The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

So do giant wind turbines which wear out. And 1,000s of square miles of grid scale solar farms with their inverters and batteries that wear out. All of which can only be constructed and serviced with immense liquid fuel inputs.
.
Wind and sun are renewable. Turbines and solar farms are rebuildable. If we have the transportable and dense energy surplus to rebuild them.

*Looks like all steel production is electric,so it could be powered from renewables.
*Same for aluminum.
*So far,as I've looked,glass production(for PVs) is based upon a gas-furnace melt.Perhaps there could be a national competition for electric-furnace melt technology?
*Trucking is going electric,so that can be renewable.
*Rail freight is already electric,we can lose the onboard 'range-extender' diesel engine,and provide the catenary line.
*On-site foundation preparation and erection can all be done with electric,renewable.
I'm not seeing insurmountable hurdles.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

$6,700 got me a leaf that gets over 120mpge driving mostly on the highway.
All I had to do was buy it and there are plenty more where that one came from.

Yeah,it's awesome!
I'm squirreling every dollar I can come by to get in that game after I finish the silly truck project.
My local commute typically doesn't involve more than a 20-mile round-trip.I could get by with the lowest-range EV out there.
I've seen the little Mitsubishi's going for under $5-K.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Efficiency sometimes has a large positive benefit at reducing consumption and sometimes doesn't. Home appliances/electronics have gotten more efficient over the years, and as a result, per capita electrical use has gone down slightly.

The thing is, if the entire US started driving 50 MPG cars instead of our (20 MPG?) vehicles, we'd what, forstall global warming by a couple months? Then as demand for fuel dropped and supply increased, the price would plummet. With relatively cheap fuel, other countries where most people don't own a vehicle would start buying them and driving.

I'd say that with global demand for petrol, reducing consumption in any 1 geographic location will do little to affect overall consumption in the long term.

That said, I'm all for efficiency for efficiency's sake. There's no point in consuming something needlessly.

The main premise for my thought is motivated by carbon reduction.
If we have the technology to reduce,or eliminate transportation CO2,it would be in accord with climate change challenges.
We don't have neighborhood 'Ice Men' going door to door any longer,to take care of food refrigeration needs.We've moved on.
EVs have the equivalence of an ICE with a BSFC of 0.15 lb/bhp-hr.That's an engineering coup if there ever was one.You'll NEVER get 'pistons' to do that.
From a purely 2nd-law of thermodynamics point of view,it's difficult to even argue for internal combustion.
We'll likely 'desire' petroleum until it's no longer economically recoverable.It doesn't mean we have to burn it though.It's just too precious to waste on a 4-wheeled blast-furnace which wastes 66% right off the bat.
We've got a home market.The dollars we lose every year on imported energy could be spent here,for our neighbors,helping to underwrite as gentle a transition as possible away from combustion.Jobs,albeit,different kinds.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Jevons' paradox is applicable to technology advances. Some of which bring about an improved efficiency over a previous machine or process. But has more historically been applied regarding new machines and processes which replaced muscle power with fossil energy inputs. New machines and gadgets that use energy to do what humans and beasts used to do manually. So technology advancing is a vector for more primary energy use.
.
Humans can do .6kWh of work in an eight hour day. But the energy footprint of an average person in the USA has an additional 200 energy slaves (mostly fossil) tied up in their day to day existence. Due to all of these "advancements".
Of course we (USA) are now 50 times wealthier than kings and queens of 400 years ago.

Some of the contemporaneous use of his paradox (Guy McPherson),is that if you reduce energy consumption for a given technology,people will just use more of it,cancelling out any gain.So why bother?
This would encourage a conversation about inverse-rate scale pricing.
Either Earth is important or it is not.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Xist

Vitamin B12?

That's it,thanks!
(it's pitiful when you can hold your brain in a teaspoon)

[redpoint5]

I agree with all that, and I'm a fan of EVs. That said, there are huge hurdles to overcome to get widespread adoption. A $10,000 "fuel tank" that doesn't have much range, takes an eternity to refuel, and degrades over time is a tough sell.

The idea appeals to me, but good luck selling my sister (typical American) on it. An EV that would satisfy her 4Runner craving would likely cost $100,000.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

The caveats are often swept under the rug when discussion of these inventions comes up. But, has it ever piqued your interest how they work? Those plans inspired me to go into science and engineering back in the 70s.

Also, inventions are never created in a vacuum. If you don't invent it, and it has value, someone else will.

It was the Arab Oil Embargo of October,23,1973 that really got me interested .
Even though I'd driven a Morris Minor 1000 and a Rambler American,fuel economy never rang the bell quite like gas rationing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The premise for the Pogue,Fish,and other carburetors was 100% fuel 'vapor' being introduced into the engine,rather than droplets,and hoping engine heat would flash off the liquid before it entered the combustion chamber.
When I found out about Cd 0.12 automobiles I went in that direction.Aerodynamics was something I could afford,compared to an engine lab.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I don't see how there is any way a vehicle that looks like a big pickup and driven like a normal vehicle can get anywhere near 150mpge.
The best that the ranger and S10 electeic converts do is a little shy of 100mpge.



IMO liquid fuels are already too expensive.

This is for the Cd 0.23 Tesla Model-3.
The long range version is rated at 123-mpg-e HWY.I've estimated that this might equate to 62-mph (100 km/h)
With some wheel skirts and a boat tail I can get the Cd down to 0.179 without excessive length.Which would yield 100-mpg-e at 100-mph,or,170-mpg-e at 62-mph.
Your LEAF would be a great candidate for the same mod.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which year model for the Ranger and S-10/ Sonoma?
The lowest Ranger was Cd 0.40.The lowest S-10 was Cd 0.42.
At the extreme,these can both go to Cd 0.13.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Exactly. Discoveries are inevitable. If Einstein hadn't developed his brilliant theories, someone else shortly after would have.

At best you can briefly delay scientific discovery / technological advances. The best way to delay advances is to make everyone poor so they don't have free time and don't have excess resources to spend experimenting.



... and yet people are abandoning their sedans to purchase the largest vehicles they can afford, which happen to be quite large. My sister just bought a brand new $40k Toyota 4Runner. She "needs" it because she just had her first baby.

Expensive is subjective.

It's funny how people 'need' something that didn't exist on Earth in any meaningful numbers until the 1980s.

[oil pan 4]

The most popular ranger and S10 converts were mostly 90's and some 2000s trucks when I was watching it.