Can this be a Global Warming Solution?

[rcgldr]

From an article I read:

Richard S Lindzen, of MIT, states that water vaper is responsible for 98% of the greenhouse effect, specifically that "greenhouse gases" contribute less than 2% of the greenhouse effect (compared to water vapor).

Human activity contributes about 3.2% of carbon dioxide. Nitrous Oxide, and methane have less greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide because of low concentrations, and most of the Nitrous Oxide is produced by nature.

So global warming isn't really the issue, but pollution of the air in general is. I've lived in LA since 1966, and in the 1960's the smog, on it's worst days, could get bad enough to cause your eyes to water. It's been a long time since a high smog alert in the LA area, mostly because cars and factories are running much cleaner, even though the population is much larger now. Smog is still a problem when there are fires, the geography of Los Angeles contributes to an inversion layer that traps the smog and smoke. China is facing a serious pollution problem.

 

[Yonoz]

Totally my favorite presentation ever. For a discussion of this specific topic, you can scroll down until you get to the picture of Yellowstone National Park's sign.

I understand why it's your favourite presentation, it's quite funny. Take this for example:

According to Jesse Ausubel of the Rockefeller Institute, industrialized nations have been decarbonizing their energy sources for 150 years, meaning we are moving away from carbon toward hydrogen. In other words, the ratio of carbon to hydrogen decreases as you go from wood and hay (1:1) to coal to oil to gas (1:4).
Ausubel expects the trend to continue through this century as we move toward pure hydrogen—without the assistance of lawyers and activists. Obviously if a trend has been continuously operating since the days of Lincoln and Queen Victoria, it probably does not need the assistance of organizations like the Sierra Club and the NRDC, which are showing up about a hundred years too late.

I hope you recognise how ludicrous this statement actually is. You can mine coal, pump oil and natural gas - but unfortunately there's no natural reservoir of hydrogen fuel.
The Yellowstone anecdote only goes to demonstrate how little we know of this field.

 

[Mk]

You can mine coal, pump oil and natural gas - but unfortunately there's no natural reservoir of hydrogen fuel.

He was kind of making fun of the people that are obsessed with carbon footprints and the like, by using their "hydrogen economy" point against them.

 

[Mk]

So global warming isn't really the issue, but pollution of the air in general is. I've lived in LA since 1966, and in the 1960's the smog, on it's worst days, could get bad enough to cause your eyes to water. It's been a long time since a high smog alert in the LA area, mostly because cars and factories are running much cleaner, even though the population is much larger now. Smog is still a problem when there are fires, the geography of Los Angeles contributes to an inversion layer that traps the smog and smoke. China is facing a serious pollution problem.

Although it may be uncomfortable, what serious research (no statistical shenanigans!) has gone into quantifying the deleterious and/or positve effects?

The fear-mongers would have you believe that if we allow global warming to continue, the planet will be a completely lifeless wasteland (though, even if that were to happen, we won't be around to know or care either), but there's really no reason to believe that will be true. There are numerous species that can already survive extreme environments, and already have complete ecosystems isolated within those environments that can take advantage of the changes to expand their ranges.

I think there's plenty of down to Earth people who don't make such ridiculous claims and still think there's more we should do to protect our environment.

She meant that "evolution goes on." There has never been an end to life, no matter what the conditions.

 

[Yonoz]

Although it may be uncomfortable, what serious research (no statistical shenanigans!) has gone into quantifying the deleterious and/or positve effects?

Indulge yourself: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/allabout.html" .

She meant that "evolution goes on." There has never been an end to life, no matter what the conditions.

That's kind of difficult to tell, don't you think?

 

[Mk]

Hey! What time is it in Isreal? No body else seems to be here but you and me. It is 4:48 AM in the East coast of the United States, here.

 

[Mk]

Indulge yourself: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/allabout.html" .

Yikes! No external links or references on that page. I'm not so much into the EPA either.

 

[Yonoz]

Hey! What time is it in Isreal? No body else seems to be here but you and me. It is 4:48 AM in the East coast of the United States, here.

It's 13:00 now.

Yikes! No external links or references on that page. I'm not so much into the EPA either.

Sorry, I meant to post this page: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/index.html" .
What are you much into?

 

[Kenneth Mann]

I don't see how this is a solution to global warming at all.

As I said in another https://www.physicsforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1051582 :



- Warren

We differ in one very important respect --- where you appear to be looking for "the" solution to the problem, I merely hope to find one of many "partial-solutions" which might be woven together to get us by until the "perfect answer" comes along. I was careful to say "a" solution, because the applicability of the electric car is obviously quantity limited --- but it will relieve us of a tiny portion of our petroleum dependence and the attendant pollution (due to its much greater efficiency)--- and every little bit helps. Also some of these cars' buyers are expected to also purchase solar charging systems.

KM

 

[chroot]

I was careful to say "a" solution, because the applicability of the electric car is obviously quantity limited --- but it will relieve us of a tiny portion of our petroleum dependence and the attendant pollution

"Oh, great! A tiny bit less pollution and a tiny bit less petroleum dependence! How much does it cost? $100k? That sounds awesome! Where do I sign up?"

People like you really are you own worst debate partners, you know. Put it this way: we're not going to solve this problem by nickle and diming it to death. The solution is absolutely not to invest billions of dollars and countless man-hours into cars which are only a tiny bit better than the eco-disasters they would replace.

Imagine how wonderful the world would be if all cars were 20% more efficient than they are now! ...oh wait... I can already imagine that world. We lived in its equivalent ten years ago, and it really wasn't much better, was it?

You know what would be a real solution? One that could be implemented today, for essentially no investment? I do. People need to stop driving their cars altogether, or reduce the use of their automobiles to sensible levels, reserved for tasks that really require such a machine. Americans use cars for ridiculous purposes -- driving a mile down the road to pick up a movie, for example. Or sitting in traffic to drive a whopping six miles from home to work. If people simply drove their conventional cars half as often and rode a bike or went rollerblading instead, it would cause an instantaneous, dramatic decrease in petroleum dependency, pollution, consumer debt, and even average waistline -- all of which are enormous, inter-related problems faced by our modern societies.

Honestly, if you think buying a $100,000 electric car and sitting in the same six miles of gridlocked traffic every morning somehow makes you "part of the solution," in my opinion at least, you're an idiot.

- Warren

 

[Chi Meson]

Whatever happened to flywheel systems? Seems that ten years ago we were just about to have these great flywheel enenrgy recovery systems for busses and delivery vans etc. They seemed to have disappeared. WHere are they now?

 

[Skyhunter]

Whatever happened to flywheel systems? Seems that ten years ago we were just about to have these great flywheel enenrgy recovery systems for busses and delivery vans etc. They seemed to have disappeared. WHere are they now?

They have been replaced by hydrolic hybrids.

 

[Kenneth Mann]

You know what would be a real solution? One that could be implemented today, for essentially no investment? I do. People need to stop driving their cars altogether, or reduce the use of their automobiles to sensible levels, reserved for tasks that really require such a machine. Americans use cars for ridiculous purposes -- driving a mile down the road to pick up a movie, for example. Or sitting in traffic to drive a whopping six miles from home to work. If people simply drove their conventional cars half as often and rode a bike or went rollerblading instead, it would cause an instantaneous, dramatic decrease in petroleum dependency, pollution, consumer debt, and even average waistline -- all of which are enormous, inter-related problems faced by our modern societies.

What is wrong with this idea, is the fact that like communal living it will simply never happen (unless we go into a depression, and I don't think most people will find that preferable)! The best solution must always derive from among those that are realizable --- not those that are merely idealizable. People will resist taking two hours each to get to and from work, when it can be done in thirty minutes or less. Human nature will always get in the way of implementing anyone's "perfect solution" ideas, including those advocated above --- so why not just once try compromising with reality.

Honestly, if you think buying a $100,000 electric car and sitting in the same six miles of gridlocked traffic every morning somehow makes you "part of the solution," in my opinion at least, you're an idiot.

- Warren

The actual target price for the car is $40,000 --- not too different from that of today's guzzlebuggies. Finally, there is no honor or intelligence in resorting to name-calling. By the way --- that would make all those who get caught in traffic Today idiots. Are you that much superior to the rest of the world's mere mortals?

KM

 

[chroot]

What is wrong with this idea, is the fact that like communal living it will simply never happen (unless we go into a depression, and I don't think most people will find that preferable)!

Why can't it happen? Because you say so? Am I supposed to regard you as the ultimate authority on what can or cannot happen?

The best solution must always derive from among those that are realizable --- not those that are merely idealizable. People will resist taking two hours each to get to and from work, when it can be done in thirty minutes or less.

Why do you think that a quadrupling of travel time (from 30 minutes to 120 minutes) is representative of the switch from automoble commuting to other forms of commuting? Where did you get this number? Out of thin air, perhaps? The truth is that, for many people, commuting via alternative methods is really no slower than commuting by car -- and it can be much more fulfilling. Perhaps your striking bias is a result of your having grown up immersed in car culture, and having never tried any other way?

Human nature will always get in the way of implementing anyone's "perfect solution" ideas, including those advocated above --- so why not just once try compromising with reality.

How's that for irony?! I don't really feel that an electric car -- especially one that costs over a thousand times the average human being's gross annual income and is powered by 6,831 lithium-ion batteries with a life expectancy of two years -- is a "realistic" solution to an energy and pollution problem that's resoundingly better solved with a $200 bicycle.

Maybe I'm the only one here who is capable of math?

The actual target price for the car is $40,000 --- not too different from that of today's guzzlebuggies.

According to the articles which you linked, the target price for the roadster is around $80,000, before taxes and so on.

Finally, there is no honor or intelligence in resorting to name-calling. By the way --- that would make all those who get caught in traffic Today idiots.

Anyone who struggles with the expense and hassle of car ownership, tied to a loan and an unforgiving gas pump, contributing to the single largest consumption of energy and single largest source of pollution -- only to use it to drive the "average" American car trip of under two miles with no passengers and cargo -- is absolutely, in my view, an idiot.

There are better ways to get around than automobiles -- cheaper, faster, less polluting, more energy efficient, and more enoyable ways -- and you, for one, should consider exploring them before advocating an unfathomable disaster like this $100,000 Tesla roadster.

Are you that much superior to the rest of the world's mere mortals?

In at least this one small respect, I certainly believe my choices are better than those made by motorists.

- Warren

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is an easy one:

The results are in . . .
Although fuel savings may vary by vehicle and speed
range, a national trucking association estimates that
a combination truck driving 55 miles per hour uses up
to 20 percent less fuel than a similar truck driving 65
miles per hour.

See: Reducing Highway Speed
http://www.epa.gov/smartway/smartway_fleets_strategies.htm

I have noticed that virtually NO truck drivers are obeying the speed limit. In California and Oregon, the limit for trucks in most places is 55 MPH. I estimate that the average speed for trucks on the highway is more like 65-70 MPH.
Is this significant?

Nearly all semi-trucks, delivery vehicles, buses, trains, ships, boats and barges, farm, construction, and military vehicles and equipment have diesel engines. In 2005, diesel fuel accounted for about 15 percent of total refined petroleum products and 75 percent of the total distillate consumed in the United States. On-highway motor vehicles use about 80 percent of total diesel fuel, with off-highway vehicles, construction and farming equipment and diesel-electric generators consuming the rest.1

http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/diesel/dieselprices2006.html

In a diesel truck, the top speed is easily regulated by making a mechanical adjustment.

Note also that the police just look the other way; and along the I-5 corridor we allow triples! So this is a public safety issue as well as an energy issue. Also, the same limit should apply to large SUVs and pickup trucks.