Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Comments 901 to 950:
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:52 AM on 30 December 2023I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned
Just had another thought. It might be interesting (mildly) to map arguments made against the transition from horses to automobiles in the early 1900's, to the arguments made against the transition from ICEV's to EV's today.
In particular, I believe there was a serious problem in the early 1900's with available fueling infrastructure and general availabibity of auto fuel, whereas hay for horses was available, quite literally, everywhere. That maps well to the grid and recharging issues of today.
I mean, how the heck did people ever solve those near insurmountable problems of the day? (sarc)
-
nigelj at 06:21 AM on 30 December 2023I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned
Rob Honeycutt @12
"What's exciting to me about EV's is more that the current limitations are spurring so much innovation."
History shows humanity is ingenious at solving technical challenges. Its almost spooky how such problems all seem to have solutions and how technology just keeps improving. Its like its pre-ordained somehow. Moores law is another example.
So it seems plausible that batteries will improve further and very substantially, until hard limits are eventually reached. Even moores laws has ultimate limits. Agree with your other points as well.
-
Eclectic at 05:28 AM on 30 December 2023I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned
Rob H @ 12 : Fair enough, and well-stated.
Electric Vehicle technology is advancing at three times the pace I might have expected (from 20 years ago). And battery tech is crucial.
This electrification does add to the tendency for more electrification of the domestic house, where water-heating & space-heating are such a large segment of the total energy used.
OPOF : the "JC" [John Cadogan] Youtuber is making a living by generating clicks ~ his "channel" is for entertainment essentially, if that is what you are seeking. His advice and assessments of vehicles and their engineering is reasonably informative. I think he also enjoys crossing swords with that slice of his viewers who have bizarre and/or rather unscientific ideas (especially re engineering and basic Newtonian physics).
A mix of entertainment and education, in an idiosyncratic style. Aimed at car enthusiasts.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:57 AM on 30 December 2023I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned
Personally, I'm still not getting much of what PWAS is trying to say. His longer post was brief on description and punctuated with links to chase. I tend only to chase links when I want to validate what someone is stating. If they aren't clear in what they're saying I merely skip the chase.
I can easily see how an auto mechanic with a YouTube channel would get pissy about EV's, since wide adoption of EV's is a professional existential crisis. I'm also highly suspicious of the motivations of YouTube "creators" since their inherent monetary motivation is going to be to rile people up to the greatest extent possible. It's unfortunate that so many in the public use these kinds of videos to supposedly "inform" themselves.
[Aside: The general aviation community recently has been beset with a number of incidents related to YouTube content creators in order to generate views and followers. One of the most egregious is the case of Trevor Jacobs, who staged an emergency engine out and bailed out of his aircraft over mountainous terrain, and now faces probably about 10 years in prison. Explained here.]
Long term I don't worry too much about these kinds of squabbles because I think, ultimately, the better technologies are going to win. EV's, in their current iteration, are not perfect. ICEV's, as far as I can see, have reached their efficiency limits. In the meantime, you have universities around the world racing to develop new chemistries for cleaner, longer lasting, more energy dense battery technologies.
What's exciting to me about EV's is more that the current limitations are spurring so much innovation. The complaints leveled against EV's are related to what was emerging technology 10-15 years ago and just getting to market and reaching economies of scale today.
Think of it like solar panels. A few decades ago it would have seemed absurd that you could fully and competitively power a home with solar cells if you were only looking backward at the technology that had been developed over the previous decade. The scientists and engineers who blew the lid off that were the one's who bothered to eagerly look ahead to the challenges.
In essence, these nay-sayers are driving their vehicle backward complaining about the road already gone by. My suggestion would be to, instead, turn around and look at where the car is going.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:35 AM on 30 December 2023I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned
Rob Honeycutt, nigelj, and Eclectic,
Thank-you for sharing your observations regarding John Cadogan. I am not inclined to spend time watching raging rants that are emotionally triggering but likely unjustified.
prove we are smart @5,
Thank-you for providing more relevant details in response to Rob’s request. That was more helpful than pointing to the video.
Michael Sweet,
Thank-you for adding your perspective. Where a person lives should be expected to influence their choice of the available options to help limit the harm done by fossil fuel use. About 10 years ago I evaluated the situation where I live (Alberta, Canada) and chose to buy the most efficient hybrid available. At that time it was likely that Alberta’s grid would be substantially powered by coal until 2030, maybe longer. An efficient hybrid was easy to prove to be less harmful than an EV powered by that grid (note that even though I could pay a premium to buy wind generated electricity that scheme was a scam. It would not increase the wind power generation and reduce the coal fired generation). I also continue to limit my driving because the hybrid still causes climate impacts. Decades ago I chose to live where I could walk or bike for necessities or enjoyment and where I had convenient access to public transit.
Following up on Eclectic @10,
Based on your helpful evaluation of JC it would appear that JC would responsibly be advocating for people to severely limit their driving until there is more renewable electricity and better EVs. He would also be advocating for people to ‘vote for’ better public transit, higher-density more walkable communities, and better infrastructure for bicycle and scooter commuting. If JC is not doing those things, then what is he doing other than pursuing popularity by unhelpfully complaining?
-
Eclectic at 15:35 PM on 29 December 2023I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned
Rob H @9 :
Not the same guy, is my bet. Tho' cannot be absolutely sure.
I will still put in a good word for "JC" [John Cadogan] and I've seen quite a number of his videos over the years.
His humorous style is . . . as Americans would say . . . Down To Earth. Definitely not recommended for your maiden aunt ~ nor for your local EV dealer. May be he will be less anti-EV in future years, as costs & battery range & battery safety take giant strides for the better. But for the present, he can make a good case for avoiding EV's until the charging availability improves greatly. Review situation in 15 years !
And if you can put up with all the chaff, you will find a goodly amount of wheat mixed in. # Unique style ~ an acquired taste.
IIRC, Cadogan (an engineer) was initially somewhat in the AGW-denier camp ~ but in more recent years he seems to have swung over to the mainstream science camp. And he does advocate EV's for their beneficial effect on city air quality & human health. (And even now, he is often scathing about Volkswagen corporate deception with their past diesels.}
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:46 PM on 29 December 2023I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned
Nigelj... "Its just more material from the same guy."
I'm kind of curious if our PWAS is the same guy.
-
nigelj at 05:37 AM on 29 December 2023I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned
Prove we are smart @5
Regarding the video:
.www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiRzpKWshwU
Its just more material from the same guy. Again I'm not going to tolerate that incessant stream of foul language and insults so I didn't watch it in full. I skipped though it very, very quickly stopping at a few random points:
He talked about "entitled twats" driving Ev's. Its just an unsubstantiated, empty appeal to hate, emotion and envy. Plenty of ordinary people are driving EVs and who cares who drives them, since its reducing emissions that matters. The same entitled twats would be driving ICE cars.
He stated that building smaller houses would reduce emissions more than taking an ICE car off the road. This is not good argument not to build EVs, because just building smaller homes wont fully solve the climate problem.
He complained about extra tire wear due to the weight of EVs. But its is a trivial issue. "A Tesla Model 3 Performance with AWD weighs 4,065 pounds — 379 pounds more than a BMW 330i XDrive.". Yes the EV is heavier but not hugely so therefore extra tire wear is trivial and pollutants from the tire wear are trivial. Refer for weight comparisons:
www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/americas-new-weight-problem-electric-cars/He
He mentioned that cars are only a small part of the transport fleet so why bother with Ev's. It's illogical reasoning along the same lines as his comments about houses. And we are starting to develop electric trucks etc,etc (eg Tesla)
These sorts of talking points have been long since debunked, so Im not prepared to go through the entire video for probabaly more of the same in a giant gish gallop.
I agreed with a couple of his criticisms of EV's and his factual statements about how much of the grid is renewables, etc,etc, seem correct, but his arguments agains't renewables and EV's I listed above lack basic logic and understanding.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:12 AM on 29 December 2023Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage
A follow-on to my comment @18,
If CO2 is injected to produce oil with the end result hoped to be trapped CO2, then the long period of pressure testing to prove that the CO2 is truly trapped can only begin after the ending of the oil extraction ... and sampling for CO2 coming out with the oil, and capturing it for reinjection, is required during the oil extraction.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:00 AM on 29 December 2023Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage
michael sweet @17,
Agreed that the use of CO2 to scrub oil off of rock formations, a possible benefit of CO2 injection to increase the production of oil as presented in the article, would almost certainly mean that CO2 comes out with the oil. But, to be fair, CO2 injection can potentially lock-away CO2 while producing more oil from an oil deposit.
Here are potential stages of oil production:
- Natural pressure of the trapped oil deposit forces oil to the surface when it is drilled into – the ‘gusher’.
- Pressure drops as the oil flows out.
- A pump-jack increases the rate of extraction by ‘lifting’ oil out of the well – like a water well pump.
- As more oil is removed the rate of flow to a well point pump-jack declines.
- Injecting gasses like captured CO2 can increase the pressure in the oil deposit and force more oil out of the well locations. Current operations inject CO2 captured from the exhaust of burned fossil fuels. This process potentially traps the injected CO2 in the rock formation that the oil was trapped in.
So oil can be produced by injecting and trapping CO2. But scrubbing oil off of the formation that the oil is in would mean CO2 comes out with the oil.
However, CO2 thought to be trapped in an oil deposit may not be truly trapped. Accurate pressure monitoring over a long time frame would be required to prove that the CO2 is staying where it was put. And until the completion of that pressure testing it is uncertain that the ‘claimed to be trapped’ CO2 is properly trapped. If a pressure test fails, the pressure drops, then the ‘carbon removal’ action plan is failing. And there would be little that could be done to keep the rest of the ‘believed to have been locked away’ CO2 from leaking out.
Who will pay for removing it and locking it away? Everybody essentially pays for the profit obtained, or pays for the government subsidy (worse when the government subsidizes the obtaining of profit - nobody should profit from publicly funded harm reduction like CO2 removal).
It would be nice if the ones who benefited most from the developed total current problem paid the most to limit the harm done ... but the current systems have a histry of making the least fortunate, who do not deserve to be penalized, suffer the most harm. Refer to the lead article in the Skeptical Science New Research for Week #50 2023 for a detailed presentation of concerns regarding free-market development of Carbon Capture.
-
nigelj at 04:44 AM on 29 December 2023I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned
Prove we are smart @5. Thank's for the comments and links. Looks like useful information.
"Nigelj@3 Sorry you only lasted 4minutes longer, I suppose that was a lot considering you said " I already know the downsides of EVs, and I doubt some motor repair mechanic will add anything."
The entire first five minutes of the video (might have been a bit less, I wasnt timing it) was devoted to sarcastic, insulting, generalised comments about EVs and their drivers. There was not one specific factual claim about the actual technology. I decided I wasn't going to risk yet more of this.
"We need more renewable wholesale electric to support clean electric cars. This is where some detractors have valid points when they argue that electric cars are shifting the problem..."
Ok, but they are stating the obvious about needing more renewables. The same EV critics who say the problem is that renewables aren't expanding fast enough are sometimes the same people who criticise or oppose renewables. They contradict themselves. Their aim in most cases doesn't seem like true scepticism. It is just to throw mud at anything to mitigate the climate problem.
"Every electric car is forcing these electricity generators to work harder. In Australia thats 68% worth from fossil fuels.
Yes ok, but this is better than cars burning petrol which is 100% fossil fuels. The grid will also have to expand due to the extra demands, but thats obvious.
IMO its also a logistical exercise like this: Would you deploy millions of EVs In Australia at day one when the grid is all fossil fuels? No this wouldn't make sense because it would put too much demand on the grid and there is no benefit.
Do you wait until the grid is entirely renewables before deploying any EV's? No because you then have a long delay while Evs are scaled up and with climate change time is an issue and you miss out on some benefits of Evs.
So you phase EV's in gradually while the grid gradually moves to renewables and gets larger (but preferably faster than it is) . So the critics dont have much of a point.
Will get back to you on the video.
-
michael sweet at 00:56 AM on 29 December 2023I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned
The OP is an interesting story. My daily experience with a 2023 Tesla model 3 is very different. My brother has a 3 year old Kia which is more similar to the OP. Some bullet items:
1) I rarely use public chargers, less than once a month. I average 90 miles a day. Going to a gas station is so 20th century! If you live in a house you install a charger. As electric cars become more common apartments will install chargers.
2) My brother's 3 year old Kia takes twice as much time to charge as a new Kia. At home that does not matter. All new cars charge much faster than even a few years ago. I expect in 5 years my 2023 Tesla will be slow.
3) One big reason I bought a Tesla is the Tesla charging system is bigger than all other systems combined and has much faster chargers. For driving anywhere in Florida I do not think about charging until I have less than 50 miles to go. There are always superchargers about every 10 miles near major highways. If you drive through the country you have to pay more attention. The car warns me if I try to drive past the last charger on my GPS route. I never use non-Tesla chargers, they are too slow. The Tesla system is reported to be open to other cars next year.
If I drive four hours I stop for food and charge while eating. If I eat fast the car is full when I finish eating.
4). My brother has made several long trips like the OP and he plans like the op. Every year it is easier. When I have traveled in the rural West I had to watch the gas gauge all the time.
-
prove we are smart at 23:49 PM on 28 December 2023I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned
Ok, I believe in keeping an open mind with most things these days.
RH@2, I agree, it wasn't a "review". You know, I will often just click on various parts of a video, to be sure I have the right tone of it- judging a book by its cover,I learnt long ago.
Nigelj@3 Sorry you only lasted 4minutes longer, I suppose that was a lot considering you said " I already know the downsides of EVs, and I doubt some motor repair mechanic will add anything."
By the way, the "you" in my moniker is for any replies I read on this blog site- I have learnt a lot following yourself and others replying to many with inaccurate info.
I reckon at least you got the patronising, piss-taking, swearing and taking ages to get to point right with JC If you could have toughed it out,( I'm sure against your better judgement) we might have agreed with some of his observations and disagreed..
I"m not agaist EV cars, far from it but a smart person can check out many sources of info and recheck again from others to get the big picture and not a green washed fervour towards the complicated issue of EV cars.evse.com.au/blog/how-much-carbon-dioxide-does-an-internal-combustion-hybrid-and-electric-car-emit/
"We need more renewable wholesale electric to support clean electric cars. This is where some detractors have valid points when they argue that electric cars are shifting the problem."www.energy.gov.au/energy-data/australian-energy-statistics/electricity-generation
Every electric car is forcing these electricity generators to work harder. In Australia thats 68% worth from fossil fuels. There is a lot to do and time is running out-( a familiar comment) for us as we are already behind the 8 ball. www.drive.com.au/news/electric-car-battery-recycling-australia-environmental-harm/
These and a few other issues are mentioned by our smart arse mate Mr Codogan-don't ask him about EV fires.. In truth, I believe hybred cars are better during this transition, ask Mitsubishi and Toyota-at least for Australia,www.drive.com.au/news/electric-vehicles-worse-for-environment-than-petrol-cars-report/
You wrote.."There is a group of people on the hard left of politics and academia who dislike EVs (and sometimes wind and solar power) because they are the product of the capitalist society and industrial society and because rich people drive them and profit from their manufacture. You see this in internet discussions sometimes.
While unrestrained greed and laissez faire capitalism is not my thing, their reasoning seems shallow and emotive. It is a fallacy of perfectionism - where a perfect, implausible socio- economic utopia is prioritised, and more realistic attainable compromise solutions are discarded."
Your talking to a guy who has worn many hats, and speaks simply because of all the fake people and their entitled behavior, here is another one, see if you can stomach the guy and tell me are his facts correct?..www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiRzpKWshwU
-
michael sweet at 23:10 PM on 28 December 2023Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage
OPOF:
In addition to the flaws you discuss about the Stratos plant, as you described in post 16 it is "being built in the midst of oil fields" The carbon will not be stored, it will be used to extract more oil from the ground!!!
Oil companies are not storing carbon when they are using it to extract more oil, the carbon dioxide comes back out of the ground with the oil. This is a completely false story, Occidental fooled the reporter. I guess that you could claim that Occidental is showing how to air capture the carbon.
We will have to wait until the plant is built to evaluate how much energy it takes to capture the carbon and at what cost. My bet is that it will be too expensive and take too much energy, but that is simply speculation at this time.
Even if you thought that using the carbon to extract more oil is storing it, as Nigelj pointed out, the number of plants needed to make a dent in carbon pollution is enormous and the number of plants being built is very small. The scale of extraction plants is way too small to make any significant difference.
Who will pay for carbon that is permanently stored? Not the fossil fuel industry.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:51 AM on 28 December 2023Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage
Regarding nigelj's @1 astute point about the scale of the direct air carbon capture challenge:
The NPR article I pointed to in my comment @14 is about Occidental Petroleum's Stratos carbon capture plant which will be 0.5 Mt/year. The article introduces the plant as follows:
"The Stratos plant — being built in the midst of oil fields — is playing a key role in scaling up the technology, which is not fully proven yet. Once it's up and running, the billion-dollar facility will be 100 times bigger than any direct air capture plant ever built — and yet, even if it works perfectly, it will take a year to remove less than 10 minutes' worth of global emissions."
Later in the article it provides more details about the scale of the global challenge, with my inserts in [square brackets]:
"Some climate advocates agree that Oxy's doing something extraordinary for the planet. Others, however, are raising alarms about why.
The International Energy Agency calculates that the world needs to remove 80 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year through direct air capture by 2030, and more than 1 billion metric tons per year by 2050, to meet the world's goal of holding warming beneath 1.5 degrees Celsius.
That assumes the world also cuts emissions sharply and restores vast expanses of forests and wetlands, which also remove carbon dioxide from the air.
Getting to that scenario would require about a thousand giant direct air capture plants twice the size of Stratos, each capturing a million metric tons per year
But the slower the world acts [to reduce fossil fuel use], the bigger the numbers get. [DAC used to offset 'unnecessary', but popular and profitable, climate impacts develops the need for even more 'unnecessary' DAC]
The IEA described one possible future where cutting emissions more slowly would mean that the world would need to capture more than 3.3 billion metric tons per year from the atmosphere. Some projections call for much more than that."
And near the end the following statement is made:
"The Stratos plant may be the biggest of its kind, but even when run perfectly, it would end up taking a full year to capture what the world releases in 7 1/2 minutes today [the 'less than 10 minutes' bit].
Pulling carbon dioxide out of the sky the way Oxy plans to do also requires enormous quantities of energy.
And carbon removal has simply never been done at the scale Oxy envisions. In a report this fall, the International Energy Agency warned that relying on this kind of technology to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is unacceptably risky because if technologies fail to deliver, there's no backup option.
"Removing carbon from the atmosphere is costly and uncertain," Fatih Birol, the head of the IEA, said this fall. "We must do everything possible to stop putting it there in the first place.""
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:58 AM on 28 December 2023I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned
One thing is for sure, hate-filled rants are good for generating views on your monetized YouTube channel.
You got further than I did, Nigelj. I got barely 60 secs in before I decided the piece was less about substantive discussion and more about driving clicks.
-
nigelj at 05:01 AM on 28 December 2023I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned
Prove we are smart. I tried to watch the EV video, but I gave up after five minutes. The video was a nasty, patronising, empty, hate filled rant against EV's and people who drive them, full of swearing and taking ages to get to anything useful. Not going to tolerate that and waste my time. I already know the downsides of EVs, and I doubt some motor repair mechanic will add anything.
Since you are so keen to "prove you are smart" what do you think we should do when we run out of oil? The point is electric cars in some form seem pretty much inevitable. The other alternative is running cars on artificially created electrofuels, but I don't find that very persuasive when you research that issue.
Or do you think we should all give up on cars and ride bicycles? Is that a realistic solution?
There is a group of people on the hard left of politics and academia who dislike EVs (and sometimes wind and solar power) because they are the product of the capitalist society and industrial society and because rich people drive them and profit from their manufacture. You see this in internet discussions sometimes.
While unrestrained greed and laissez faire capitalism is not my thing, their reasoning seems shallow and emotive. It is a fallacy of perfectionism - where a perfect, implausible socio- economic utopia is prioritised, and more realistic attainable compromise solutions are discarded.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:05 AM on 28 December 2023Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage
An important consideration regarding my comment @14 ...
A massive amount of less harmful, more sustainable, energy is needed to run these Direct Air Capture and Storage operations.
All that 'development of less harmful energy' could likely be 'better employed to sustainably improve living conditions for people'.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:51 AM on 28 December 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #51
The following NPR News item is new recommended reading for anyone interested in what is happening regarding Direct Air Carbon capture.
It is a comprehensive report showing how 'the fundamentally ethics-free marketplace' is developing Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage. And it shows how governments can be motivated to subsidise harmful unsustainable 'misguided' developments to protect unjustified perceptions of status (including unjustified perceptions of people like Warren Buffett being concerned about being less harmful and more helpful).
"This oil company invests in pulling CO2 out of the sky — so it can keep selling crude"
Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage is almost certain to be needed to bring human climate impacts back down to 1.5 C levels of impact. Plans like Occidental's, and many other 'profitable or popular net-zero efforts', do not help achieve that undeniably desirable result.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:39 AM on 28 December 2023Skeptical Science New Research for Week #50 2023
NPR News has published the following comprehensive report on Carbon Capture. It shows how 'the fundamentally ethics-free marketplace' is causing Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage to be pursued for the benefit of people who unjustifiably developed ways to have higher status by getting away with ‘excused’ harmful unsustainable activity.
"This oil company invests in pulling CO2 out of the sky — so it can keep selling crude"
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:36 AM on 28 December 2023Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage
NPR News has just published the following comprehensive report on Carbon Capture. It shows how 'the fundamentally ethics-free marketplace' is causing Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage to be pursued for the benefit of people who unjustifiably developed ways to have higher status by getting away with ‘excused’ harmful unsustainable activity.
"This oil company invests in pulling CO2 out of the sky — so it can keep selling crude"
This Market-drive development undeniably makes the future worse than it needs to be by protecting unjustified unsustainable developed perceptions of status. Burning fossil fuels is not sustainable. Getting more of the non-renewable stuff out does not have a future ... but it sure can increase current day ‘enjoyment of life’ by some people.
Marketplace competition ‘freer from ethical governing’ develops very little motivation to learn to be less harmful and more helpful. There is a tragic diversity of examples of harmful unsustainable activity becoming popular and profitable, some benefit at the detriment of other, including cases of the current generation benefiting to the detriment of future generations.
Competition for status undeniably develops interests that very powerfully motivate people to oppose and resist learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:01 AM on 28 December 2023I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned
PWAS @1... This article is not really a review, though. He's merely recounting his experience and strategy for completing a long cross country trip with an EV.
As for the video you posted, I'd like to hear exactly which points he made that you thought were convincing so we can discuss them here.
-
prove we are smart at 09:04 AM on 27 December 2023I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned
How lovely, a retired climate scientist with a perfect review for a EV manufacturer. I prefer a more Australian perspective..www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIpipeUI6zw&t=35s
-
BaerbelW at 19:31 PM on 24 December 2023CO2 is plant food
Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal was updated on December 24, 2023 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @ https://sks.to/at-a-glance
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:19 AM on 23 December 2023Disinformation campaigns are undermining democracy. Here’s how we can fight back
Related to the "If Trump Wins" project John Hartz pointed to in his comment @17...
Anyone that the likes of Trump sense is exposing the harmful unjust actions of Trump and his likes, including everyone trying to expose and correct misinformation or disinformation, including the ones fighting against misunderstanding of climate science, faces potential violent responses from the likes of Team Trump.
This NPR report "Violent online rhetoric heats up after Colorado ballot ruling on Trump" highlights the problem that has developed.
Unjustified Rhetoric is a 'plausible deniability' gateway mechanism for triggering violent unjustified actions, including violent intimidation actions like making threats against promoters of improved climate science understanding.
Fuelling violent thoughts with unjustified rhetoric is very hard to legally prove directly caused violent actions. And even if proven that way, as in the Colorado case, or any environmental legal action, it can still be denied ... because ... well ... the likes of Team Trump well understand that even the laws and its judges can be unjustifiably biased by ideology.
The senseless 'common sense' of groups like Team Trump is a Tragedy of the Commons of Sense. It is almost impossible to establish and improve global common sense understanding when non-sense is allowed to be popular and be excused. Each COP session has provided proof of that point.
-
BaerbelW at 21:54 PM on 22 December 2023The Cranky Uncle game can now also be played in Romanian!
Quick note: the Cranky Uncle game can now also be played in Finnish. Installed apps should automatically update as soon as the latest version becomes available in the app stores for your location (this may take a bit, so please be patient). You can however already play it in Finnish via the browser version should the iOS or Android version not yet be available for download / update.
-
John Hartz at 01:07 AM on 22 December 2023Disinformation campaigns are undermining democracy. Here’s how we can fight back
Suggested supplemental reading:
The Climate Can't Afford Another Trump Presidency His approach to the environment: ignore it. by Zoë Schlanger, Science, The Atlantic Magazine, Dec 4, 2023
[Note: This article is part of “If Trump Wins," a project considering what Donald Trump might do if reelected in 2024. These articles also appear in the Jan/Feb, 2024 print edition of The Atlantic Magazine.
-
Eclectic at 17:07 PM on 20 December 2023Disinformation campaigns are undermining democracy. Here’s how we can fight back
Rob Honeycutt @15 :- Yeah, I'd have to agree.
The internet allows chain reactions of Dunning-Kruger-Dunning-Kruger-Dunning-Kruger-Dunning-Kruger.
And in more bad news for this time of the year
. . . Elon Musk announced yesterday
. . . that he has registered the name Xmas.
(Sorry)
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:28 PM on 20 December 2023Disinformation campaigns are undermining democracy. Here’s how we can fight back
@14...
More evidence that the internet is dead.
-
Petra Liverani_1 at 12:59 PM on 20 December 2023Disinformation campaigns are undermining democracy. Here’s how we can fight back
Unfortunately, the argument against so-called misinformation fails to acknowledge that scientists and doctors from the getgo of germ theory have argued against it. The term "misinformation" implies that people who do not have the right credentials are misguided, latching onto false claims when, in fact, scientists and doctors far better credentialled than those making the argument for misinformation have put forward arguments against germ theory in general and the covid pandemic specifically.
Essentially, the "misinformation" argument is a very big strawman argument that does not represent in any shape or form the wealth of argument against germ theory, virology and vaccinology from scientists and doctors dating from the the mid-1800s. Of course, the fact that someone has the right credentials doesn't necessarily mean anything as those with the same credentials are arguing for the pandemic but it should be at least recognised that it is not "ordinary" people who put up the argument first against the scientific methods used to isolate the virus, show contagion and devise testing, but scientists and doctors as credentialled as those arguing for "the science".
Mike Stone, author of the site ViroLIEgy presents argument from scientists and doctors who've argued against germ theory from the getgo and has also analysed numerous documents from at least as far back as the mid-1800s and shows clearly that the scientific work done to prove the existence of various pathogens does not stand up to scrutiny. And he's only one of quite a number.
https://viroliegy.com/I think that Skeptical Science does themselves no favours arguing for the reality of a covid pandemic. I was a gungho climate activist for a number of years and I cannot say I've switched to believing that AGW is not the emergency claimed, however, when I see the calibre of the argument against the so-called covid misinformation, it certainly gives me pause ... and people I know who were as gungho as I about climate change have simply dropped it and are as convinced it's a scam just like covid.
As Kary Mullis said: "The scientist aims to prove their hypothesis wrong."
Where is the response to the argument from the doctors and scientists dating from the mid-1800s?
Moderator Response:[BL] Unfortunately, the Skeptical Science Comments Policy does not allow people to create multiple accounts. Specifically:
- You are not allowed to create a second identity to replace an identity that has had its posting rights revoked due to an inability or unwillingness to follow the Comments Policy.
Reincarnation of a previously-banned user deactivated.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:13 PM on 18 December 2023Skeptical Science New Research for Week #50 2023
I highly recommend the top highlighted article "The distortionary effects of unconstrained for-profit carbon dioxide removal and the need for early governance intervention", Grubert & Talati, Carbon Management.
It is very comprehensive. I learned a lot.
The chosen quote is a very good representation of the article.
I think the following quote of the concluding statement presents the many key points made in the article:
A call to action
The structure of the CDR sector is not yet final, though current trends suggest a strong bias toward an unconstrained for-profit market model. The nascency of the sector, including the lack of entrenched interests, widespread property claims, or legal liability means that there is still an opportunity to thoughtfully design a CDR sector that both protects the climate and structurally incentivizes more just outcomes. Although the need for CDR exists because of longstanding and ongoing injustices, the sector can be designed in ways that do not perpetuate the patterns that created the conditions that necessitate it. Particularly given the clear risk for significant interdependencies to develop between CDR and the fossil fuel industries, especially oil and natural gas, identifying and avoiding such patterns early will be necessary for long-term sustainability of CDR as an atmospheric function with high potential to provide substantial societal benefits, including by stabilizing and perhaps even repairing the climate, and by providing a pathway for some form of reparations by the most responsible. For now, the nascent CDR sector is reliant on public infrastructure and public funding, much of which has not even been disbursed as of this writing. This reliance suggests a clear pathway to public ownership and public management of CDR in the long term – but one that will quickly disappear as the sector matures. CDR has the potential to be both more successful and more just if it is not developed under an unconstrained for-profit regime. The time to act is now.
It is never too late to act to limit harm done. But in cases like the governing of CDR the opportunity for significant benefit is reduced the longer that global leadership fails to focus on effectively limiting the harm done and maximizing the benefit of the new development.
Leadership, in politics or business, that mistakenly believes that unjustified developed popular perceptions are worthy of being promoted, conserved, and excused can be very damaging.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:43 PM on 18 December 2023Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage
I wish to clarify that in my comment @12 I inserted the wording in square brackets in the part requoted below:
In effect, unconstrained for-profit governance of CDR allows for luxury consumption to colonize [and tragically abuse] an emergent global commons.
It is my attempt to indicate that this is a 'Tragedy of the Commons' matter.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:37 PM on 18 December 2023Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage
michael sweet,
I agree that focusing on building the renewable energy systems, along with reducing unnecessary ‘luxury’ ghg emissions, is the most rewarding action, from the perspective of the future of humanity. It is far better to do that than build partial fixes like Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS) in an attempt to make ‘parts of unsustainable damaging systems – like the fossil fuel systems – appear to be ‘helping to achieve’ global net-zero.
In addition to wasting effort attempting to prolong an unsustainable damaging developed system with CCUS, getting those parts of the fossil fuel system to appear to be net-zero will require significant amounts of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR).
A serious concern is the use of CDR to make those parts of the ‘system that is still, all things considered, very damaging’ appear to be excusable/acceptable. The article I linked to in my comment @3 explains things well in the following quote from the part titled A CDR thesis:
CDR is a limited resource [Citation14]. For-profit goals inherently prioritize the activities for which some entity will pay the most, which are likely disproportionately related to compensatory removals in high wealth contexts. Allocation of more CDR to compensatory functions constrains availability for drawdown while increasing overall demand for CDR and CDR scaling. These incentives create a structural bias toward providing offsets to high-wealth emitters who can provide ongoing revenue streams, and away from offsets for low-wealth emitters or remedial drawdown activities. In effect, unconstrained for-profit governance of CDR allows for luxury consumption to colonize [and tragically abuse] an emergent global commons.
Another example of plans, not started to be built, for a major CCUS operation with an eventual demand to unnecessarily consume CDR resources is the action plans of the Alberta oil sands operators in Pathways Alliance. Refer to this linked CBC News article “Oilsands giants continue work on proposed $16.5B carbon capture project, despite lingering questions”
Alberta already has some CCUS, similar to the Middle East capture of CO2 and its use to produce more oil or gas. But a major collective CCUS project, subsidized by public funding, is the first part of the Pathways Alliance plan to be able to claim to be ‘net-zero’ producers of exported fossil fuels by 2050.
By 2050 there will hopefully be a very small market for exported fossil fuels. And that fossil fuel use would hopefully be restricted to assisting people who live less than basic decent lives.
The Alberta oil sands operators, with the support of government in Alberta and Canada, plan to compete to be exporting 5 million bpd or more in 2050 and beyond (being an exporter of choice). Other regions with already discovered exportable fossil fuel resources can be expected to do the same. Who would give up on such a potentially lucrative opportunity? And they will all potentially end up fighting to be among the few who end up with the least ‘stranded fossil fuel reserves’. Tragically, that marketplace for-profit competition to be the biggest winner will also consume massive effort and resources, public and private, to build CCUS facilities that will also end up ‘stranded’.
If, instead of being assisted to build CCUS, they were required to build DAC facilities, those DAC facilities could continue to be beneficial after the need for ‘dead-end fossil fuel extraction for export’ is substantially ‘transitioned away from’ (by 2050).
Global leadership focusing on rapidly building the transition away from fossil fuels, along with reducing unnecessary energy demand, will reduce the unnecessarily tragic damage being done to the global commons by making the ‘deservedly tragic future’ of all the ‘pursuers of maximum benefit from fossil fuels’ harder to deny.
-
guyho at 07:38 AM on 18 December 2023Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage
I should have added to my comment ... that I'm following my own advice by volunteering with a local Adopt-a-Stream organization in monitoring my local waterway. In doing so I'm meeting wonderful folks who are of the "regenerative systems" mindset (and expert in it) and learning from them. I'm also learning through one of my connections how he is aiding some of the indigenous peoples in the US state of South Carolina relearn some of their lost knowledge about their lands by teaching them about their native plants and geology, and how the systems of their land work. That amazes me.
-
guyho at 06:32 AM on 18 December 2023Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage
As I've been involved as a volunteer in helping researching and writing a paper with IEEE's Planet Positive 2030 initiative I've come to learn a great deal that I hadn't considered beforehand regarding approaches to addressing climate change:
1) Mass education - education that teaches/reminds us all to become planet stewards in the context of each our our own local environments.
2) Context matters - its important for people to learn within our own surroundings, to make it real. Dig our hands in our own soil, speaking figuratively AND LITERALLY.
3) Ensure all levels of education are trans-disciplanary. Societies, especially in Western affluent societies, are over-specialized resulting in intelligent, yet nonsensical solutions, similar to what Climate Adam describes with CCS.
What these simple steps aim for is helping people redirect their thinking of climate change as an abstract idea for which they feel compelled to be "for" or "against" it (what a waste of brain energy), rather to have them engage in the present, in their surroundings, learning how the planet works such that more of us appreciate the earth's interconnected systems, and how we're a part of those systems.
My thinking is the inertia of the gradual behavior change could be dramatic in improving the climate we all need to sustain our species. We might all get along better to boot. -
nigelj at 05:51 AM on 18 December 2023Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage
M Sweets reasons sound quite convincing. There may be additional factors with CCS. The development of CCS applied to fossil fuels generation has been very slow. Probably a good thing given it is such a band aid solution. Perhaps it's partly because it requires politically unpopular subsidies. The public generally dislike the corporates getting tax payer money, in New Zealand anyway.
Or alternatively where CCS is incorporated into emissions trading schemes, this isnt working, because currently forests appear to provide lower cost offsets, and the free market dogma says allow the lowest cost alternative in the short term to prevail. Im not so sure the dogma makes complete sense, but it's good if its delayed CCS.
And renewable energy is now cost competitive so for aging coal fired plant it might make more sense to just build a wind farm. In comparison it looks like its much harder reducing the costs of CCS, which is not so surprising when you look at the technology and the processes.
Once we run out of land for forests, there may be serious interest in CCS, but by then, how many coal fired power stations will be left anyway?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:22 AM on 18 December 2023Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage
nigelj,
Agreed about potential limits for DAC operations. The research article I refer to in my comment @3 includes information regarding the limits of all the potential CDRs, not just the mechanical ones like DAC facilities.
CDR being a ‘limited’ opportunity is mentioned in the selected quote (stating that CDR is “limited resources”) presented on the Skeptical Science New Research for Week #50 2023 page.
If you do pursue a more detailed evaluation of the limits of DACs the article may provide helpful references for you, particularly in the section headed “CDR as a limited allocable resource”.
-
michael sweet at 03:59 AM on 18 December 2023Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage
A more reliable source states China will install 230 GW of wind and solar in 2023. This compares to 75 GW in Europe and 40 GW in the USA.
-
michael sweet at 03:11 AM on 18 December 2023Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage
It seems to me that to find the bottom line for carbon capture used to keep fossil fuel production going in the future all you have to do is look at the production facilities that the UAE, Saudi Arabia and the oil majors have built or planned. As I understand it, they combined have about one large facility world wide. They recover CO2 from their refinery operations and pump that back into the ground to recover more oil, but that is not carbon capture and storage.
If the fossil fuel produceers were serious about carbon capture there would be many facilities planned or under constrution. These facilities take 5 years or more to build, and longer to plan and permit. The lack of proposed facilities indicates that this is the last gasp of the oil producers hoping everyone will look at the squirrel instead of installing solar and wind.
The only realistic solution is to build out wind and solar as fast as possible. If all fossil fuel subsidies were transferred to building renewable energy we would finish the system in a decade.
China alone will install over 300 gigawatts of renewable energy this year. If the entire world put in as much effort as China we would be in a much better place. The fossil plants China is building will be obsolete before they are commissioned.
-
Pierre-Ernest at 20:46 PM on 17 December 2023At a glance - Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?
As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You!
-
BaerbelW at 19:44 PM on 17 December 2023It's methane
Please note: a new basic version of this rebuttal was published on December 17, 2023 which includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @ https://sks.to/at-a-glance
-
nigelj at 10:53 AM on 17 December 2023Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage
OPOF @4
Thank's for correcting the math. I think I know what happened. I scribbled some numbers and calcs. for different scenarious on a piece of paper and came back to it later, and transposed the wrong number into the computer. The main thing is the total is 925,000 DACs, or even more using the assumptions in your copy and paste.
We clearly need some sort of way of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere. But the thing I was trying to get across about the DAC industrial plant option is that 925,000 DAC's would clearly require a vast quantity of materials and energy, and over a 30 year span if its function is just to offset certain emissions. These plants are not small. Photo of worlds largest existing instillation here.
For comparison purposes the world currently has 600,000 bridges and about 24,000 coal fired power stations built over our entire history. The issue is whether the world has enough materials and spare energy for something like 925,000 DACS, - especially if they are all built over about 30 years. Remember we are also building renewable energy at the same time.
Known reserves of concentrated deposits key minerals are only expected to last another century or two at current rates of use. There are enough apparently to build out a renewable energy grid, (Jacobson) but add in 925,000 DAC's and its another matter entirely. I'm not a minerals depletion pessimist and we will probably discover new reserves, but it intuitively looks like we might not have enough materials to do everything.
The other options you list for extracting CO2 from the air ( biomass, soil sinks, enhanced rock weathering, marine storage, etc ) look interesting an dpotentially useful, and intuitively look less materials and energy intensive given natural processes do some of the work. But they are very land intensive. DAC does have the advantage that its a rapid extraction, and less land intensive and CO2 storage is permanent or close enough.
I might try and find or calculate some comparisons of materials and energy required if I have time.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:44 AM on 17 December 2023Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage
nigelj,
While reading the report I mention in my comment @3, I came back to re-read your comment.
There is indeed a concern about the scale of required DAC's. But the math appears to be:
- currently 37 Gte of emissions
- 20% assumed to be impractical to stop is 7.4 Gt, not 4,625 Gte
- Number of 8 kte DAC plants is 925,000 (as you correctly indicated)
The report I refer to @3 indicates a higher possible range of required Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) in the following quote:
Thus far, estimates of how much CDR might be needed range from almost none up to more than 300 gigatonnes (Gt) cumulatively by 2050, or over 1,200 Gt cumulatively by 2100 [Citation10] – that is, up to about 10–15 GtCO2/year starting immediately, contingent on simultaneous rapid emissions mitigation, to meet 1.5° or 2 °C targets. Such estimates are purely mathematical, balancing positive with negative emissions: in theory, CDR could be used to counteract any emission (currently about 60 GtCO2e/year [Citation5]). As such, CDR requirements will be higher for less rapid and/or lower levels of emissions mitigation. To date, binding requirements for decarbonization that clearly articulate which emissions should be mitigated and which remain residual emissions to be addressed via CDR [Citation12] are rare, and CDR remains voluntary, contributing to a lack of clarity on necessary scope, scale, pace, and degree of resource competition.
Also note that the author's CDR includes many actions, not just mechanical DAC, as described in this quote:
Here, we define CDR to mean intentional, additional actions taken to capture CO2 from the atmosphere (either directly or via intermediaries like biomass or the ocean) and permanently store it such that the CO2 will not return to the atmosphere on time scales that at least match the lifespan of its impacts on the atmosphere and ocean [Citation5]. Commonly proposed approaches that are potentially capable of delivering CDR include (but are not limited to) direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS); biomass carbon removal and storage (BiCRS);Footnote1 direct ocean carbon capture and storage (DOCCS); enhanced rock weathering (ERW); forestry; and soil carbon management. Some storage mechanisms, particularly those that rely on biological sinks like forests and soils, are not permanent in the sense of matching the lifespan of CO2’s impacts. As such, we distinguish between CDR-capable interventions (e.g. an afforestation project) and actual CDR, which might entail consistent rehabilitation or replacement for projects where CO2 is stored for less than geologic time (and which necessarily imposes greater administrative burden for strategies requiring relatively short replacement intervals).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 11:11 AM on 16 December 2023CO2 limits will harm the economy
PollutionMonster,
I agree that Jason Stanley's book, How Fascism Works, is recommended reading.
I recommended How Fascism Works, along with Timothy Snyder's book On Tyranny, in a comment I made in 2021 on a different SkS item, "The New Climate War by Michael E. Mann - our reviews". My comment there is @17 (linked here). Note that Bob Loblaw makes an additional excellent recommendation, for "The Authoritarians", on that comment string.
We are indeed in "Strange Daze" (Days misspelled intentionally) full of examples of trouble-makers succeeding in "Strange Ways". Maintain your focus on learning to be less harmful to others. And help others, including trying to help them learn to be less harmfully misled (admittedly you will encounter some Almost Lost Causes - People very deep into the delusions and fantasy beliefs of misinformation and disinformation).
-
PollutionMonster at 08:59 AM on 16 December 2023CO2 limits will harm the economy
One Planet Only Forever @121
I am still reading your post and sources. I recommend a book by Jason Stanley. How fascism works explains how the Merchants of doubt borrow fascist strategies to spread disinformation and fearmonger. Combine this with the communist technique of the fire-hose of falsehoods and no wonder they are such a formidable adversary.
I also heard on NPR that we need to "phase out fossil fuels anything else is a distraction." From arguing with deniers a carbon tax is a snake pit argument like AGW deaths with too many ways to be derailed. Thank you for talking to me. :)
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:16 AM on 16 December 2023Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage
The top item (the first Open Access Notable) in the Skeptical Science New Research for Week #50 2023 appears to be a comprehensive presentation of understanding related to and aligned with my comment @2.
I have only read the introduction of The distortionary effects of unconstrained for-profit carbon dioxide removal and the need for early governance intervention, Grubert & Talati, Carbon Management.
After I have read the full item I will make any further comments about how Carbon Dioxide Removal will hopefully be managed/governed to limit harm done to the future of humanity on Skeptical Science New Research for Week #50 2023 (based on reading the Intorduction, I expect to learn a lot and may have nothing more to add).
-
MA Rodger at 18:48 PM on 15 December 2023Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Is it healthy to pander to crazy sock-puppet nonsense by discussing 'what-if' ideas when the sock-puppet is wedded to a 'surely it is' idea?
The idea that the existing GHE can be attributed to 50% water vapour, 25% cloud and this forced by 25% CO2 which thus attributes cloud as a warming agent does overlook the full impact of cloud on planetray albedo and which could be used to calculate cloud as a cooling agent.
The sock-puppet @176 suggests a cloudless Earth would see albedo drop from 30% to 15%, the latter being roughly the Moon's effective albedo which would suggest the Moon woud have an average temperature of 267K. However the measured temperature of the Moon averages at 201K and this because the Moon rotation is so slow that it sheds massive amounts of energy during its day with Moon equatorial temperatures reaching 390K.
Of course, the Earth spins fast enough to prevent such a large duirnal range and if there had never been CO2 to form a GHE, there would never have been oceans to slow it down from its 4 hour day back when the Earth-Moon began.
But unlike the Moon, there is a lot of water on Earth and the albedo of ice is high. That is reduced by the dust which would cover the ice on a GHE-free Earth but albedo would remain high, and perhaps higher than today. De Vrese et al (2021) suggests the albedo of 'meteoric ice' is 65% which, if the Earth's albedo, would indicate a 250K Earth and a GHE of 38K.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 00:54 AM on 15 December 2023Greenhouse effect has been falsified
CTS @176... "The often-quoted 255K black body temperature of the earth is wrong..."
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
-
Eclectic at 17:46 PM on 14 December 2023Greenhouse effect has been falsified
CTS @176 :
an iceball Earth (at 255K or 271K) has how many clouds?
Have you really thought this through . . . and published?
-
ClimateTruthSeeker at 16:43 PM on 14 December 2023Greenhouse effect has been falsified
The often-quoted 255K black body temperature of the earth is wrong and the 33K GHE is overstated. This is due to the albedo being too high in the calculation which is meant to show what the temperature would be if the earth had no atmosphere at all.
However, the calculation falsely uses the albedo when an atmosphere exists, completely ignoring the fact that if there is no atmosphere, there are no clouds. Using a conservative estimate that 50% of albedo is attributed to clouds, this decreases the albedo from 0.3 to 0.15 resulting in a black body temperature of approximately 268K, reducing the GHE to 20K.
However, there would be further impacts on ice and water, and a more realistic albedo when there is no atmosphere at all is 10%, as others have postulated. This leads to a black body temperature of approximately 271K (-2.15C) and a theorized GHE effect of 17K, just over half of what was previously estimated.
Moderator Response:[BL] Return of another sock puppet.
