This is Mark_BC's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Mark_BC's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Mark_BC
Recent Activity
"I'm curious why deniers are following greencarcongress. I guess ignorance likes an audience." Sulleny doesn't like AGW because if it can be shown that the climate of the whole planet can be dependent on something as simple and corporeal as the infrared absorptive characteristics of the CO2 molecule, then it implies that God isn't controlling our world for us. This then has much wider implications for how the Bible should be interpreted. Stan seems to be an old school cold war veteran bent out of shape over an obsession with the belief that anything less than ultra right wing, pure free market capitalism will inevitably spiral downhill into a pinko leftist communist state. The Goracle was influenced as a child to believe that AGW was a threat but for some reason decided that he was being misled and then swung full circle, turned bitterly against the science, living as he does in a polarized right vs. wrong world view. I guess in all cases, as you say, they want an audience.
"And as Nick says, once you drop your weekly cost at the pump, from $15 to $7, there is not much (rational) reason to go for $3.50." The other issue beyond cost of fuel is cost of maintenance. Once you can get sufficient batteries in the car to justify ditching the ICE altogether and become a pure EV, your maintenance costs go WAY down (hardly any moving parts in an EV). This could easily justify a $5000 premium of an EV over an ICE, everything else being equal.
1/2 hour charge stations are totally practical, Nissan is actually working with cities to install them. That's later this year! Sure, the Leaf only has 100 miles, but it doesn't initially have to satisfy every driver's needs, only 10% of them. In 5 years Nissan will swap your battery for one with 200 mile range and it won't even be an issue since this will satisfy 50% of drivers. "in practice you'll have to take a conservative margin if you don't want to get stuck, cold weather, aggressive driving, more load on board, head wind, aging batteries, change in your plans" How is that different with an ICE?
What is the deal with range anxiety? Why would drivers not bother to look at their "fuel" gauge on EV's, but they manage to remember to do this with a gas powered car? Why would you ever run out of juice anyways, with 1/2 hour high capacity quick charge stations to be popping up all over the place around cities and along highways? If you want to go off grid then rent a genset trailer, it really is a no brainer. All it requires is a slight shift in the way drivers think. Range anxiety is only for Jeremy Clarkson hysterians and will soon disappear in a couple years when EV's become mainstream. And you aren't going to lose 30% range in the cold, more like 10%. And you wouldn't be using your EV for your commute if its range is within 20% of your commute distance anyways. The only time a reduced range will come up is if you're on a trip somewhere, in which case you are going to have to go to the "gas" station to charge up every 150 km anyways, so what's the big deal?
Anne, I did the calculations a while ago and to have a 20 km range it would add $1000 to the price (bigger battery, bigger motor, add a wall plug) and 100 lbs to the weight. Space increase would be minimal. But suddenly they can do it with lithium ion, it's magic, because a 50 lb increase in vehicle weight is acceptable but 100 lb isn't??...???.. I'll post later on the summary of the lawsuit from Cobasys.
"PV will not ever be practical in some parts of the US unless the climate changes." That is true where I live, Vancouver, for half the year. There is not enough sunshine to make enough H2 to drive your car. In summer it's great but in winter you'd have millions of cars all lining up at a H2 filling station, so the problem hasn't gone away. But in California it would work fine -- produce enough H2 to last a week in case you get bad weather, but you can't produce and store enough H2 to last 5 months thru the winter.
"However, at the time, the market, the consumer and consumer’s environmental mind-set were not ready to buy-in to the whole battery-electric concept. Both programs came and quickly went." No, Chevron got control of the patent and sued them to force them to stop making plugin EV's. "Since the early 90’s, during the early stages of first-generation Prius development, Toyota has been committed to in-house R&D of advanced nickel-metal hydride batteries." Then why couldn't they figure out how to put a wall plug in the thing at some point during the TWELVE YEARS of the Prius's existence? Why have they just figured this out now that lithium ion batteries are becoming viable? Why is it that NiMH batteries worked perfectly fine over the last 12 years in the Prius, being charged by the regen brakes and gasoline engine, but somehow for some reason these batteries could not be charged by a wall plug? Are the batteries allergic to electricity from the wall? Oh right, they lost control of the patent to Chevron.
I have always been skeptical of hydrogen because of its inherently poor economics and energy fundamentals. But this rooftop solar H2 generator idea sounds interesting because PV panels only get like 15% efficiency anyways, if they can do better with H2 production then this may actually work, provided then can get a FCV to market for less than $500,000..... I think we need to see more info about how such a solar-hydrogen system would actually work, rather than taking their word for it.
Yes, we can sit here and debate about how fast battery cost will come down to be "competitive" with regular cars. And Big Oil can fund all the biased studies it wants to try to sway public opinion. But the fact remains that only a few EV's need to get to market. Then everyone will have a friend of a friend who has one. The word will get out about how much better they are than regular cars. Soon a significant portion of the population will have had a chance to ride in one. And this year when Nissan releases the Leaf and people realize that you can get this increased value at no more cost than a regular car, the cat will be out of the bag, and no amount of Big Oil manipulation will be able to change public opinion because people will be able to experience with their own eyes and bodies that it isn't true. Then the only thing left for Big Oil to do will be to promote misinformation about how producing electricity is worse for the environment than burning gasoline, but this will again land on deaf ears because people's wallets will tell them that spending $25 a month to charge your car is better than $200 to buy gasoline. This will be happening later this year!
"the leaf rents the battery for about as much as a car and then also sells you the car itself for about as much as a normal car" Where did you get that info? I'm following the Leaf closely and as far as I know they haven't released any specifics on the battery lease, other than to confirm that the total cost of ownership of the car will be equal to or less than an equivalent regular car. Therefore, they couldn't lease the battery for as much as a car (on a $12,000 battery?!?!?!?), otherwise they would be lying about their "total cost of ownership". "But there is no reason we are entitled to apply Moore's Law" I think the 10 trillion dollar potential market may provide some incentive. Is anyone here inside Nissan? How do we know what they are or aren't developing? Sorry, but GM's batteries are no indication of what Nissan is doing internally. Considering the commitment a large automaker like Nissan has put behind EV's, I have a feeling they may be somewhat optimistic.
"It just barely makes it using best case and is only marketed as such because of cal credits for 100 mile range evs." I think Nissan has a wider margin of charge / discharge range than the Volt, which only uses like half of the total battery capacity. GM does this to maximize battery life because it is selling the battery. This isn't as much of a concern for Nissan because they are leasing the batteries and will replace them in about 5 years, so battery longevity isn't so much of an issue compared with getting the most range per kWh of battery capacity. Anyways, even with the battery lease, total cost of ownership is still less, plus EV's hardly ever need maintenance, I wonder if they factored that in to the equation.
"Unfortunately, the very strong pro-oil lobbies in USA and Canada will delay the massive implementation of electrified vehicles by a few (10?) years." I think they will try but there is nothing they can do anymore. They can't keep Nissan from selling cars.
Just to point out the news, since the authors of report apparently aren't keeping track of the news..... the Nissan Leaf, available for purchase later this year, will have a total cost of ownership of equal to or less than an equivalent regular car, with current low prices of gasoline. This report is out by .... oh .... 10 years. I believe we're getting close to that $250 point now anyways, wait until mass production ramps up. Considering the 10 trillion dollar market awaiting manufacturers who can make competitive EV's, I have a hunch we will be seeing some very interesting innovations in the near and medium term future. Go back 10 years and show luddites like the authors of this report what an iPhone of today can do ... they'd scoff.
"Mark, it looks like you hit a database glitch or had something held for moderation." Yes I suppose I shouldn't be so cynical
"90 percent of all the ice on Earth resides in the Antarctic. Ninety percent. Sea ice extent and area are a reasonable indicator of a "global warming" signal. Both Antarctic sea ice extent and area have increased since the start of satellite records. " References please. The above paragraph is highly misleading. Notice how he starts off by saying that 90% of the world's ice is in Antarctica (referring to the land ice on the continent), but then skillfully and silently switches over to talking about sea ice? Antarctic sea ice extent has little relevance compared with arctic sea ice extent since there is none in summer, it all melts every year anyways. I notice how you conveniently neglected to mention the dramatic decline in arctic sea ice extent over the last few decades. I guess that's because you are biased and cherry pick which data you will ignore vs. promote. Data which shows Antarctic sea ice (purportedly) increasing is worthy of mention. Data which shows Arctic sea ice dramatically shrinking is not worthy of mention.
It appears that GCC is engaging in censorship as my previous post pointing out the folly of the AGW deniers' logic has been removed. I will not repost.
DaveD, yes I was assuming 42 gallons of product per gallon. Plus I was assuming only 2 kWh natural gas per gallon gasoline in the refinery and we are both having trouble finding that figure and I`m sure I`m being way over generous. Plus I wasn`t considering transportation emissions of oil and gasoline, which you don`t have for electricity, so when you do this my 4X energy efficiency of EV`s probably jumps to over 6. There is this Gateway pipeline they want to push through to the BC coast from Alberta. The ridiculous thing is that our premier Campbell just won a medal at Copenhagen for introducing a carbon tax. Yet he is subsidizing natural gas and pushing for an oil pipeline. Talk about a hypocrite, apparently they don`t see a conflict of interest there, it`s all politics and PR. Here are some more links you may find useful regarding the oil sands: http://nextbigfuture.com/2007/05/nuclear-powered-oil-sands-follow-up.html http://www.computare.org/Support%20documents/Guests/Computare%20PDF%20Western%20Focus%20Seminar/Presentations/WF2/4%20-%20Oberth%20-%20CANDU%20Nuclear%20Plant%2 0Configured%20for%20Multiple%20Oil%20Sands%2009_05_29.pdf http://www.ucalgary.ca/lcaos/research.shtml
I have a few issues with this: Firstly, I find it hard to believe that considering that it will be at least a couple decades before all passenger vehicles become electric, that charging an initially small number of electric vehicles overnight on the grid (when demand is low and you aren't running marginal generation), is going to push electricity demand to levels where inefficient marginal NCCT plants are needed. It will be decades before there are enough electric cars to do that, and by that time the electric generation situation will have improved. Secondly, does this study incorporate the reduced electricity demand when oil refineries no longer need to make gasoline? At 3 kWh per gallon to produce, that same electricity would power an EV to go half as far as a regular ICE car, even before it's started its engine!!! And another thing relating to GHG emissions is the amount of natural gas needed to make the gasoline. Dave D might have interest in this because we were before discussing this issue on ABG. It was found that refining oil into gasoline requires about 3 kWh electricity per gallon. I did some more research and found that turning Alberta oil sands into oil requires about 0.8 kWh / gallon. So overall you are looking at 3-4 kWh / gallon electricity to make the gasoline. But then there's natural gas, where it gets more interesting. I don't know how much natural gas is needed to refine oil into gasoline, but in order to turn tar sands into oil, it appears that about 10 kWh is needed per gallon. And let's say for sake of argument that oil refining uses another 2 kWh of natural gas. It gets a little complicated because of cogeneration plants also supplying heat to the refineries though. But let's assume then that 12 kWh / gallon of natural gas is needed to turn Alberta tar sand into gasoline. Let's say that is burned in a NGCC plant at 60% efficiency with 10% line loss, and generously assume a 50% loss in efficiency in producing electricity. That is 6 kWh. Let's add that to the previous 4 kWh, for a total of 10 kWh of electricity per gallon. At 225 Wh per mile plug-to-wheel mileage of the Nissan Leaf, that would drive an EV 44 miles! And that's just to make the gallon of gasoline in the first place! Now, let's add in the mileage you'd get from burning the gasoline. A typical ICE gets 25 mpg. There you go, that's it, no more, end of story. A PHEV gets 50 mpg, so you'd go 50 miles. Then add on the previous 44 miles for a total of about 100 miles. So essentially, the EV goes 4 times as far as the ICE car per unit energy. It's ridiculous. Dave D you might find this interesting. http://www.strategywest.com/downloads/SW_CoGenCanada20060405.pdf
Again, I'll ask: "I'm getting tired of listening to how the leaked emails prove that AGW is a sham. No one actually goes through the emails thoroughly and explains how this is so." ____________________________________________________ Sulleny: "Tell that to the Associate General Council of the DOE who has issued a "Litigation Hold Notice" to some 8,000 employees of the Department of Energy relevant to data, correspondence and materials related to “global warming, the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia In England, and/or climate change science.” To be extended to other Federal Departments and Agencies." I look forward to that! It's interesting that I spent a bit of time on CO2science.org, critically looking at their reams of pseudoscience reports, like the NIPCC. I went back to the sources they listed for their data, and compared it to the way they presented it in their report. The degree of obvious misrepresentation, basically lies, that they engaged in was quite staggering. The data fabrication and manipulation was blatant, well beyond anything the climate scientists are being accused of. I posted this in various blogs. I could direct you there right now if you wanted. No one took interest. Why? Because everyone expects AGW deniers and the oil industry to be crooked. It isn't news. It's a daily occurence for AGW deniers to manipulate data for the purpose of FUD. It's expected and no one really bats an eye anymore. But when it appears that scientists may have been less than forthcoming (as yet unproven), it becomes immediate worldwide news. And ironically the financial scammers that destroyed the US economy last year are still unregulated, still up to their old games. Hardly anyone gives them notice. Where are our priorities? Certainly not on working towards economic and environmental sustainability. And anyone who understands the technology involved in reducing carbon emissions knows very well that it is not only possible, but will result in a tremendous overall boost to the world economy. It will empower local people to take control of their own energy future and economies. But where does all the resistance and anger get directed? It's not directed to the free market scam artists on Wall Street. Rather, it's directed to an as-yet unproven group of scientists who are suggesting that we make changes to our society that have never shown any evidence of negatively affecting our economies!!! It makes no sense. It's an interesting lesson into the mindset of this "human chimpanzee" we call ourselves.
You might want to cool your jets ESabre, your opinions are not supported by fact. Antarctica is seeing greater mass growth in its center but more melting around its edges -- consistent with a warming trend. This is also happening in Greenland but to a much greater extent. Greenland is seeing some fairly dramatic changes to its ice sheet dynamics and is, in fact, melting substantially. The arctic sea ice is now about 25% lower in extent than 30 years ago. The last 10 years have seen a sharp decline. We may see ice free summers within 10 years. The earth has not in any way been cooling for a decade. Can you provide some evidence to support that?
"We need major floods, more storms, higher seas, larger deserts in USA, China, India and Africa etc before or eyes start to see what is going on." Unfortunately by then it will be too late. By the time sea levels rise visibly for people to notice, we will have committed ourselves to catastrophic runaway melting where we could expect sea levels to rise 10 m, maybe more. We are already well on our way to this point, arctic sea ice has declined by about 30% over the last 30 years, much more rapidly recently, and most people envision an ice free arctic in 10-20 years or so. Of course right next door is Greenland. __________________________________________________ "Climategate, the whistle that put the nail in the AGW coffin - will prove that dishonest science and those who attempt to use it to forward political agendas - will not be tolerated in real democracies. RIP Climate Change." I'm getting tired of listening to how the leaked emails prove that AGW is a sham. No one actually goes through the emails thoroughly and explains how this is so. I have only been able to find one thorough analysis of the emails, from NewsWeek, and they basically say that it appears that the scientists didn't actually do anything wrong. http://www.newsweek.com/id/226398/page/1 The idea that Climategate dismisses concerns over AGW is absolutely ridiculous, and speaks more to the gullibility of people who latch on to whatever thread of hope they can find in order to confirm their previous beliefs. If anything, Climategate proves beyond any doubt that there is not any conspiracy going on amongst scientists. These emails expose the heart and guts of some of the scientists who were the targets of anti-AGW slandering. So where are all the emails linking Al Gore as the ring leader, pulling the strings of all his minion scientist followers? Where is the evidence of the grand conspiracy to steal your money? What we have is a handful of emails taken over a 13 year period which show some scientists being real pricks, expressing their extreme dislike towards AGW deniers, and suggesting, unsuccessfully, to keep certain articles out of the IPCC reports, and also using words like "trick" and "real temperature data" which have been misrepresented in the blogosphere as proof that scientists are doctoring the data, when in fact those terms are not in any way misleading, but simply lingo that statisticians use to refer to certain techniques for making graphs. Move on people. Look at the facts.
That's an interesting idea Harvey. The consumer could decide how much range they want and simply buy more modules and insert them. You buy 10 km range for $xxxx and put in in your car.
"However, factors such as high cost, limited availability of places to plug in, and market competition suggest that 13 million [ by 2030] is a more realistic number" -------------------------------------------------- Oh please ..... there are only 13 million people in the US with access to a wall plug where they park their car? Right there, this report has lost its credibility. In case the authors didn't notice, Nissan is offering the Leaf BEV for sale next year with 100 mile range, with an overall cost of ownership of LESS than an equivalent ICE car. And lithium batteries aren't our only options. There are also these things called Nickel Metal Hydride batteries, that Chevron kept off the market for 5 years via patent manipulation. And they are CHEAPER than Li ion and Nickel is in no short supply. Their only drawback is increased weight but this is of minor importance for PHEV's with relatively small battery pack sizes. Get with the 2010's, NRC.
There's plenty of lithium to last the next few years and now that Chevron no longer controls the NiMH battery, development of that will continue and there is no shortage of Nickel.