A swing of opinion on Global Warming in America?

[troopie]

Originally Posted by August

I guess the answer to that question is where is the office and what quality of road do you need to drive over to get there? To a lumberjack the back woods is the office and it's the end of long muddy dirt road. You want to tell him or any number of rural and/or tradespeople between that extreme and yours that they don't need their 4x4's? Not me!

I hear enough bitching from those folks every time I go up to Maine where everyone has a truck, most with ATV's or snowmobiles stuck in the back and they need them not always but often enough to be worth hauling it around. Many of them look at government initiatives to force people into these little hybrid pod cars as yet another example of city folks pushing their city ways to the detriment of rural people.

I think what MH means is that while plenty of people need large 4x4's the majority do not.

In Australia at least, nobody begrudges rural/regonal users of large fourbies but their is an increasing trend towards city dwellers using them becuase they are perseived as safe and due to their size and expense have become a status symbol. Many are now marketed as luxury vehicles.

If you never leave the bitumen do you really need a Fourby?

[August]

Originally Posted by troopie

If you never leave the bitumen do you really need a Fourby?

Of course not, but in a free society who has the right to tell another man he can't have one?

I mean sure we can do things like raise gas taxes to encourage the urbanites to give up their Escallades and Hummers butI seriously doubt any person who can afford one of these luxury SUV's is going to care what the cost of a gallon of gas is. On the other hand it really puts the hurt on the poor and rural folks who can't afford being "encouraged" like that.

[MH]

Originally Posted by August

Of course not, but in a free society who has the right to tell another man he can't have one?

I mean sure we can do things like raise gas taxes to encourage the urbanites to give up their Escallades and Hummers butI seriously doubt any person who can afford one of these luxury SUV's is going to care what the cost of a gallon of gas is. On the other hand it really puts the hurt on the poor and rural folks who can't afford being "encouraged" like that.

The technology is around the corner.
People just need to change the attitude a bit.
In terms of efficiency electric engine might be what jet engine was to airplanes.
The batteries need to get a bit cheaper but are good enough to drive to work in city radius for sure.

[August]

Originally Posted by MH

The technology is around the corner.
People just need to change the attitude a bit.
In terms of efficiency electric engine might be what jet engine was to airplanes.
The batteries need to get a bit cheaper but are good enough to drive to work in city radius for sure.

But again city radius does not apply to rural areas. It doesn't even apply to a fair number of our suburbs. I'm not against electric technology, it just at this point isn't really a valid option for anyone but urban dwellers.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by August

it just at this point isn't really a valid option for anyone but urban dwellers.

True, but If you get city folk to use electrics inside city limits you already halfed the gasoline consumption (but doubled the power consumption from the grid)

[August]

Originally Posted by Betonov

True, but If you get city folk to use electrics inside city limits you already halfed the gasoline consumption (but doubled the power consumption from the grid)

If you can get them to cooperate then sure. My point is schemes to force compliance (ie gas taxes, mileage taxes, etc) usually hurt the rural folks a lot more than it affects city dwellers.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Betonov

(but doubled the power consumption from the grid)

And there's another problem. Where I live the power grid is itself powered by a fossil fuel (coal). Also, unless your utilities come with the rent what you make up in savings on gasoline you end up paying in extra electricity. Then if everybody is driving an electric car how big a drain does it become on the citywide grid? What if there's not enough?

On real solution would be to ban motorized personal transportation altogether in urban areas and make everyone either ride a bicycle or use public transit. But that opens up its own can of worms. Some jobs aren't convenient to bus lines, and where I live the buses don't run all night, so the job I used to have to start at three in the morning would be right out.

There is no simple solution.

[Skybird]

Even many environmentalists admit that electric cars currently are no reasonable option. they are too expensive, the batteries usually still are too weak, the network of refuiling stations is too thin, and the electric power that should be used still must be produced in the way it currently gets done.

A power infrastrutcure cannot be changed so easily. Study the German example carefully with all that maximum political attempt behind it, the heavy and expensive subsidies thta make it so expensive for the consumer - the totally flawed design. We have the absurd situation in Germany that the more renewable, heavily subsidised power gets produced on a sunny day, the more expensive it becomes. It is true. It gets caused by a totally misled, ill design of how they tried to push the use of renewables. The more sunny days we have, the more photovoltaic electricity gets produced, the more fees and subsidies gets payed to the producers, the more the kWH costs. the more conventionel powerplants must be shut down to prevent the powergrid from bursting. Which leads to dangerous fluctuations in that grid. Which means conventional capacities not being used, so that investing into them does become unprofitable. So that no investement takes place. So that no stabilising of the energy supply takes place.

The only thing that currently speaks for elexctric cars, is maintenance. They need much less, and are much less vulnerable to defects, wear and tear, and the motors are much less vulnerable to technical breakdowns and mechanical problems, German statistics prove.

In German: on how porked the German renewable strategy is:

http://www.science-skeptical.de/blog/merkels-energiewende-extrem-teuer-aber-direkt-in-die-sackgasse/007953/

It also describes how these plans lead towards a planned state economy.

Currently, and for the forseeable time, I would not want an electric car. Not even as a present and for free. and on the green electgric car: it is only as green as the energy is by which it runs. Plus the total energy cost for just producing the batteries.

And there is a longterm problem: Lithium. There are only three places in the world (last time read about it, which is some years ago) where Lithium can be mined. The reserves are limited, to such a degree that if you compare them to a projection of how much would be needed if all the EU's and environmentalists' visions for an electric future (basing on Lithium-Ion batteries) should be realised, you end up with a very very big deficit. In other words: we either develope different battery types, or we run out of Lithium long before our visions become true.

Such perspectives do at least not serve as incentives.

So, even for an electriuc concepot of the future, there are neithe rshortcuts nor easy solutions. Main problems remain to be too high energy demand by too many people.

[troopie]

Originally Posted by Skybird

So, even for an electriuc concepot of the future, there are neithe rshortcuts nor easy solutions. Main problems remain to be too high energy demand by too many people.

Touche'

Enter: Thomas Malthus.

Don't be too hard on your government Skybird, at least they had the courage to try something, someone has to. Maybe your people could be proud they are making a small sacrifice to help the world. The scheme may not have worked too well but you are leading the way for other countries to learn from your mistakes. A very noble thing in my opinion as it would nodoubt have made the ruling party rather unpopular. Its much like our 'Carbon tax' (see post #2)

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by troopie

Touche'

Enter: Thomas Malthus.

Don't be too hard on your government Skybird, at least they had the courage to try something, someone has to. Maybe your people could be proud they are making a small sacrifice to help the world. The scheme may not have worked too well but you are leading the way for other countries to learn from your mistakes. A very noble thing in my opinion as it would nodoubt have made the ruling party rather unpopular. Its much like our 'Carbon tax' (see post #2)

I hope we do not lead the way! It would be ruinous for others as well! You need to know maybe how this energy-revolutionin Germany was caused. First there was the trading scheme for emission certifications set up by the EU. That one never worked as intended, but quite directly acchieved the opposite effect, then showed to become completely useless. Then- and here begins the German story - there was Fukushima, and because Germans went into hystery mode over a disaster that until today, as far as I know, still has not killed one person by radiation and the emission of nuclear material into the ocean still has not caused any problems, Germany concluded that we have to do something about nuclear powerplants - in Germany, far away from Japan. Our solution was simple: switch them off from one day to the next so to speak. In the years before, Germany had already lost its global lead role in production of solar panels, it is not long time ago when German companies were the world market leader in quality and in shares of the market. But then the government started to boost the industry branch by pumping enormous subsidies into it, to accelerate a switching from conventional energy production to solar panels. According companies were so successful that they increased their capacities with capital gained from investors, and these investory outsourced production to some degree, and more important: there was a massive transfer of know-how especially to Asia and China, while American companies grew by themselves into the market very fast, too. Even more so, the German government was so insane to pay subsidies not only to national companies, but to ALL producers delivering to Germany! But the Chinese producers of course now do it much cheaper. Result? German solar panel industry is down, the major companies all have died, and we still pay insane subsidies to foreign companies to deliver us solar panels that destroyed our own world-leading production. From crowns to rags, so to speak. I am no friend of subsidies ijn general - but this is probably the most absurd, hilarious and insane example of how to use subsidies in a totally suicidal fashion - to damage your own industry and strengthen your rivals - that I ever have heared of. We are used to pay tax reliefs and reorganisaiton fees via the EU to companies that oursouce jobs to other nations, that already is absurd enough. But the solar panel example - that one is priceless.

Really, do not do it like Germany did. Our politicians have no clue at all about what they are doing there, and the whole system is now totally FUBAR. Energy becomes more and more expensive here, it becomes a growing social problem here, and the more renewable energy we produce - the less competitive it becomes, which is against all normal economic logic, because the more widespread a production standard becomes, the cheaper the products usally become. Plus the damage to the energy supply stability, and the fact that our powergrid cannot handle the transportation of wind-produced electricity in the North to the industrial consumers in the South - bringing the powergrid into shape is calculated to cost doizens and dozens of billions in the next coming years - and that is why it will get delayed and probbaly will ot become true. But the costs from producing an instabile energy supply system with extremely expensively produced energy - that remains.

We now in winter import a greater ammount of nuclear power from France. That's the cream on top of it!

German consider themselves to be global messiahs, when it comes to being green. Nobody sorts his garbage as nicely as we do - just to throw 95% of the sorted household garbage into the garbage incineration plant nevertheless. We contribute 3% of industrial CO2 emissions to the global output, but we think that reducing these 3% to 1.5 % does make a serious difference for the planet, while the third world and the BRISC states increase their CO2 emissions and eat those saved 1.5% in no time, and then emit more. We tell everybody how great our green ways are - and ignore that nobody cares to follow us and opur precious wellmeant examples, leaves us standing in the rain instead.

Really, you are well advised NOT to do like we do, but to avoid our mistakes and do it differently, and better. Less messianic spirit and more pragmatism and realism - that is the way to go. But that is not the German way. And I would say the EU fails miserably over climate policies and the difference between claim and reality, too.

It worked better before the EU turned megalomaniac some 20 years ago, and before German governments turned into global messiahs. 30 years ago, many German rivers were a poison soup, swimming in the Rhine for example was considered to be a hazard to your health in most areas. Today you can swing in almost all of them again, and most lakes are amongst the cleanest in Europe south of Scandinavia. That regeneration was a true success story.

[troopie]

Yeah, that's my point! The rest of the world can learn from your mistakes! That's the best way to learn, kinda like modding really: having a go and cocking it up, then trying it a bit diferently next time!

If nobody takes those first dificult steps, no-one else will follow.

[August]

The lessons learned from the French failure to build the Panama Canal caused the Americans to institute an effective malaria abatement program which proved vital to the projects success.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by troopie

If nobody takes those first dificult steps, no-one else will follow.

It failed not due to difficulty. Warnings and cautionings and coutner-arguments - the writing was on the wall from all beginning on.

It failed due to decision makers being incompetent and dumb, and crowds being fatalistic and following modes without questioning them in depth.

It failed due to decision makers being incompetent and dumb, and crowds being fatalistic and following modes without questioning them in depth.

Good point, it works like that with the batteries too.
If those 3 mines run out then who is going to raise the question of the other 100+ mines? or the scary alternative of increasing the current extraction of the Lithium from the big blue wobbly thing mermaids live in?


I must say though, I am slightly confused.
30 years ago the rivers were poisoned, 20 years ago the government went meglomaniac on it, now you can swim in the clean water that used to be toxic soup.
So are you arguing for the government action or for more pollution in rivers or have you just completly lost the run of what you think you want to say again?
I have a strange feeling it is the latter .....again

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

What I don't understand is Al Gore who was leading the charge has seemingly disappeared from the face of global warming.

And that's a bad thing? I don't miss that windbag at all.