats a heat pump for install and power cost by then, way warmer to. I've got enough chain oil ahead for the next two years. ;)
Quote from: Hilltop366 on December 01, 2022, 08:36:55 AM
I don't see much difference in producing solar panels or wind turbines as what you or I do to heat our houses, we bought a chain saw and a tractor/ATV made from metal and plastic then for a few dollars for fuel and chain oil we heat our houses all winter.
If it pencils out as a saving in total cost in the long run and does the job why not.
Anyway I thought I would mention my BIL's experience with his electric truck so far, it was ordered a long time ago he willingly bought it, no one forced him, he pays for his electricity and the company that supplies the electricity does so at a profit to its share holders (it is regulated and the profit is capped) He figures it should save him the cost of the truck in about 4 years so we will see what happens.
Consumer demand is huge. The lightning has a year long waiting list, truck companies have been waiting 4 years for the semi from Tesla and many have already paid. Just like with power, most of the changes in utility charges are because they had to move from coal to natural gas. The renewables are barely impacting things yet.
Leaving out govt intervention renewables will win out on utility side, levelized costs approach 0 and nothing can compete. It is going to open huge business opportunities and entire new industries. There will be change on change and things will be very interesting. Frankly I don't get the huge govt intervention, there were no consumer credits for Tesla the last 2 years it had no impact on consumer demand. Seems to just be inflationary and not required.
are you saying that all the wind turbines are manufactured, shipped, installed, and operated as well land leased, all by private industry?
Just how many F150s did Ford not build for lack of raw materials the last 2 years from established supply chains? Will the battery plant they announced in E-town KY be finished on time? Pretty extensive list of "going to". No doubt that all the various aspects will fall into place without a hitch. You know all the petty stuff like earthquakes, wars, floods, tornadoes, lawsuits, revolutions that weren't part of the five-year plan certainly won't disrupt the timeline.
They really should go straight to the "Jetson" aerial electric vehicle as not quite sure how we will build tires or roads without oil. When the IC replaced the horse no one on the planet foresaw that it would cause the end of the world by global warming. Surely the mining, manufacturing, and disposal of a few billion batteries and solar panels will have no negative consequences. Anyone care to buy some FTX stock?
Plug in one 1500W electric heater in your cold garage and let it run for a month and see what it does to your electric bill. Once everyone in the country is doing that overnight when there is zero solar happening it's going to be interesting. No doubt the utilities will be incorporating smart meters to double the rate during the new overnight peak when everyone needs to charge.
I just don't see anyone taking into account the scale of what actually needs occur for this to work. I live on a US highway 5 miles from town and we don't have cable TV or fiber optic internet.
Honestly, I think the ones pushing it know it won't work and don't care because the areas most damaged will be the fly-over residents they despise to start with. Punishing rednecks in the process is just a welcome side benefit.
all the infrastructure has to cost tons, and no one company can afford or borrow enough to do all that. It will take years and billions and not even happen in my lifetime. trying to speed things up ahead of the technology and manufacturing curve, drives up the cost. You know how the government hates to waste money... if it is theirs.
Quote from: doc henderson on December 01, 2022, 09:55:44 AM
are you saying that all the wind turbines are manufactured, shipped, installed, and operated as well land leased, all by private industry?
Manufacturing shipping install yes. Some utilities are public so ? On operating. It is big business GE Siemens etc are the players. The big news in wind is offshore floaters. These turbines resemble nothing you see on land. Massive
Its big business because they have no alternative. The alternative is illegal because of EPA dictates. You don't have to be better when your competition is legislated out of viability. How nice for GE.
It won't be over night and it won't work for everyone now and just like the current ICE vehicles it won't be perfect.
Look at the current system and add up the cost of oil exploration, drilling, pumping, storage, pipelines, tanker ships, refineries, distribution, central bulk plants, trucking, local bulk plants, delivery for home heating or to gas stations, storage at home or gas stations, gas pumps. Kind of bulky and inefficient, if we had no system in place and this was proposed it would sound foolish.
Like I was trying to say in my previous post (cutting fire wood) about using the oil to make equipment that can produce way more energy over the years makes more sense than burning it up (gone) and buying more while complaining about OPEC and big oil, government kickbacks, oil company subsidies.
I say hurry up! In my life time please.
gas and oil has evolved and developed over a hundred years or so. not overnight. anyone flogging the horse and promoting the climate emergency is most of my discomfort. nothing is for free. the technology takes time to develop. even in 10 years we may look back and say, "I cannot believe they thought this old tech would work on a large scale". I have no problem with the concept of wind and solar. I have a problem with having it rammed down my throat.
Just some tidbits to throw out.
Ice coverage maps: try this: https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/data/current-state-sea-ice-cover You won't find data before 1979 since that's when they first started taking decent pictures from satellites.
I heard one climatologist say that the Bearing Sea didn't have as much ice due to the winds coming up from the South. It is different than times in the past. Climate is dynamic, not static.
Latest Greenland data: Surface Conditions: Polar Portal (http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/) It ain't melting.
Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut (https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php) This shows the mean arctic temperature. Also viewable for several years. The green line is the base from 1958-2002. For 2020, the mean arctic temperature is higher in the winter months. During the summer, its been close to the norm. Without increased summer temperatures, you won't get increased melting. The reason for the increase in wintertime temps is an increase in water vapor. Water vapor will hold a whole lot more heat than CO2. When you average it out, temps appear to be higher, but it isn't during the melt season. Maybe it isn't CO2 that's the culprit.
Sunspot activity is also a huge factor. We're going into some solar cycles that are showing a decrease in the number of sunspots. That has a profound effect to climate on earth. Periods of low sunspot activity has a cooling effect. Current snow cover in the world is above multiyear means.
If you mined all the lithium in the world and put it into batteries, you would be able to store about 22 minutes of the world's usage. There's not enough lithium on the planet to provide even 1% of the population with an EV.
Although lithium is getting by for now it won't be the forever answer.
Thinking back didn't we almost burn all the oil back in the 70's when I was a kid.
Making those things is like burning it up to. To get 1.5MW, by now the cost is probably $1.5M per MW. It was over $1M a windmill 18 years ago. The Beechwood dam generates 112 MW in comparison and has been there 65 years. And Mactaquac is 660 MW around 55 years old now. It would take 75 windmills running continuous to replace 112 MW, 440 windmills to replace 660 MW. Each windmill needs 80 gallons of PAO synthetic oil for lubricant, based on crude, annually. Over 980 barrels annually, combined for all windmills, in this comparison. 1666 Mwatt-hrs gone poof. Each takes 1.5 acres of foot print, so your talking almost 773 acres of land. It will have to be cleared in some regions because up here you're not using potato fields. :D I'm using hydrodams as a comparison on how much footprint and resources it would take for windmills to replace that electricity. Not that dams will ever be replaced by windmills. And we know the numbers are a lot more because they are not continuously generating power and no efficient way to store it. And not even adding in materials to construct them of fossil fuels origin.
Quote from: nativewolf on December 01, 2022, 07:59:02 AM
FYI. Today Tesla delivers the first semi truck to Pepsi. They are 4 years late, no spare battery capacity. The order book is over 100k units with deposits. They hope to make 50k a year in 2024. The combined heavy truck market is 250k units a year I think. I've done the math on the semi truck and it is mind boggling how much money the trucking firms will save.
Was that math for trucks doing local deliveries? LTL or container transfers?
How do those battery reefer trucks work out?
In MN, it gets so cold that we can spin the refrigerator backwards on a reefer and put it back in the battery😁
Without looking at a map that shows all of the charging stations for the E cars everywhere. I only know of one that I've seen one in a small town about ten miles away that's been there for a couple years in a little strip mall with a small grocery store and bar. I assume they put it in because they are only a couple miles off of a major interstate. So with the E bandwagon what are the plans for the major gas stations I wonder if they will implement them.
I am really doubtful many gas stations have the excess electric capacity or space. Can be hard to get to a diesel pump or air compressor sometimes now and it takes about 2 minutes to top off a passenger fuel tank. No doubt 30 minutes for an EV will go smooth as silk. ::)
Our county has 2 public charging stations available and the Makers Mark distillery and ISC Cooperage are big tourist attractions. I can see the headline in the weekly paper: "Tesla Owner cited for brawl at charging station" :D
I only know of one within 24 miles, the electric company put it in at a gas station 4 years ago. I've never even laid eyes on an EV yet, with all these so called millions that are out there. :D I know you can't buy one in this area. Last I checked online at the nearest city all EV's are used and $40,000 to $80,000.
None of us remember, but cars were invented before gas stations.
"They will never catch on, where will you buy that gasoline stuff?"
The main gas station in town has just been remodelled with new food and barista coffee service. They don't have electric chargers yet, but that's because of low demand. Rough observation they have as many coffee/ food customers as gas. (and profit is probably similar per customer) We aren't on the main Nth/ Sth highway, so few vehicles are "passing through", mostly local, and they don't need the chargers.
Out on SH1, they have "service centres", which will have a gas station / subway / McDs and even other decent food and coffee. A large car park, and industrial power supply. That's where the chargers are going in, for folks that want to drive Auckland to Wellington. That's roughly an 8 hour drive, taking a 1/2 hour out to eat lunch and recharge your Tesla isn't a big deal. But the locals around Taupo won't be queuing up, because they can slow charge at home.
It will mean a gradual shift in the gas station model, but that's already started. At some point the coffee and sandwiches might be a bigger profit than gas or electric charging. But like I said, folks will stop at the local station just for coffee, and will probably do the same in an electric car. Starbucks isn't big in NZ because even gas stations serve better coffee.
Up here in New Brunswick the first Ford dealership was owned by K.C. Irving who had his first service station in 1924.
The first dealership in the US was Metzger, which opened in 1897, selling Waverly Electric cars.
Gas won out over electric. One major issue with electric is available resources to make the batteries. There's no way to totally replace gas with available lithium resources. Will something else come along? Maybe, if there's enough supply. It's likely a long way off though. In the 1970's when there was a gas embargo in the US and long lines at pumps, it never happened up here. I'd be willing to bet there is a lot more oil left then available lithium.
Quote from: SwampDonkey on December 05, 2022, 05:15:16 AMUp here in New Brunswick the first Ford dealership was owned by K.C. Irving who had his first service station in 1924.
The Ford Model T was first sold in 1908. So 16 years later you got a gas station...
Of course few people built a gas stations in 1908 in the hope that people might buy cars some time in the next 10 years.
The model T had such a timing range because gasoline was available in cities but alcohol was more available in the country... at least in Henry Sr's mind. It was a duel fueler. Gasoline first arrived here over the mountain in jugs on a wagon which were lined up on the porch of the store round the corner. Well, that and any fuel of the time was very variable, it took some skill to dial it in after a fresh fill up.
How do you pollute less, make resources last longer, in general improve the quality of life... quit breeding like rabbits ::). It won't matter all that much which resource depletes first when you find the limit. The population has gone from 2 to 8 billion in one generation, cull the herd.
1 cord of wood=5000 miles on wood gas, no dug up carbon, current sunlight.
Quote from: Ianab on December 05, 2022, 04:41:57 AM
Starbucks isn't big in NZ because even gas stations serve better coffee.
Same here.
Don P
You hit the nail on the head
The elephant in the room is the exploding world population.
Cheers
Al
PS People are CO2 emitters
Wonder how much heat 8 billion bodies produce?
It all originates from solar. :) fossil fuels. oil, gas, coal, wood, biomass, wind, solar panel electric, plants we eat, sunlight radiation. nuclear is a stretch but like a sun on earth.
In an isolated sub-arctic village where i live,some hundreds of miles away from the road-system (with our own 12 or so miles of gravel roads),a friend has barged out a Tesla to use around town!:)
He wanted one a long time,(an engineer who geeked out on the concept for many years :)),and it's a 4x4 and supposedly could be used to haul his boat in and out of the water and pull a trailer full of birch for firewood and some other chores of the sort.
He has a modest PV array at home and was hoping to be able to charge it using that (our grid is a neanderthal kind where a 3306 Cat or two are humping 24/7,with the electric bills subsidized by the state and the feds and God Almighty himself for all i know as otherwise all anyone could afford would be a tallow candle lighting).
It's a first winter so the jury's still out as to how it may perform for him,will be cool to see what happens.
For many years my village had a deal under discussion with Toshiba corp. to have an experimental "pocket-size" nuclear reactor for testing purposes,but the regulatory side of equation (the concept being so new) had proved unsurmountable and the deal fell through.
I think that maybe the feds themselves are setting up an experiment at the Eilson AFB near Fbks,so maybe once that concept is developed and becomes more/less acceptable,then the many off-road villages around circumpolar North may become more practicable propositions...
(some good naytural adversity implicit in remote living may benefit the population in terms of quality and quantity both?:))
PV array
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic_system
Quoteelectric bills subsidized by the state and the feds
We'll help, no problem. It's just money. ;D
I wonder why all the car co. are going EV. They usually just worry about money. Think the answer is the EV is a better car.
SE
Quote from: doc henderson on December 05, 2022, 09:48:04 AM
It all originates from solar. :) fossil fuels. oil, gas, coal, wood, biomass, wind, solar panel electric, plants we eat, sunlight radiation. nuclear is a stretch but like a sun on earth.
If you stick to using current sunlight, (wood, biomass, wind, solar, plants pooped out our rear end and turned into methane, moonshine...), then you are not raising the levels of carbon in the air.
If you dig up buried ancient sunlight you raise the levels of carbon in the air.
Since you cannot really burn all the carbon in the wood, with each burn of biomass some amount is sequestered. A little tongue in cheek but when using those fuels you are running a big block air cleaner.
The flex fuel Ranger has been running poorly and I had to go over the mountain to get a DOT physical this morning so I filled it up with flex fuel. I'd say it was a high proof load, fun winding though the nat'l forest and it had a little whang in the air when I parked it. Kind of did a double take to see if it had morphed into a street rod :D.
IC engines are not gas burners, they are vapor burners, find vapors and mixes that go boom. Pollen, terps... :D
we have a lot of natural gas so that is what we use. we have to remain diverse to accommodate local resources and not try to ship, transport, wire stuff all over the country if not needed. If the CO2 levels go up, I bet the vegetation will be able to produce a bit more wood and leaves, and fruit. CO2 is the substrate combined with water and energy that makes a tree "put on weight". maybe if the CO2 goes up a few hundred parts per million, the trees and plants will do better and metabolize it back to sugar and oxygen. Wonder if we eliminated all the CO2, if all plant life depending on photosynthesis would suffocate and die. a chloroplast is likened to a mitochondria in reverse "the power house of the cell". the mitochondria takes sugar and Oxygen and releases stored energy from the sun producing CO2 and water. plants take CO2 and water and energy from the sun and build stems and leaves and wood. the circle of life. sing it with me. when we burn a carbon fuel like wood, we release CO2 and water as well as heat and light (radiation just like the sun). If you kill all the plant life on earth, we will all die unless we can convert CO2 and water, back to oxygen chemically or mechanically.
For a long time it was believed that all life on earth was dependant on photosynthesis. Then they found vents deep under the ocean where CO2 emanates out of the earth. Bacteria feed on the CO2 somehow and form the basis of a food chain. Big tube worms and crabs have evolved so this gas has been coming out for a very long time. There are vents all around the world, plus CO2 from volcanos. Nobody ever talks about this. Maybe Hawiai should have to buy carbon credits for that volcano that is erupting. :D
The nutrition levels of grains drops. Not good.
I think we know better, it's how do we do it better and not break the bank.
Having blown thru half a cylinder of propane today, I can about bet you money my footprint is bigger than yours Doc, Im not preaching from too high a pulpit :D
Quote from: sharp edge on December 05, 2022, 04:28:04 PM
I wonder why all the car co. are going EV. They usually just worry about money. Think the answer is the EV is a better car.
SE
They sure do, planned obsolescence is a thing, they don't want your car lasting too long or they make less money. They've realized they can offer less, charge more and better control when your vehicle will fail if it's electric and they still own the IP for servicing it. The cobalt child labor mines are half way around the world, out of sight, out of mind, besides, we'll never run out of lithium or cobalt, the batteries are super safe and really easy to recycle.
Apparently when you lose weight it is given off as CO2 so I guess all the over weight North Americans are really just trying to save the planet? ;D
Quote from: doc henderson on December 05, 2022, 07:00:51 PMIf you kill all the plant life on earth, we will all die unless we can convert CO2 and water, back to oxygen chemically or mechanically
Even then we still all die. Without plant coverage the soil will get hotter, the microbial life in the soil which is what actually makes the soil grow plants will die, and we will have nothing to eat.
The flora and fauna present during the age of the dinosaurs absolutely dwarfs anything we have today, CO2 levels were higher and life flourished.
I have just spent a few days reading over this post.
I believe the EV is coming. HOW? Will it work, sure it will. We are humans and nothing like a good challenge.
It will work. I would not mind car that goes 0 to 60 in 3 seconds. but we cannot all buy one tomorrow. Yet the government is trying to price petroleum off the market by threatening oil companies. lots of lost jobs, and skills potentially gone for ever. fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. did they really think all the pipeline welders, managers and investors would just go ahead and start working again, when they are listed as "public enemy # one by the green crazy people.
There's a reason greenhouses supplement with CO2. :) It has also been greening the planet with increased veg, not the other way around.
I think we've already opened that jet further than that. Things won't improve if you keep opening that screw :D. A little digging in peer reviewed science will turn up more of this stuff;
The extra CO2 caused an imbalance within the crop's chemical makeup, which resulted in rice that had lower amounts of protein, iron, zinc, and B-vitamins.
Don - do you recall where you found that quote? I would like to see how they accounted for all of the other variables that go into grain production / analysis. Thanks.
That was a fast google, I knew SD's comment had been dispelled decades ago. That quote was from a fluffier piece;
More CO2 in the atmosphere hurts key plants and crops more than it helps » Yale Climate Connections (https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/12/more-co2-in-the-atmosphere-hurts-key-plants-and-crops-more-than-it-helps/)
I'm reading this piece right now which has an interesting section on the different types of photosynthesis, there are several mechanisms.
Effects of Rising Atmospheric Concentrations of Carbon Dioxide on Plants | Learn Science at Scitable (nature.com) (https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108/)
But I'll have to read better tonite, my mind is looking at 40° approaching and pouring concrete, more of my big footprint. That and, crap, I probably hung a lead painted door yesterday, my ancestors gift to me. I'm trying not to leave too many of those gifts behind.
Funny, if we lost 200 ppm it would be acute to plants and according to ice cores temperature would be 5 degrees cooler. We're only around 400 ppm now. If you drop below 300 ppm there is a significant decline in photosynthetic rate. Above 800 ppm there is less significant gains.
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/CO2-Concentr-Photo.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1670337834)
What myth are you talking about anyway?
You can't get out more sugar and oxygen than you put in. Plants control it with leaves. 6CO2 + 6H2O + light → C6H12O6 + 6O2
The first article doesn't say much, doesn't show concentration and effects, it's an opinion piece. Yeah if we we're at 1200 ppm it wouldn't be much benefit and probably not that great. But they don't quantify anything.
The second article also makes no mention of CO2 concentration and states that the effects of elevated CO2 are not uniform. Also makes no mention of threshold ppm's, too low or too high. This is widely known in green houses, it's why it depends on the crops they grow and how much supplementation they use.
Thanks, I will read those this evening. As far as PPM / plant health I suspect that the plants we have now have evolved to excel in this current environment, so naturally pushing them onto the fringe of conditions will impact them, but what comes next?
A good example of what I am talking about would be Palmer Amaranth and how the use of glyphosate caused the plant to evolve and now fields are covered with round up resistant Palmer because a few were resistant to the glyphosate and passed on their genetics.
Nature finds a way.
You can't fool Mother Nature!
Automaker Stellantis lays off hundreds of American workers, blaming high cost of making electric cars (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/automaker-stellantis-lays-off-hundreds-of-american-workers-blaming-high-cost-of-making-electric-cars/ar-AA157VqB?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=206c6fe2336d4a63bb5a4c25bba19315)
Nuclear Fusion breakthrough!!!!
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/12/breakthrough-in-nuclear-fusion-could-mean-near-limitless-energy (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/12/breakthrough-in-nuclear-fusion-could-mean-near-limitless-energy)
Daaang, they crossed the beams.
Quote from: doc henderson on November 26, 2022, 09:26:29 AM
I am a scientist and have not seen any compelling evidence of climate emergency. the life of the planet relative to our short time here is infinite. seeing a change in your own lifetime would not even make a blip on the scale of the earth. I am surprised folks are not commenting "It sure is hot this afternoon and was cool this morning". variation and trends over time is normal. much of the energy grief/emergency/higher cost is due to politicians pushing the green agenda. self-fulfilling prophecy. how does it make less CO2 to have our fossil fuels "shipped" from other parts of the world.
Can I ask, what field of science are you in?
I am an everyday guy with a degree in Human biology. I worked as a respiratory therapist to get through school (lots of blood gas results with acid base, O2 and CO2 to follow). I did research at the university of Kansas in the field of plant biology and specifically CAM metabolism. That is where the desert plants like cactuses do a special metabolism to conserve water by opening their stomata at night and storing CO2 in the form of an acid. during the day they close the stomata pores in the leaves and release the CO2 inside the leaf to make sugar when the sun shines. This is opposite of most other plants. If it is hot and dry in the daytime, plants lose a lot of moisture while doing photosynthesis through the open pores. We were looking to see if some other plants in Ks with thicker leaves like a cactus, but traditionally with a different metabolism, to see if they could change and do CAM metabolism like a cactus during extreme water stress. Dr. Martin (my professor) said if they do, we will rip plant physiologist a new butt. (hole). Sadly, they do not, and we did not! I then went to Med. school at the university of Kansas medical school and got a medical degree then did a residency in Internal medicine and pediatrics, with interest in critical care. I did lots of CC in private practice. deal with gases on ventilated patients. Dr. Craig Martin had a stroke and no longer teaches, but has emeritus status at KU. He is still doing research over seas. He would only have 2 questions on his tests. He would make it on another planet with different gases and terminal electron receptors in the mitochondria "the power house of the cell"! Mean test scores usually in the 40% range. 400 student each semester and all for the most part, headed to med school. My senior seminar topic was "the fire of life" showing equations to determine metabolism based on Oxygen consumption. I am a professor of medicine and teaching nurses/NPs/PAs/Medical students? Residents. I am sorry to brag, but hope that answers your question. I come from a humble background. the first on either side of my parents families to go to college. I am a conceptual learner and thinker, and not like many others who memorize facts. that is why I did well in Dr. Martins classes, and was asked to do research. I do not deny that there are issues. But in general, we are not even allowed to doubt some of the "outrageous" claims that are more designed (in my opinion) to garner power for the greenies rather than be practical and solve other emerging real problems.
My dad would have prob. had as much respect for a welder or diesel mechanic, also great professions. A favorite Dr. Martin quote, " what's stomata with you people?" :D :D :D
Interesting background of studies Doc, I see what looks like over stating on both extremes of the global warming debate and there are people looking to profit from their position from both side as well unfortunately that just seems to muddy the waters so to speak.
The way I see it its like a swimming pool which is a small somewhat contained environment that can be going great with nice clear water but then you add increasing temperature plus increase in use and all still seems fine but all of a sudden it can go from nice and clean to green in a day or two. It seems like a nonlinear event that reaches a tipping point and once it starts to go bad it gets worse quick. My years of experience with pools has taught me that it is a lot easier to keep it clean and compensate with more frequent chlorine and testing than it is to recover from a green pool.
I think it is the same with the global environment where there have been lots of people peeing in the pool for a long time and it is starting to get a bit green around the edges but at some point in the future we may reach the tipping point but I don't think anyone really knows where that tipping point is.
the problem is the folks (like my wife) that when we have a problem with our pool, objectivity goes out the window. She says with all her authority that we need to completely drain the pool and start over and has even said she wants me to fill it with dirt and put concrete over it. all it needs is some chemical and a little time and work.
You are almost as qualified as I am to debate this topic with that straw man Doc :D
Don't worry, with fusion... "It'll be too cheap to meter" ;D
Man made or not, Let's hope the billionaire philanthropists that are lining their already full pockets even more by steering research and policy toward their own benefit don't create a cure that is worse than the disease.
Climate change isn't a threat to life on Earth in general, or even mankind. Things will adjust, migrate, evolve etc. We know the Earth has been both warmer and colder in the past. Woolly mammoths used to wander around Greenland a couple of million years ago. But the climate changed, and they are now extinct (that may or may not be related)
But we KNOW the climate can change for "reasons". Is the composition of the atmosphere one reason? It's reasonable to conclude it could be, a large enough volcanic eruption can change the climate for a few years until the dust settles. Not enough to wipe out life, but enough to miss a couple of Summers and cause famines. The effect is temporary, because the dust soon settles. The issue with CO2 is that the natural "sinks" that control it are limited. It might take decades to remove the excess. We also KNOW the CO2 level has changed drastically in the last 100 years, way above what they have been for the last million.
It's actually more of an Economic and Social issue than a life threatening one. If the Antarctic ice starts melting it WILL change the sea level (Arctic ice wont, and Greenland isn't big enough to make much difference). But even any relatively fast changes in global weather patterns will cause a lot of disruption. Crops won't grow where they traditionally have etc.
Well since fusion is a thing now I am going to order a Delorean and get the optional Mr Fusion pack for it, bringing a big box of newspapers with me, just the sports and lottery number sections. :D
It'll require 192 Death Star's but minor detail. That changes things back to maybe favoring internal combustion.
How do hydrogen engines work? | Cummins Inc. (https://www.cummins.com/news/2022/01/26/how-do-hydrogen-engines-work)
Put a plastic/graphene body on it, run hydrogen both ways and store power in the body.
Hydrogen? Where we're going we don't need hydrogen. :D
Musk was laughing it off. Maybe not now
https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/hydrogen-bottles-namx-huv/8556266/ (https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/hydrogen-bottles-namx-huv/8556266/)
The Japanese seem to be pretty far ahead of us in commercializing hydrogen. They are producing cars and have a pickup in the works. In addition, they're working on ICE cars and trucks. I guess a conversion might be in the works. They're looking at refuel time to be reduced from 5 minutes to 1½ minutes. With refuel time like that, it will put a dent in the battery EVs. All that is needed is the development of hydrogen stations.
In this country, we seem to be looking mainly at solar and wind with large battery backup. Hydrogen is left to the private industry to develop. They're building a big one in Texas using renewables for energy to electrolize for hydrogen.
As for fusion being to cheap to meter, they told us that back in the 60s when they built 3 Mile Island. Even when they were going full bore, the meters kept running. The accident put all the costs on the consumer. They shut the second reactor down last year. No one wanted to buy the electricity.
I thought someone would remember :).
For a grain of salt, hydrogen and fusion have been a decade away, my whole life.
Toyota have had hybrids since 2006 up here, being sold, not concepts. For some reason an article I read a year ago talked about it being something that just came to be. It's been 'came to be' quite awhile ago. :D The vehicles I saw then were Camry's now include RAV4's.
On the fusion it was said that 200 of the most powerful lasers were all aimed to the size of a bb. They say another twenty to thirty years before everything is perfected
Then all you gotta do is keep the sun in a bottle.
Just takes the will and money$$ and someone behind it with some push to see it through. As one NASA engineer said, 'we knew it wasn't going to be easy, but we knew we could do it'. ;D Maybe we need a big fear story to speed it up, that certainly helped the 'bomb' and the 'moon landing'. :D
Quote from: SwampDonkey on December 14, 2022, 06:23:41 AM
Toyota have had hybrids since 2006 up here, being sold, not concepts. For some reason an article I read a year ago talked about it being something that just came to be. It's been 'came to be' quite awhile ago. :D The vehicles I saw then were Camry's now include RAV4's.
They certainly have been around for a while and people have gotten the chance to choose them if they so desired. Now they're being shoved down people's throats. The new Sienna can only be had as a hybrid with a rougher running 4 cylinder ICE compared to the very refined 3.5L V6 that's been extremely reliable for some time. My brother's '16 Sienna (with the good engine) was total a couple weeks ago, due to Toyota's lack of foresight, he's buying a Honda Odyssey. Toyota is doing the same with the Lexus RX350, arguably a crowd where a rough running engine will be more of a sticking point.
Hybrids, at least where I'm at, also command a premium to register, on the order of about double the cost of a simplier ICE powered vehicle.
Well the EU just decided to create an import tariff on a number of items, to include hydrogen, that escalated quickly.
What? No "Remember the Hindenburg!" :D
Old memory but I don't think it liquifies till around 5000 psi, which would not be good to wreck with. Carrying gas as vapor probably isn't much range.
The little engine in the Ranger is a screamer on alcohol, well, for a 3.0 :D.
Is the higher cost of registering a hybrid meant to recover the lost fuel tax?
Here in NB, the registration fee goes by weight classes. Not engine type. At the time father bought a regular Camry, it cost more than a hybrid Camry. But I believe that was more to do with the dealer pricing. And that Camry had been a demo car, ran by the dealership owner a year.
Quote from: Don P on December 14, 2022, 08:20:14 AM
Is the higher cost of registering a hybrid meant to recover the lost fuel tax?
Yes, and registration for full electric vehicles is ~4x the same thing with an ICE engine.
I don't believe they delineate between the different hybrid systems either, it has it and your bill is double or it doesn't and it isn't. This creates a pretty big problem especially with something like a Chevy Volt which could serve as full electric since it's a plug in hybrid. At the other end of the spectrum is Fiat's E-torque system available on the V6 & V8 1/2 ton RAM trucks which add something like 13hp and still gets crap fuel economy but just barely pushes the emissions in the right direction for Fiat to maintain some XYZ certification.
Quote from: Ianab on December 13, 2022, 05:51:56 PM
Climate change isn't a threat to life on Earth in general, or even mankind. Things will adjust, migrate, evolve etc. We know the Earth has been both warmer and colder in the past. Woolly mammoths used to wander around Greenland a couple of million years ago. But the climate changed, and they are now extinct (that may or may not be related)
But we KNOW the climate can change for "reasons". We also KNOW the CO2 level has changed drastically in the last 100 years, way above what they have been for the last million.
It's interesting to me that we " KNOW " for certain that C02 levels have changed so drastically in the last 100 million years. Didn't realize there was credible records documenting this from so far back. Is there a link to this information. I'm assuming it must be photos of cave walls with the data scratched in with a stone :D
Hey, we know that DDT is safe, Crypto is secure, and Anna Nicole married for love, so why not? :D
there are a ton of indirect ways. In my research, I had to go at 6 am and 6pm each of 3 days for each run. I ground up the plant leaves. I titrated the pH and recorded it for that sample. Then it went into a desiccator oven, and after fully dehydrated, it was weighed. the control was plants that were not water distress. we looked to see if the stressed plants had a lower pH. CO2 + H2O = H2CO3= H+ + HCO3-. the end of the equation is a proton and bicarb. the definition of pH has to do with the inverse log of the hydrogen ion concentration. so, the mor H+ the lower the pH. (acidic).
I think Ice that dated way back was tested and they determined the CO@ amount. is it accurate? no way to tell for sure as there is no control. but we should see the trend. does increasing CO@ mean the earth will end in 7 years? what? how can you conclude that. Is it then irreversible? what? how can we know this. Is it likely? I do not think so. Do I know for sure? no. No one does.
pH
1 of 2
noun (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noun)
ˈpē-ˈāch (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pH?pronunciation&lang=en_us&dir=p&file=ph000001): a measure of acidity and alkalinity of a solution that is a number on a scale on which a value of 7 represents neutrality and lower numbers indicate increasing acidity and higher numbers increasing alkalinity and on which each unit of change represents a tenfold change in acidity or alkalinity and that is the negative logarithm of the effective hydrogen-ion concentration or hydrogen-ion activity in gram equivalents per liter of the solution
also : the condition represented by a pH numberProtonFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A proton is a stable subatomic particle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subatomic_particle), symbol p, H+, or 1H+ with a positive electric charge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge) of +1 e elementary charge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_charge). Its mass is slightly less than that of a neutron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron) and 1,836 times the mass of an electron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron) (the proton–electron mass ratio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93electron_mass_ratio)). Protons and neutrons, each with masses of approximately one atomic mass unit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_mass_unit), are jointly referred to as "nucleons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleon)" (particles present in atomic nuclei).
One or more protons are present in the nucleus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_nucleus) of every atom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom). They provide the attractive electrostatic central force which binds the atomic electrons. The number of protons in the nucleus is the defining property of an element, and is referred to as the atomic number (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_number) (represented by the symbol Z). Since each element (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element) has a unique number of protons, each element has its own unique atomic number, which determines the number of atomic electrons and consequently the chemical characteristics of the element.
The word proton is Greek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) for "first", and this name was given to the hydrogen nucleus by Ernest Rutherford (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford) in 1920. In previous years, Rutherford had discovered that the hydrogen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen) nucleus (known to be the lightest nucleus) could be extracted from the nuclei of nitrogen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen) by atomic collisions.[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#cite_note-Britannica-9) Protons were therefore a candidate to be a fundamental or elementary particle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle), and hence a building block of nitrogen and all other heavier atomic nuclei.
Although protons were originally considered elementary particles, in the modern Standard Model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model) of particle physics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics), protons are now known to be composite particles, containing three valence quarks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valence_quark), and together with neutrons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron) are now classified as hadrons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadron). Protons are composed of two up quarks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_quark) of charge +2/3e and one down quark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_quark) of charge −1/3e. The rest masses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rest_mass) of quarks contribute only about 1% of a proton's mass.[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#cite_note-Mass-10) The remainder of a proton's mass is due to quantum chromodynamics binding energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics_binding_energy), which includes the kinetic energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy) of the quarks and the energy of the gluon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon) fields that bind the quarks together. Because protons are not fundamental particles, they possess a measurable size; the root mean square (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square) charge radius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_radius) of a proton is about 0.84–0.87 fm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femtometre) (or 0.84×10−15 to 0.87×10−15 m (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meter)).[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#cite_note-PSI-11)[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#cite_note-Antognini2013-12) In 2019, two different studies, using different techniques, found this radius to be 0.833 fm, with an uncertainty of ±0.010 fm.[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#cite_note-ReferenceA-13)[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#cite_note-ReferenceB-14)
Free protons occur occasionally on Earth: thunderstorms can produce protons with energies of up to several tens of MeV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt).[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#cite_note-Kohn2015-15)[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#cite_note-Kohn2017-16) At sufficiently low temperatures and kinetic energies, free protons will bind to electrons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron). However, the character of such bound protons does not change, and they remain protons. A fast proton moving through matter will slow by interactions with electrons and nuclei, until it is captured by the electron cloud (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_cloud) of an atom. The result is a protonated atom, which is a chemical compound (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_compound) of hydrogen. In a vacuum, when free electrons are present, a sufficiently slow proton may pick up a single free electron, becoming a neutral hydrogen atom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_atom), which is chemically a free radical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_radical). Such "free hydrogen atoms" tend to react chemically with many other types of atoms at sufficiently low energies. When free hydrogen atoms react with each other, they form neutral hydrogen molecules (H2), which are the most common molecular component of molecular clouds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clouds) in interstellar space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium).
|
Crassulacean acid metabolism - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crassulacean_acid_metabolism)
Quote from: Don P on December 14, 2022, 06:34:39 AM
Then all you gotta do is keep the sun in a bottle.
That's effectively what a Tokamak fusion system attempts to do. Contain superheated plasma in a doughnut shaped magnetic bottle. As you can imagine this isn't simple either, and if the reaction leaks out it tends to melt random bits of the machine. 200 million degree plasma tends to do that.
Anyway, if it was easy we would all have self flying "Mr Fusion" powered Teslas by now.... We don't, so I'm concluding it's not easy.
This is the experimental Tokamak system MIT is building, so there is still some serious research being done. This also isn't a complete power generator, it's only designed to run short bursts of fusion on an experimental basis, It has no generator system attached, that's a problem for later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARC_(tokamak)
That kinda sounds like medical science saying they have perfected brain transplants, just leaving the problem of the patient surviving for later. :D
Quote from: doc henderson on December 14, 2022, 10:19:42 AMI think Ice that dated way back was tested and they determined the CO@ amount. is it accurate? no way to tell for sure as there is no control. but we should see the trend. does increasing CO@ mean the earth will end in 7 years? what? how can you conclude that. Is it then irreversible? what? how can we know this. Is it likely? I do not think so. Do I know for sure? no. No one does.
No, we don't know.
When we
do know, we may find out that we over-reacted. Or we (or more likely our grandchildren) may find out that, d###, we screwed up. Back in the 2010s and 20s we
should have...
But we don't know.
Quote from: twar on December 15, 2022, 03:47:24 AM
Quote from: doc henderson on December 14, 2022, 10:19:42 AMI think Ice that dated way back was tested and they determined the CO@ amount. is it accurate? no way to tell for sure as there is no control. but we should see the trend. does increasing CO@ mean the earth will end in 7 years? what? how can you conclude that. Is it then irreversible? what? how can we know this. Is it likely? I do not think so. Do I know for sure? no. No one does.
No, we don't know.
When we do know, we may find out that we over-reacted. Or we (or more likely our grandchildren) may find out that, d###, we screwed up. Back in the 2010s and 20s we should have...
But we don't know.
I think most people on FF are in the same campground on CO2 and global warming. I call us luke warmers. Yeah lets do the things that make sense. Not lets transform whole sectors of the economy.
Beyond that I think anything else I say should be in the woodshed.
Now they have solved the recharging problems on the cars ?? You guessed it solar panels on the cars self charging 😂
https://sonomotors.com/ (https://sonomotors.com/)
Might run the radio. In Texas. In summer. lol
Musk just sold off more Tesla shares this week, $3.6 billion. Share price for Tesla this year has been cut more than half. From a high of $400 in Jan to a low of $150 now. Sale deliveries are below projections.
He's losing his Chinese market. They are producing their own.
Yeah, they have lots of companies over there making and selling and far cheaper. But that has been the Chinese model, cheap, and less reliable. Keeps you buying to replace. :D
I read that a large grove in Fla. was infusing the air in the grove with CO2. they used combustion gas and cooled it with water mist . That made it heavy enough to stay "grounded" . It helped increase yield . Not real cost effective . So the plan is to hook up to the exhaust stacks of the power plant next to the grove for the next years trials. They have ductwork stretched among the trees with smaller hoses placed up into the lower branches.
I was indoctrinated in grade school to believe that we needed the CO2 for the plants,so that the plants could make O2 that the humans and animals could survive.
I believe it is CO2 that speeds the ripening of fruit and why you put bananas and stuff into a paper bag if not not quite ripe..
Just curious - why did you use the word "indoctrinated " instead of "taught"?
Uncle al said a few good things happen too.
SE
Article came out today that in Maine folks are being denied grid connected solar because the grid doesn't have the capacity to take them on. Now just imagine if everything was electric....
Quote from: doc henderson on December 23, 2022, 06:28:04 PM
I believe it is CO2 that speeds the ripening of fruit and why you put bananas and stuff into a paper bag if not not quite ripe..
Doc ethylene has a significant effect on the ripening of fruits as well. A common practice for ripening commercial bananas is filling a cooler then pumping in the gas. The same gas helps ripen tomatoes quicker as well. When we pick greenhouse tomatoes a decent amount of ripe ones are walked by to help push along the green ones. The ripe ones are releasing the ethylene. Pick a house clean and they will ripen just not as fast.
Maybe the two gasses are working together? Or more CO2 speeds it up further? Not really sure.
Yup, it's ethylene.
Jim, in other cases it has been the poco not wanting other power generation on its lines, "competition".
If CO2 is bumping growth in the wild as much as the laboratory graphs say, it should be showing up as increased growth rates in timber. I think they are saying CO2 levels are up 20% over historic levels. There should be a generation of "smog fertilizer" data by now. Is this actually corresponding to increased growth?
Quote from: Don P on December 23, 2022, 11:07:27 PMIf CO2 is bumping growth in the wild as much as the laboratory graphs say, it should be showing up as increased growth
Some discussion on that here.
It seems that with some crops the growth rates do increase, but it's not a uniform thing. I guess it depends what's actually the limiting factor for the individual plant. Adding more CO2 might not increase growth if the plant is actually being held back by a lack of Nitrogen or Water (or some other essential nutrient). Boosting growth with higher CO2 also requires more Nitrogen etc, and if that's not available to the plant, then the CO2 doesn't do much.
How Climate Change Will Affect Plants (https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/01/27/how-climate-change-will-affect-plants/)
Quote from: SwampDonkey on December 17, 2022, 06:13:08 AM
Musk just sold off more Tesla shares this week, $3.6 billion. Share price for Tesla this year has been cut more than half. From a high of $400 in Jan to a low of $150 now. Sale deliveries are below projections.
You know they did a stock split? It was a 3 for 1 in August.
Quote from: Ianab on December 24, 2022, 12:37:44 AM
Quote from: Don P on December 23, 2022, 11:07:27 PMIf CO2 is bumping growth in the wild as much as the laboratory graphs say, it should be showing up as increased growth
Some discussion on that here.
It seems that with some crops the growth rates do increase, but it's not a uniform thing. I guess it depends what's actually the limiting factor for the individual plant. Adding more CO2 might not increase growth if the plant is actually being held back by a lack of Nitrogen or Water (or some other essential nutrient). Boosting growth with higher CO2 also requires more Nitrogen etc, and if that's not available to the plant, then the CO2 doesn't do much.
How Climate Change Will Affect Plants (https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/01/27/how-climate-change-will-affect-plants/)
Looks like the real world is a little different than hypothesis :).
Grid operators ask Pennsylvanians to reduce power usage (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/grid-operators-ask-pennsylvanians-to-reduce-power-usage/ar-AA15DmNm?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=b7b1094a264b4225925eca070bf0313c)
I am sure there will be plenty of excess grid capacity to charge all the new EV's when the big ol' "bomb cyclone" rolls through circa 2030. Probably the same people pushing the EV agenda are the ones who were suckered into FTX.
Article recently in the WSJ.
S.O.S for the U.S. Electric Grid - WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/s-o-s-for-the-u-s-electric-grid-pjm-interconnection-blackout-supply-renewables-subsidy-report-fossil-fuel-4cbdd56e)
"The PJM report forecasts power supply and demand through 2030 across the 13 eastern states in its territory covering 65 million people. Its top-line conclusion: Fossil-fuel power plants are retiring much faster than renewable sources are getting developed, which could lead to energy "imbalances." That's a delicate way of saying that you can expect shortages and blackouts."
"The report forecasts that 40,000 megawatts (MW) of power generation—enough to light up 30 million households—are at risk of retiring by 2030, representing about 21% of PJM's current generation capacity."
"In an optimistic case, the report estimates 21,000 MW of wind, solar and battery storage capacity will be added to the grid by 2030—about half as much as the expected fossil-fuel retirements. Demand for electric power will increase amid the growth in data centers and the government's push for the electrification of vehicles, heating and everything else."
It's always a winning strategy to keep all your eggs in one basket especially when it comes to energy and investment portfolios. Just pick one and go for it ,diversity and resiliency is for sissies. 8)
I was just looking at and debating on a class on converting classics to EV. I already know how the one works, might as well diversify and be ready.
Questions like - can I source locally, are supply lines fragile, are government policies responsible or reckless come to mind even more so since 2020. Can I heat with coal if my area has it in abundance if natural gas appliances are banned and rolling electrical blackouts occur or wood or oil or ? Is there a plan B<C and D when plan A fails or is taken out in an act of war?
What I liked about the change over from horses to petroleum was it was gradual and concurrent over a span of many years and it even helped during WWII that they still had that remnant around when severe shortages and crisis came whereas there would have been even more shortages and starvation.
The changeover was free market driven and not by statism. Thank goodness they didn't simply shoot the horses and oxen and bankrupt farmers that couldn't afford or quickly adapt to state enforced policies. It was done in a sensible fashion that made the countries strong and resilient.
My own way of life has back up plans for home and business and thankfully there are many more doing the same due to the lack of confidence in those far away that invent policies influenced by lobbyists.
I try to live in a way that wouldn't disappoint my great grandparents.
To top it off you can still use the horse today if you desire, it's your choice.
Frankly I think "the desired outcome" is to alter behavior. Shortages create price increases which alter demand. Elites will outbid the unwashed for the available supply and most likely let you pay for their usage through tax schemes.
My grandfather and uncle never owned a tractor or a skidder. They farmed a small acreage and yarded wood off 400 acres of land and were hired to skid wood with horses all their working lives and cut all their own wood for sale and firewood that way. Back in the early forties, my grandfather hauled river rock by horse and wagon to build a stone tower (think castle) for the Lewis family. There were definitely trucks in the 40's. That still stands and is now a motel and restaurant. My grandfather made a living cutting wood and running a sporting business, fishing and hunting. In the early years, he slept under the stars in a lean to like in those cowboy movies, for real. This was when he cut for the mill. Thinking of old photos of logging camps, there was none of that unless you worked for a contractor type with a big crew. There was a lot of independent men cutting on blocks with no camps.
https://www.expedia.ca/Perth-Andover-Hotels-Castle-Inn-Restaurant.h3086316.Hotel-Information
Notice the L on the flu? ;) Bill Lewis ran a drug store and cafe in the day.
As I was building my new home, my plan was a Masonry heater with back up supplied by an air to air heat exchanger which would supply heat in the winter and AC in the summer. Simple.
No the building code said the Air to Air is not efficient below -25 Celsius and below. Okay lets install electric baseboard heaters for the back up. No you have to build your house with double 2x4 walls with electric heat. $15K extra plus the house is smaller so I need to make it the same size on the inside is another $10. Now 1 year later the powers to be have decided and are giving grants to convert to Air to Air heat pumps as they are %300 efficient compared to %95 for my forced air propane furnace I was forced into installing because of their short sided thinking.
I think the wake up call is these I@#$%&s really do not know what they are doing and we need to cover our A$$
Those derechos hit Iowa very hard, damaging the cooling towers at the Arnold plant.
Canada must double or triple its electricity output to meet 2050 climate targets, says a Newfoundland and Labrador submission to the Senate energy committee. Meeting targets is "likely not possible" without more federal subsidies, it said: "That is the equivalent of four Churchill Falls."
Federal subsidies for electric car makers yesterday reached $32 billion, twice the annual output of the entire Canadian auto sector. "It's pretty remarkable," Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne said in awarding another subsidy to Ford Motor Company: "I think it is a big accomplishment."
How much bigger can we go? :D
Quote from: SwampDonkey on August 19, 2023, 05:08:00 PM
Canada must double or triple its electricity output to meet 2050 climate targets, says a Newfoundland and Labrador submission to the Senate energy committee. Meeting targets is "likely not possible" without more federal subsidies, it said: "That is the equivalent of four Churchill Falls."
Federal subsidies for electric car makers yesterday reached $32 billion, twice the annual output of the entire Canadian auto sector. "It's pretty remarkable," Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne said in awarding another subsidy to Ford Motor Company: "I think it is a big accomplishment."
How much bigger can we go? :D
Subsidy's for you! And subsidy's for you! Subsidy for you! Subsidy for all the big guys! A Canadian politician walks into a bar and yells "drinks on me everyone, now who's paying!?"
Today at the local Gas Station.
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10460/20230823_101027.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1692776504)
That's new electric car chargers being installed behind the cones and fence. It's a logical place to put in the first public chargers in town. It's the intersection of 2 State highways, and you will want a full charge (or gas tank) if you are heading down SH43. On the intersection there is a Cafe, Subway and a brewpub, plus the gas station is already more of a coffee shop with pumps outside.As in order your coffee via phone app, drive in, pick it up, and not even buy gas. So it's a good place to stop for 2nd breakfast and charge up the EV.
Yes they actually do proper barista coffee, and it's a significant part of their profit. We have Starbucks in NZ, but they aren't everywhere, Z gas stations are, their coffee is arguably better, and they also sell Pies !!
So they are already positioning their business to account for decreasing gas sales. Gas station in central Wellington already has a Subway onsite, bet they were first to have the EV chargers in place.
Realistically 80+ % of EV charging is done at home on domestic chargers, because if you need the full EV range every day, it's not the right option. The public fast chargers are so you can do a road trip, and top up the battery at lunch time.
Haven't seen anything like that here, in fact sighting an EV could be a challenge. Very rare, in fact.
EVs aren't yet "common" out here in the provinces, but not unusual either, they are getting more common.
As a commuter vehicle, driving maybe 20 miles a day, you keep the battery topped up overnight on a standard domestic circuit. But what if you need to drive 300 miles? Yeah, you probably will also want coffee, a pie and a toilet break along with that 30 min on the fast charger?
I thought we were remote relatively speaking, I'd bet there are more than you've noticed. I can think of chargers in 2 of 3 nearby towns and one at a residence 4 miles away. They have 2 EVs. I'm sure you've heard Ford's CEO by now, once people go EV they don't go back. That seems to be the case from the little I've seen. I seem to be inside an internal combustion engine about weekly. The whole fear of learning something new is, well... the engines I liked had an updraft carb on a flathead, after that they just suck to work on for not a whole lot of improvement and you're always having to learn something new, Timmy is gonna play with matches, its life.
I need to go by H Freight and pick up an alternator pulley puller (why did it auto correct to pullet puller?)
If you remove the diodes and such from one and wire it up a little different it is a strong enough motor to pull a gocart. A healthy amount of the fuel that goes through the Ranger is just running me up and down the hill with a handful of sockets, snacks or whatever. I wonder what happens if I strip all but the necessary off an old riding mower and hook up an alternator motor where the engine was, a couple of batteries and an on board charger to plug in wherever there is a plug. Throw a panel on the roof of the barn and plug it in to sunshine when its down there. These old 30 amp ones ought to be around 3.5 hp, a bigger one proportionally more.
This all started with a recycle run. I was sorting through another corner of accumulated debris of life. This one particular Dodge, I kept rebuilding. Parts were relatively cheap, and it was a tank. One thing to know with the old thing was... its a ground problem. I don't care if it seems like a breaking issue, check your grounds :D. So there were 3 alternators from various periods in its life, I checked all 3 the other day, all good, and of the 3 voltage regulators, 2 were good. It was always the ground, I had gotten a good one replacing the part, and apparently keeping the cores. So 2 for that and one to use on a waterwheel. Like I need another Red Green project :D.
But today, I need pallets.
No, they are very scarce up here. I look around parking lots and such, haven't seen one. None of the filling stations I use even has a charger. One station is on a country road and the other is off the 4-lane with access to two small towns. Rural New Brunswick ain't the same as rural VA. How far away is Costco down there? :D Well, up here it's far enough that it ain't worth the trip. I never go to the city, I shop by mouse clicks. Malls are going bust everywhere across the continent. Groceries in town, town is 30 miles. :D
Probably because people know what road salt does to the bottom of a vehicle up north.
Quote from: SwampDonkey on August 23, 2023, 09:17:10 AM
No, they are very scarce up here. I look around parking lots and such, haven't seen one. None of the filling stations I use even has a charger. One station is on a country road and the other is off the 4-lane with access to two small towns. Rural New Brunswick ain't the same as rural VA. How far away is Costco down there? :D Well, up here it's far enough that it ain't worth the trip. I never go to the city, I shop by mouse clicks. Malls are going bust everywhere across the continent. Groceries in town, town is 30 miles. :D
Scarce here too there are a couple chargers at the bigger Irving's along the 100 series highways, but not even close to every gas station, I think it's only used by tourists because I don't see any EVs that are local. Halifax is a bit different but only probably 5-10% EV on road
Quote from: Paul_H on March 01, 2023, 11:57:05 PM
Questions like - can I source locally, are supply lines fragile, are government policies responsible or reckless come to mind even more so since 2020. Can I heat with coal if my area has it in abundance if natural gas appliances are banned and rolling electrical blackouts occur or wood or oil or ? Is there a plan B<C and D when plan A fails or is taken out in an act of war?
What I liked about the change over from horses to petroleum was it was gradual and concurrent over a span of many years and it even helped during WWII that they still had that remnant around when severe shortages and crisis came whereas there would have been even more shortages and starvation.
The changeover was free market driven and not by statism. Thank goodness they didn't simply shoot the horses and oxen and bankrupt farmers that couldn't afford or quickly adapt to state enforced policies. It was done in a sensible fashion that made the countries strong and resilient.
My own way of life has back up plans for home and business and thankfully there are many more doing the same due to the lack of confidence in those far away that invent policies influenced by lobbyists.
I try to live in a way that wouldn't disappoint my great grandparents.
Maybe news for you but it was forced by the govt. Horse shat had become such a problem in all the big cities that, starting in the biggest of the big (NYC) they moved to manage horse manure. That's why you see the pics of horses and then 10 years later no horses in NYC.
Here is a nice perspective on that:
The Big Crapple: NYC Transit Pollution from Horse Manure to Horseless Carriages - 99% Invisible (https://99percentinvisible.org/article/cities-paved-dung-urban-design-great-horse-manure-crisis-1894/)
A side effect was that the horses needed huge mounts of food which was no longer required so that hay/oats fields all across NJ and NE went fallow, just hastened after WWI.
It's almost always the case that governments have forced/enabled/subsidized technology shifts. Horses to cars, land lines to cell phones, trains to airplanes, typewriters to computers, etc etc. How much and how they do it has varied but once technology becomes sufficient to enable a transition (and we are there) govts move. People also need to understand that this is no longer simply an isolated case of the NA situation changing. It's worldwide and China is leading. We are at a severe risk of losing our auto manufacturing system if we don't manage to keep up.
I imagine all the posters complaining about EVs don't own one. 8 months into our Ford Lightning and at this point I've decided that I'll just hire out any work that requires towing it is too nice to just come home, plug it in, wake up, unplug and leave and never go to a gas station. No oil change, no radiator fluid change, probably won't touch the brakes for several years. Tires will get changed one day, but so far just windshield wiper fluid and that's it. 20k miles to date. Saturday I'll make a 300 mile trip and charge at a charger along the way home. First time in 10 days that I'll have to do that, all the other charging is at home. If I do charging like this our "fuel" bill is half of what it would be with gas. If I get some solar panels on the garage it will 0 out.
EVs also see the auto manufacturing sector shrink, just a massive reduction in parts and components. As you strip parts your overall simplification increases and that allows more manufacturing changes. The newest Teslas are a good example. The body is mostly giant castings made in huge presses. They cut a room full of automated welding robots, they put cars out 5x faster than the best VW facility, it is such a risk to VWs employment situation that VW fired their CEO that was pushing VW to change. Personally I think they'll fail now. In a decade we'll know. Point here is that employment and cost of the manufacturing process will shrink dramatically, who is going to even build cars in the future? We are at risk of it all moving to China.
Europe is moving to a system similar to the recent legislation in the USA, China was there 10 years ago, Korea has moved. This is the global economy that politicians, at least wise one, consider when drafting legislation. Right now for the USA it's a race to keep any of our OEMs (other than Tesla) during the transition to EVs.
We could try to embrace a "laissez faire" situation but not with China dramatically intervening in the business marketplace. The costs distortions are too great.
SwampDonkey is sitting in a rural area ordering online stuff which are managed in a data center very near to my house that are partly supplied with energy by the spate of new solar facilities sprouting up in the Southside of Virginia in former pine plantations. Without the solar facilities there is no spare energy on hot summer days for the data centers and in fact the waiting list for electricity is huge so lots of facilities are on hold. The price per acre for land with available capacity is...beyond incredible. Million dollars an acre for a crappy oak forest site that would not perk, it did sit beside a transmission line with spare juice, so up comes a billion dollar data center. The demand for electricians is so high that Loudoun Countys recent highschool had a low bidder price of $27 million just for the electrical work. $27 million for electrical. That's because SwampDonkey is sitting at home ordering off amazon or from somebody hosting in an amazon datacenter. Sigh. It's all connected, my forest are getting converted, southside of VA is getting converted and the world is changing. You can't stop change.
well, we are not there yet. not enough energy to cool homes in CA, let alone charge electric cars if everyone had one. If demand for electricity goes up, so will the cost of electricity. Where will all the wire and other raw materials come from? for power plants, motors, charging stations, batteries?
So the destruction of southern Virginia timber ground, by the likes of Foxhound ,along with the economy it supports is justifiable to allow NoVa folks to drive around in EV's? Talk about NIMBY to the max. What about those $40K Tesla fender benders due to their construction process?
Yes, electricity is expensive here. But, this year when we had the record high of 117° in Sacramento, we didn't have energy alerts. I don't recall any this year.
To put the price of electricity in perspective, "cheap" gas is $5/gallon. Has been for a couple weeks now.
Couple weeks ago I was loading free bags of concrete in my beat up tundra at HD. I guy comes up behind me and says it looks like I could use a new work truck. He introduces himself as the fleet truck sales guy at a nearby Chevy dealer. I guess business is so bad they're hunting down customers!
I told him, sorry, I have a Cyber truck on order and I will never buy an ICE vehicle again. He walked away...
My big purchases are not Amazon. I could name 20 places not affiliated with the place. :D What I get from Amazon is insignificant.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again- I have no problem with electric vehicles. If you remove the mandates, subsidies, and the ideology that is behind pushing them so hard, we could have a nice discussion about the merits of the vehicle itself. Like we would about putting an electric motor on a sawmill.
Nothing so far has curtailed consumption of fossil fuels in the US, all tallied it's 4% higher than 2019. In Canada with all the taxation added on, CO2 emissions never fell.
Quote from: SwampDonkey on August 24, 2023, 03:52:38 PM
Nothing so far has curtailed consumption of fossil fuels in the US, all tallied it's 4% higher than 2019. In Canada with all the taxation added on, CO2 emissions never fell.
You know their "intentions" are BS when they immigrate 1m per year between foreign students, asylum seekers and refugees. Basically importing the size of Calgary every year, well people that need to be housed, have heat and such, trees that need to be cut down for concrete jungles etc. our emissions won't be falling but skyrocketed in the coming years. Century initiative .....
.
I have a "friend" with a new (January purchase) 2023 electric car. His bragging claim is that he has only spent $20 on fuel all this year.
When you start asking questions, it turns out that he has only spent $20 of his own electric bill at home. Each day he takes the car to the local village public parking lot and recharge for a couple hours at the charging station that has free electricity as part of the deal that NY state paid for the charging station installation.
The next village, over, also has a free charging station in their public parking lot.
.
Quote from: Southside on August 24, 2023, 10:07:28 AM
So the destruction of southern Virginia timber ground, by the likes of Foxhound ,along with the economy it supports is justifiable to allow NoVa folks to drive around in EV's? Talk about NIMBY to the max. What about those $40K Tesla fender benders due to their construction process?
The "destruction" of the southern va un natural monoculture pine plantations is to feed solar to the datacenters in northern va. Any big datacenter consumes more electricity than all the EVs in our state to date. Changing slowly so maybe next year 2 of datacenters and so on. It is us typing on this and buying stuff on amazon and looking at movies on netflix.
I find it ironic that swampdonkey is sitting in canada buying things on a computer, causing my potential client to convert his forest to a datacenter site. Oh to top off the irony..HITT construction is doing the groundwork. Guess where the HITT family business got going....running a sawmill in Aimsville VA. They sold out decades ago to focus on construction and engineering, now part of a conglomerate owned by private equity in NYC.
The world is a very funny connected place.
Quote from: ljohnsaw on August 24, 2023, 10:14:08 AM
Yes, electricity is expensive here. But, this year when we had the record high of 117° in Sacramento, we didn't have energy alerts. I don't recall any this year.
To put the price of electricity in perspective, "cheap" gas is $5/gallon. Has been for a couple weeks now.
Couple weeks ago I was loading free bags of concrete in my beat up tundra at HD. I guy comes up behind me and says it looks like I could use a new work truck. He introduces himself as the fleet truck sales guy at a nearby Chevy dealer. I guess business is so bad they're hunting down customers!
I told him, sorry, I have a Cyber truck on order and I will never buy an ICE vehicle again. He walked away...
CT should be getting delivered to a few this year. I just couldn't wait. Pretty happy with the Ford Lighting, if I had more money I'd have bought the larger battery. I think the Frunk on the Lighting is awesome, it might actually be better than the CTs. The CT stainless steel body though...awesome.
Sod Saw, I guess your "friend" doesn't allocate for any value to his time to drive to the "free" charger and sit around either.
I'm not much of an Amazon customer, if the majority shopped like me on there, the ship would have never left the port. :D I buy mostly direct at cheaper prices and higher quality. :D I'm only aware of one company that I purchase from that is selling also on Amazon because I see their Amazon store. Most of them sell products you'll not see on Amazon, or are cheaper but also ship free. I have yet to see an Amazon truck show up with my parcel. I'm aware that they hire a lot of independent contractors for their Prime deliveries. I don't use Prime. Those people are not much higher up the chain than a guy tossing store flyers in your drive way every week and pay to go with it. :D They might get it here 1 day earlier, no big deal to me. That's costing someone a lot of money to pull off, thus higher pricing.
As to data centres, the government here has bought into crypto mining centres. I think one has been up for awhile and maybe a second in the works. That consumes a lot of juice. Seems like wasteful nonsense to me, but government can be talked into anything for 100+ jobs. Take away the purse and the business will collapse. Reminds me of all the failed call centres financed by government. McKenna's big pipe dream. :D
Ok you have a lightning, it's new, and I bet you treat it like a car and don't have to go 100 miles back and forth in the bush on the roughest wettest roads imaginable to cut wood. The kind of rough roads an F150 will shake and rattle apart in 12 months on.
It's my only truck SD so yeah...it goes everywhere I need it to go or I am walking. Sometimes I'm walking. Then again in my f350 I'd have more ground clearance and a much higher fuel bill so I guess I am trading some walking for $ savings. The new f150s are aluminium mostly, so the scratch on the body isn't bad. However @ljohnsaw (https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php?action=profile;u=20640) CT will do it better.
Let me know in 5 years with a few winters on her. Already been recalls on them due to fire risk from high-voltage battery packs. Some recalls over rear lighting failure due to moisture getting in through micro-cracks in the casing. Lots of buyers have been cancelling orders, say dealers, price is too high for the budget. I'm pretty sure the dirt roads to cut wood are pretty short distance in VA in comparison to here. Plus the rural asphalt roads here will not win any awards. :D
Quote from: nativewolf on August 28, 2023, 06:25:01 AM
It's my only truck SD so yeah...it goes everywhere I need it to go or I am walking. Sometimes I'm walking. Then again in my f350 I'd have more ground clearance and a much higher fuel bill so I guess I am trading some walking for $ savings. The new f150s are aluminium mostly, so the scratch on the body isn't bad. However @ljohnsaw (https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php?action=profile;u=20640) CT will do it better.
And it is a bit over a year old now so...doing ok so far.
Glad to hear it.
Others experiences, conditions and apparent extreme rugged remoteness are outside of my needs.
Our friend's Bolt is running back and forth to C-burg daily ~150 miles round trip. I had forgotten till I drove out the other way. There is a residential plug in about 4 miles in that direction as well. He was actually an early alternative energy guy. He had solar hot water panels up for at least 30 years, PV's in an ever growing array and now the EV. I applaud that. He put his money where his mouth was and is one of the few who wouldn't be bothered or have to switch gears for much at all, good on him.
I won't say never to EVs, they're getting better every year. I remember when cordless drills were a joke for anything bigger than a 1/4" bit, now I haven't plugged in one of my several corded drills in a long time. As the range gets better I could see us having one of each, EV & ICE, with the ICE being the long distance vehicle. My new SUV is a hybrid that still has a 6 cyl for main propulsion but gets a boost from electric for starts, not a plug in.
$90,000 for the lightning is about $30,000 over the F150. That's 11 years worth of fuel I claim for work up here on taxes, for which I am reembursed. The lightning would never save me a *DanG thing, end up costing me. And most math I've seen, it's at least 5 or even 7 years to offset CO2 from ICE. A battery with 5-7 years life.
SD is absolutely spot on, "logging roads" here in Virginia are absolutely nothing like up north, in terms of condition and length. I have never seen washboard around here, it was a ritual up there.
Yep, and it's not like roads are just gravel. To access a lot of timber the roads are glacial sand with angular rocks around gulf ball size on the surface and filled in between boulders where annual frost and heavy rain can cause spots to sink in the road. Plus the birches and fir in the middle of older roads, just high enough to brush the underneath of your truck for miles. Often not bladed off until the wood has been cut on the block, then they clean up the road for the trucks. Not to mention the washboards, raised culverts and pot holes. :D The paved road between Juniper and Cross Creek is signed for 50 mph, but you do well to go 35 mph if you want a vehicle left. You've never seen a paved road with deep pot holes for 30 miles before. And not just one here another 500 yards down, more like every 4-6 feet. This is where wood gets cut on a massive scale and silviculture work same. :D
I have 3 neighbours with teslas. They really like them and the rest of us call them the experiments! I'll go electric one day. I'm waiting for the roof top panel subsidies that will come soon.
My neighbour scrapped his 30 ft truck for his Tesla and a trailer.(think Snapon truck) He remodelled his business of selling tire parts, weights and stuff to pull a trailer after the garages order what they need. He will sometimes make an extra trip back to deliver. he is quite happy.
I have had solar hot water for 25 years that I installed myself. It has a DC pump fed by a solar panel. It just runs and gives me all the hot water I need 9 months a year. In the winter it preheats my well water before it goes into my boilermate (heated with wood). I designed and installed a small grid tied solar system about 22 years ago, the electric payback was lousy but it was one of reasons I could switch careers out of the dying paper industry to the energy field so the payback to my new career was "priceless". I designed and installed 2 more grid tied systems using panels from companies that went out of business, so the cost was far lower. That got me to a yearly zero net electric use about 10 years ago. I pay $13 a month to be connected up to the grid and I offset that by selling SRECs. I have extra power production so I run a mini split, that I installed myself to heat my house in the fall and the spring to reduce the number of months I heat with my wood boiler (it was free to remove and I installed it myself). I bought a plug in hybrid Rav 4 Prime two and half years ago. It has got 50 miles electric range in the summer about 35 in the winter (in northern NH). I have used a public charger twice, mostly to try it out, the rest of the time I just charge off excess solar production from the house. When the engine kicks on I get 40 MPG highway after the battery charge has run out. Its AWD and has a receiver hitch on it. It has got 2500 pound towing capacity (3500 if the trailer has trailer brakes).
I am in the first full year of retirement and it nice not having heating or electric bills, if I plan my trips, I rarely use gas and most of time I add gas its less than 3 gallons as I like to keep the tank topped off. If I do a long trip I have about 550 miles of range on a full tank plus another 50 battery miles fully charge
The latest project is a solar trailer, it could easily run an electric sawmill (240 volts 50 amps continuous 200 amp surge)off two very large batteries or run the house for a couple of days before the backup diesel kicks on if the sun is not out (the solar charges the batteries). It even is smart enough to get my other grid tied solar systems to operate as a microgrid if the grid is down for multiple days. Add one more inverter and it can put out 240 VAC 3 phase. Its going to be used to build a new house and then it will be broken down into a backup power system. They can be picked up in the $15 to 20K range despite costing about $150K new (they were tied into big fraud case and sold off cheap).
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/54288/dc_trailer_mod~1.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1693390312)
Quote from: SwampDonkey on August 28, 2023, 08:47:21 AM
$90,000 for the lightning is about $30,000 over the F150. That's 11 years worth of fuel I claim for work up here on taxes, for which I am reembursed. The lightning would never save me a *DanG thing, end up costing me. And most math I've seen, it's at least 5 or even 7 years to offset CO2 from ICE. A battery with 5-7 years life.
Mine was the early $48k before they kicked the price up, it's been moving back down now unless you are the sort of guy that goes for fancy stuff. A fancier version than mine is about $54k if you are looking at the top of the line fancy leather fancy everything than maybe there is one at 90k - I am on the other end of the buying spectrum. A gas version would be $48k (edited- i had the wrong pricing) but a little less fancy than the EV ones. I guess if you got tax credits and things it would be about $44k. Mine was "used" by the dealer so I didn't get tax credits. It's the "pro" version which is..basic. Expensive but I like it and I might even come out ahead based on fuel savings after several years, it's about 20% cheaper than gas...a lot cheaper than the diesel. Course it has tradeoffs but so far I'm happy.
No recalls on mine but I had a dozen open recalls on the F350 when I bought it used. You want to bring up recalls you are bringing up the entire vehicle fleet in NA. Heck my Kubota skid steer had 3 recalls due to the crappy def system. Its sitting at the dealer with 2 bad nox sensors and something else, $10k in repairs under warranty with 800 hours. Warranty pays but I've put more hours on this truck and no issues.
I never had great luck taking trucks on really tough off road sites, river crossings, etc. Ripped the rear axle apart once, etc etc. So my policy now is mostly walk if the road gets nasty, if things get nasty here it is rock and slopes. Anyways if the road is that bad our logging trucks won't touch it either, they are highway princesses and my Ford Lightning goes much further into the woods than those guys do. I have clients with tricentennial farms (300 years same family) and data centers and 12 lane highways far too close to me. It's long settled highly developed.
Quote from: Southside on August 28, 2023, 08:52:59 AM
SD is absolutely spot on, "logging roads" here in Virginia are absolutely nothing like up north, in terms of condition and length. I have never seen washboard around here, it was a ritual up there.
I don't doubt that they may have some washboard in canada. I'm not in canada and there is no way I could get a logging truck to drive down a washboard road here. Highway princesses. I'm lucky to get most to drive across a flat hay field, freshly mowed.
Most don't like the bushes swatting the mirrors up here, but they'll ride over rocks. :D Pay isn't that great either when you have to drive for 80 hrs. It's not a job I envy.
"some washboard"? 😆 I wasn't talking about only Canada. On some roads the washboard is a welcome improvement.
Wisconsin could put "the grand canyon state" on there license plate, if they add up all the pot-holes in the spring.
SE
OTTAWA — Two different federal infrastructure programs have provided funding for more than 43,000 electric vehicle chargers since 2016, but fewer than one in five of them are actually operational, new data show.
Data supplied by Natural Resources Canada upon request say 43,046 chargers have been funded, but only 7,644 are working.
Another $25 million is to fund an additional 1,500 EV chargers in Quebec. Nearly $1B has been spent so far or earmarked into 2025.
[The Canadian Press]
Throwin away more money on electric vehicles.
I recently read an article where the CEO of Ford drove one of their electric F150s from Silicone Valley to Las Vegas and got a reality check.
QuoteOn a road trip across California, Ford CEO Jim Farley charged his Ford F-150 Lightning at a Level 2 charger. He spent 40 minutes charging the vehicle and was only able to get up to a 40% charge, which would give him about 90-130 miles of range until he'd be calling a tow truck.
Farley called it a "reality check."
Energy watchdog Robert Bryce told Cowboy State Daily that Farley's experience with his own product "sets the new bar for corporate cluelessness." "What PR genius thought of that stunt?" Bryce said.
As Bryce reported on his Substack, Ford reported a $1.08 billion operating loss on its EV business during the second quarter of this year. The company sold 14,843 EVs in that time, meaning it lost more than $70,000 on each vehicle it sold.
Genius.
That has the making of a genuine "Real Men of Genius" ad for those who remember the ads.
Reality check.
If you're an electric vehicle owner vacationing on Prince Edward Island, you'll want to do your homework and plan ahead. That's according to Derek Burnett of Gaetz Brook, N.S., who says he struggled to find a charger for his vehicle during a recent family visit to the province.
Burnett said the car was charged before the family hit the road, planning to stay at a Charlottetown hotel that had three Level 2 chargers, which can take upwards of five hours to fully power a vehicle. The family thought they could leave their car powering up overnight during their stay and have plenty of power during the day. But when they arrived, they found two of the hotel's chargers were not working, and the third was perpetually in use.
OK, we're gonna go look around and see if we can find a fast charger, Burnett said. The family went to the first one, but it had been converted to a Level 2. Then moved on to the provincially owned charger near Canadian Tire, but it was out of service. They visited an auto dealership, but the charger was being used by the dealership's own vehicles. On to another dealership, where there was a lineup. Everybody was in the same situation — and as we were waiting there, more people showed up after us, so it was a continuous stream of people joining the queue for that one Level 3 charger in Charlottetown.
The charging woes continued after the family left Charlottetown.
Their car's charge got them to Borden-Carleton where there was — once again — a lineup. They decided to press on to Aulac in New Brunswick. Another lineup.
[CBC news]
If only science could develop a way to store energy the average consumer could transport and keep a reserve of on hand. Something that could be used in a variety of engines, easy to transfer from a small storage tank into the vehicle, liquid at room temperature, widely available. Too bad they can't come up with such a fuel.
Gee yeah, that would be cool. Do you suppose there could be such a thing? :D
Impossible... we have to go to a different nature to get the stuff. When you mix two things together you get a third thing. Mother nature is fast becoming a third thing. :(
SE
The human cost
Canada's Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault's department yesterday praised China for environmental leadership without mentioning its use of slave labour to make solar panels. A member of Guilbeault's own caucus earlier noted China used slaves to export renewable energy products: "41.7 percent of polysilicon used to produce solar panels, for all the environmentalists in the House, comes from Xinjiang."
[Blacklock's Reporter]
Nearly half of the world’s solar-grade polysilicon, a key component in most panels, is produced in the Xinjiang region of China where more than 2.6 million people, mostly of the Uighur ethnic group, have been subjected to forced labour in detention camps.
The trade body for the solar industry in the UK admitted that it cannot rule out panels containing minerals from the region being sold in this country and has developed a code of practice that would require companies to audit their supply chains more thoroughly.
However, critics claimed that this would remain voluntary and failed to directly tackle.
[The Times UK]
.
Southside, Your observation is spot on. Your thoughts are the same as mine were when he told (bragged) me about the fuel costs of his electric car. His claim didn't make sense, , , therefore all of my questions.
But, apparently his time is not as valuable as his need to fluff up his claim and trick every one into believing that his new car is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
My story, in previous post # 286, about that gentleman's fuel costs go towards the ease of mis representing the actual costs of operating any machine, be it a vehicle or tool or even a business. It's easy to manipulate the numbers.
.
Quote from: Southside on September 01, 2023, 08:05:28 AM
If only science could develop a way to store energy the average consumer could transport and keep a reserve of on hand. Something that could be used in a variety of engines, easy to transfer from a small storage tank into the vehicle, liquid at room temperature, widely available. Too bad they can't come up with such a fuel.
Actually completely "possible". Biodiesel, alcohol, even synthetic gasoline (from methane digesters etc). BUT, they cost more than simply pumping more out of the ground. But they are the reason that ICE vehicles wont go away completly. The processes needed to convert sunshine, wind, geothermal or hydro power into synthetic gasoline already exist, in the lab. No one does it commercially, because the gas might cost 3X as much as the traditional stuff.
Converting waste wood into basically crude oil has already been done in experimental plants, basically bypassing the X Million years it usually takes, to produce some flammable concoction that can be fed into a refinery.
The guys experimenting with wood powered vehicles are effectively running "solar" energy. The tree was the energy collector, the wood is the storage, the gasifier is the process to turn it into fuel.
Quote from: Sod saw on September 09, 2023, 07:39:15 PMSouthside, Your observation is spot on. Your thoughts are the same as mine were when he told (bragged) me about the fuel costs of his electric car. His claim didn't make sense, , , therefore all of my questions.
Local number suggest that if you had to rely on commercial chargers, your fuel costs will probably work out about 50% of a gasoline vehicle. That makes the maths look less appealing. You are paying for both the electricity, and the fast charger, and rent for the parking space. But they also say that 80% of the time, people charge at home, with a domestic size "overnight" charger. Then your fuel bill is only ~20% of a gasoline vehicle. Then it's a $20 recharge vs $100 at the pump.
Friend of ours drives a Tesla, and justified it as his commute is a 100 mile round trip. No problem for the car, it can do it 2 times without a charge if needed. But 10 hours on a home charger each night keeps it topped up, and he seldom ever uses a public charger. But he's realistic about his costs, and would rather spend $40 in electricity vs $200 in gas each week.
And how much does it cost to replace the battery or calculate the increased depreciation of the EV vs its IC counterpart? Free lunch is never really free. And what would the actual cost of dino fuel be if the powers that be weren't trying to tax and regulate it out of existence whilst proving subsidies for EVS and solar?
Besides more than 8/10 of the public chargers have not been reliable, admitted by government subsidizing them, obtained from their own data. One can assume the private ones have the same reliability. You have a a very high up front cost, and 5-7 year life, and another big chunk of change to replace them. When all factored in the reality sets in. The illusion of a $40 charge versus $80-100 tank of gas was the same kind of flim flam used with a lot of things I seen come on the market that was suppose to save money.
Anyone else see where the Secretary of Energy had to send ICE vehicles ahead of her EV convoy to physically block chargers so her highness would have access to them during her show tour recently? Even with that stunt they could not get enough chargers.
Rules for thee....
A friend of ours lives in a 200 unit condo building. they just installed EV chargers, 6, outside as you can not charge ev in the underground parking due to the fire hazard. My question is what do 200-400 EV vehicles do to charge at night? Impossible with just 6 chargers installed, as at some point are going to go down to your ev vehicle and move it in and out of the charging station?
Quote from: stavebuyer on September 13, 2023, 04:41:37 AMAnd what would the actual cost of dino fuel be if the powers that be weren't trying to tax and regulate it out of existence whilst proving subsidies for EVS and solar?
Don't forget to factor in the large subsidies that oil producers get, a quick search shows 20 billion a year in the USA and 1 trillion per year world wide, then factor in the price lowering by releasing reserves.
the reserves need to be replaced, and not used to adjust cost. we need to produce our own. We need coal and natural gas to produce the electricity to power the electric cars. :)
To be clear I was speaking of the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve not oil still in the ground.
It's my understanding that the reserves were used to lower price spikes by releasing oil purchased at a lower price when the oil cost escalated rapidly and is to be replenished when the cost drops.
From Wikipedia (checking my work :D)
On March 31, 2022, President Joe Biden (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden) announced that his administration would release 1 million barrels of oil per day from the reserve for the next 180 days, selling it at an average price of $96 per barrel. After oil prices declined during the second half of the year, in December the administration announced it would begin replenishing the SPR in early 2023, expecting to purchase oil at a lower price than it was sold, a process that would take months or years to complete.[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve_(United_States)#cite_note-NYTimes-April2022-10)[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve_(United_States)#cite_note-11)[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve_(United_States)#cite_note-12)
More checking.....
link (https://usafacts.org/articles/did-releasing-oil-from-the-strategic-petroleum-reserve-impact-gas-prices/#:~:text=According%20to%20an%20analysis%20from,to%2031%20cents%20per%20gallon.)
According to an analysis from the Department of the Treasury from July (//http:///), the release of oil from the SPR helped lower the price of gasoline in the US by an estimated range of 13 to 31 cents per gallon. This report covers the period from March to July of 2022.[2] (https://usafacts.org/articles/did-releasing-oil-from-the-strategic-petroleum-reserve-impact-gas-prices/#footnote-2) This means that, without the release of crude oil from the SPR, gasoline prices could be anywhere between 13 to 31 cents higher per gallon
Disclaimer !
I read it on the internet. :)
The "strategic reserve" had minimal impact on price or supply and that political card has been played. All businesses should be in the business of making money. Competition and supply controls pricing.
I really don't understand the fantasy world thinking that having the whole change to electric is not going to dramatically increase the cost of electricity. Sunshine may be free, but all the stuff needed to turn it into something usable is not.
We are all about to find out. Problem is the naysayers like me are on the same limb the as the unicorn believers sawing off our perch.
Quote from: stavebuyer on September 13, 2023, 11:43:50 AMCompetition and supply controls pricing
Lets not forget the biggest factor demand, it does not matter how much you have or how many are trying to sell it if nobody wants it it ain't worth a dime.
Quote from: stavebuyer on September 13, 2023, 11:43:50 AMI really don't understand the fantasy world thinking that having the whole change to electric is not going to dramatically increase the cost of electricity. Sunshine may be free, but all the stuff needed to turn it into something usable is not.
No doubt the price will go up as demand increases.
One of the cool things about electricity over gas and diesel is it is clean and cheap to make your own. Wood gas doesn't seem very practical or cost efficient and I know people that burn frier oil in old diesels and have seen the work involved and the mess but it is cheap if only a few are doing it, if everybody wants the frier oil it would only take a minute to run out.
Actually sunshine isn't free. Here in Virginia we pay a "forest use tax" on all logs that end up at a sawmill, pulp facility, etc. That's in addition to the annual real-estate tax. The more the sun shines, the more the tree grows, the more tax you pay at harvest - so yea a sunshine tax. Just wait until the EV world figures out how that works.
As far as making electricity at home being clean - how do you produce the silaca, copper, lead, and other components of those PV panels at home? You may get to enjoy the "clean" part of solar, but somebody, somewhere, is dealing with the other half of that equation.
Quote from: Hilltop366 on September 13, 2023, 12:07:32 PM
Quote from: stavebuyer on September 13, 2023, 11:43:50 AMI really don't understand the fantasy world thinking that having the whole change to electric is not going to dramatically increase the cost of electricity. Sunshine may be free, but all the stuff needed to turn it into something usable is not.
No doubt the price will go up as demand increases.
One of the cool things about electricity over gas and diesel is it is clean and cheap to make your own. Wood gas doesn't seem very practical or cost efficient and I know people that burn frier oil in old diesels and have seen the work involved and the mess but it is cheap if only a few are doing it, if everybody wants the frier oil it would only take a minute to run out.
NSP wants a EV revolution big time
The two new proposed mega mining areas (Cobalt) in Idaho and the one(Lithium) in the volcano caldera on the Nevada/Oregon border will be rocking the market. It will take a decade to even get things going, but known supply will spur new investment in solar and EV. Another big industry waiting to grow is recycling of solar panels. This will be big business too and the recovered metals will snapped up. As always, the original way of doing things, Hydroelectric power, is still the most cost efficient and is clean.
The EPA website Green House Gas emissions says that the Electrical sector produces 25% of the total. That can only grow I think. I wonder if that takes into account the electrical company setting all of California on fire?
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions (https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions)
On what planet will large scale mining be allowed to take place? All ground is sacred to somebody. No such thing as common sense in this country anymore. The eco-nuts aren't partial to any use or alteration of natural resources.
Quote from: Southside on September 13, 2023, 12:26:15 PMAs far as making electricity at home being clean - how do you produce the silaca, copper, lead, and other components of those PV panels at home? You may get to enjoy the "clean" part of solar, but somebody, somewhere, is dealing with the other half of that equation.
But you get to enjoy the clean part for years vs a gallon of gas that at 24.2 miles per gallon (average for all new gas powered vehicles) traveling at 60 mph last 24 min.
Who's system of propulsion is the cleanest when all factors are taken into account? Don't know but when you think about the equipment that goes into oil exploration, drilling, pumping, transportation, refining, more transportation and then it gets you 24 miles down the road then you got to wait another million years or however long it takes for the carbon to be used up by plants and be buried and turn into oil again I would not bet oil being the cleanest.
Quote from: stavebuyer on September 13, 2023, 02:09:56 PM
On what planet will large scale mining be allowed to take place? All ground is sacred to somebody. No such thing as common sense in this country anymore. The eco-nuts aren't partial to any use or alteration of natural resources.
Mining is already underway in Idaho for the cobalt. Most of it is in a National Park and the US Military is after it. The government has also identified it as a strategic resource which cuts a lot of red tape and lawsuits.
The lithium deposit is said to be worth over 5 trillion dollars. You can bet that Oregon and Nevada aren't gonna let that sit around long.
Home electricity production also has wind turbines and there are plenty of youtubers making vids on their own hydro electric power. Yah, its iffy, but it does work.
Borrowing from "Back to the Future", you are going to need several 'jig-a-watts" of additional power as you simultaneously phase out IC engines and fossil fuel power generation. Build the new and let the old become obsolete on its own accord. Since everyone in the "new green" camp is so certain of its absolute infallibility there should be no risk. Of course, we still have to save the planet but wondering how you plan to get the developing countries that do most of the mining and manufacturing to sign off on their demise? They might be uneducated but they realize it's smarter not to cut off your left arm so your right will be stronger. Any "net" savings in your backyard is going to be going up a new smokestack in India or Vietnam. Committing pointless financial suicide. Somebody needs to do a graph charting the rise of EPA vs the decline of domestic production. We are cleaner but the cost was our middle class and sooner or later the people we outsourced our manufacturing to will become our masters and the planet will still be filthy.
Meanwhile BRICS will offset whatever well meaning folks sacrifice and grow their own economy's resulting in zero gain reduction in emissions for earth. It would be easier to accept if criminals weren't in charge I suppose. We are the laughing stock of this polluted earth while Washington pummeled and sabotaged our Treasury for the politicians and foreign lands. That's the gig you know who was trying to stop. My tolerance for ignorance is zero moving forward.
there is a loss of energy in any machine, especially when converting from one type to another type of usable energy. either heat or light. not all IC are as efficient. the most efficient ones cannot do much work. If you have to go 25 mph on the highway and coast down the highway, you may get 250 mpg, but cannot hold a job. we could all work from home. "Mom after the incision, gently remove the appendix. it is the thing that looks like this picture". We could all ride bikes. the old answer was public transportation. Oops sorry they use diesel. all the mining equipment uses diesel. It is a great idea who time is slowly coming. If you drive an electric car or generate 1/20th of the electricity you need daily, good for you. None of this make any sense on an acute next year basis unless you have drunk the cool aid. I have not drunk it, and I am not uninformed. You can get and electric car that does 0 to 60 in 3 seconds. Wow those will be some awful teenager accidents. and the bigger motors (even electric) will use more power. then we need more coal and gas to make more energy. If it could run off the sun, it would be great. maybe in 100 years. Not in my lifetime. so do not get rid of pertol fuels till you have an alternative. you can bet the politicians ramming this down our throat will still have fuel for their planes, because they have to go talk the rest of the world into being stupid as well. let them use a pedal boat to cross the ocean. It is what they expect all the regular folks to do, I guess.
I rekon the main problem is the unnecsessary dependancy on huge amounts of energy that just has to come from somewhere.
Any new and greener energy system must start by:
1. Geting cargo onto ships and barges and railway waggons instead of onto lorries (trucks) which in turn implies massive investments in railways, harbours and canals.
2. Moving either productiuon closer to the people or people closer to production. Avoiding long commutes and long transports when possible.
3. Moving supplies closer to the people. The mom and pop style country stores and small coops that still were plentiful in Finland in my childhood and nowadays rare here and almost non-existant in many other contries actually served the purpose of cutting down on shopping runs. Saving energy.
4. More collective transport. Busses, trains and packet ships instead on the obiquitous car.
5. For those who still needs a car it must be smaller and more fuel efficient. For instance you don't need a huge pickup or Chevy Van as freelance carpenter/builder though many seem to think so. I am for instance making do with a short frame Ford Transit Connect with approximately half the fuel consumption.
6. Heating/cooling fewer square metres. A normal sized family doesn't need a gigantic home with a srawling floor plan and every room heated or cooled to the same temperature all year.
7. Climate adapted buiudings. Wrap around porches and thick stone walls in warm climates. Square rather compact houses with entrance halls provinging a heat sluice in cold climates.
8. Bicykle adapted town planning. Every day you can leve the car at home saves energy.
9. Put an end to air travel and air freight except for emergency deliveries of for instance fire pumps and critical spare parts and specialist or resque workers.
And so on.
Only after such changes have been made we can maybe maybe maybe produce the electricity we need for a green energy switchover. Or at least make limited amounts of fossil and other fuels go a lot further.
Someone mentioned Hydro-electric being clean. Maybe, as far as emissions. But there are many other consequences of hydro. Fish and game impacts, flooded land- that new lake seems pretty nice if it's not your ancestors' graves that are flooded🤷
Yes, here in New Brunswick, a lot of graves were relocated because of hydro. Also, hydro dams interfered with Atlantic salmon runs. There was only one dam with a fish way, the rest further down stream had none so putting a fishway on the upper dam (it was the first), never did much good. Other than some fish were trucked over the lower dams, but the number of fish transported was insignificant compared to the wild runs previous.
Geopolitical Strategist Peter Zeihan is a global energy, demographic and security expert.
Why EVs Aren't The GreenTech Panacea || Peter Zeihan
Why EVs Aren't The GreenTech Panacea || Peter Zeihan - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P95NFlAnmY)
yes, the EV has problems...... but its not smart to drive down the road boiling a lot of water up front and blowing a lot of smoke out the back.
SE
I tried to watch that but I couldn't get past that guy's stupid hat.
BB talking trash about a guys hat? ;D
Well, to be fair, that hat was a lot to take in, and it was distracting. But the message was pretty clear and , I think, pretty accurate. All things we have observed, but he had the numbers which always helps.
I would never try to get anyone to take me seriously if I was wearing my big yellow hat. Or if I was bald. Thankfully, I'm not. And, I can take off my hat😁
He's had that same hat awhile, wears it a lot up in the CO hills when it's a blanket of white. :D But he's not just a youtuber, he's been all over the globe at various conferences. Some guys like to do goofie stuff on youtube. :D
common hat on the ski slopes in CO. Assuming he has no agenda (like when the pro-EV guys speak) it sounds about right.
Here's Pete donning a different hat.
Lithium: The False Profit of Electrification || Peter Zeihan - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af3_0CrnH7o)
Failed tidal power project on the rocks
Tidal power turbine owned by bankrupt company washes ashore on Brier Island | CBC News (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/tidal-power-turbine-washes-ashore-brier-island-1.7031737)
Battery plants are huge and are turning into money pits. Mind boggling.
EV battery deals to cost .8B more due to lost corporate tax on subsidies, budget officer says | CBC News (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-provincial-ev-investments-pbo-1.7031398)
And so it begins.......
I listened today as the battery plant in Windsor Ontario is going import 1600 workers from South Korea. According to the CEO, there is not enough skilled labour in Ontario, or Canada to do the jobs.
So all our hard earned tax dollars get to go to S. Korea. Sounds like a great idea to a simple minded individual like me.
Quote from: Stephen1 on November 21, 2023, 07:24:01 PM
....
I listened today as the battery plant in Windsor Ontario is going import 1600 workers from South Korea. According to the CEO, there is not enough skilled labour in Ontario, or Canada to do the jobs........
Oh, that is such BS. This is corporates speak, and translated it means "We cannot find people here that will work for the minimal wages we would want to pay so we can maximize our profits at their expense, not do we care to spend ANY money to train them to meet the job requirements, lest they use those skills to get a decent paying job."
Tom, you say it so good!
Historically things come and go .From mules and horses to steam engines making for unemployed black smiths .Steam engines fired on coal to internal combustion engines and the great oil booms of decades ago .Now the trend seems to be battery powered equipment with wind power for generation to keep the batteries charged .Who knows what might be next ,back to horses maybe ?Try as you might and belly ache about it you'll never be able to change it once it gets a toe hold .I'm ahead of the game with two battery golf carts .Not real fast but they always start if I remember to keep the batteries charged .
Al, I am not sure it really has a toe hold yet. However, with the weight of the Fed. behind it, I am sure it will not be going away, no matter what it costs all of us.
Europe is in the process of banning ICE, the best selling cars in many countries are EVs. In California - where trends start and move, the model Y- Tesla, is the best selling car. That was with no incentives until the Fed got involved again. In California Tesla is often the leading manufacturer in a given month, splitting time with Toyota. In northern VA I can't drive without seeing a Tesla or Hyundai or Bolt. 4 clients own them. My newest client in WV has meetings and there are always Bolts and Teslas and yesterday I saw a Rivian (sort of a Range Rover of EVs).
There are 3 million EVs on the road in the USA now. Charging all of them has become much easier as Tesla opened its huge charging system to everyone. That's a big deal for people making long distance trips as Tesla had put a lot of thought into what to do and how to do it. 12% of all cars sold in the USA are sold in California.
The battery plants that come online in the next couple of years will be churning out battery packs that will be partnered with solar and wind power and supplying packs for EV airplanes and cars. In terms of costs nothing beats solar for levelized costs, the cost of the facility over time and the energy it produces, solar went up in 2023 but then so did everything, it will crash next year. There is virtually no maint, efficiency rates just keep going up, and there is no fuel costs- we are moving nuclear fusion through silicon into our grid. This is the same source of energy as everything else on the world with the possible exception of nuke fission; basically all energy we use is from the sun. We'll move to solar with or without the Fed's involvement because it is more efficient it may take a few years longer, it may mean factories are built here and Mexico or Vietnam, India and China, the solutions will move though and long term cost/watt pricing has a very clear downward trend, it will plummet this winter as price cuts are being put in place due to over capacity in Vietnam and China. In some places wind helps out too, so much so that at night in Texas the price of power becomes negative on many summer nights. Levelized costs strip out all the subsidies (coal, solar, wind, nuke, gas all have subsidies) and just look at the numbers.
I agree with Al, things change. This is a pretty extraordinary and very hopeful change and it's happening. Enjoy it, same thing happened with computers 40 years ago. For people like yourself and many members they will be able to standup their own powerstation at their home just like you were able to bring a computer into your home (and now hand) that previously only fit in a basement of a University building and required punch cards. Solar is going to give you something you could never do with petro based solutions- be energy independent. The solutions being built today are really cool- it is a diverse set of solutions that are beating each other up, free market is doing a great job. Iron air batteries- first discovered in the 1920s, finally coming to market at scale (Form Energy is a great example). Saltwater batteries, semi sold state batteries, super high density solid state batteries. It is an absolutely amazing time to be an innovator and investor in that space. Not surprisingly even the most conservative auto companies are making plays (Toyota is the worlds most conservative auto company).
Home based, energy independence is not going to happen at scale, the cabal won't let that occur. The same though process surrounded the legalization of hemp and pot, all the small guys could really make a killing suddenly, big tobacco had other plans and basically said "hold my beer", now the innovative California pot industry is about to go bust.
Technology evolves .For examle something as simple as a storage battery .Not so long ago it might take 4 six volt batteries each weighing over 60 pounds to start a diesel semi truck engine .Now you can do it with a device the size of a small alarm clock .Fact I've got one and it works great plus it only set me back around $60 .Cheap insurance the way I look at it .I've even got a little tiny battery chainsaw that has came in very handle for small jobs .While at the same time have some of the largest old gasoline saws ever made that have been used for gigantic redwoods on the left coast .Those BTW should last a dozen life times no more use than they get .
Saying that the technology changes so fast it's nearly impossible to keep up with it .The last 15 or so years before I retired my work was robotics and high speed CNC machinery .I've seen three electricians and two controls engineers all lost in space for a time being trying to trouble shoot a problem .We always did however frustrating as it was .Makes my head hurt just to think about it .
Stuff changes for sure, it happens rapidly in spots and others it's years out. Then lots fail to. The numbers of sales on EV's isn't very exciting in these parts. I never see one being driven. I see a photo or a video someone posts, from who knows where. Definitely not here. Only guys (2) with solar around here live in shacks, one just burnt to the ground yesterday.
I drove my BIL's ford lightning a few weeks ago, very nice. It's quiet at lower speeds a bit quieter at highway speed because of the tire and wind noise, It handles nice likely because of the low centre of gravity.
He still likes it and enjoys the lower cost of operation. If I recall correctly it has 42000 km (26000) miles on it he spent a bit under $1000 in electricity so about 10% of what his last truck (GMC ½ ton 4x4 with 6.2) would cost and had 1 service where they checked it over but only topped off the windshield washer so saved another 1000 in oil changes. So if he keeps it long enough to put 10 times the miles on it without major issues it will have saved nearly enough to pay for itself. His last two trucks (bought new) had well over 300000 kms on them and he spent more on fuel than the truck cost.
The problem with the Lightning (if the Youtube videos are correct):) is that if i tow an 18 ft. boat with it, i only get less than 100 miles of range. My POV is that trucks are made to haul things...If those numbers are true, I'm out.
In the news recently was Ford's announcement that they will change their plans on their new battery factory, a reduction of production output of 43%. Ford has also lost $4.5 billion over the last year in the electric vehicle division. Model e's is what they call the division. So $6.6 billion loss so far. Ford Motor Company is also partnering with the world's largest battery company, a China-based company called Contemporary Am. Great leadership there.
QuoteThe projected $4.5 billion loss is over twice as much as Model e's $2.1 billion loss in 2022. The company recently announced that the price of its electric F-150 Lightning pickup trucks will be reduced due to cheaper raw battery materials.
Ford also cut a shift at their Lightning PU factory. A Swedish company Volta Trucks went bankrupt. For every success story there is a lot of bad news. According to one article, the biggest problem is that nearly all the folks who want an EV have bought one, so there is no market demand.
QuoteGM, along with Ford, is slowing its EV plans as demand softens, competition heats up and prices drop. Last week, GM said it would delay the production start of electric trucks, including the Chevy Silverado EV and GMC Sierra EV, from 2024 until late 2025 at its Orion Assembly plant in Michigan.
GM is not doing any better either. You can only bleed for so long.
But what's the difference when it's tax money, feeding the Canadian press $30,000 per employee to stay afloat or a few thou for an auto worker. Might as well admit government feeds it all. :D
Most recent disclosure in Canada is $8M for a solar powered 4 door federal government garage. The structure looked like an above ground bunker with a paneled roof. Who are these people afraid of? ::)
I bought a little Ford stock about 15 years ago. It's not enough for life changing purchases. :D
It's worth about 2/3 of what I paid for it. Every time it gets to getting even it goes right back down to half of the purchase price. It's a great dividend stock though. One of the best. I hope Ford thrives with whatever they build. There's a video going around with a question caption, how do you know when you got a full charge?
then the car blows up and a seat ricochets of a wall and demolishes a guy standing in the next bay.
hopefully that'll get straightened out. In a recent EV summit at our WH. A few months ago politics didn't invite Elon. Really, if that doesn't say it all. There's a division narrative from government not anyone else.
I do not know where to get info that is not biased. I believe most of the energy is still carbon based. coal, oil, NG. so, all the electricity has pre-emitted carbon dioxide, so do not be so glib. I do not think there are enough raw materials to build a grid, and enough EV cars even if every American wanted one. not to mention if a family of four like ours, needs one for each member. All the mining in other countries is also burning up gobs of hydrocarbons. How do they refine all the ore for silver, tin and only God knows what else. Need energy and the most abundant especial in poor countries is petroleum. Everyone seems to be green but ignoring where the energy comes from and how we get all the materials. I will be fine buying an EV when things are more figured out, say in 40 years. If you want one now, go for it. Do not take away my way of life. My truck pollutes very little compared to the forced machine pushing the EV as not using petrol. I doubt the batteries will work in the cheap chainsaw in 10 years, and folks will just buy a new cheap saw. Waste.
I know my electric bill has sure changed to the tune of 50% added on the top for fuel adjustments and environmental sur-charges. Few will be able to afford to charge the electric vehicles once the dust settles on the green initiatives but maybe that's all part of the plan.
the mining of rare earth minerals is too dirty, and EPA has shut it down in this country. I thought to save the whole earth was the mission. It is like illegal immigrants. All the folks on Marthas Vineyard are for folks to just pour in, until 50 or so show up in their neighborhood.
I remember one episode of MASH 4077th where they were in an extreme cold snap and had no fuel. Resorted to burning all the furniture in an attempt to stay warm. That's going to be the result. People aren't going to be cold and hungry for someone else's idea of what is good for the planet.
The backlash is coming.
Quote from: Hilltop366 on November 22, 2023, 12:26:39 PM
I drove my BIL's ford lightning a few weeks ago, very nice. It's quiet at lower speeds a bit quieter at highway speed because of the tire and wind noise, It handles nice likely because of the low centre of gravity.
He still likes it and enjoys the lower cost of operation. If I recall correctly it has 42000 km (26000) miles on it he spent a bit under $1000 in electricity so about 10% of what his last truck (GMC ½ ton 4x4 with 6.2) would cost and had 1 service where they checked it over but only topped off the windshield washer so saved another 1000 in oil changes. So if he keeps it long enough to put 10 times the miles on it without major issues it will have saved nearly enough to pay for itself. His last two trucks (bought new) had well over 300000 kms on them and he spent more on fuel than the truck cost.
Yes I love our Lightning, same deal. Huge savings on fuel but we are putting a few more miles on than your BIL.
Quote from: doc henderson on November 22, 2023, 06:34:30 PM
the mining of rare earth minerals is too dirty, and EPA has shut it down in this country. I thought to save the whole earth was the mission. It is like illegal immigrants. All the folks on Marthas Vineyard are for folks to just pour in, until 50 or so show up in their neighborhood.
Before WWII China was already the only place in the world for many of the rare earth minerals. The USA had 1 mine, it closed after a huge spill of toxic waste but kept processing. It's processing again, fyi. It has trouble competing with China.
Quote from: stavebuyer on November 22, 2023, 06:23:52 PM
I know my electric bill has sure changed to the tune of 50% added on the top for fuel adjustments and environmental sur-charges. Few will be able to afford to charge the electric vehicles once the dust settles on the green initiatives but maybe that's all part of the plan.
Still so much cheaper than gas. Hilltop BIL has it right, 10 years on it should have paid for itself in fuel savings.
Received an email today from one of those carbon credit companies, they no longer will do annual harvest deferred contracts as nobody will buy the carbon credits, but now they offer a deal where you can plant "GMO trees" which grow faster to capture more carbon. Had to laugh out loud, so now the plan is to save the planet by increasing the amount of genetic messing around we do not knowing what the consequences will be, and in the process we will grow a bunch of pulp.
The 3rd rock from the sun may survive, but we just might be successful in killing off every living thing on it one way or another despite ourselves.
How foolish🤦
It must be the slave labor in China that helps them compete. ;)
Quote from: nativewolf on November 22, 2023, 07:32:22 PMBefore WWII China was already the only place in the world for many of the rare earth minerals. The USA had 1 mine, it closed after a huge spill of toxic waste but kept processing. It's processing again, fyi. It has trouble competing with China
Are we talking "Rare Earth" or Lithium? Both are needed to build electric vehicles. China is actually #6 in known lithium deposits, behind the USA and Australia. But the final refining and processing is mostly in China. Cheap labour and less environmental rules?
Thing is the Chinese companies have gone all in on electric vehicles. You may not be seeing them in the most of US, but I was just reading up in the new MG electric hatchback that's for sale here. It's freaking 430hp, with instant torque. It's basically a "super car" off the line. I don't know what the long term reliability is like, but as most electronics is now Chinese made, and EVs are more like a smartphone with wheels, they will probably get the bugs worked out.
From what I can see online, the USA actually has the most geothermal generation of any country, but it's only 0.4% of total generation. But KNOWN reserves and current technology suggest that can be increased over 20X. Like a 10% boost to the National grid, with reliable renewable generation. This isn't pie in the sky wishful thinking. Geothermal power stations are already operating, and have been for ~60 years. They supply 10% of NZ electricity now, and that can be expanded considerably here as well. .
Are there potential problems? Will it cost money? Of course. Elon's latest rocket also blew up, but it's counted as a successful mission because it got further than the last one, and didn't destroy the launch pad. So they have learnt a lot more rocket science in the process. Not everything Elon promotes works, but the ones that do are pretty dang cool.
Unless everything else is different on them trucks besides battery power, they will be rust buckets in 10 years unless it's drove in the lower tier states. Everywhere else that deals with winter driving they will be rust buckets like gas powered ones. Any rust through at all up here and your vehicle fails inspection, even if it's the chrome bumper. The battery will be shot, most likely by 7 or 8 years anyway. It will then become a money pit. No savings what so ever. Keep dreaming of better things. Eventually they will hit on something better. After all, going to the moon was fresh plowed ground. Even the microcomputer came along. Also, it turns out the welding machines had to be re-enginneered because of welding together two different thicknesses of metal and also the consistency of the welding. Space suits were brand new, without them, no one was walking on any moon. Even if you went up there and sat in a capsule, how long will you sit in your own excrement? :D
Quote from: Ianab on November 23, 2023, 12:43:21 AM
Quote from: nativewolf on November 22, 2023, 07:32:22 PMBefore WWII China was already the only place in the world for many of the rare earth minerals. The USA had 1 mine, it closed after a huge spill of toxic waste but kept processing. It's processing again, fyi. It has trouble competing with China
Are we talking "Rare Earth" or Lithium? Both are needed to build electric vehicles. China is actually #6 in known lithium deposits, behind the USA and Australia. But the final refining and processing is mostly in China. Cheap labour and less environmental rules?
Thing is the Chinese companies have gone all in on electric vehicles. You may not be seeing them in the most of US, but I was just reading up in the new MG electric hatchback that's for sale here. It's freaking 430hp, with instant torque. It's basically a "super car" off the line. I don't know what the long term reliability is like, but as most electronics is now Chinese made, and EVs are more like a smartphone with wheels, they will probably get the bugs worked out.
From what I can see online, the USA actually has the most geothermal generation of any country, but it's only 0.4% of total generation. But KNOWN reserves and current technology suggest that can be increased over 20X. Like a 10% boost to the National grid, with reliable renewable generation. This isn't pie in the sky wishful thinking. Geothermal power stations are already operating, and have been for ~60 years. They supply 10% of NZ electricity now, and that can be expanded considerably here as well. .
Are there potential problems? Will it cost money? Of course. Elon's latest rocket also blew up, but it's counted as a successful mission because it got further than the last one, and didn't destroy the launch pad. So they have learnt a lot more rocket science in the process. Not everything Elon promotes works, but the ones that do are pretty dang cool.
Rare earth. The USA actually has deposits, significant, of both. As does Australia. It's the price point to mine and refine the rare earth elements. China has some of the worlds only deposits
Quote from: Southside on November 22, 2023, 09:12:19 PM
Received an email today from one of those carbon credit companies, they no longer will do annual harvest deferred contracts as nobody will buy the carbon credits, but now they offer a deal where you can plant "GMO trees" which grow faster to capture more carbon. Had to laugh out loud, so now the plan is to save the planet by increasing the amount of genetic messing around we do not knowing what the consequences will be, and in the process we will grow a bunch of pulp.
The 3rd rock from the sun may survive, but we just might be successful in killing off every living thing on it one way or another despite ourselves.
Thank goodness, carbon markets are just full of half backed fraud schemes. That GMO thing is funded by the Ohrstrom family, google them. It is just outright BS and an attempt to game things by people that are connected enough to get meetings with CEOs that have to buy credits. Grifters and fraudsters, almost the whole bunch. That is irrespective of the question of whether or not you believe man is causing climate changes (which I do and I guess you don't). What is clear is the schemes are terrible. Wall St (or Charlotte or Miami nowadays) wins and we all lose.
Giant batteries drain economics of gas power plants | Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/giant-batteries-drain-economics-gas-power-plants-2023-11-21/)
Batteries are coming and the folks that build gas plants are pulling back.
some of that is forecasting the fact that the government will "defeat" petroleum-based fuel come hell or high water. drank too much of the cool aid. the money goes where the government says. look at the pipeline's shutdown on someone's first days in office. And they are so proud. got to fit the narrative, even if it hurts many folks trying to make a living. now what country are we getting out fuel from?
Quote from: Ianab on November 23, 2023, 12:43:21 AMFrom what I can see online, the USA actually has the most geothermal generation of any country, but it's only 0.4% of total generation. But KNOWN reserves and current technology suggest that can be increased over 20X.
Maybe we can generate some more power from it - maybe - but you would have to get that power to the grid, and then have the already over taxed grid be able to distribute it, into homes that likely don't have a spare breaker available to charge the EV. Arbitrary deadlines, for a technology that isn't ready for prime time, won't magically make it happen.
»
"I bought a little Ford stock about 15 years ago. It's not enough for life changing purchases." You have to look at the broad picture .Ford common IMO is way under valued .In the 29 years I worked for FOMOCO I have a fair amount in 401 K funds .It's low right now but considering the fact of dividends and certain payments finacially has worked out well for me .
I'll just say I've been retired for 5 years and have not bought any more but every report I get the balance is increasing in spite of taking 4 percent out each year in 401 payments .
Quote from: nativewolf on November 23, 2023, 07:54:17 AMThat is irrespective of the question of whether or not you believe man is causing climate changes (which I do and I guess you don'
No more than I believe putting up too many buildings in Guam will make the island flip over.
Look at history .At one time coal was king then came Drake in Pa with oil and soon the Pa. hills were filled with derricks followed by Ohio and eventually came the Oklahoma crude .Nucliear might have taken over were it not for Three Mile Island .Now comes windmills and fields of solar collectors .It won't stop there in years to come .Things for the most part evolve and thus improves over time .Just the way it works .
Much ado about weather patterns which historically have changed over eons of times just by naturaly occuring events .How about Mt Saints Helens which disrupted the weather as far away as eastern Ohio .It rained like a cow peeing on a flat rock for the best part of seven years and man kind had nothing to do with it .The "little ice age "in Europe .About 450-500 years of trying to turn England into Alaska and it wasn't from burning coal stoves .Mankind might add a little bit to the weather but mother nature controlls it .Mother always wins .
No one knows, yet some "think" they do maybe. but they decided what they want and spread lies and basically use terror tactic while they fly around to spread the propaganda. there may be some truth to effects of use of buried fuel. it does not help to tell the child the house will burn down if they do not finish their supper. It never does, and then the so-called parent increases the threats because they are being ignored by sensible people. So now if you deny any part of the climate agenda, you are stupid. It is supposed to be "so clear". I have never heard evidence only talking points. Soes it if the US stop using petrol, and the rest of the world does not, will that solve the problem. If we use coal and NG to produce the electricity, does that somehow erase the emissions if we drive a car with no exhaust pipe? Are we not using primarily diesel power to mine the raw materials to make things that will then wear out. Not all will be recyclable. I cannot now believe information as now the activists deem themselves experts on the subject. I am all for advancement and i try to not pollute. I burn woodstoves and know the CO2, goes back into plants all over the world. there must have been a class back in college that planted this stuff in folks' brains and unfortunately some of the students went into politics. I am not a denier, I just not seen any reliable information on the subject. I also have common sense and they are basically throwing the baby out with the bath water. just like electric everything, we can barely power what we have. I do not think if we decided everyone should heat with wood, that we could convert the planet in 10 years, and expect it to be feasible. At least a wood stove is recyclable and lasts for 30 years. I think the concept of EVs is great. you cannot ignore the fact that they are powered by fossil fuels primarily, and the technology is barely here and not fully developed. taking every problem we have, such as riots and crime in big Cities, and blaming it on climate change does increase anyone's confidence.
It is a cult.
While most "studies" are funded by someone with an agenda the points mentioned I find valid.
Study finds the true cost of owning an electric vehicle equates to $17 per gallon (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/study-finds-the-true-cost-of-owning-an-electric-vehicle-equates-to-17-per-gallon/ar-AA1kpS9b?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=6fc3b55734784fdfa7aac8b34911bee2&ei=21)
Quote from: SwampDonkey on November 23, 2023, 04:58:55 AMUnless everything else is different on them trucks besides battery power, they will be rust buckets in 10 years unless it's drove in the lower tier states.
True without good undercoating and some even with good undercoating due to poor design but I drive a 10 year old Rav4, 20 year old Rav4 and a 29 year old dodge truck, although the truck is starting to get a bit of rust on the wheel wells and drivers floor but the rest is still in good condition so it can be done if you want to and I am in one of the worse places in north america for auto rust due to a "perfect storm" of high humidity, close to salt water, lots of wind blowing the salt around, warmer winters and salt on the road.
Either way he is saving around $10000 a year in operating cost compared to his last 2 trucks so we will have to wait until he trades it in to see if it was worth it.
You can hear some wild theories .One my one time father in law had was rockets punched holes in the 0zone layer and it leaked into outer space .Then again some still think the earth is flat which are the same group that think the moon is made of green cheese . Must be something in the water . ???
I vote for the "green"
se
Quote from: Hilltop366 on November 23, 2023, 05:40:39 PM
Quote from: SwampDonkey on November 23, 2023, 04:58:55 AMUnless everything else is different on them trucks besides battery power, they will be rust buckets in 10 years unless it's drove in the lower tier states.
True without good undercoating and some even with good undercoating due to poor design but I drive a 10 year old Rav4, 20 year old Rav4 and a 29 year old dodge truck, although the truck is starting to get a bit of rust on the wheel wells and drivers floor but the rest is still in good condition so it can be done if you want to and I am in one of the worse places in north america for auto rust due to a "perfect storm" of high humidity, close to salt water, lots of wind blowing the salt around, warmer winters and salt on the road.
Either way he is saving around $10000 a year in operating cost compared to his last 2 trucks so we will have to wait until he trades it in to see if it was worth it.
Our costs savings are pretty dramatic but then I put a lot of miles on the vehicle the electricity is about a buck and a half, the gas would have been $30. Wont take 10 years to flat out pay for the truck just in fuel savings. Much less brakes, oil, filters, etc etc.
Quote from: stavebuyer on November 23, 2023, 03:47:52 PM
While most "studies" are funded by someone with an agenda the points mentioned I find valid.
Study finds the true cost of owning an electric vehicle equates to $17 per gallon (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/study-finds-the-true-cost-of-owning-an-electric-vehicle-equates-to-17-per-gallon/ar-AA1kpS9b?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=6fc3b55734784fdfa7aac8b34911bee2&ei=21)
I was curious but all I saw was a headline and links to reports that manufactures were slowing the EV rollout. The other links didn't work in my browser. But since I know exactly what my costs are, a cable and switchover for my dryer outlet and I know my electric bill I have a pretty good idea of what my costs are. It's $30 if I had a gas truck vs $1 for the electric. $200 for the charging cable. I find it impossible to spend more on an ev vs a gas car so I was curious to see how they came up with it and who came up with it.
Nativewolf. I respect your opinion and choice. I think that is the issue, politicians are outlawing ICE and making dumb premature decisions that affect everyone. We are not ready.
Sometimes we get a bit of a knee jerk reaction to things when something is being shoved down our throats, and it makes it hard to see the benefits.
I like electric stuff. My battery chainsaw is so handy around the mill, I grab it and pull the trigger to make a cut. It's not that big of a deal to start my gas saw, but it's enough of a pain that I reach for the cordless. But the cordless isn't even close to replacing my gas saws for real chainsaw work.
I love my Cummins engine in my pickup. I ove the way it sounds, and the pulling power it has. But there's lots of downsides, one of the main ones being very expensive fuel or emission system repairs. If there was an electric motor that could power my one ton pickup, and pull a load as well as the current engine and had good range (and 300 miles wouldn't work for me) AND I didn't have to worry about a $15,000 battery failure...I might be interested. But don't force something on me where I'm doing R&D for the manufacturer, as is already the case for a lot of the diesel emission systems. I don't want to do it for heavy duty batteries and stuff, too.
Initial EV buyers get a $7500 tax break. Wonder where that money comes from? My electric bill has 50% add line item charges for "environmental surcharges". I pay for roads and bridges with every fill up.
The 93% of people driving ICE vehicles are paying the way for EV drivers to claim savings. If all the costs to convert from coal and gas, expand the capacity of generation to allow wide scale charging, 7500 tax credit, and per mile equivalent road use taxes, and battery replacement/depreciation are accounted for in an equitable manner the claimed savings wouldn't look anything like the numbers being touted.
I had a Dodge myself, it lasted 8 years and it was a work truck. Less than 200,000 km to, so it wasn't the mileage. :D Now someone like mom's uncle could make a vehicle last 30 years, sitting in his garage with 4000 km on it. :D
Dad's GM pickup on the farm, low mileage, was a rust bucket by 10 years and was kept on the farm mostly after that as it would never be passed for road use. I got barely 10 years out of an S15. :D So I have enough experience to know a well used truck has 10 good years. ;)
Heck there's been people around these parts running 40 year old IH trucks or 30 year old dump trucks on back country roads for years. They'd never pass inspection. You'd never drive one to town. :D
Quote from: nativewolf on November 23, 2023, 07:39:19 PM
Quote from: Hilltop366 on November 23, 2023, 05:40:39 PMOur costs savings are pretty dramatic but then I put a lot of miles on the vehicle the electricity is about a buck and a half, the gas would have been $30. Wont take 10 years to flat out pay for the truck just in fuel savings. Much less brakes, oil, filters, etc etc.
All well and good until things go in the opposite direction and cost of maintenance spikes. I'll give you about 7 years to prove me different. ;D
I'm curious what the math is on the $30 versus $1. Around here you get about 8 kwh for a $1. A gallon of gas here is $CDN6.50 and equivalent to 19.5 kwh. So it's $0.33 a kwh, or $2.67 for 8 kwh worth of gas. Now start charging road tax of $0.25/kwh on EV's. I think California charges $0.35 a kwh for heavy power users, but exempts EV's. Hmm I wonder why?
Soooooo while all this carbon saving is being shoved down our lifestyle, China and India build the equivalent of 4 coal fire electrical generation plants every week. That is what I read in MSM last week.
My friends live in a 200 unit Condo building, 4 charging locations were added outside, to their building, and remember they can't be charged underground due to the fire hazard, how is that cheap overnight energy going to service 200-400 EV cars that 1 building has parked in it's underground. who is going to get up at 1 AM to go move their car so my neighbour can get up and hook his car up. I'm sorry the logistics do not work.
Right now it's cheap nighttime energy, under valued charging stations that are bragging about how cheap EV's are. Wait until that charging station charges real time Electric rates for charging your EV, instead of just a length of time subsidized rate, and then add on your road tax. Just N. America alone needs 70 billion$ worth of charging sto
I can think of something else that was just hammered down on us and now starting to show what a lot of us thought all along, it was crock full of.............
Quote from: SwampDonkey on November 24, 2023, 03:49:19 AMA gallon of gas here is $CDN6.50 and equivalent to 19.5 kwh. So it's $0.33 a kwh, or $2.67 for 8 kwh worth of gas
That energy in the gasoline is the theoretical maximum amount you would get from burning it. Running it though an ICE might get 30%, but usually less, to the wheels. There are of course some losses in the battery charging and the electric motor, but more like 80% of the mains power used still ends up at the wheels. Add in some regen braking energy recovery, that an ICE vehicle doesn't have and the numbers get a little better, depending on the driving conditions.
Quote from: Stephen1 on November 24, 2023, 08:13:40 AMoooooo while all this carbon saving is being shoved down our lifestyle, China and India build the equivalent of 4 coal fire electrical generation plants every week. That is what I read in MSM last week.
China has actually increased it's coal generation over recent years, but they have also realised the immediate and obvious down side of it. Remember Beijing air quality during the Olympics? So while the latest figures available say coal generation increased by 2.5% annually, wind and solar increased by 15 % and 16%, and nuclear by 5%. I haven't researched India so I don't know what they are doing. But both countries are large populations and "developing", that means the "peasants" will want more electricity. The total US electricity production has been fairly stable over the last 10 years, in spite of the population growth. Probably better efficiency with things like light bulbs, TVs, computers and heat pumps? Over the same 10 years, China's power generation has doubled as more people can afford light bulbs, heat pumps and electric scooters.
So it's not really valid to say "But China isn't doing anything" when they are up to ~30% renewable power, compared to the US at ~20%.
Quote from: Ianab on November 24, 2023, 05:51:54 PM
Quote from: SwampDonkey on November 24, 2023, 03:49:19 AMA gallon of gas here is $CDN6.50 and equivalent to 19.5 kwh. So it's $0.33 a kwh, or $2.67 for 8 kwh worth of gas
That energy in the gasoline is the theoretical maximum amount you would get from burning it. Running it though an ICE might get 30%, but usually less, to the wheels. There are of course some losses in the battery charging and the electric motor, but more like 80% of the mains power used still ends up at the wheels. Add in some regen braking energy recovery, that an ICE vehicle doesn't have and the numbers get a little better, depending on the driving conditions.
Quote from: Stephen1 on November 24, 2023, 08:13:40 AMoooooo while all this carbon saving is being shoved down our lifestyle, China and India build the equivalent of 4 coal fire electrical generation plants every week. That is what I read in MSM last week.
China has actually increased it's coal generation over recent years, but they have also realised the immediate and obvious down side of it. Remember Beijing air quality during the Olympics? So while the latest figures available say coal generation increased by 2.5% annually, wind and solar increased by 15 % and 16%, and nuclear by 5%. I haven't researched India so I don't know what they are doing. But both countries are large populations and "developing", that means the "peasants" will want more electricity. The total US electricity production has been fairly stable over the last 10 years, in spite of the population growth. Probably better efficiency with things like light bulbs, TVs, computers and heat pumps? Over the same 10 years, China's power generation has doubled as more people can afford light bulbs, heat pumps and electric scooters.
So it's not really valid to say "But China isn't doing anything" when they are up to ~30% renewable power, compared to the US at ~20%.
Go on ventusky.com and hit air quality tab, go over China area, compare it to US, other areas
Quote from: WhitePineJunky on November 24, 2023, 06:14:58 PMGo on ventusky.com and hit air quality tab, go over China area, compare it to US, other areas
China has obvious air quality problems, NO argument about that. Partly because a large % of their electricity is still coal based. But they can't retire coal plants because their local demand is increasing so quickly. But they ARE actively increasing their "green" power generation, and restricting new coal based plants.
Their Govt has the same issues as all countries, they need to keep the lights on, or the peasants get restless.
Power reliability is an issue here in NZ too, especially with mostly "green" generation. We still need that backup for unusual weather / seasons. So we still have a one large coal station operating at varying capacity, and various natural gas stations for peak use. A freaking huge pumped hydro storage system is being investigated, as the alternative to standby generation is "stored" power. But it's going to cost at least $15 billion NZ sheckels to build. So no cheap option, unless you want a new coal plant, and that brings us back to China's air quality again, and no one want to breathe that.
"The US grid won't handle the extra load"?
China has increased it's generation, and presumably it's distribution grid by ~100% over the last 10 years. The US hasn't because total power use hasn't changed much (better efficiency). New generation and upgraded distribution will of course cost $$, but it's not impractical.
At 30% efficiency gas puts out 3 kwh/litre from an engine, so 12 kwh/gallon on the lower end and up to 16-20 kwh in some engines. It's higher output than you suggest. Then there is the ethonol problem with 40% less energy per gram. Government created that mess plus the fuel burned to grow the feed stock.
The US hasn't increased energy production in decades more than 4 % annually and would likely need something equivalent to the era of electrification in the 40's and 50's to meet demand if we are charging vehicles. We aren't charging many vehicles yet. As far as EV production to add to the fleet, percentages quoted are usually year over year for just EV's. If compared to gas engines, a 20% increase in EV's is barely 1% of the fleet. So I never put much stock in percentages math. We would need to about double current energy production to power an EV fleet. That's years in the making. Here in NB we have no new power projects happening, ziltch. Lots of talk, no action. Like they said back in the day, supply power and industry will come, not the other way around.
We are only just starting to make desktop and mobile computer chips both more energy efficient and faster, that is only very recent. Qualcomm and Apple are the big competitors. Intel chips have been very energy inefficient. They have been big energy hogs. You could use your laptop as a leg warmer. Qualcomm's latest uses 70% less power than Intel's fastest and Qualcomm's is faster. A lot of computer companies are buying into Qualcomm, including Microsoft.
The energy consumption at those Bitcoin mining centres is bonkers. The one here uses 18,000 computers. One of the pluses for them locating here is cooler climate, don't need air conditioning. :D The place consumes 70 megawatts, equivalent to servicing 7000 homes. There has been a lot of politics over it calling it wasteful consumption. It's only going to support about 20 low end jobs, like security and maintenance on equipment.
Quote from: SwampDonkey on November 25, 2023, 02:44:07 AMThe energy consumption at those Bitcoin mining centres is bonkers.
100% agree on that. But that gets into the debate about blockchain tech and "mining", which is usually just doing maths for the sake of doing it, to earn "credits". Blockchain has some potentially useful applications. Doing Maths calculations just to prove you can is just a waste of Kw, and takes expensive chips away from important uses, like playing games.
Disclaimer, I have some crypto tokens, but they are from projects that "pay" for actual science work, and the power used basically helps keep the house warm. So I have an idea about how much power a rack of PCs uses, and it all comes out as heat. in the end. So there is not much obvious difference between a rack of PCs and a 1,000w fan heater. Just the PCs can do some interesting calculations with that power. A dedicated mining rig can use 1,000w for one box, but unless you can scam to power from someone else, it's not worth it.
Yes, and that heat costs more than other sources. 70 megawatts is a big power bill. :D
Quote from: Ianab on November 24, 2023, 11:21:47 PM
Quote from: WhitePineJunky on November 24, 2023, 06:14:58 PMGo on ventusky.com and hit air quality tab, go over China area, compare it to US, other areas
China has obvious air quality problems, NO argument about that. Partly because a large % of their electricity is still coal based. But they can't retire coal plants because their local demand is increasing so quickly. But they ARE actively increasing their "green" power generation, and restricting new coal based plants.
Their Govt has the same issues as all countries, they need to keep the lights on, or the peasants get restless.
Power reliability is an issue here in NZ too, especially with mostly "green" generation. We still need that backup for unusual weather / seasons. So we still have a one large coal station operating at varying capacity, and various natural gas stations for peak use. A freaking huge pumped hydro storage system is being investigated, as the alternative to standby generation is "stored" power. But it's going to cost at least $15 billion NZ sheckels to build. So no cheap option, unless you want a new coal plant, and that brings us back to China's air quality again, and no one want to breathe that.
"The US grid won't handle the extra load"?
China has increased it's generation, and presumably it's distribution grid by ~100% over the last 10 years. The US hasn't because total power use hasn't changed much (better efficiency). New generation and upgraded distribution will of course cost $$, but it's not impractical.
Wasn’t trying to dispute what was said but rather just wanted to point out what I realized when I hovered over their area under air quality. It’s really bad in areas like shanghai. Probably like smoking a pack of cigarettes a day
I do agree with what you are saying
Over the years of say the last 50-60 improvements have been made in air polution and some in other mediums .I'm
old enough to remember the constant smog in areas like Pittsburgh Pa and the steel mills all along the Ohio river .One time even the Cuyahoga river caught on fire because of uncontrolled industrial wastes being dumped in it .Given enough time if measures are taken mother earth will clean up that mess but it took a long time to get this bad and it will take a long time to fix it .
As far as so called green energy and battery powered automobiles etc. you can whine and belly ache but you are not going to change it .
It can be like a shift in the wind to, when bad ideas get realized, the flow of money stops and we move on to other avenues to explore.
They've tried a lot of things for motive power like profane er propane gas and diesel engines .Two problems in colder weather the propane with the technoligy of the time didn't vaporize very well .Worked fine in Mississippi but not so well in North Dakota .The first automotive diesel engines didn't like to start,sounded like a 1920 era threshing machine and didn't have the power to pull a greasy man out of bed .You paid extra for them but they didn't hold much value for resale .However these day in pick me up trucks they do pretty well ,things evolved in some 40 years .
Diesel electric works quite well, but it's the diesel engine generating the electric power. Today's battery would not get you far on a mile long freight train. ;)
An experimental geothermal plant that's online now. Rather than being in an area that's got natural hot springs and bubbling mud (easy to get geothermal power there) they are in the middle of nowhere. Drill down ~7,000 ft and the rocks are HOT. Drill another well nearby and frack the space in between. Now pump cold water down one well, and hot (375 F) comes out the other well. Spin a turbine with that, and you get power.
It's not a large scale plant, only 2-3 mW generation, but it works. Scaling up is just a matter of more wells. Geothermal heat is probably good for the next 500 million years and with this tech you don't need to be in a "Thermal" area. So that reduces the problem of transmitting power long distances, you can get geothermal closer to where power is needed.
New type of geothermal power plant powers data centers in the desert | Ars Technica (https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/11/new-type-of-geothermal-power-plant-powers-data-centers-in-the-desert/)
You have geothermal meaning capturing the natural heat sources and geothermal meaning using the subsurface temperatures to cool or heat the refridgerant of heating/cooling devices .Not one in the same .I had two of the later which worked to a point except the water conditions caused the units to fail after about 7-8 years .
In totaling up the cost of installation and the cost to operate over a period of about 15 years it was about equal to a standard high efficiency heating /air conditioning unit .Had I used ground loops instead of well water the end results would have been less expensive .Problem being in this part of the country it would have taken 3,500 feet of ground loops fiquiring 700 feet per ton times 5 .When it worked though it did a wonderfull job .
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10125/IMG_3362.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1701620693)
Solar power, living the green life, saving the planet, along with keeping dollars in my pocket and away from the evil power company!
Sure hope Amazon delivers a new drive belt for my dryer today.
--brings back memories of getting closthes lined from a closthes line .Used to hit me right in the schnozzola .Ouch !
Another case of 'not in my back yard', shuts down battery power storage site.
Power company says it's halting battery storage plan after backlash, death threat | CBC News (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/baseload-power-elizabethtown-kitley-township-lithium-ion-energy-storage-opposition-ontario-power-1.7047393)
Despite my vehement opposition to mandates, I am currently looking into putting up some grid tied solar panels because the current net metering offset looks like it might favorably pencil out at something close to 10% ROI at current pricing. The risk is they change the net metering structure. No way it could pay you back if you have to put in battery storage in order to use it all yourself. Not all that many panels in this area as of yet but in So Cal I think they have so many that they are already watering down the net metering credits.
From what I've seen over the years up here, they pay more for generation from corporate 3rd parties and a lot less for residential back feed into the grid. In fact they pay corporate double what it costs them to generate their own. How does that pencil out? Well, only government run electric can do that. You can't compete against government in any game. They regulate and control the price and favor who they see fit. ::) :D
I pay $0.28 to $0.54/kwh for power from PG&E. I sized my solar to not over generate since the power company only pays $0.03/kwh. It would only make sense if I could build for free!
My understanding is that my electric Coop won't buy any but will "bank" whatever I generate and apply it against future bills. So, if I run a surplus in June, July, and August it will be applied against any deficits in the winter months. They are sizing my system to equal my average use over the year.
Yes, mine is the same thing with the private power company. They true up once a year and is on the anniversary of my install - April. Which is kinda good as I run a little surplus in February and March.
And panel prices should really fall next year, during covid a huge amount of capacity was delayed and came online this year or is coming on line this winter. Europe had a slow economy and warehouses are full, the producers will be dumping them just to keep factories open. I would negotiate hard on the panel pricing knowing they are going to crash a bit. The real costs will be the install. Ground mount or roof?
Ground.
As with most things the devil is in the details. My highest use is in winter when solar will be lagging. A big part of the bill is fuel adjustment, Enviromental surcharge, and school tax. None of those charges get recouped, just the base .0956 energy charge credit carries forward. So, if you use double in the winter a good portion of the charges you can't recoup with extra production in June.
I feel confident rates will rise faster than inflation. Subsidies and Net metering probably will be reduced or eliminated. Best investment is probably extra insulation and good dividend stocks lol
Do you know if you are subject to a "feed in tariff" there? If so they have a sunset and that's when the party is over for the little guy as reimbursement rates and volumes crash since the higher amounts were never intended to be permanent, only intended to attract enough parties to keep the process rolling.
Looks like here we get credit for basically the same rate as charged for 25 years. No payment for any generated above consumption that's just donated. No doubt those that "giveth" reserve the right to "taketh" and return it to the utility if favorable contributions should occur.
https://psc.ky.gov/agencies/psc/press/052021/0514_r01.pdf
Air NZ has actually ordered an Electric aircraft, with a delivery date in 2026 I think. It's only a smaller 2 seat cargo model, and they plan to use it for courier / mail flights between the Islands. Trip distances up to ~100 miles. Currently there are dedicated cargo / mail flights, and they can justify a 737 for trips between the main cities, but the smaller centres are more of a problem between the Islands, often taking 2 days for "overnight". Within each Island road transport can get stuff between cities overnight, but coordinating 2 long road trips and a plane ride over one night gets problematic.
Anyway it's being treated as a real world trial at this point. If it works out, they plan to order more.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/12/06/air-new-zealand-reveals-its-first-battery-powered-electric-aircraft/
Purolator Carrier electrified their delivery trucks, hybrid, not full electric about two years ago. You still see on the sides of their vans the messaging. It hasn't worked now for a year. The driver that comes here said it was a failure, never worked. Canada Post is claiming carbon neutral deliveries of 50% reduction by 2030, 0% by 2050. Around the cities? Perhaps. Out here? A big nope.
Interested to know WHY they failed?
Hybrid vehicles are a proven thing, they basically work. So if the hybrid delivery vans didn't work, what the heck did they get wrong in the design? Maybe they were the Edsel or Pinto of Hybrids, and were just Lemons off the production line.
But that's also why Air NZ has ordered one, maybe 2 more, and options on 20 more in the future. If the first one is Lemon, they aren't committed to the rest of the order. But they will actually KNOW how practical the machine is after ~12 months of actual use.
Quote from: Ianab on December 07, 2023, 04:03:43 PM
Air NZ has actually ordered an Electric aircraft, with a delivery date in 2026 I think. It's only a smaller 2 seat cargo model, and they plan to use it for courier / mail flights between the Islands. Trip distances up to ~100 miles. Currently there are dedicated cargo / mail flights, and they can justify a 737 for trips between the main cities, but the smaller centres are more of a problem between the Islands, often taking 2 days for "overnight". Within each Island road transport can get stuff between cities overnight, but coordinating 2 long road trips and a plane ride over one night gets problematic.
Anyway it's being treated as a real world trial at this point. If it works out, they plan to order more.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/12/06/air-new-zealand-reveals-its-first-battery-powered-electric-aircraft/
Now that solid state battery solutions are getting closer to commercialization you'll see a lot more discussion on small electric planes. They are much quieter than turbo props or small jets so good for urban airports. 500wH/kg is the magic number for energy storage.
Go long on NZ parachute manufacturers.
Well the NYC sanitation dept. has been trying hard to jump into that boat for over 3 years now testing garbage trucks. Seems they managed to get a full shift out of them for garbage collection, but failed miserably on pushing snow. All of NYC's trash truck are also snow plows, where they can't just plow snow out of the way, they have to lift and carry it some place in many cases.
I've been watching this one, because it foretells of the woes to come in other industries. Here is a good article I found.
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/11/18/dsnys-electric-trucks-conk-out-too-quickly-during-snow-plowing-says-commish
Some States of Australia still have very high proportions of their grid electricity supply that come from fossil fuels (coal and natural gas).
Australia being relatively flat and fairly large land areas is constructing large solar pv farms.(and BESS)
The rest of the renewal electricity plan is following along.
https://theconversation.com/using-electric-water-heaters-to-store-renewable-energy-could-do-the-work-of-2-million-home-batteries-and-save-us-billions-204281
The new Kurri Kurri Power station (the decision-making around this power station could potentially be in future university course material about stranded assets)
https://infrastructurepipeline.org/project/kurri-kurri-power-station
Duxion Canada, electric jet
https://www.duxion.com/
The Duxion jet engine will use hydrogen fuel cells. They have a buyer interested in 200 of them for unmanned cargo aircraft.
The Duxion is interesting. Their patent is for a electric "fan jet", with the motor basically on the rim of the fan. The electric windings are in a ring that fits in the outside cowling if the fan. It would then work like the big fan on a high bypass turbofan, and in theory allow the same sort of speeds as a turbofan aircraft. High Bypass is the reason new jet engines are so big, they push more power into the big "fan" section, and the turbine part is really only big enough to drive that huge fan.
Where the electricity comes from isn't actually important to the engine. It could be battery, hydrogen fuel cell, or even a hybrid design that worked in conjunction with a turbine.
Hybrid aircraft have been suggested before. Idea is that a plant only needs full power for a few minutes as it takes off and climbs, and modern jets are rated to be able to actually take off on one engine. So they are effectively carrying around 2X the engine they technically need. Of course the pilots use "takeoff" power setting to get up to speed and climb out quickly, but if they lose an engine just before lift off they carry on with the takeoff and just climb out a bit slower. So the idea is what if you had an electric boost for takeoff, then you could fly the other 90% of the flight with smaller and more efficient engines.
The Beta Alia plane that Air NZ has ordered (not just interested in, they have signed up to actually buy one) is a smaller prop driven machine. But they actually have the prototypes flying, so it's not just something on a CAD screen. They have flown it 480 km on a test flight, although I'm guessing that was unloaded.
It will be interesting to see what technologies are actually practical in real world operation.
Someone mentioned that Electric Rubbish trucks didn't cut it as they couldn't double as snow ploughs. Thinking about it, it makes sense. As a rubbish truck they are slow speed, stop start driving, and each time they slow down, regen braking recovers some of the power they used getting up to speed. So they get good battery life, and don't actually do a lot of miles over a day. But try and plough snow, and now they are working under load (like going uphill all the time), and don't recover much energy braking. So battery life would be lousy. A diesel would just burn a bit more fuel, but it would get through the day with no worries. But that's what I mean by "real world" operation, in different conditions. What might work fine in a snow free NZ city, not so good in the Frozen North.
With regards to the Duxion jet engine, a ground test is not the same as flying and propelling a plane. Like rockets to the moon, they discovered several problems even after the first successful flight to orbit.
As far as the delivery trucks, range and charging stations in rural Canada are a big part of it. Only about 20% of the chargers actually function reliably by the government's own admission. There are places over 100 mile stretches that even gas stations are sparse or not 24 hr, not so much a distance thing here in NB, but hrs. I wonder if these chargers are 24 hrs everywhere? May not be. And there is a reason a charger may not be 24 hrs, vandals. People will destroy picnic sites, signage, and wooden bridges. You get tired of fixing stuff after awhile.
24 Hour, unmanned, middle of nowhere charger? Give it a week and the meth heads will have it stripped and the copper will be at a scrap yard.
I understand that Cirrus Aircraft come standard with a whole plane parachute. Seems like a good addition to a battery powered aircraft. Then the pilot could just radio to the islands "Strong headwinds today, your mail is in the Pacific."
:D :D :D :D :D
Quote from: Gary_C on December 11, 2023, 08:06:33 AM
I understand that Cirrus Aircraft come standard with a whole plane parachute. Seems like a good addition to a battery powered aircraft. Then the pilot could just radio to the islands "Strong headwinds today, your mail is in the Pacific."
They once thought mules and horses would remain on the farm long after motorized tractors became main stay .Other than a hand full of nostaligic horse men and the Amish still farm like that .I cannot in my wildest imagination starting out plowing 200-300 acres with horses and mules .Not only would it take a lot of horses but a whole lot of drivers .Take a lot of hay and oats to feed them also not to mention keeping the stables cleaned out .
Yet, horses were still used in farming up here on farms, well into the 50's. And a lot in the woods yarding into the 80's. Still a hand full yarding wood. No one could afford a tractor around here until quite awhile after they were on the market. A lot of old tractor collectors around, nothing older than late 50's early 60's. And in most cases they were not there own, nor their dad's. 200 acres is just a hobby farm these days. 800 acres plus are worked now. I have been around local Amish here, they have 200 acres growing up in golden rod, and plow 1/4 acre or less for a little garden. Drive down around Smyrna and Oakfield, Maine where they have migrated in in the last 15 years or so. They aint growing much, unless you can eat goldenrod. :D A lot of multigeneration farmers abandoned the place in the 90's.
A guy with horses would not farm 200 acres, that was your 1960's guy still on steel wheels. The horse guy doesn't need to make the $ Million equipment payment, nor did the government force him into a tractor either.
Wanna bet? It was farmed with a lot of outside labour, especially potatoes. Lots of farms here had lodging for folks to travel to work and stay. There was potatoes, hay to cut, wood to cut, grain. 200 acres was a good sized farm. There was always lots of little farms to. My great grandfather worked over 200 acres by horse. When I was a kid all the old equipment had a lot of wood as part of the machines, along with iron, it was all rotting into the ground setting in the abandoned orchard and 2 or 3 old wagon sheds full of stuff, with the sheds rotting into the ground. It was all horse drawn. Dad said his grandfather had all kinds of farm equipment for the day, several horse teams as well.
Digging spuds with horse for some perspective in first photo. On down you will see them hoeing (cultivating) the potato rows by horses very early 1900's , in my neck of the woods (Centreville). Some Maine farming photos in the mix to.
Harvesting Potatoes by Hand in New Brunswick [Vintage Photos] (https://q961.com/vintage-photos-of-harvesting-potatoes-by-hand-in-new-brunswick)
Of course not everything was plowed every year, hay ground was plowed less than grain fields if you wanted hay next June.
Of course nobody in their right mind would horse farm 200 acres .That's just an exageration with humor intended .However if you are a history buff look up the Red River Valley circa 1900 .That was all horse farmed taking an entire day using two teams of horses making one pass end to end in one day .That's all they had to work with .They would start out in the morning with a fresh team,go to the half way house,eat lunch and change teams then on to the end .Get up the next morning before the rooster crowed and head out the other direction to do it all over again . I would speculate lots of skinny men and a lot of over worked horses .Besides all that wheat they had to make hay to feed the horses .More horses just to feed the other horses that had to eat weather they worked or not .
Well given the historical guideline was that a horse could plow an acre of ground in a day a family farm wasn't going to come close to working that much land.
If you had 4 teams of horses, you could plow 50-60 acres a week. A team could usually hoe/cultivate 7 or 8 acres of potatoes a day.
My example was the mega farms in the western wheat lands .One for example employed as many as 800 farm hands to plow sow and harvest the wheat .One other had like 70,000 acres under tillage .Much larger than the 40 acres in the eastern corn belt during the time frame .When I was but a lad my dad had 70 acres of black ground and three tractors .Farmall F-14,John Deere A and Oliver 70 .Single row corn picker and AC combine with a 4 foot header .Besides having a full time job he still was able to farm on a small scale .The A plus the 70 had lights ,the Farmall did not .Besides the crops also had pigs and steers .
A local dairy, recently retired, only had about 50 head to milk. They said they never had time to cut firewood, so bought it delivered. Dad milked maybe 20 cows at the most, farmed 450 acres of cropland, cut firewood for 2 houses and two potato sheds. He got rid of the cows around '76. He told mother he had to cut back on something, he can't works around the clock. ;D Still cut wood every winter and sometimes July (always the coldest and hottest ::) ) Cut'n wood it was usually him and a hired hand or me (later) at most, planting involved mostly the family and no more than 1 or 2 hired men besides. Harvesting involved 6 hired folks. In the winter as many as 12 people were in the packing shed grading and packaging. Dad usually filled two jobs himself. And dad was always ready and waiting to begin work, nobody was waiting for him. His brother was just the opposite, was never ready and always late. :D
swampdonkey, not that it really matters, but the Amish in Maine don't have milkers. I went to PA and OH to see the Amish. They till some land!!
Seem like the Amish around here don't have the milkers. They are in Unity, Cornith, Smithfield,Wales,Mercer and the ones you mentioned and more and just a few miles from me, Livermore Falls. No big tillage of land in any of them.
None of them have the big field they work.
But a lot of them are English that turned Amish too.
It's a differant breed.
We went to Lancaster Co and everything was as neat could be. Lawns, houses and stuff around the barns too.
Seem like the ones in Maine could learn how to do some house keeping around the yard. ;)
There is a dairy called Houlton Dairy Farms, in Houlton, Maine. Show me the dairy farms that feed it. I have not seen one around the Houlton area since the 90's. Some are those Amish goldenrod farms. It's the same thing I see with their so-called furniture making. You can go to one in Easton, big shop, tools, no one making anything. A show piece. I'd like to know how they can buy farms on nothing income. Kinda reminds me of Kings Landing, an historical settlement with actors. And people will think that is how everyone existed back then, doing hardly anything. :D
I spent about 4-5 summers of traveling through the mid west on a sheep dipping crew .Once near Lancaster Pa ,Amish milked at least 100 head of Holstiens .They had chillers and Surge milkers ran off Briggs and Stratton engines .The chiller was a diesel .Modern house but no power or phone lines .Had a team of big Belgians pulling a brand new New Holland bailer ,engine driven kicking bales out on the ground . The telephone was about a quarter mile down the road in a phone booth .That would have been around 1962 .
Donk, I'm afraid I'm more like your Dad's brother. I always have someone waiting on me🤦😁
I tell people I'm like a diesel engine. Big and kind of hard to start, and then you have to let it warm up for a bit. But once it's ready it can do some work😁
World takes all kinds Barbender. :D
Smith Crane and Construction, PTS Logistics and others - Kaiwera Downs Windfarm, Gore, Southern NZ.
Make the NZ forestry equipment (trucking) movers look like spend thrifts.
To get a single blade on a trailer up to the (edit) Turitea wind farm site (another site elsewhere). Pullers- John Deere 9570R tractor hooked to 8x8 (tridrive) Oshkosh, then tridrive HD truck , turbine blade trailer pushed by tandem drive HD truck pushed by 2nd 8x8 (tridrive) Oshkosh.(vid is on insta)
General YT vid of Smith Crane at Kaiwera Downs site.
Kaiwera Downs Windfarm - Smith Crane and Construction Ltd. - YouTube (https://youtu.be/Auy1e8Oe2gM?si=RBCPDNUsyOVZwzw8)
EV Battery failure woes. Then you get to drive a gas rental while waiting for months. :D
His electric vehicle battery died. One year later, he's still waiting for a replacement | CBC News (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/electric-vehicle-battery-replacement-1.7066842)
Blacklocks' Reporter article: "Cannot Sell Without Rebates"
Two provinces with the richest rebates for electric vehicles accounted for 74 percent of national sales last year, Department of Transport figures show. The department acknowledged it relied on rebates for “increasing the number of zero emission vehicles on the road.
Can't upgrade your house electric panel to 200 amps in rural areas for fast charging unless you pay to upgrade the community transformer to. So essentially, if you want more juice you upgrade the utility, not just your house. ::)
He drives an electric truck in Yellowknife, but his home can't handle the charger it came with | CBC News (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/yellowknife-electric-truck-level-2-charger-1.7078959)
Even with the PITA the guy in the article still loves it. Well yeah, since he sunk all lot of quid into it, he has no choice. Learn to love it, or stew in your own juices. :D
One of the things we've said throughout this thread is lack of power supply for electrification. By 2035, it's going to get magnitudes worse since I see no big electric projects announced with shovels on the ground. Right now we only have about 7% of vehicles on the road all electric. And that is mostly southern Ontario and southern BC. By 2035, there will be no more production of ICE vehicles in Canada. Then of course an election cycle can upset those plans.
Our hospital put in two way out in the parking lot. not monitored, free to use. should be for employee or pt. family use. So now it is subsidized by the hospital, and they get their money from insurance and patients. No reason a homeowner could not park a car there and pick up later after a "free" charge.
I haven't seen any real data on how much a typical charge for an EV would be .Nor why anybody would think it takes a 200 amp service to charge a battery .You are not hitting that battery with an 80 amp charge rate .You could do it with a trickle charger it would just take longer .In my mind it's not the charge method but more so the cost of the batteries .Besides all that EV's are not for everybody .Imagine being in the middle of no where in North Dakota
Yellowknife is pretty much no where. Like hundreds of miles from anywhere. I would not want to try the 900 mile drive to Edmonton, Alberta on a battery. ;D
right. If you need a jump for a dead battery in you EV, can you do it from another EV? doubt that, you will just wind up with two stranded vehicles. Maybe we can keep some diesel-powered trucks with two batteries and high output alternators to rescue the EVs. They may say, you made your bed. Can they be towed? will it charge the batteries. and can EV tow another EV and will it increase battery energy consumption. If the energy comes from a coal power plant, are you really saving the world. not good answers.
I'm not on the EV band wagon except for my 36 volt golf cart which might have a range of 4-5 miles because of the size of lead acid batteries .I only charge it about once every week or two and it does not take long .Handy little doodle bug but certainly not a town car .Always starts but only goes at best 15 MPH .Traveling trails amongst monster oak trees it would be kind of stupid to run 35 MPH .If those giants can stop a D7 Caterpillar think what they could do to an 800 pound golf cart .
Quote from: Al_Smith on January 11, 2024, 10:46:34 AMI haven't seen any real data on how much a typical charge for an EV would be .Nor why anybody would think it takes a 200 amp service to charge a battery .You are not hitting that battery with an 80 amp charge rate
Commercial fast chargers need that sort of power, so they can dump say a 50% charge into an EV in about 15 mins. So by the time you have taken a toilet break, got coffee and a sandwich, the car is topped up and ready to go again.
At home (or really any place with power) a "trickle" charger will work, just takes a lot longer. You can approximate the time because it's all measured in Kilowatt Hours. Say your golf cart has 12v / 100 Amp/hour battery, that's 1.2 kw/h. To fully charge it in an hour you would need to give it 12 @ 100 amps. More sensible is a 10A charger, for 12 hours. The charge and discharge aren't 100% efficient, so maybe it would take 14 hours? Or more like you charge at 14V, so put 1.4 kw/h into the battery, and get 1.2 back out. But it's close enough for napkin maths.
Same with Electric cars. If your car has a 50 kw/h battery, you would need a 50 kw supply to charge it on an hour. So a commercial fast charger. If you hook it to a domestic 220V / 15 A circuit, you can get 3.3kw from it. That would take at least 16 hours to fully charge.
Now obviously if you expect to use most of the cars range every day, then the small domestic charger isn't going to be practical because it can't fully recharge the battery overnight. In that case you need to rethink your life choices, and a plug in hybrid is probably a better option. But probably 95% of drivers are only going to need 10-50% charge for each day. Friends of ours have a Tesla, and bought is because he has a ~50 mile commute (100 return), so was spending a lot on gas. The Tesla can run to work and back, and still be over 50%.. So it only needs to be topped up ~50% each night. If they make another trip that day and get it close to empty, as long as it gets to 50% by the morning, then he's fine for a trip to work and back. Worst case he has to leave 15 mins early and call at a fast charger, and get a part charge there. So for his use case, the EV is totally practical.
He has zero chance of ever needing to drive 900 miles across Alaska in the Winter, so that scenario simply doesn't come up.
Doesn't really matter the season, sometimes folks up there like to come down on a vacation in the summer. Not really possible on electric. Yellow knife is a long ways east from Alaska, probably 900 miles. ;) Over 450 miles to High Level, Alberta, big enough place to have a hospital, a small town of about 6300. Then Slave Lake, another 300 miles, then Edmonton.
A single Tesla charger at High Level, a single level 2 charger, at the Best Western. No other chargers. And the stats on charging stations isn't good, only 20% are functional according to government stats.
Quote from: SwampDonkey on January 11, 2024, 04:12:02 PMAnd the stats on charging stations isn't good, only 20% are functional according to government stats.
I think a better question then would be WHY most of the chargers are in-op? If only 20% of gas stations actually had gas, that would be a disaster. Or only 20% of houses had electricity.
For sure electric cars don't fit Every use case, but if I have to travel 900 odd miles, basically the length of my whole country, and probably 18+ hours driving, I will probably take a plane. Get there in 2 hours rather than 2 days, and hire a car at the other end if I need it. So it's edge cases that don't affect 95% of people.
Electric airliners are a whole different level of tech, and aren't a thing.... yet.
I know a lot of people that drive those kind of miles all the time to travel and site see, go watch a hockey game, etc. My cousin never stops. She wears out a car in 3 years, literally. :D Neighbors and a car load of kids drove 1200 miles to Kentucky this winter to see relatives. Some people never fly and winter is the extreme worst time. My cousins down the road drove many times clear across the county in an RV, in winter, to see their kids. That's over 3000 miles one way.
Most jobs in Yellow Knife are government driven or diamond mines. So flying is certainly common place with that class of people. And so is EV's purchases. But summer travel by road is not fringe. You'd be surprised if you lived in those remote towns. :D A return flight is going to run around $400 or more. Plus you can't always depend on flying being an option either. Sometimes carriers cancel service, and often. Those EV people will be confined to the city anyway in the winters, real bitter cold reduces range. Right now it is -45F up there. There is not a lot of snow that far north, it's mostly cold. The trucks probably cross Great Slave Lake in the winter to save going around the lake. The place is stuck in the middle on the north side. And that is one of the largest fresh water bodies on the continent, and the deepest, at over 2000 ft.
As to inop chargers, could be a number of things involved. A previous article posted in here proves the stats, couldn't find many chargers that were functional. Many that were, it was a waiting game.
Not exactly the "average" car users though.
I know exactly zero people that would routinely drive 900 miles. They probably exist, but saying electric cars are impractical because they wont work for that ~2% of the population is sort of a red herring.
They can work for the other 98% of people. I don't have one because our old gas vehicles are both high spec and still do the job, and for the miles we do, the cost of any new car (EV OR Gas) isn't justified.
Not really. It's about being able to go someplace without anxiety about doing it. Even if it's once a year or twice in 10 years. Nothing to do with averages, heck the average Canadian drives maybe 16,000 km a year. That means a bunch of drivers are on the high end, well over that, and a whole lot more on the low end. That doesn't negate the desire to be able to drive, when, where and how much at any time.
We have the most EVs in the world (per capita), but they are not for everyone. We have the topography and distances of New Zealand with the weather of Canada, so for some people EVs are not the best (safest) way to go. That said, most driving for most people is rarely more than 100kms a day to the school, grocery store, soccer practice, back and forth to work etc., and most charging is at home over night, for about $5 for a "full tank". (The driving stats are about the same for US drivers National Household Travel Survey Daily Travel Quick Facts | Bureau of Transportation Statistics (https://www.bts.gov/statistical-products/surveys/national-household-travel-survey-daily-travel-quick-facts)) I do not drive an EV myself, but this is how my older son and DIL (with 3 kids) drive. We just had a week of subzero (°F) weather and their typical driving pattern with 2 EVs was not disrupted. (The electric buses in Oslo, however, was another story.)
We too have the , "what about those who..." discussions, and for some an EV will not work, for the same reasons many of you have mentioned above. But for a lot of "average drivers", they work just fine.
It's been cold here the past few days, down to -20F
Alberta sent out an alert warning citizens to turn off their lights and appliances as much as possible or risk blackouts. Next door in Saskatchewan they fired up LNG and coal powered plants to help out their neighbours to the west.
SaskPower provides electricity to Alberta amid shortage | CTV News (https://regina.ctvnews.ca/saskatchewan-provides-power-to-alberta-during-shortage-1.6725352)
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10199/extreme.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1705337647)
When you break down, what happens then? Being mechanically adept, I could possibly fix it on the side of the road. There are plenty of shops you could be towed to that can fix your vehicle. Who can fix electric vehicles? You can possibly put out a fire on your conventional vehicle. Your electric vehicle is toast.
Some electric vehicles will not even start in low temps and also do not charge well either.
------------------------------
I read an interesting story about geothermal energy. Scientists sunk a well to a magma chamber of the Kalfa volcano in northern Iceland awhile back. They hit the chamber at a shallower depth than they expected and it ruined the well, but no eruption. They are reworking things and plan to sink another well around 2026. Water would instantly be vaporized if brought near the lava, then the steam could drive turbines for electricity. That could possibly be a perpetual energy source. I just wonder how the volcanic gases could be handled.
The challenge in finding the materials to withstand the heat is a major problem and will probably cause them to routinely change them out. And there comes the added carbon footprint of manufacturing and maintenance. Especially if they use carbon based materials!
We have a geothermal field with power plants out here. I used to work for an energy company that had 2 plants.
They don't drill to magma, just to the hot rocks/steam zone. First 20 or so years, lots of pressure. More and more plants built and it started to decline. My company was a leader in reinjection of condensate and rain water (not a lot of rain). Then they ran a pipe many miles from a town's waste water plant.
Reworked the turbines for low pressure steam and still going, 40 some years after they were built.
Biggest hazard was sulfur. Initially had to pay to dispose of hazardous waste. Now sell it to chemical firms to make sulfuric acid.
Big volcanic earthquake out on Iceland recently.
Mail Online Videos: Top News & Viral Videos, Clips & Footage | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/earthquakes/video-2976539/Video-Deadly-lava-spews-volcano-erupts-Iceland-earthquake.html)
Bunch of dead robots out there..
Chicago-area Tesla charging stations lined with dead cars in freezing cold: 'A bunch of dead robots out here' (https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/chicago-area-tesla-charging-stations-lined-with-dead-cars-in-freezing-cold-a-bunch-of-dead-robots-out-here)
Committing to EV an be life threatening with killer cold temps >:(.
JJ
Geothermal by it's name can be misleading .You have tapping into a heat source or could be used as a water or air harnassing the heat present in sub soil earth below the frost line with a heat pump .That is usually around 54 degree F. I had two units of the later that would have worked well if I had a source of mineral free water .Which BTW I did not .The heat exchanger on both failed after 8-9 years if use .
Quote from: rusticretreater on January 15, 2024, 12:59:36 PMWhen you break down, what happens then? Being mechanically adept, I could possibly fix it on the side of the road.
Older style ICE vehicles that was certainly true. They had some common failure points (like actual physical ignition points) and various things you could bodge back together with wire and duct tape. Fault finding a modern car will generally involve computer diagnostics as the fault is more likely to be electric / electronic. The info is generally out there, and diagnostic tools available, but it's not really side of the road stuff.
The actual reliability of EVs doesn't seem to be a problem. They are actually much simpler (mechanically) than an ICE (less moving parts). If it does stop, you call a tow truck, same as any other modern vehicle.
That's exactly why I don't care for EVs as you just stated (and others)in most vehicles the issues that arise are electric/electronic and need a computer to diagnose. Now the big push is for something that's entirely electric ??? I fail to see this as progress.
To each their own but no thanks I'm not going there.
The problem there is that you can't buy a new anything that you don't need a computer to diagnose, if we used to make EVs they would have been a lot simpler, you don't need all the fancy stuff we just put it in, just like we didn't need it for ICE either!! Look at an old electric forklift, that's an "EV" and it is so darn simple...
Depending on what your still driving. Bernstein in ND drives old stuff that was built well. Can fix out in a hay field if need be. He has an old M37 that is a skidder for firewood or going to town truck. :D He has about 5 working motorbikes he's rebuilt, or fixed and all 30 plus years old. Spare motors for most he can swap out. Been fixing an old VW bus now for awhile, needs body work and I think he already rebuilt the engine. It was second hand when he bought it and used it years ago. Decided to dig it out of the weeds a couple years ago to fix up. :D
With our cold weather, lot of videos posted about the problems faced by the EV drivers.
But one of them
EV drivers struggle to keep batteries charged amid winter freeze - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9AXRW_UjZg)
The PEI electric school buses aren't getting any rave reviews.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-school-buses-electric-breakdown-education-1.7114185
Well golly I am shocked! ffcheesy Yeah, nobody saw that coming. Well yeah, nobody was watching either. Our district jumped on the political bandwagon and ordered a bunch of them. They recently cut the order by a bunch, getting nervous. We have the second largest school district, geographically, and that's a lot of ground to cover. Many of us felt this was not a good bandwagon to jump on...yet. Just ask NYC how their electric garbage truck fleet is working out. ffcheesy
A fellow about a mile from me bought an EV fall of 22 by Feb of 23 he traded it for an ice vehicle. Just keep the batteries warm while sitting ate a lot of electricity and snow with cold weather plus using heat and defrost cut the range by 75%. Apparently snow kills the braking regen. They are no good if you're in a cold climate. He just kept it long enough to claim the rebate.
Neighbor stopped by the landing the other day, said there is a guy cutting up the road and hauling logs about 35miles with new F150 lightning. It's cold out (1*F right now), sounds like it is working ok.
His was a Hyundai and had about a 250 mile range when warm. Could barely make it to work and back 40 miles away in snow. There aren't any charging stations out this way either. When I bought my Ranger about 20 months ago the dealer had 2 f150 lightnings sitting out front for demos. I asked the sales man about getting one because the price wasn't bad and most of our trips are short on sunny days. Really sharp looking. He told me I will let you test drive one but won't sell you one at this point. The batteries were having serious problems at the time and he wanted me to talk to the service guy trained on them before even thinking about one. Plus my house needed a entrance power upgrade for the charging requirements. So glad I got the Ranger after seeing the insurance rates for EVs. I think Ford looses big bucks on everyone they sell now. My next truck will be a hybrid.
From SwampDonkey.
"No amount of belief makes something a fact." James Randi
Also there is this old quote.
"History is a set of lies agreed upon." Napoleon Bonaparte
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7uf-5h44aY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7uf-5h44aY)
EV's brick and become abandonware (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/when-a-leaf-is-a-brick-1.7142342)
There nothing perfect on earth, you have to do the % thing. Just don't believe the Hollywood people.... they are professional liars.
se
Fisker Electric Automobiles to file for bankruptcy. Tesla stock worst performing in the the S&P 500 having dropped 34.6% on the year. With 2023 in the rearview mirror, analyst consensus now has 2024 Tesla earnings below 2023's level, signaling another year of negative growth for this growth stock.
Quote from: rusticretreater on March 14, 2024, 10:24:25 PMTesla stock worst performing in the the S&P 500 having dropped 34.6% on the year.
I suspect Tesla was overvalued, over hyped and over promised. Full Self Driving was supposed to be available a couple of years back, but it turns out that it's harder then Elon thought. Real world roads are a lot more unpredictable than a computer simulation or a test track.
Despite that, about 25% of the cars sold last year (Worldwide) were Electric. We now have multiple new Chinese based car brands pushing out electric vehicles. I'm not convinced about their build quality, and they probably don't like snow or -20
deg , but we don't get those conditions.
Quote from: sharp edge on March 14, 2024, 09:04:18 PMThere nothing perfect on earth, you have to do the % thing. Just don't believe the Hollywood people.... they are professional liars.
se
I think they think they're telling the truth but their popularity is used as a vehicle to push narratives, living in a bubble like they would no doubt flawed reality
My son who has a computer science degree, likes to say, "Siri can barely make a phone call for me, and you expect her to drive a car".
Yet another stark reminder how the greenies are going to ruin us all. The Fighting Jays Solar Farm in Texas got hit by a hail storm and lost hundreds if not thousands of solar panels. They look like bulletproof auto windows hit by machine gun fire.
Obama's administration threw a billion dollars down a hole trying to subsidize solar panels in the US(https://www.solarinsure.com/the-complete-list-of-solar-bankruptcies-and-business-closures (https://www.solarinsure.com/the-complete-list-of-solar-bankruptcies-and-business-closures)). The companies built fancy headquarters and later went bankrupt with the execs running off with millions of dollars.
So where do the panels come from now? China. SMDH.