QUOTE (Pink+)
most people in this country are:
are gullible and easily propagandized,
Fine then just provide links to back up your many claims:
I'll do my best to satisfy you, though I should note that the Internet is not my only source of knowledge. Much of what I know I have gathered over time through various media, and
I couldn't even tell you which particular facts I obtained where. Still, I'll spend some time to find appropriate links for each of the points.
I'll do my best to satisfy you, though I should note that the Internet is not my only source of knowledge. Much of what I know I have gathered over time through various media, and
I couldn't even tell you which particular facts I obtained where. Still, I'll spend some time to find appropriate links for each of the points.
most people in this country are:
utterly disengaged from the political process, (Should we ignore the 122,293,332 votes cast in the last election?)
First of all, a 55% turnout in a major Federal election (2004) is nothing to be proud of. This is before we consider that in midterm elections, voter turnout is typically below
40%. And that's at the federal level. For state and local elections, the typical voter turnout is even lower than that.
http://www.fairvote.org/?page=262
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/americ...2000/597444.stm
http://hnn.us/articles/1104.html
Also, turning out to cast a vote is not necessarily an indication of active participation in the democracy at other times of the year -- or even, in fact, of actually knowing
precisely what you're voting for!
For example, it seems many Americans are under the illusion that Presidents can write law. Thus we have presidential candidates promising all kinds of reforms and laws, when they
know full well that it's Congress that is in charge of law-making (but apparently, a large segment of the public is utterly ignorant of even that basic fact -- as the deceptive
political tactic has always been, and still is effective.)
exhibit possibly the lowest rates of civics literacy since the founding of the republic, (See above, and how does one measure civics literacy? Do we factor in that only White
Male Property owners could vote back then?)
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/report/summary.html
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs97/web/97906.asp
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/report/summary.html
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs97/web/97906.asp
are largely ignorant of what is happening even within their own country (never mind the world outside of the U.S. borders), (this will be interesting, how does one measure
this?)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0501144_pf.html
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2001...dity/print.html
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/4471636.html
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/...articleID=28628
etc.
are scientifically illiterate, (I guess we all just live in this technological age not knowing how anything works, should we ignore the fact that the total number of college
graduates in the United States rose to 40,621,000 in 2003, an increase of 40 percent in the decade between 1993 and 2003)
most Americans are dead convinced of the literal inerrancy of the Bible (I think this ones going to be real hard to prove, I'm not religious, but I was pretty sure that this was
mainly a Fundamentalist belief and that would not be anywhere near 50% of the population.)
I wonder, how many of these college graduates are actually foreign students? And how many of them actually manage to learn anything in college? (Personally, I still can't believe
some of my classmates were actually allowed to graduate...)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2006-...e-science_x.htm
http://www.kases.org/nsf.htm
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224...%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/c7s2.htm
I wonder, how many of these college graduates are actually foreign students? And how many of them actually manage to learn anything in college? (Personally, I still can't believe
some of my classmates were actually allowed to graduate...)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2006-...e-science_x.htm
http://www.kases.org/nsf.htm
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224...%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/c7s2.htm
are gullible and easily propagandized, (see above, does going to college not lessen gullibility and ability to be propagandized? No, should I get my money back?)
Considering the degree to which gay marriage has pivoted the political climate in this country to date, I'd say colleges must not be helping all that much. And come on: where've
you been the last 8 years? "They hate us for our freedom", "Axis of Evil", "Mission accomplished", "A heckuva job, Brownie", "support our troops", "Al Qaida ... Saddam Hussein ...
9/11", "We fight them over there ...", "I'm the decider", etc. -- how many of these propaganda slogans have we been pounded with so far? Personally, I've long since lost count.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-3.4/valhouli.html
http://www.couplescompany.com/features/Politics/CogDiss.htm
Also consider the political climate of recent decade, in light of this:
http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm
http://www.ginandtacos.com/education.jpg
are too wrapped up in overworking and meaningless entertainment to notice what's happening around them, (now THAT's going to be a tough one to measure)
http://www.nshp.org/career_and_jobs/usa_a_workaholic_nation
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m159..._14/ai_n6134090
http://www.online-publishers.org/?pg=press&dt=031406
http://das.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/5/4/483
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/04-4...ter/57V58N4.pdf
http://www.nshp.org/career_and_jobs/usa_a_workaholic_nation
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m159..._14/ai_n6134090
http://www.online-publishers.org/?pg=press&dt=031406
http://das.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/5/4/483
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/04-4...ter/57V58N4.pdf
and are largely detached from each other: most people don't even know the names of their neighbors. (I know mine, they know me, beyond that I can't say, apparently you can)
The part about the 600 billion securing our oil supplies is a joke...
You mean, we're in Iraq to prevent the sort of genocide that's occuring in Darfur. Or perhaps we're there to hunt Al Qaida that are actually in Pakistan and Afghanistan? It would be rather a joke, only it's not very funny...
You mean, we're in Iraq to prevent the sort of genocide that's occuring in Darfur. Or perhaps we're there to hunt Al Qaida that are actually in Pakistan and Afghanistan? It would be rather a joke, only it's not very funny...
and the part about the Yucca mt is wrong, a part of every Kwh sold from a nuke is put in a fund to pay for waste disposal and plant decommissioning.
So, no the fact is it is a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.
These allocations are nothing but a pitiful veneer. Don't be blinded by the false facade. See e.g.
http://www.prwatch.org/node/5983
http://www.nonuclear.net/lawmakersbow.htm
etc.
(Google "nuclear industry subsidy" yourself, to see more...)
Because your issues (besides being bogus) are with the US (figures) but the US is NOT the world.
And the rest of the world is not dominated by the same fossil fuel industries as the States?
And the rest of the world is not strategically subsidizing their nuclear industries, so that they can farm plutonium for their nuclear arsenals?
And the rest of the world is not dominated by the same fossil fuel industries as the States?
And the rest of the world is not strategically subsidizing their nuclear industries, so that they can farm plutonium for their nuclear arsenals?
As to the first, more BS.
Again, the US is not the world. The reason they are not yet available is they are not yet ready.
The U.S. auto market is still the largest in the world (last time I checked.) What happens here, has global consequences.
Note a number of the Google initiatives are to try to figure out how to make an economically VIABLE PEHV
Incorrect. Economic viability is not in question; it's already been demonstrated by Google's initiative. And actually, there are profitable companies in California right now, who perform such conversions. Google are investing in actual startups who are developing actual consumer products (i.e. conversion kits). They're also studying how PHEVs could synergize with the grid for additional benefits -- but that's a different issue.
Incorrect. Economic viability is not in question; it's already been demonstrated by Google's initiative. And actually, there are profitable companies in California right now, who perform such conversions. Google are investing in actual startups who are developing actual consumer products (i.e. conversion kits). They're also studying how PHEVs could synergize with the grid for additional benefits -- but that's a different issue.
The cost of the facility is being paid for by the public using nuclear generated electricity and the federal government for disposal of defense nuclear waste.
I'll admit that's news to me. Perhaps in the latest proposal, Congress finally saw some light. But then again, I wouldn't bet on this being the final arrangement. A lot can change between now and whenever the project actually comes online (if ever.)
I for one find it astounding that anyone is still contending that the CO2 increase is not due to human activity.
Due to the hysteria\hype of the science to date through the popular media, not counting the Internet, this thought; I would imagine would be quite common.
Again to Arthur's link:
"Further, there exists no proof of a constantly rising trend for the temperature of the world's lower atmosphere since the industrial revolution (e.g., Jaworowski et al., 1992 a; Michaels & Knappenberger, 1996)."
The land use or albedo artifact might be a factor. This hypothesis might still be banded about since one would imagine that the instruments to measure temperature and so forth are not far from urban heat islands and satellite instruments could be measuring artificial whiteness through the atmospheric window {away from the heat islands, iow, agriculture} above the troposphere.
I don't know if anyone has proposed getting rid of ants as a methane source. I think, wisely, getting rid or scrubbing the soot from the wider environment when fossil fuel is used will be a higher practical priority.
MrB.
Jaworowski, Z., Segalstad, T.V. & Hisdal, V. (1992 a): Atmospheric CO2 and global warming: a critical review; 2nd revised edition. Norsk Polarinstitutt, Meddelelser [Norwegian Polar Institute, Memoirs] 119, 76 pp.
Michaels, P.J. & Knappenberger, P.C. (1996): The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the scientific "consensus" on global warming. In: Emsley, J. (Ed.): The Global Warming Debate. The report of the European Science and Environment Forum. Bourne Press, Ltd., Bournemouth, Dorset, UK, 158-178.
Again you EVADE the question.
But your point has little merit.
Last year Foriegn car sales were essentially the same as US maker car sales in the US.
As for Global, US and Japan are essentially equal, but clearly the Foriegn car market is bigger than the US market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automaker
But STILL there is not ONE of the these manufacturers offering a PEHV.
Why?
Because they are NOT YET READY.
Arthur
are gullible and easily propagandized,
QUOTE (Pink+)
if we're going to spend billions upon billions of our tax dollars to build a nuclear waste repository in the Yacca mountain, and then to transport said waste there at the public's expense, then perhaps the costs of such (and other) indirect nuclear energy subsidies ought to be factored into the price of electricity from that technology?
Well, if you are MOST, then you made your point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain
What's particularly funny is you are slamming the single LARGEST existing source of NON CO2 producing energy in the world.
Now that's funny.
Arthur
Well, if you are MOST, then you made your point.
QUOTE
By early 2002, 7 billion US dollars had been spent on the project which has made Yucca Mountain the most studied piece of geology in the world. Total cost is expected to be between 50 and 100 billion dollars. The cost to continue storing nuclear waste at their respective plants though is significantly greater, estimated to be 200 to 400 billion dollars. The cost of the facility is being paid for by the public using nuclear generated electricity and the federal government for disposal of defense nuclear waste.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain
What's particularly funny is you are slamming the single LARGEST existing source of NON CO2 producing energy in the world.
Now that's funny.
Arthur
QUOTE
Fine then just provide links to back up your many claims:
I'll do my best to satisfy you, though I should note that the Internet is not my only source of knowledge. Much of what I know I have gathered over time through various media, and
I couldn't even tell you which particular facts I obtained where. Still, I'll spend some time to find appropriate links for each of the points.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Fine then just provide links to back up your many claims: |
I'll do my best to satisfy you, though I should note that the Internet is not my only source of knowledge. Much of what I know I have gathered over time through various media, and
I couldn't even tell you which particular facts I obtained where. Still, I'll spend some time to find appropriate links for each of the points.
most people in this country are:
utterly disengaged from the political process, (Should we ignore the 122,293,332 votes cast in the last election?)
First of all, a 55% turnout in a major Federal election (2004) is nothing to be proud of. This is before we consider that in midterm elections, voter turnout is typically below
40%. And that's at the federal level. For state and local elections, the typical voter turnout is even lower than that.
http://www.fairvote.org/?page=262
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/americ...2000/597444.stm
http://hnn.us/articles/1104.html
Also, turning out to cast a vote is not necessarily an indication of active participation in the democracy at other times of the year -- or even, in fact, of actually knowing
precisely what you're voting for!
For example, it seems many Americans are under the illusion that Presidents can write law. Thus we have presidential candidates promising all kinds of reforms and laws, when they
know full well that it's Congress that is in charge of law-making (but apparently, a large segment of the public is utterly ignorant of even that basic fact -- as the deceptive
political tactic has always been, and still is effective.)
QUOTE
exhibit possibly the lowest rates of civics literacy since the founding of the republic, (See above, and how does one measure civics literacy? Do we factor in that only White
Male Property owners could vote back then?)
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/report/summary.html
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs97/web/97906.asp
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
exhibit possibly the lowest rates of civics literacy since the founding of the republic, (See above, and how does one measure civics literacy? Do we factor in that only White Male Property owners could vote back then?) |
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/report/summary.html
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs97/web/97906.asp
are largely ignorant of what is happening even within their own country (never mind the world outside of the U.S. borders), (this will be interesting, how does one measure
this?)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0501144_pf.html
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2001...dity/print.html
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/4471636.html
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/...articleID=28628
etc.
QUOTE
are scientifically illiterate, (I guess we all just live in this technological age not knowing how anything works, should we ignore the fact that the total number of college
graduates in the United States rose to 40,621,000 in 2003, an increase of 40 percent in the decade between 1993 and 2003)
most Americans are dead convinced of the literal inerrancy of the Bible (I think this ones going to be real hard to prove, I'm not religious, but I was pretty sure that this was
mainly a Fundamentalist belief and that would not be anywhere near 50% of the population.)
I wonder, how many of these college graduates are actually foreign students? And how many of them actually manage to learn anything in college? (Personally, I still can't believe
some of my classmates were actually allowed to graduate...)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2006-...e-science_x.htm
http://www.kases.org/nsf.htm
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224...%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/c7s2.htm
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
are scientifically illiterate, (I guess we all just live in this technological age not knowing how anything works, should we ignore the fact that the total number of college graduates in the United States rose to 40,621,000 in 2003, an increase of 40 percent in the decade between 1993 and 2003) most Americans are dead convinced of the literal inerrancy of the Bible (I think this ones going to be real hard to prove, I'm not religious, but I was pretty sure that this was mainly a Fundamentalist belief and that would not be anywhere near 50% of the population.) |
I wonder, how many of these college graduates are actually foreign students? And how many of them actually manage to learn anything in college? (Personally, I still can't believe
some of my classmates were actually allowed to graduate...)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2006-...e-science_x.htm
http://www.kases.org/nsf.htm
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224...%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/c7s2.htm
are gullible and easily propagandized, (see above, does going to college not lessen gullibility and ability to be propagandized? No, should I get my money back?)
Considering the degree to which gay marriage has pivoted the political climate in this country to date, I'd say colleges must not be helping all that much. And come on: where've
you been the last 8 years? "They hate us for our freedom", "Axis of Evil", "Mission accomplished", "A heckuva job, Brownie", "support our troops", "Al Qaida ... Saddam Hussein ...
9/11", "We fight them over there ...", "I'm the decider", etc. -- how many of these propaganda slogans have we been pounded with so far? Personally, I've long since lost count.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-3.4/valhouli.html
http://www.couplescompany.com/features/Politics/CogDiss.htm
Also consider the political climate of recent decade, in light of this:
http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm
http://www.ginandtacos.com/education.jpg
QUOTE
are too wrapped up in overworking and meaningless entertainment to notice what's happening around them, (now THAT's going to be a tough one to measure)
http://www.nshp.org/career_and_jobs/usa_a_workaholic_nation
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m159..._14/ai_n6134090
http://www.online-publishers.org/?pg=press&dt=031406
http://das.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/5/4/483
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/04-4...ter/57V58N4.pdf
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
are too wrapped up in overworking and meaningless entertainment to notice what's happening around them, (now THAT's going to be a tough one to measure) |
http://www.nshp.org/career_and_jobs/usa_a_workaholic_nation
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m159..._14/ai_n6134090
http://www.online-publishers.org/?pg=press&dt=031406
http://das.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/5/4/483
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/04-4...ter/57V58N4.pdf
and are largely detached from each other: most people don't even know the names of their neighbors. (I know mine, they know me, beyond that I can't say, apparently you can)
No, you can't accept that 40 million AMERICANS are college graduates.
The links clearly show that that single number destroys your arguments.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs97/web/97906.asp
See the difference in the numbers when the respondents have a college degree.
Too bad you can't see the REAL world.
Arthur
The links clearly show that that single number destroys your arguments.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs97/web/97906.asp
See the difference in the numbers when the respondents have a college degree.
Too bad you can't see the REAL world.
Arthur
QUOTE
The part about the 600 billion securing our oil supplies is a joke...
You mean, we're in Iraq to prevent the sort of genocide that's occuring in Darfur. Or perhaps we're there to hunt Al Qaida that are actually in Pakistan and Afghanistan? It would be rather a joke, only it's not very funny...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The part about the 600 billion securing our oil supplies is a joke... |
You mean, we're in Iraq to prevent the sort of genocide that's occuring in Darfur. Or perhaps we're there to hunt Al Qaida that are actually in Pakistan and Afghanistan? It would be rather a joke, only it's not very funny...
and the part about the Yucca mt is wrong, a part of every Kwh sold from a nuke is put in a fund to pay for waste disposal and plant decommissioning.
So, no the fact is it is a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.
These allocations are nothing but a pitiful veneer. Don't be blinded by the false facade. See e.g.
http://www.prwatch.org/node/5983
http://www.nonuclear.net/lawmakersbow.htm
etc.
(Google "nuclear industry subsidy" yourself, to see more...)
QUOTE
Because your issues (besides being bogus) are with the US (figures) but the US is NOT the world.
And the rest of the world is not dominated by the same fossil fuel industries as the States?
And the rest of the world is not strategically subsidizing their nuclear industries, so that they can farm plutonium for their nuclear arsenals?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Because your issues (besides being bogus) are with the US (figures) but the US is NOT the world. |
And the rest of the world is not dominated by the same fossil fuel industries as the States?
And the rest of the world is not strategically subsidizing their nuclear industries, so that they can farm plutonium for their nuclear arsenals?
As to the first, more BS.
Again, the US is not the world. The reason they are not yet available is they are not yet ready.
The U.S. auto market is still the largest in the world (last time I checked.) What happens here, has global consequences.
QUOTE
Note a number of the Google initiatives are to try to figure out how to make an economically VIABLE PEHV
Incorrect. Economic viability is not in question; it's already been demonstrated by Google's initiative. And actually, there are profitable companies in California right now, who perform such conversions. Google are investing in actual startups who are developing actual consumer products (i.e. conversion kits). They're also studying how PHEVs could synergize with the grid for additional benefits -- but that's a different issue.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Note a number of the Google initiatives are to try to figure out how to make an economically VIABLE PEHV |
Incorrect. Economic viability is not in question; it's already been demonstrated by Google's initiative. And actually, there are profitable companies in California right now, who perform such conversions. Google are investing in actual startups who are developing actual consumer products (i.e. conversion kits). They're also studying how PHEVs could synergize with the grid for additional benefits -- but that's a different issue.
The cost of the facility is being paid for by the public using nuclear generated electricity and the federal government for disposal of defense nuclear waste.
I'll admit that's news to me. Perhaps in the latest proposal, Congress finally saw some light. But then again, I wouldn't bet on this being the final arrangement. A lot can change between now and whenever the project actually comes online (if ever.)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 21 2007, 01:53 PM)
No, you can't accept that 40 million AMERICANS are college graduates.
The links clearly show that that single number destroys your arguments.
Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? I merely wondered, how many of those graduates currently in American workforce, are actually eligible to vote. No thanks to you, but I checked for myself; turns out about 1.7 million are non-citizens. Not a big number, so no big deal.
Nonetheless, 38 million out of a 200+ million voting block isn't a very impressive fraction. And of course, among those 38 million only 30% are science or engineering related. Which doesn't help the other 70% with scientific literacy...
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf06304/
And even among those who do graduate with s/e degrees, let me tell you that some of my classmates should never have received their diplomas. But that's what happens when everybody is graded on a curve, and general failure becomes merely the new average.
The links clearly show that that single number destroys your arguments.
Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? I merely wondered, how many of those graduates currently in American workforce, are actually eligible to vote. No thanks to you, but I checked for myself; turns out about 1.7 million are non-citizens. Not a big number, so no big deal.
Nonetheless, 38 million out of a 200+ million voting block isn't a very impressive fraction. And of course, among those 38 million only 30% are science or engineering related. Which doesn't help the other 70% with scientific literacy...
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf06304/
And even among those who do graduate with s/e degrees, let me tell you that some of my classmates should never have received their diplomas. But that's what happens when everybody is graded on a curve, and general failure becomes merely the new average.
QUOTE (Pink Elephant+Jun 21 2007, 09:05 AM)
These allocations are nothing but a pitiful veneer. Don't be blinded by the false facade. See e.g.
http://www.prwatch.org/node/5983
http://www.nonuclear.net/lawmakersbow.htm
etc.
(Google "nuclear industry subsidy" yourself, to see more...)
Nope.
The Price Anderson Act only becomes a subsidy if a NPP failure results in damages ABOVE 9 BILLION dollars (that's damages to the PUBLIC, the cost of the power plant is not covered by PA).
The PAA has the dual purpose of "protecting the public and encouraging the development of the atomic energy industry" (42 USC 2012i). It protects the public by compensating for personal injury and property damage with two layers of insurance:
The first layer is equal to $200 million in private insurance provided by a consortium of insurers through the American Nuclear Insurers. The second layer is a form of industry self-insurance by which nuclear power plant owners
would contribute up to $88 million per reactor after an accident at any nuclear power reactor. With 103 operating units, these two layers provide $9.3 billion in coverage. (This amount increases with inflation.)
The PAA provides for the consolidation of all claims against the licensee or contractor in a federal court, which would compensate each victim in
proportion to total losses. (PAA does not cover any on-site damage.)
http://siepr.stanford.edu/papers/briefs/po...brief_jan02.pdf
The second article is about potential FUTURE SUBSIDIES to get Power Companies to once again build NPPs.
The reason they haven't (none in the US in decades) is because they have a poor ROI. (huge start up costs, long construction time and high non-fuel related operating costs means it takes too long to turn a profit based on lower fuel costs to make a PROFIT driven power company want to invest in Nukes)
The funny thing about the potential FUTURE SUBSIDIES to encourage power companies to build NPPs is they are all in response to the percieved threat of CO2 induced GLOBAL WARMING, so in effect, these subsidies would just be another form of "Carbon Tax".
Arthur
http://www.prwatch.org/node/5983
http://www.nonuclear.net/lawmakersbow.htm
etc.
(Google "nuclear industry subsidy" yourself, to see more...)
Nope.
The Price Anderson Act only becomes a subsidy if a NPP failure results in damages ABOVE 9 BILLION dollars (that's damages to the PUBLIC, the cost of the power plant is not covered by PA).
The PAA has the dual purpose of "protecting the public and encouraging the development of the atomic energy industry" (42 USC 2012i). It protects the public by compensating for personal injury and property damage with two layers of insurance:
The first layer is equal to $200 million in private insurance provided by a consortium of insurers through the American Nuclear Insurers. The second layer is a form of industry self-insurance by which nuclear power plant owners
would contribute up to $88 million per reactor after an accident at any nuclear power reactor. With 103 operating units, these two layers provide $9.3 billion in coverage. (This amount increases with inflation.)
The PAA provides for the consolidation of all claims against the licensee or contractor in a federal court, which would compensate each victim in
proportion to total losses. (PAA does not cover any on-site damage.)
http://siepr.stanford.edu/papers/briefs/po...brief_jan02.pdf
The second article is about potential FUTURE SUBSIDIES to get Power Companies to once again build NPPs.
The reason they haven't (none in the US in decades) is because they have a poor ROI. (huge start up costs, long construction time and high non-fuel related operating costs means it takes too long to turn a profit based on lower fuel costs to make a PROFIT driven power company want to invest in Nukes)
The funny thing about the potential FUTURE SUBSIDIES to encourage power companies to build NPPs is they are all in response to the percieved threat of CO2 induced GLOBAL WARMING, so in effect, these subsidies would just be another form of "Carbon Tax".
Arthur
So, the nuclear industry is not exactly a self-sustaining one. But there are other reasons for skirting the nukes in search for alternative energy sources.
To wit, just recently the news came out that China had finally surpassed USA in total CO2 emissions. As developing nations grow, they require energy. Do we give them all nuclear technology, and risk them all developing nuclear arsenals?
Or would the better route be, to incubate safer and cleaner alternatives here, then farm them out to the developing world? IMHO it would not only be the actually sustainable approach, but a strategically sound one as well. (For example, perhaps if we had launched an "Apollo Program" for renewables in 2000 (like Gore was proposing), maybe by now we'd have our 60% efficient solar collectors or something like that, which we could offer Iran and leave them not a leg to stand on when it comes to claims of necessity for nuclear power...)
In the long run (a few decades hence), the world should completely get rid of nuclear plants and nuclear weapons. Leave a couple of research reactors around, for physics work -- but we really do not, as a global civilization, need the threat of nukes (or dirty bombs) hanging over our collective heads.
To wit, just recently the news came out that China had finally surpassed USA in total CO2 emissions. As developing nations grow, they require energy. Do we give them all nuclear technology, and risk them all developing nuclear arsenals?
Or would the better route be, to incubate safer and cleaner alternatives here, then farm them out to the developing world? IMHO it would not only be the actually sustainable approach, but a strategically sound one as well. (For example, perhaps if we had launched an "Apollo Program" for renewables in 2000 (like Gore was proposing), maybe by now we'd have our 60% efficient solar collectors or something like that, which we could offer Iran and leave them not a leg to stand on when it comes to claims of necessity for nuclear power...)
In the long run (a few decades hence), the world should completely get rid of nuclear plants and nuclear weapons. Leave a couple of research reactors around, for physics work -- but we really do not, as a global civilization, need the threat of nukes (or dirty bombs) hanging over our collective heads.
QUOTE
I for one find it astounding that anyone is still contending that the CO2 increase is not due to human activity.
Due to the hysteria\hype of the science to date through the popular media, not counting the Internet, this thought; I would imagine would be quite common.
Again to Arthur's link:
"Further, there exists no proof of a constantly rising trend for the temperature of the world's lower atmosphere since the industrial revolution (e.g., Jaworowski et al., 1992 a; Michaels & Knappenberger, 1996)."
The land use or albedo artifact might be a factor. This hypothesis might still be banded about since one would imagine that the instruments to measure temperature and so forth are not far from urban heat islands and satellite instruments could be measuring artificial whiteness through the atmospheric window {away from the heat islands, iow, agriculture} above the troposphere.
I don't know if anyone has proposed getting rid of ants as a methane source. I think, wisely, getting rid or scrubbing the soot from the wider environment when fossil fuel is used will be a higher practical priority.
MrB.
Jaworowski, Z., Segalstad, T.V. & Hisdal, V. (1992 a): Atmospheric CO2 and global warming: a critical review; 2nd revised edition. Norsk Polarinstitutt, Meddelelser [Norwegian Polar Institute, Memoirs] 119, 76 pp.
Michaels, P.J. & Knappenberger, P.C. (1996): The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the scientific "consensus" on global warming. In: Emsley, J. (Ed.): The Global Warming Debate. The report of the European Science and Environment Forum. Bourne Press, Ltd., Bournemouth, Dorset, UK, 158-178.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Again, the US is not the world. The reason they (PEHVs) are not yet available is they are not yet ready. The U.S. auto market is still the largest in the world (last time I checked.) What happens here, has global consequences. |
Again you EVADE the question.
But your point has little merit.
Last year Foriegn car sales were essentially the same as US maker car sales in the US.
As for Global, US and Japan are essentially equal, but clearly the Foriegn car market is bigger than the US market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automaker
But STILL there is not ONE of the these manufacturers offering a PEHV.
Why?
Because they are NOT YET READY.
Arthur
QUOTE (Pink Elephant+Jun 21 2007, 10:20 AM)
So, the nuclear industry is not exactly a self-sustaining one. But there are other reasons for skirting the nukes in search for alternative energy sources.
To wit, just recently the news came out that China had finally surpassed USA in total CO2 emissions. As developing nations grow, they require energy. Do we give them all nuclear technology, and risk them all developing nuclear arsenals?
No, the nuclear industry in the US is self sustaining, its just that one can't, at the present price per kWH of electricity, really afford to build NEW plants.
But, given a CARBON TAX then you will see a number on new Nuclear plants begin construction.
As far as the rest of the world, its NOT our decision to make.
China (and India and Packistan etc etc) can buy Nuclear Technology on the open market.
Mainland China has nine nuclear power reactors in commercial operation.
Four more units grid connected, four more under construction, and at least four more about to start constuction in 2007.
Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give a fivefold increase in nuclear capacity to 40 GWe by 2020 and then a further three to fourfold increase to 120-160 GWe by 2030.
The country aims to become self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html
Arthur
To wit, just recently the news came out that China had finally surpassed USA in total CO2 emissions. As developing nations grow, they require energy. Do we give them all nuclear technology, and risk them all developing nuclear arsenals?
No, the nuclear industry in the US is self sustaining, its just that one can't, at the present price per kWH of electricity, really afford to build NEW plants.
But, given a CARBON TAX then you will see a number on new Nuclear plants begin construction.
As far as the rest of the world, its NOT our decision to make.
China (and India and Packistan etc etc) can buy Nuclear Technology on the open market.
Mainland China has nine nuclear power reactors in commercial operation.
Four more units grid connected, four more under construction, and at least four more about to start constuction in 2007.
Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give a fivefold increase in nuclear capacity to 40 GWe by 2020 and then a further three to fourfold increase to 120-160 GWe by 2030.
The country aims to become self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html
Arthur
Don't know if scrubbing soot is actually going to help with global warming. Soot particles catalyze cloud formation, which supposedly has a cooling effect. So then no soot => fewer clouds => less cooling.
Also, the supposed correlation between solar irradiance and global temperature average has failed in the last 30 years or so. Solar irradiance has remained mostly constant since 1970, while there has been a monotonic and significant rise in mean global temperature over the same period:
(original: http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-...te/climate.gif)
Sorry, but it appears the Sun will not be scapegoated this time...
Also, the supposed correlation between solar irradiance and global temperature average has failed in the last 30 years or so. Solar irradiance has remained mostly constant since 1970, while there has been a monotonic and significant rise in mean global temperature over the same period:
(original: http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-...te/climate.gif)
Sorry, but it appears the Sun will not be scapegoated this time...
Except what that chart seems to indicate is that the amount of warming attibuted to CO2 is less than usually assumed.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-...ate/climate.gif
It IMPLIES that virtually all of the temp changes prior to 1975 can be explained by SI.
Which would kinda make it difficult to explain why CO2 wasn't having a significant impact PRIOR to 1975.
Arthur
http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-...ate/climate.gif
It IMPLIES that virtually all of the temp changes prior to 1975 can be explained by SI.
Which would kinda make it difficult to explain why CO2 wasn't having a significant impact PRIOR to 1975.
Arthur
Arthur: Your stated conclusion is not supported in the graph. It might be equally (or more logically) correct to presume that ALL the temperature increases measured are due to CO2, and that the co-incident solar variation has no effect whatever, even prior to 1970.
QUOTE (lengould+Jun 21 2007, 11:42 AM)
Arthur: Your stated conclusion is not supported in the graph. It might be equally (or more logically) correct to presume that ALL the temperature increases measured are due to CO2, and that the co-incident solar variation has no effect whatever, even prior to 1970.
Why?
The W/M2 on the left tracks with the temp scale on the right.
~ 5 w/m2 = ~ 1 d C
Arthur
Why?
The W/M2 on the left tracks with the temp scale on the right.
~ 5 w/m2 = ~ 1 d C
Arthur
QUOTE (Pink Elephant+Jun 21 2007, 10:20 AM)
In the long run (a few decades hence), the world should completely get rid of nuclear plants and nuclear weapons. Leave a couple of research reactors around, for physics work -- but we really do not, as a global civilization, need the threat of nukes (or dirty bombs) hanging over our collective heads.
Again this is simply your opinion, one the world in general does not share.
Good thing.
Of the 13.8% of our NET GLOBAL PRIMARY ENERGY that does NOT generate CO2, 6.2% is from Nuclear.
In case you are wondering, 6.2% is also from Hydro.
Leaving just 1.4% from ALL OTHER RENEWABLE SOURCES.
Of the other renewables this 1.4% includes:
Production of Ethanol, Biodiesel, Geothermal, Solar, Wood and Waste Energy (ie from landfills/sewage treatment)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table29.xls
Arthur
Again this is simply your opinion, one the world in general does not share.
Good thing.
Of the 13.8% of our NET GLOBAL PRIMARY ENERGY that does NOT generate CO2, 6.2% is from Nuclear.
In case you are wondering, 6.2% is also from Hydro.
Leaving just 1.4% from ALL OTHER RENEWABLE SOURCES.
Of the other renewables this 1.4% includes:
Production of Ethanol, Biodiesel, Geothermal, Solar, Wood and Waste Energy (ie from landfills/sewage treatment)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table29.xls
Arthur
QUOTE (Pink+)
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Note a number of the Google initiatives are to try to figure out how to make an economically VIABLE PEHV
Incorrect. Economic viability is not in question; it's already been demonstrated by Google's initiative.
Actually NO.
Economic viability is when they can sell them to the population IN GENERAL.
There are typically sufficient 'early adopters' who can sustain a cottage industry, but the point is that would have no impact on the overall energy situation.
One thing that bothers me is they are bending the numbers.
Why?
Why use an US average mileage of just 19.8 mpg (which includes light trucks) when the average car mileage for the 2005 model year was 30 mpg (CAFE std = 27.5)?
Note: Using CORRECT gas mileage figure of 30 mpg reduces the Prius savings to $320/yr
Why add a 20% penalty on CO2 production (for well to tank emissions) for gasoline engines but then use a measure for electrical generation that just includes END USER production of CO2 or a CO2 cost for the battery production?
Why use the STATE LEVEL EMISSION factor for CO2 emissions (Calif = 1/2 US aveage) when you are using US averages for everything else (i.e. if using Calif State Level Emission factors then don't use the 8 cent per kWh rate, use Californias 12 cent per kWh)
Finally they show a little less than a $300 savings for adding the PEHV feature but why don't they give an estimate of the cost/life expectancy of the PEHV feature?
Why?
Arthur
Has come no one caught this? That should read kinetics even with electron capture.
MrB.
Has come no one caught this? That should read kinetics even with electron capture.
MrB.
Maybe because people tend not to read posts where the poster doesn't use the QUOTE function properly?
Arthur
Maybe these could serve as a good explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_L...bon_Dioxide.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_...de_400kyr-2.png
Considering that prior to 1960 the atmospheric CO2 concentrations have gone up rather slowly from long-term average of 280 ppm to about 315 ppm, perhaps the effect of the increase will not be nearly as noticeable, as when the concentrations jump from 315 ppm to 380 ppm in just 45 years.
Exponential trends have a funny way of becoming very significant very rapidly...
Maybe these could serve as a good explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_L...bon_Dioxide.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_...de_400kyr-2.png
Considering that prior to 1960 the atmospheric CO2 concentrations have gone up rather slowly from long-term average of 280 ppm to about 315 ppm, perhaps the effect of the increase will not be nearly as noticeable, as when the concentrations jump from 315 ppm to 380 ppm in just 45 years.
Exponential trends have a funny way of becoming very significant very rapidly...
Of the 13.8% of our NET GLOBAL PRIMARY ENERGY that does NOT generate CO2, 6.2% is from Nuclear.
In case you are wondering, 6.2% is also from Hydro.
For the record, I'm not against Hydro. It's a perfectly sustainable method of electricity generation. Except where it blocks important rivers leading to near-extinction of certain fish species... But when done right, it is a great way to generate electricity from solar energy. As is wind power (which is rapidly expanding world-wide.)
And I'm not interested in the status quo of current energy supplies. I'm interested in what's possible right now, not what is currently the case.
Of course we could just sit on our collecitve asses, and let Japan innovate its way into the energy future. Maybe then we could license all the cool technology from the Japanese, or just buy their products. Wouldn't be the first time...
They're trying to make a point about overall fleet efficiency. Their point is, we could halve CO2 emissions from the entire fleet, if 73% of it switched to PHEV cars even with the current-generation technology.
One other note: by actually quoting the EPA figure of 19.8, they're being generous. Real-life fuel efficiency is always lower. For hybrids more so than regular cars, but regardless: my Prius's EPA economy is 60city/55hwy. In real life, I get about 41 combined (same figure as they quote, by the way.) So by actually using 19.8 (or even 30), they are being very gracious and conservative.
They're trying to make a point about overall fleet efficiency. Their point is, we could halve CO2 emissions from the entire fleet, if 73% of it switched to PHEV cars even with the current-generation technology.
One other note: by actually quoting the EPA figure of 19.8, they're being generous. Real-life fuel efficiency is always lower. For hybrids more so than regular cars, but regardless: my Prius's EPA economy is 60city/55hwy. In real life, I get about 41 combined (same figure as they quote, by the way.) So by actually using 19.8 (or even 30), they are being very gracious and conservative.
Note: Using CORRECT gas mileage figure of 30 mpg reduces the Prius savings to $320/yr
And PHEV version still gets over $500/yr, which is pretty good even at $3/gallon. And seriously, how much longer should we expect it to remain at $3/gallon (national average)?
eh? They factored in the average emissions cost of electricity. And as for the battery, it doesn't need to be refilled (unlike the gas-tank) so over the life of the car, the CO2 cost of making the battery is a constant and rather negligible, I'd imagine (or at least comparable to the cost of making any other part of the car.)
eh? They factored in the average emissions cost of electricity. And as for the battery, it doesn't need to be refilled (unlike the gas-tank) so over the life of the car, the CO2 cost of making the battery is a constant and rather negligible, I'd imagine (or at least comparable to the cost of making any other part of the car.)
Why use the STATE LEVEL EMISSION factor for CO2 emissions (Calif = 1/2 US aveage) when you are using US averages for everything else (i.e. if using Calif State Level Emission factors then don't use the 8 cent per kWh rate, use Californias 12 cent per kWh)
Maybe they should've then used Calif gas prices too (which I assure you, are NOT $3/gallon -- I wish!...)
And wait a moment. Did you just say that California has 50% less emissions than US average?? Holy crap, I had no idea California was being that efficient. Then why aren't we working to reduce those states who are above the current average, to at least the current average (never mind California levels)?????
Life expectancy is the same as regular Prius battery (i.e. the life of the car); the only difference is, the actual battery is larger and the power regulator circuit is tweaked. This is because the batteries are cycled only within a narrow range, greatly reducing fatigue effects. Also, the battery life issue by now is a red herring. New battery technologies are mature enough RIGHT NOW, that last the life of the car even under high-stress cycling.
The current Prius model uses a NiMH battery; this is already an outdated technology both in terms of energy density and lifespan, due to advances in Li-ion batteries. Witness what Tesla Motors has been able to accomplish: http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php
There are rumors on the web that in 2008 Toyota will finally refresh the Prius (about time too, since there have been no major updates since 2004) -- giving it a larger and better battery, improving the fuel economy even further, and possibly providing an OEM plug-in option. (http://www.soultek.com/clean_energy/hybrid...ius_in_2008.htm)
"Maybe because people tend not to read posts where the poster doesn't use the QUOTE function properly?"
Nah, maybe they were thinking cold fusion or cool fusion would save my laugher.
I like the idea of boron fueled cars, if there is enough of it to go around as I have been led to believe.
MrB.[the no one]
www.ncas.org/erab/apx3a.htm
Slow neutrons (those that have lost almost all their kinetic energy and are in thermal equilibrium at room temperature) are conventionally detected by the charged particles produced when the neutron is captured with high probability in the nucleus of an atom of 10B (producing an alpha particle), or in a 3He nucleus, producing a recoil proton. A noble gas, 3He is used in the form of a proportional counter, while boron can be used either in the form of BF3 proportional counters or in the solid form, with the boron immersed in plastic or inorganic scintillator viewed by a photomultiplier. [my emphasis]
Incorrect. Economic viability is not in question; it's already been demonstrated by Google's initiative.
Actually NO.
Economic viability is when they can sell them to the population IN GENERAL.
There are typically sufficient 'early adopters' who can sustain a cottage industry, but the point is that would have no impact on the overall energy situation.
One thing that bothers me is they are bending the numbers.
Why?
Why use an US average mileage of just 19.8 mpg (which includes light trucks) when the average car mileage for the 2005 model year was 30 mpg (CAFE std = 27.5)?
Note: Using CORRECT gas mileage figure of 30 mpg reduces the Prius savings to $320/yr
Why add a 20% penalty on CO2 production (for well to tank emissions) for gasoline engines but then use a measure for electrical generation that just includes END USER production of CO2 or a CO2 cost for the battery production?
Why use the STATE LEVEL EMISSION factor for CO2 emissions (Calif = 1/2 US aveage) when you are using US averages for everything else (i.e. if using Calif State Level Emission factors then don't use the 8 cent per kWh rate, use Californias 12 cent per kWh)
Finally they show a little less than a $300 savings for adding the PEHV feature but why don't they give an estimate of the cost/life expectancy of the PEHV feature?
Why?
Arthur
QUOTE
Time and temperature is quite the context and kinetics even with neutron capture.
Has come no one caught this? That should read kinetics even with electron capture.
MrB.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Jun 21 2007, 04:31 PM)
Has come no one caught this? That should read kinetics even with electron capture.
MrB.
Maybe because people tend not to read posts where the poster doesn't use the QUOTE function properly?
Arthur
QUOTE
Which would kinda make it difficult to explain why CO2 wasn't having a significant impact PRIOR to 1975.
Maybe these could serve as a good explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_L...bon_Dioxide.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_...de_400kyr-2.png
Considering that prior to 1960 the atmospheric CO2 concentrations have gone up rather slowly from long-term average of 280 ppm to about 315 ppm, perhaps the effect of the increase will not be nearly as noticeable, as when the concentrations jump from 315 ppm to 380 ppm in just 45 years.
Exponential trends have a funny way of becoming very significant very rapidly...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Which would kinda make it difficult to explain why CO2 wasn't having a significant impact PRIOR to 1975. |
Maybe these could serve as a good explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_L...bon_Dioxide.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_...de_400kyr-2.png
Considering that prior to 1960 the atmospheric CO2 concentrations have gone up rather slowly from long-term average of 280 ppm to about 315 ppm, perhaps the effect of the increase will not be nearly as noticeable, as when the concentrations jump from 315 ppm to 380 ppm in just 45 years.
Exponential trends have a funny way of becoming very significant very rapidly...
Of the 13.8% of our NET GLOBAL PRIMARY ENERGY that does NOT generate CO2, 6.2% is from Nuclear.
In case you are wondering, 6.2% is also from Hydro.
For the record, I'm not against Hydro. It's a perfectly sustainable method of electricity generation. Except where it blocks important rivers leading to near-extinction of certain fish species... But when done right, it is a great way to generate electricity from solar energy. As is wind power (which is rapidly expanding world-wide.)
And I'm not interested in the status quo of current energy supplies. I'm interested in what's possible right now, not what is currently the case.
Of course we could just sit on our collecitve asses, and let Japan innovate its way into the energy future. Maybe then we could license all the cool technology from the Japanese, or just buy their products. Wouldn't be the first time...
QUOTE
Why use an US average mileage of just 19.8 mpg (which includes light trucks) when the average car mileage for the 2005 model year was 30 mpg (CAFE std = 27.5)?
They're trying to make a point about overall fleet efficiency. Their point is, we could halve CO2 emissions from the entire fleet, if 73% of it switched to PHEV cars even with the current-generation technology.
One other note: by actually quoting the EPA figure of 19.8, they're being generous. Real-life fuel efficiency is always lower. For hybrids more so than regular cars, but regardless: my Prius's EPA economy is 60city/55hwy. In real life, I get about 41 combined (same figure as they quote, by the way.) So by actually using 19.8 (or even 30), they are being very gracious and conservative.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why use an US average mileage of just 19.8 mpg (which includes light trucks) when the average car mileage for the 2005 model year was 30 mpg (CAFE std = 27.5)? |
They're trying to make a point about overall fleet efficiency. Their point is, we could halve CO2 emissions from the entire fleet, if 73% of it switched to PHEV cars even with the current-generation technology.
One other note: by actually quoting the EPA figure of 19.8, they're being generous. Real-life fuel efficiency is always lower. For hybrids more so than regular cars, but regardless: my Prius's EPA economy is 60city/55hwy. In real life, I get about 41 combined (same figure as they quote, by the way.) So by actually using 19.8 (or even 30), they are being very gracious and conservative.
Note: Using CORRECT gas mileage figure of 30 mpg reduces the Prius savings to $320/yr
And PHEV version still gets over $500/yr, which is pretty good even at $3/gallon. And seriously, how much longer should we expect it to remain at $3/gallon (national average)?
QUOTE
Why add a 20% penalty on CO2 production (for well to tank emissions) for gasoline engines but then use a measure for electrical generation that just includes END USER production of CO2 or a CO2 cost for the battery production?
eh? They factored in the average emissions cost of electricity. And as for the battery, it doesn't need to be refilled (unlike the gas-tank) so over the life of the car, the CO2 cost of making the battery is a constant and rather negligible, I'd imagine (or at least comparable to the cost of making any other part of the car.)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why add a 20% penalty on CO2 production (for well to tank emissions) for gasoline engines but then use a measure for electrical generation that just includes END USER production of CO2 or a CO2 cost for the battery production? |
eh? They factored in the average emissions cost of electricity. And as for the battery, it doesn't need to be refilled (unlike the gas-tank) so over the life of the car, the CO2 cost of making the battery is a constant and rather negligible, I'd imagine (or at least comparable to the cost of making any other part of the car.)
Why use the STATE LEVEL EMISSION factor for CO2 emissions (Calif = 1/2 US aveage) when you are using US averages for everything else (i.e. if using Calif State Level Emission factors then don't use the 8 cent per kWh rate, use Californias 12 cent per kWh)
Maybe they should've then used Calif gas prices too (which I assure you, are NOT $3/gallon -- I wish!...)
And wait a moment. Did you just say that California has 50% less emissions than US average?? Holy crap, I had no idea California was being that efficient. Then why aren't we working to reduce those states who are above the current average, to at least the current average (never mind California levels)?????
QUOTE
Finally they show a little less than a $300 savings for adding the PEHV feature but why don't they give an estimate of the cost/life expectancy of the PEHV feature?
Life expectancy is the same as regular Prius battery (i.e. the life of the car); the only difference is, the actual battery is larger and the power regulator circuit is tweaked. This is because the batteries are cycled only within a narrow range, greatly reducing fatigue effects. Also, the battery life issue by now is a red herring. New battery technologies are mature enough RIGHT NOW, that last the life of the car even under high-stress cycling.
The current Prius model uses a NiMH battery; this is already an outdated technology both in terms of energy density and lifespan, due to advances in Li-ion batteries. Witness what Tesla Motors has been able to accomplish: http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php
There are rumors on the web that in 2008 Toyota will finally refresh the Prius (about time too, since there have been no major updates since 2004) -- giving it a larger and better battery, improving the fuel economy even further, and possibly providing an OEM plug-in option. (http://www.soultek.com/clean_energy/hybrid...ius_in_2008.htm)
"Maybe because people tend not to read posts where the poster doesn't use the QUOTE function properly?"
Nah, maybe they were thinking cold fusion or cool fusion would save my laugher.
I like the idea of boron fueled cars, if there is enough of it to go around as I have been led to believe.
MrB.[the no one]
www.ncas.org/erab/apx3a.htm
Slow neutrons (those that have lost almost all their kinetic energy and are in thermal equilibrium at room temperature) are conventionally detected by the charged particles produced when the neutron is captured with high probability in the nucleus of an atom of 10B (producing an alpha particle), or in a 3He nucleus, producing a recoil proton. A noble gas, 3He is used in the form of a proportional counter, while boron can be used either in the form of BF3 proportional counters or in the solid form, with the boron immersed in plastic or inorganic scintillator viewed by a photomultiplier. [my emphasis]
QUOTE (Pink Elephant+Jun 21 2007, 06:14 PM)
There are rumors on the web that in 2008 Toyota will finally refresh the Prius (about time too, since there have been no major updates since 2004) -- giving it a larger and better battery, improving the fuel economy even further, and possibly providing an OEM plug-in option. (http://www.soultek.com/clean_energy/hybrid...ius_in_2008.htm)
QUOTE (Pink Elephant+Jun 21 2007, 06:14 PM)
And wait a moment. Did you just say that California has 50% less emissions than US average?? Holy crap, I had no idea California was being that efficient. Then why aren't we working to reduce those states who are above the current average, to at least the current average (never mind California levels)?????
Because not all states have the same resources.
California does better than average for these reasons.
1) Use 1/3 the amount of Coal vs average, which has the highest rate of CO2 per kWh generated but also the LOWEST cost per kWh
2) Use of twice as much Natural Gas as usual which has a much lower CO2 rate per kWh than coal but at a higher cost.
3) Use of 5 times more renewables than average, primarily Hydro, but also the world's largest GeoThermal plant (Geysers) and about 1/2 of the US installed wind power
4) Availability of 3 times the average for Hydro power, which has no CO2 per kWh
5) Imports over 20% of its electricity, half of which is low CO2 per kWh
But the mix also results in a cost per kWh that is 50% greater than the US average.
Electricity (2006)
Source
In-State 78.03%
Natural Gas 41.5%
Nuclear 12.9%
Large Hydro 19.0%
Coal 15.7%
Renewable 10.9%
Imports 21.97%
PNW 6.72%
DSW 15.25%
PS, you want efficient, Oregon & Washington use half as much as Calif. Too bad we can't all have a mountain range to call our own.
Arthur
Because not all states have the same resources.
California does better than average for these reasons.
1) Use 1/3 the amount of Coal vs average, which has the highest rate of CO2 per kWh generated but also the LOWEST cost per kWh
2) Use of twice as much Natural Gas as usual which has a much lower CO2 rate per kWh than coal but at a higher cost.
3) Use of 5 times more renewables than average, primarily Hydro, but also the world's largest GeoThermal plant (Geysers) and about 1/2 of the US installed wind power
4) Availability of 3 times the average for Hydro power, which has no CO2 per kWh
5) Imports over 20% of its electricity, half of which is low CO2 per kWh
But the mix also results in a cost per kWh that is 50% greater than the US average.
Electricity (2006)
Source
In-State 78.03%
Natural Gas 41.5%
Nuclear 12.9%
Large Hydro 19.0%
Coal 15.7%
Renewable 10.9%
Imports 21.97%
PNW 6.72%
DSW 15.25%
PS, you want efficient, Oregon & Washington use half as much as Calif. Too bad we can't all have a mountain range to call our own.
Arthur
QUOTE (Pink Elephant+Jun 21 2007, 06:14 PM)
And I'm not interested in the status quo of current energy supplies. I'm interested in what's possible right now, not what is currently the case.
The problem is we are still PAYING for the Power Generating Stations we have now.
You simply can't ignore the hundreds of Billions of dollars of infrastructure that is in place (and still being paid off) and replace it before it has paid for itself with many hundreds of Billions of dollars of NEW infrastructure, with even LONGER pay back times and HIGHER per kWh costs and NOT cost everybody a BUNDLE of money and also make our products (who's cost is partially dictated by energy cost) even less competitive on the world market.
So like it or not, what we have RIGHT NOW is pretty much what IS POSSIBLE.
We CAN change direction, but we can't do it quickly.
Worse, as far as anyone dictating RAPID changes, our FEDERAL govt has no inherent power to FORCE states to do anything about how they generate power.
Arthur
The problem is we are still PAYING for the Power Generating Stations we have now.
You simply can't ignore the hundreds of Billions of dollars of infrastructure that is in place (and still being paid off) and replace it before it has paid for itself with many hundreds of Billions of dollars of NEW infrastructure, with even LONGER pay back times and HIGHER per kWh costs and NOT cost everybody a BUNDLE of money and also make our products (who's cost is partially dictated by energy cost) even less competitive on the world market.
So like it or not, what we have RIGHT NOW is pretty much what IS POSSIBLE.
We CAN change direction, but we can't do it quickly.
Worse, as far as anyone dictating RAPID changes, our FEDERAL govt has no inherent power to FORCE states to do anything about how they generate power.
Arthur
QUOTE (Pink Elephant+Jun 21 2007, 06:14 PM)
They're trying to make a point about overall fleet efficiency. Their point is, we could halve CO2 emissions from the entire fleet, if 73% of it switched to PHEV cars even with the current-generation technology.
One other note: by actually quoting the EPA figure of 19.8, they're being generous. Real-life fuel efficiency is always lower.
No, they are comparing Apples to Oranges.
If you NEED a TRUCK, then a PHEV Prius won't work for you.
Further, the average of 12,000 miles is 1/2 that of the average US driver per year, which is why the PHEV won't get that kind of mileage increase for most of them because they need to use it much more than its limited 30 mile battery range.
And NO, the 19.8 is NOT the EPA figure its the Natl Transportation Agency and it is derived purely by dividing total car & light truck miles into total gasoline sales.
When you just divide passenger car into total gasoline sales you get 22.4 mpg
But when you compare COMPARABLE cars to the Prius (like the Toyota Corrolla, Nissan Altima etc) then you get mileage figures that are in the low 30s.
Which should be the logical comparison to the potential savings of a Prius (either version).
Arthur
One other note: by actually quoting the EPA figure of 19.8, they're being generous. Real-life fuel efficiency is always lower.
No, they are comparing Apples to Oranges.
If you NEED a TRUCK, then a PHEV Prius won't work for you.
Further, the average of 12,000 miles is 1/2 that of the average US driver per year, which is why the PHEV won't get that kind of mileage increase for most of them because they need to use it much more than its limited 30 mile battery range.
And NO, the 19.8 is NOT the EPA figure its the Natl Transportation Agency and it is derived purely by dividing total car & light truck miles into total gasoline sales.
When you just divide passenger car into total gasoline sales you get 22.4 mpg
But when you compare COMPARABLE cars to the Prius (like the Toyota Corrolla, Nissan Altima etc) then you get mileage figures that are in the low 30s.
Which should be the logical comparison to the potential savings of a Prius (either version).
Arthur
QUOTE (Pink+)
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Why add a 20% penalty on CO2 production (for well to tank emissions) for gasoline engines but then use a measure for electrical generation that just includes END USER production of CO2 or a CO2 cost for the battery production?
eh? They factored in the average emissions cost of electricity. And as for the battery, it doesn't need to be refilled (unlike the gas-tank) so over the life of the car, the CO2 cost of making the battery is a constant and rather negligible, I'd imagine (or at least comparable to the cost of making any other part of the car.)
No they came up with a 20% CO2 emissions penalty for Gasoline that they claimed was used in getting from the well to the pump (I'd like to see how they figured that out, but they aren't big on details at that site).
The problem is the kWh emissions factor does NOT include the CO2 emissions penalty for getting the oil or coal to the power plant. In the US figures, we charge those emissions directly to the Oil and Coal industry, not the Power Companies.
So, net/net you can't charge a 20% penalty on one side and not account for it on the other side (generating the battery or the power to recharge it)
As far as the battery goes, the cost of most metals (like nickle is related to the cost of mining/fabrication which uses a lot of energy, i.e. CO2. I don't know how much it takes but for a fair comparison, its CO2 cost should be included (if you are right and it turns out its not much, fine, but leaving it out just makes it an unanswered ?)
Arthur
eh? They factored in the average emissions cost of electricity. And as for the battery, it doesn't need to be refilled (unlike the gas-tank) so over the life of the car, the CO2 cost of making the battery is a constant and rather negligible, I'd imagine (or at least comparable to the cost of making any other part of the car.)
No they came up with a 20% CO2 emissions penalty for Gasoline that they claimed was used in getting from the well to the pump (I'd like to see how they figured that out, but they aren't big on details at that site).
The problem is the kWh emissions factor does NOT include the CO2 emissions penalty for getting the oil or coal to the power plant. In the US figures, we charge those emissions directly to the Oil and Coal industry, not the Power Companies.
So, net/net you can't charge a 20% penalty on one side and not account for it on the other side (generating the battery or the power to recharge it)
As far as the battery goes, the cost of most metals (like nickle is related to the cost of mining/fabrication which uses a lot of energy, i.e. CO2. I don't know how much it takes but for a fair comparison, its CO2 cost should be included (if you are right and it turns out its not much, fine, but leaving it out just makes it an unanswered ?)
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 21 2007, 11:04 PM)
Because not all states have the same resources.
California does better than average for these reasons.
1) Use 1/3 the amount of Coal vs average, which has the highest rate of CO2 per kWh generated but also the LOWEST cost per kWh
2) Use of twice as much Natural Gas as usual which has a much lower CO2 rate per kWh than coal but at a higher cost.
3) Use of 5 times more renewables than average, primarily Hydro, but also the world's largest GeoThermal plant (Geysers) and about 1/2 of the US installed wind power
4) Availability of 3 times the average for Hydro power, which has no CO2 per kWh
5) Imports over 20% of its electricity, half of which is low CO2 per kWh
But the mix also results in a cost per kWh that is 50% greater than the US average.
Electricity (2006)
Source
In-State 78.03%
Natural Gas 41.5%
Nuclear 12.9%
Large Hydro 19.0%
Coal 15.7%
Renewable 10.9%
Imports 21.97%
PNW 6.72%
DSW 15.25%
PS, you want efficient, Oregon & Washington use half as much as Calif. Too bad we can't all have a mountain range to call our own.
Arthur
Further breakdown on Calif energy.
Of the 10.9% that is renewable energy
Geothermal generates 4.7%
Biomass generates 2.1%
Small Hydro generates 2.1%
Wind generates 1.8% (up by 0.3% from 2002)
Solar generates 0.2% (down by 0.1% (and 250 total GWs) from 2002)
Note: There IS more solar energy generated but it is predominately used at point of generation, based on the amount of state financed PV systems (135,517 kilowatts) the Total Solar energy would be increased by 3/100 of a percent.
Note, in the oldest figures that Calif publishes, in 2002 the percent of renewables was 11%, or just slightly higher than now percentage wise. While renewables have gone up 2,500 GWhs that is still far LESS than the GROWTH in electrical usage (22,000 GWhs). Which is why statements about the growth of Wind and Solar power mean little unless one understands the MAGNITUDE of growth needed to make a DENT in the overall energy picture.
To put it in perspective, to just keep up with the GROWTH in electricity usage in California, Wind which grew at a very respectable rate of 38% over 5 years, would have to grow SIXTEEN times faster. Now that's a LOT of wind turbines.
Arthur
California does better than average for these reasons.
1) Use 1/3 the amount of Coal vs average, which has the highest rate of CO2 per kWh generated but also the LOWEST cost per kWh
2) Use of twice as much Natural Gas as usual which has a much lower CO2 rate per kWh than coal but at a higher cost.
3) Use of 5 times more renewables than average, primarily Hydro, but also the world's largest GeoThermal plant (Geysers) and about 1/2 of the US installed wind power
4) Availability of 3 times the average for Hydro power, which has no CO2 per kWh
5) Imports over 20% of its electricity, half of which is low CO2 per kWh
But the mix also results in a cost per kWh that is 50% greater than the US average.
Electricity (2006)
Source
In-State 78.03%
Natural Gas 41.5%
Nuclear 12.9%
Large Hydro 19.0%
Coal 15.7%
Renewable 10.9%
Imports 21.97%
PNW 6.72%
DSW 15.25%
PS, you want efficient, Oregon & Washington use half as much as Calif. Too bad we can't all have a mountain range to call our own.
Arthur
Further breakdown on Calif energy.
Of the 10.9% that is renewable energy
Geothermal generates 4.7%
Biomass generates 2.1%
Small Hydro generates 2.1%
Wind generates 1.8% (up by 0.3% from 2002)
Solar generates 0.2% (down by 0.1% (and 250 total GWs) from 2002)
Note: There IS more solar energy generated but it is predominately used at point of generation, based on the amount of state financed PV systems (135,517 kilowatts) the Total Solar energy would be increased by 3/100 of a percent.
Note, in the oldest figures that Calif publishes, in 2002 the percent of renewables was 11%, or just slightly higher than now percentage wise. While renewables have gone up 2,500 GWhs that is still far LESS than the GROWTH in electrical usage (22,000 GWhs). Which is why statements about the growth of Wind and Solar power mean little unless one understands the MAGNITUDE of growth needed to make a DENT in the overall energy picture.
To put it in perspective, to just keep up with the GROWTH in electricity usage in California, Wind which grew at a very respectable rate of 38% over 5 years, would have to grow SIXTEEN times faster. Now that's a LOT of wind turbines.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 23 2007, 03:19 AM)
Further breakdown on Calif energy.
Of the 10.9% that is renewable energy
Geothermal generates 4.7%
Biomass generates 2.1%
Small Hydro generates 2.1%
Wind generates 1.8% (up by 0.3% from 2002)
Solar generates 0.2% (down by 0.1% (and 250 total GWs) from 2002)
Note: There IS more solar energy generated but it is predominately used at point of generation, based on the amount of state financed PV systems (135,517 kilowatts) the Total Solar energy would be increased by 3/100 of a percent.
Note, in the oldest figures that Calif publishes, in 2002 the percent of renewables was 11%, or just slightly higher than now percentage wise. While renewables have gone up 2,500 GWhs that is still far LESS than the GROWTH in electrical usage (22,000 GWhs). Which is why statements about the growth of Wind and Solar power mean little unless one understands the MAGNITUDE of growth needed to make a DENT in the overall energy picture.
To put it in perspective, to just keep up with the GROWTH in electricity usage in California, Wind which grew at a very respectable rate of 38% over 5 years, would have to grow SIXTEEN times faster. Now that's a LOT of wind turbines.
Arthur
Well researched as always.
(Take it as a genuine compliment).
Of the 10.9% that is renewable energy
Geothermal generates 4.7%
Biomass generates 2.1%
Small Hydro generates 2.1%
Wind generates 1.8% (up by 0.3% from 2002)
Solar generates 0.2% (down by 0.1% (and 250 total GWs) from 2002)
Note: There IS more solar energy generated but it is predominately used at point of generation, based on the amount of state financed PV systems (135,517 kilowatts) the Total Solar energy would be increased by 3/100 of a percent.
Note, in the oldest figures that Calif publishes, in 2002 the percent of renewables was 11%, or just slightly higher than now percentage wise. While renewables have gone up 2,500 GWhs that is still far LESS than the GROWTH in electrical usage (22,000 GWhs). Which is why statements about the growth of Wind and Solar power mean little unless one understands the MAGNITUDE of growth needed to make a DENT in the overall energy picture.
To put it in perspective, to just keep up with the GROWTH in electricity usage in California, Wind which grew at a very respectable rate of 38% over 5 years, would have to grow SIXTEEN times faster. Now that's a LOT of wind turbines.
Arthur
Well researched as always.
(Take it as a genuine compliment).
dachpy arvile you read all of this too right? (by yor_on) because it is important to note the changes in the time frames for CO2 inputing
QUOTE (yor_on+Jun 20 2007, 09:11 AM)
(SNIP) The current rate of CO2 increase is some 30X higher than anything recorded in the ice cores, meaning that what took 1000 years in the past is happening in about 35 years now. When cows and other ruminants release methane, they are getting the carbon for the methane from grasses, which photosynthetically fixed the CO2 from the atmosphere (and the methane gets converted back to CO2 within a few decades in the atmosphere) - so it's a different proposition from using buried fossil fuels for transportation.The rise in CO2 is due to the burning of fossil fuels. Fossil-fuel carbon has a different isotopic composition than other sources; it's depleted in C-13 (because its origin is organic plant matter) and depleted in C-14 (because it's been buried underground for millions of years). The isotopic composition of carbon in atmospheric CO2 is changing in exactly the way we'd expect if the source is the burning of fossil fuels. The natural carbon dioxide is balanced by things like the respiration/photosynthesis cycle. We're adding extra that the system can't take out in a reasonable amount of time, and as a result, CO2 has increased 40% since the industrial revolution began. And the new CO2 is mostly from fossil fuels, not the biosphere, because it's deficient in carbon-14 (i.e., very old).
-------------------------------------
"You find it remarkable that CO2 is such a powerful warming agent and yet is such a small fraction of the atmosphere. You are not alone in finding this strange. Humanity is changing the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere too (we can even measure these changes) but these changes are tiny because there is so much oxygen. But we can and are changing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere profoundly. The main point to realize here is that most of the atmosphere -- the nitrogen and oxygen molecules and the argon atom -- do not interact significantly with radiation at all. After these three, water vapor and carbon dioxide are the next in line. If you can accept this fact (which has been very well established for over a century), then it might be less strange to you that carbon dioxide and water vapor are the big players in setting the temperature of the Earth."
Some argue that CO2 is only a small part of the greenhouse gases and that water vapour is much more important.
-------------------------------------
" H2O is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 and is present in greater quantities. But the amount of water vapor in the air is set by the ambient temperature and the relative humidity, not by anything we do. The average residence time of a molecule of water vapor in the atmosphere is 9 days; for carbon dioxide it's more like 200 years. We could double water vapor tomorrow and almost all the excess would have rained out in less than a month. Carbon dioxide, however, will stay up there a long, long time. "
-------------------------------------
CO2 is not the only thing that affects climate or Earth's temperature. It is also affected by other greenhouse gases, changes in solar luminosity, cloud cover, aerosols, and orbital changes, but more CO2 yields a hotter ground
-------------------------------------
Our oceans are always slightly alkaline. As the volume of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases so too does the amount dissolving in the sea. Lately, the ocean is taking more than it gives; the oceans are absorbing about half the CO2 emitted by humans, and are acidifying as a consequence. The effects of decreased calcification in microscopic algae and animals could impact marine food webs and, combined with other climatic changes in salinity, temperature, and upwelled nutrients, could substantially alter the biodiversity and productivity of the ocean. As humans continue along the path of unintended CO2 sequestration in the surface oceans, the impacts on marine ecosystems will be direct and profound. The kind of plankton we have nowadays are pteropods, evolved in the last 200k years, relatively quite recently. They're more efficient at removing CO2 because they're global rather than restricted to shallow near-continental shelf waters, and because the shells sink. They're less efficient because they can't make shells once the pH of the ocean reaches where it's expected to be by 2100 (SNoP)
-------------------------------------
"You find it remarkable that CO2 is such a powerful warming agent and yet is such a small fraction of the atmosphere. You are not alone in finding this strange. Humanity is changing the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere too (we can even measure these changes) but these changes are tiny because there is so much oxygen. But we can and are changing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere profoundly. The main point to realize here is that most of the atmosphere -- the nitrogen and oxygen molecules and the argon atom -- do not interact significantly with radiation at all. After these three, water vapor and carbon dioxide are the next in line. If you can accept this fact (which has been very well established for over a century), then it might be less strange to you that carbon dioxide and water vapor are the big players in setting the temperature of the Earth."
Some argue that CO2 is only a small part of the greenhouse gases and that water vapour is much more important.
-------------------------------------
" H2O is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 and is present in greater quantities. But the amount of water vapor in the air is set by the ambient temperature and the relative humidity, not by anything we do. The average residence time of a molecule of water vapor in the atmosphere is 9 days; for carbon dioxide it's more like 200 years. We could double water vapor tomorrow and almost all the excess would have rained out in less than a month. Carbon dioxide, however, will stay up there a long, long time. "
-------------------------------------
CO2 is not the only thing that affects climate or Earth's temperature. It is also affected by other greenhouse gases, changes in solar luminosity, cloud cover, aerosols, and orbital changes, but more CO2 yields a hotter ground
-------------------------------------
Our oceans are always slightly alkaline. As the volume of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases so too does the amount dissolving in the sea. Lately, the ocean is taking more than it gives; the oceans are absorbing about half the CO2 emitted by humans, and are acidifying as a consequence. The effects of decreased calcification in microscopic algae and animals could impact marine food webs and, combined with other climatic changes in salinity, temperature, and upwelled nutrients, could substantially alter the biodiversity and productivity of the ocean. As humans continue along the path of unintended CO2 sequestration in the surface oceans, the impacts on marine ecosystems will be direct and profound. The kind of plankton we have nowadays are pteropods, evolved in the last 200k years, relatively quite recently. They're more efficient at removing CO2 because they're global rather than restricted to shallow near-continental shelf waters, and because the shells sink. They're less efficient because they can't make shells once the pH of the ocean reaches where it's expected to be by 2100 (SNoP)
The rest speaks well enough for itself, right? 
?
?
Things can be FACTUAL and yet still misleading.
As in
Because an ASSUMED increasing of the % of H20 in the atmosphere is a KEY factor in the amount of warming that is attributed to increasing CO2 levels.
Then there are things which are clearly not based on any known facts:
Because an ASSUMED increasing of the % of H20 in the atmosphere is a KEY factor in the amount of warming that is attributed to increasing CO2 levels.
Then there are things which are clearly not based on any known facts:
The average residence time of a molecule of water vapor in the atmosphere is 9 days; for carbon dioxide it's more like 200 years. We could double water vapor tomorrow and almost all the excess would have rained out in less than a month. Carbon dioxide, however, will stay up there a long, long time. "
Then there are things which are true but the most important factor of RELATIVE MAGNITUDE is left out.
As in
Arthur
As in
QUOTE
" H2O is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 and is present in greater quantities. But the amount of water vapor in the air is set by the ambient temperature and the relative humidity, not by anything we do
Because an ASSUMED increasing of the % of H20 in the atmosphere is a KEY factor in the amount of warming that is attributed to increasing CO2 levels.
Then there are things which are clearly not based on any known facts:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| " H2O is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 and is present in greater quantities. But the amount of water vapor in the air is set by the ambient temperature and the relative humidity, not by anything we do |
Because an ASSUMED increasing of the % of H20 in the atmosphere is a KEY factor in the amount of warming that is attributed to increasing CO2 levels.
Then there are things which are clearly not based on any known facts:
The average residence time of a molecule of water vapor in the atmosphere is 9 days; for carbon dioxide it's more like 200 years. We could double water vapor tomorrow and almost all the excess would have rained out in less than a month. Carbon dioxide, however, will stay up there a long, long time. "
Then there are things which are true but the most important factor of RELATIVE MAGNITUDE is left out.
As in
QUOTE
CO2 is not the only thing that affects climate or Earth's temperature. It is also affected by other greenhouse gases, changes in solar luminosity, cloud cover, aerosols, and orbital changes, but more CO2 yields a hotter ground
Arthur
O.K. but it points well in a direction and adds to what we all need to know about needing to change things to affect that. Right? It is not mis-leading on any of those points, right?
I find it misleading on many points.
Like on Oceanic CO2 flux
Which implies that not so recently the Oceans were giving off more CO2 than they were taking in.
Try to find a scientific reference for that claim.
Or the implication that the kind of plankton has changed in a way to make us more vulnerable to CO2 increases:
Which implies that not so recently the Oceans were giving off more CO2 than they were taking in.
Try to find a scientific reference for that claim.
Or the implication that the kind of plankton has changed in a way to make us more vulnerable to CO2 increases:
The kind of plankton we have nowadays are pteropods
Statements like that really pisses off the Foraminifera and Coccolithophores (The Coccos alone are estimated to produce millions of tons of Calcium Carbonate a year and have the title as the leading CaCO3 producers in the ocean. )
Or the major unsubstantiated claim that the plankton
EXPECTED TO BE WHERE by WHOM using WHAT DATA to make such a 100 year projection??
note that NONE of these IMPORTANT questions are answered.
You see, that really was the whole point, and the mix of "facts and sorta facts and outright lies that you are likely to NOT KNOW are false (like the pteropods)" at the beginning of the article is to get you nodding your head in agreement so you buy into the BIG ONE at the end.
The BIG ONE however is the one that they have NO SUPPORT FOR, which is why they use the weasle words The effects of ... could impact marine food webs and, ..., could substantially alter ....the productivity of the ocean
I mean I COULD win the lottery, but its highly unlikely (particularly since I don't buy tickets)
Arthur
Like on Oceanic CO2 flux
QUOTE
Lately, the ocean is taking more than it gives
Which implies that not so recently the Oceans were giving off more CO2 than they were taking in.
Try to find a scientific reference for that claim.
Or the implication that the kind of plankton has changed in a way to make us more vulnerable to CO2 increases:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Lately, the ocean is taking more than it gives |
Which implies that not so recently the Oceans were giving off more CO2 than they were taking in.
Try to find a scientific reference for that claim.
Or the implication that the kind of plankton has changed in a way to make us more vulnerable to CO2 increases:
The kind of plankton we have nowadays are pteropods
Statements like that really pisses off the Foraminifera and Coccolithophores (The Coccos alone are estimated to produce millions of tons of Calcium Carbonate a year and have the title as the leading CaCO3 producers in the ocean. )
Or the major unsubstantiated claim that the plankton
QUOTE
can't make shells once the pH of the ocean reaches where it's expected to be by 2100
EXPECTED TO BE WHERE by WHOM using WHAT DATA to make such a 100 year projection??
note that NONE of these IMPORTANT questions are answered.
You see, that really was the whole point, and the mix of "facts and sorta facts and outright lies that you are likely to NOT KNOW are false (like the pteropods)" at the beginning of the article is to get you nodding your head in agreement so you buy into the BIG ONE at the end.
The BIG ONE however is the one that they have NO SUPPORT FOR, which is why they use the weasle words The effects of ... could impact marine food webs and, ..., could substantially alter ....the productivity of the ocean
I mean I COULD win the lottery, but its highly unlikely (particularly since I don't buy tickets)
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 23 2007, 01:42 PM)
I find it misleading on many points.
Like on Oceanic CO2 flux Which implies that not so recently the Oceans were giving off more CO2 than they were taking in. Try to find a scientific reference for that claim.
Like on Oceanic CO2 flux Which implies that not so recently the Oceans were giving off more CO2 than they were taking in. Try to find a scientific reference for that claim.
You mean the (Their) assertion that the Oceans are taking in more CO2 now, then previously, you need that backed up??
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 23 2007, 01:42 PM)
Or the implication that the kind of plankton has changed in a way to make us more vulnerable to CO2 increases:
No 'increased vulnerability' is stated there, YOU have implied it ....to serve your attack purpose?
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 23 2007, 01:42 PM)
Statements like that really pisses off the Foraminifera and Coccolithophores (The Coccos alone are estimated to produce millions of tons of Calcium Carbonate a year and have the title as the leading CaCO3 producers in the ocean. )
Talk to them a lot do you?
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 23 2007, 01:42 PM)
Or the major unsubstantiated claim that the plankton EXPECTED TO BE WHERE by WHOM using WHAT DATA to make such a 100 year projection??
An omission 
Yikes! Off with his Head then!
Yikes! Off with his Head then!QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 23 2007, 01:42 PM)
note that NONE of these IMPORTANT questions are answered.
Probaby because no one has taken the time to ask them, thought of that possibility yet?
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 23 2007, 01:42 PM)
You see, that really was the whole point, and the mix of "facts and sorta facts and outright lies that you are likely to NOT KNOW are false (like the pteropods)" at the beginning of the article is to get you nodding your head in agreement so you buy into the BIG ONE at the end.
Funny, did not see you point out one outright lie, not a one!
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 23 2007, 01:42 PM)
The BIG ONE however is the one that they have NO SUPPORT FOR, which is why they use the weasle words The effects of ... could impact marine food webs and, ..., could substantially alter ....the productivity of the ocean I mean I COULD win the lottery, but its highly unlikely (particularly since I don't buy tickets) Arthur
And you COULD make sense some day.....
Did you mean this one as 'at the beginning'?
As for the "Could" be's, what word(s) would you better prefer when one makes predictions on un-certainties into the future, "It will be" because you would jump on that one's back just as fast, and slightly harder (I) imagine...so what word(s) would you use?
Did you mean this one as 'at the beginning'?
QUOTE
The current rate of CO2 increase is some 30X higher than anything recorded in the ice cores, meaning that what took 1000 years in the past is happening in about 35 years now.
That? is that (according to you) one of those facts, sorta facts, or outright lies?? Because that one is Mighty important if you ask me, something that (I) have pointed out several times to people like you too, NO precedence for this occurrence, none!As for the "Could" be's, what word(s) would you better prefer when one makes predictions on un-certainties into the future, "It will be" because you would jump on that one's back just as fast, and slightly harder (I) imagine...so what word(s) would you use?
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Jun 23 2007, 01:32 PM)
Funny, did not see you point out one outright lie, not a one!
The average residence time of a molecule of water vapor in the atmosphere is 9 days; for carbon dioxide it's more like 200 years
Contrast that to the fact that more than half the CO2 we burn cycles out of the atmosphere WITHIN THE YEAR WE CREATE IT.
Or how about the LIE OF OMISSION.
You know, when you intentionally leave out an IMPORTANT DETAIL that affects how the data is interpreted?
When they leave off the fact that the Ice Cores also show that the WARMING occurs BEFORE the CO2 rise and that COOLING trends start during high CO2 periods.
But as I said, the real issue is this UNSUBSTANTIATED claim:
that plankton can't make shells once the pH of the ocean reaches where it's expected to be by 2100
Is it REALLY too much to ask:
EXPECTED TO BE WHERE by WHOM using WHAT DATA to justify making such a 100 year projection??
Arthur
The average residence time of a molecule of water vapor in the atmosphere is 9 days; for carbon dioxide it's more like 200 years
Contrast that to the fact that more than half the CO2 we burn cycles out of the atmosphere WITHIN THE YEAR WE CREATE IT.
Or how about the LIE OF OMISSION.
You know, when you intentionally leave out an IMPORTANT DETAIL that affects how the data is interpreted?
QUOTE
The current rate of CO2 increase is some 30X higher than anything recorded in the ice cores, meaning that what took 1000 years in the past is happening in about 35 years now.
When they leave off the fact that the Ice Cores also show that the WARMING occurs BEFORE the CO2 rise and that COOLING trends start during high CO2 periods.
But as I said, the real issue is this UNSUBSTANTIATED claim:
that plankton can't make shells once the pH of the ocean reaches where it's expected to be by 2100
Is it REALLY too much to ask:
EXPECTED TO BE WHERE by WHOM using WHAT DATA to justify making such a 100 year projection??
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 23 2007, 10:42 AM)
.
Statements like that really pisses off the Foraminifera and Coccolithophores (The Coccos alone are estimated to produce millions of tons of Calcium Carbonate a year and have the title as the leading CaCO3 producers in the ocean. )
It pisses me off too!
We should do a protest, the people & the plankton's of cocco classes, uprising!
Statements like that really pisses off the Foraminifera and Coccolithophores (The Coccos alone are estimated to produce millions of tons of Calcium Carbonate a year and have the title as the leading CaCO3 producers in the ocean. )
It pisses me off too!
We should do a protest, the people & the plankton's of cocco classes, uprising!
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 24 2007, 05:42 AM)
EXPECTED TO BE WHERE by WHOM using WHAT DATA to make such a 100 year projection??
First off, let me explicitly state, that I'm not backing that claim up, however, I can say this.
IF you make assumptions about projected CO2 production rates.
And.
IF you make assumptions about projected warming rates (for the ocean).
The thermodynamics of the dissolution of carbondioxide in water have been quite well characterized. We know with reasonable accuracy (I think) the amount of calcium carbonate distributed on the sea floor, and we know how the reaction rate (for carbon dioxide being dissolved) is influenced by the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the temperature of the oceans, so calculating the amount of CO2 that the oceans will absorb in that time is trivial, and once we know that, calculating the pH is also trivial.
I believe that the thermodynamics of shell deposition have been relatively well characterized, and they're influenced by pH and CO2 concentration (I think - i'm not a marine biologist).
So, basically, the accuracy of the prediction of pH hinges on the accuracy of the temperature forecast, and the accuracy of the CO2 forecast.
First off, let me explicitly state, that I'm not backing that claim up, however, I can say this.
IF you make assumptions about projected CO2 production rates.
And.
IF you make assumptions about projected warming rates (for the ocean).
The thermodynamics of the dissolution of carbondioxide in water have been quite well characterized. We know with reasonable accuracy (I think) the amount of calcium carbonate distributed on the sea floor, and we know how the reaction rate (for carbon dioxide being dissolved) is influenced by the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the temperature of the oceans, so calculating the amount of CO2 that the oceans will absorb in that time is trivial, and once we know that, calculating the pH is also trivial.
I believe that the thermodynamics of shell deposition have been relatively well characterized, and they're influenced by pH and CO2 concentration (I think - i'm not a marine biologist).
So, basically, the accuracy of the prediction of pH hinges on the accuracy of the temperature forecast, and the accuracy of the CO2 forecast.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 24 2007, 05:42 AM)
I find it misleading on many points.
Like on Oceanic CO2 flux
Which implies that not so recently the Oceans were giving off more CO2 than they were taking in.
Try to find a scientific reference for that claim.
I can't provide you with a reference, but in some respects it's a trivial result of my last post.
There are, in fact, some regions where the oceans display a bulk behaviour of releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere - again, it comes down to the thermodynamics, but IIRC in regions that are above a certain temperature, some CO2 is released back into the atmosphere, and IIRC, Carbonate deposition occurs. It's all about balance. However, when you consider the Oceans as a whole, their bulk behaviour is to absorb Carbondioxide.
Having said all of that (and I think I may have mentioned it before), but I remember seeing an article recently that suggested that the Southern Ocean was not absorbing as much CO2 as was being attributed to it because of increased wind speeds.
Like on Oceanic CO2 flux
Which implies that not so recently the Oceans were giving off more CO2 than they were taking in.
Try to find a scientific reference for that claim.
I can't provide you with a reference, but in some respects it's a trivial result of my last post.
There are, in fact, some regions where the oceans display a bulk behaviour of releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere - again, it comes down to the thermodynamics, but IIRC in regions that are above a certain temperature, some CO2 is released back into the atmosphere, and IIRC, Carbonate deposition occurs. It's all about balance. However, when you consider the Oceans as a whole, their bulk behaviour is to absorb Carbondioxide.
Having said all of that (and I think I may have mentioned it before), but I remember seeing an article recently that suggested that the Southern Ocean was not absorbing as much CO2 as was being attributed to it because of increased wind speeds.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 23 2007, 05:11 PM)
Contrast that to the fact that more than half the CO2 we burn cycles out of the atmosphere WITHIN THE YEAR WE CREATE IT.
It said AVERAGE ....go not pick a minkey somewheres selse please.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 23 2007, 05:11 PM)
Or how about the LIE OF OMISSION.
You know, when you intentionally leave out an IMPORTANT DETAIL that affects how the data is interpreted?
You know, when you intentionally leave out an IMPORTANT DETAIL that affects how the data is interpreted?
"Omission" = based upon your perspective, they might simply have not had the time to include everything that they know, but you betat upon their heads for it just because you like doing that.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 23 2007, 05:11 PM)
When they leave off the fact that the Ice Cores also show that the WARMING occurs BEFORE the CO2 rise and that COOLING trends start during high CO2 periods.
Maybe they simply assumed you intelligent enough to already know that, or is it already noted somewheres in this long thread??
Asides from that, this situation is Un-Precedented so, go figure!
Asides from that, this situation is Un-Precedented so, go figure!
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 23 2007, 05:11 PM)
But as I said, the real issue is this UNSUBSTANTIATED claim:that plankton "can't make shells once the pH of the ocean reaches where it's expected to be by 2100"
It's a projection - Get over it.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 23 2007, 05:11 PM)
Is it REALLY too much to ask:
Ask? or demand? and ...did you 'ask' first, or jump to critic?
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 23 2007, 05:11 PM)
EXPECTED TO BE WHERE by WHOM using WHAT DATA to justify making such a 100 year projection?? Arthur
Trippy's cleared that up a little right?
Relax....
(Yikes)
Relax....
(Yikes)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1853623/posts
Now we have to worry about global COOLING? I am sooo confused!!
Now we have to worry about global COOLING? I am sooo confused!!
QUOTE (Trippy+Jun 23 2007, 07:08 PM)
First off, let me explicitly state, that I'm not backing that claim up, however, I can say this.
IF you make assumptions about projected CO2 production rates.
And.
IF you make assumptions about projected warming rates (for the ocean).
The thermodynamics of the dissolution of carbondioxide in water have been quite well characterized. We know with reasonable accuracy (I think) the amount of calcium carbonate distributed on the sea floor, and we know how the reaction rate (for carbon dioxide being dissolved) is influenced by the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the temperature of the oceans, so calculating the amount of CO2 that the oceans will absorb in that time is trivial, and once we know that, calculating the pH is also trivial.
I believe that the thermodynamics of shell deposition have been relatively well characterized, and they're influenced by pH and CO2 concentration (I think - i'm not a marine biologist).
So, basically, the accuracy of the prediction of pH hinges on the accuracy of the temperature forecast, and the accuracy of the CO2 forecast.
But that's the problem, the oceans warming rate (overall) will be less than 1/100th that of the air, thus there will be NO APPRECIABLE CHANGE in the oceans temp (vis a vis CO2) over the next 100 years, even if the air hits the MAX that the IPCC projected.
We can just BARELY detect a change in the OCEAN SURFACE waters, we can detect NO CHANGE at all in the deep ocean, where the VAST MAJORITY of the CO2 is stored.
There will, likewise be NO APPRECIABLE CHANGE in its alkalinity over the next 100 years, the BUFFER capacity of the oceans being ENORMOUSLY larger than the acidification ability of the increased CO2.
If anyone can show OTHERWISE, please do so, and include the REFERENCES to back it up.
But without some DATA to substantiate the claim, the offhand remark "AS EXPECTED BY 2100" just doesn't cut it.
Arthur.
IF you make assumptions about projected CO2 production rates.
And.
IF you make assumptions about projected warming rates (for the ocean).
The thermodynamics of the dissolution of carbondioxide in water have been quite well characterized. We know with reasonable accuracy (I think) the amount of calcium carbonate distributed on the sea floor, and we know how the reaction rate (for carbon dioxide being dissolved) is influenced by the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the temperature of the oceans, so calculating the amount of CO2 that the oceans will absorb in that time is trivial, and once we know that, calculating the pH is also trivial.
I believe that the thermodynamics of shell deposition have been relatively well characterized, and they're influenced by pH and CO2 concentration (I think - i'm not a marine biologist).
So, basically, the accuracy of the prediction of pH hinges on the accuracy of the temperature forecast, and the accuracy of the CO2 forecast.
But that's the problem, the oceans warming rate (overall) will be less than 1/100th that of the air, thus there will be NO APPRECIABLE CHANGE in the oceans temp (vis a vis CO2) over the next 100 years, even if the air hits the MAX that the IPCC projected.
We can just BARELY detect a change in the OCEAN SURFACE waters, we can detect NO CHANGE at all in the deep ocean, where the VAST MAJORITY of the CO2 is stored.
There will, likewise be NO APPRECIABLE CHANGE in its alkalinity over the next 100 years, the BUFFER capacity of the oceans being ENORMOUSLY larger than the acidification ability of the increased CO2.
If anyone can show OTHERWISE, please do so, and include the REFERENCES to back it up.
But without some DATA to substantiate the claim, the offhand remark "AS EXPECTED BY 2100" just doesn't cut it.
Arthur.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 24 2007, 01:27 PM)
But that's the problem, the oceans warming rate (overall) will be less than 1/100th that of the air, thus there will be NO APPRECIABLE CHANGE in the oceans temp (vis a vis CO2) over the next 100 years, even if the air hits the MAX that the IPCC projected.
We can just BARELY detect a change in the OCEAN SURFACE waters, we can detect NO CHANGE at all in the deep ocean, where the VAST MAJORITY of the CO2 is stored.
There will, likewise be NO APPRECIABLE CHANGE in its alkalinity over the next 100 years, the BUFFER capacity of the oceans being ENORMOUSLY larger than the acidification ability of the increased CO2.
If anyone can show OTHERWISE, please do so, and include the REFERENCES to back it up.
But without some DATA to substantiate the claim, the offhand remark "AS EXPECTED BY 2100" just doesn't cut it.
Arthur.
Actually, I think i've mentioned this before, but the ocean's ability to buffer is depenedent on the amount of Carbonate on the sea floor, and that exactly balances the amount of carbon sequistered as fossil fuels (Don't ask me for details 'cause I can't recall them off hand, but there is a good reason why that should be so).
You're missing the part where I said that 'Partial Pressure' of Carbon Dioxide was important. Increasing the partial pressure of carbon dioxide increases it's solubiility in sea water.
Think of it this way.
CO2 is 'dissolved' in the atmosphere.
CO2 is soluble in Seawater.
CO2 that is dissolved in the atmosphere can become dissolved in the seawater (and vv) this is the equilibrium.
If we increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, then the oceans will be carrying less CO2 then they should be, thus, they will absorb some more.
When CO2 dissolves into water, (some of) it reacts with the water to become Carbonic Acid.
All of this is exactly analgous to the situation when you crack open a soda can or bottle.
While the lid is closed, the partial pressure of the CO2 in the air in the bottle is in equilibrium with the CO2 dissolved in the water in the bottle.
As soon as you open the lid, the partial pressure of the CO2 is lowered, and so the CO2 comes out of solution in the water.
Incidentaly, I was also saying that increased temperature (IIRC) decreases the solubility of CO2 in the ocean, not increases it - decreased solubility should lead to an increased pH.
I was just offering a mechanistic explanation as to how they might have reached that conclusion.
But, I do agree with you, although the mechanism might be well understood, the claim is only as good as the data fed into the mechanism, so if the data used was questionable, then the claims are equally questionable.
I too would like to see where they got their CO2 and Temperature forecasts from.
We can just BARELY detect a change in the OCEAN SURFACE waters, we can detect NO CHANGE at all in the deep ocean, where the VAST MAJORITY of the CO2 is stored.
There will, likewise be NO APPRECIABLE CHANGE in its alkalinity over the next 100 years, the BUFFER capacity of the oceans being ENORMOUSLY larger than the acidification ability of the increased CO2.
If anyone can show OTHERWISE, please do so, and include the REFERENCES to back it up.
But without some DATA to substantiate the claim, the offhand remark "AS EXPECTED BY 2100" just doesn't cut it.
Arthur.
Actually, I think i've mentioned this before, but the ocean's ability to buffer is depenedent on the amount of Carbonate on the sea floor, and that exactly balances the amount of carbon sequistered as fossil fuels (Don't ask me for details 'cause I can't recall them off hand, but there is a good reason why that should be so).
You're missing the part where I said that 'Partial Pressure' of Carbon Dioxide was important. Increasing the partial pressure of carbon dioxide increases it's solubiility in sea water.
Think of it this way.
CO2 is 'dissolved' in the atmosphere.
CO2 is soluble in Seawater.
CO2 that is dissolved in the atmosphere can become dissolved in the seawater (and vv) this is the equilibrium.
If we increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, then the oceans will be carrying less CO2 then they should be, thus, they will absorb some more.
When CO2 dissolves into water, (some of) it reacts with the water to become Carbonic Acid.
All of this is exactly analgous to the situation when you crack open a soda can or bottle.
While the lid is closed, the partial pressure of the CO2 in the air in the bottle is in equilibrium with the CO2 dissolved in the water in the bottle.
As soon as you open the lid, the partial pressure of the CO2 is lowered, and so the CO2 comes out of solution in the water.
Incidentaly, I was also saying that increased temperature (IIRC) decreases the solubility of CO2 in the ocean, not increases it - decreased solubility should lead to an increased pH.
I was just offering a mechanistic explanation as to how they might have reached that conclusion.
But, I do agree with you, although the mechanism might be well understood, the claim is only as good as the data fed into the mechanism, so if the data used was questionable, then the claims are equally questionable.
I too would like to see where they got their CO2 and Temperature forecasts from.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 21 2007, 01:05 PM)
QUOTE (Pink+)
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Note a number of the Google initiatives are to try to figure out how to make an economically VIABLE PEHV
Incorrect. Economic viability is not in question; it's already been demonstrated by Google's initiative.
Actually NO.
Economic viability is when they can sell them to the population IN GENERAL.
There are typically sufficient 'early adopters' who can sustain a cottage industry, but the point is that would have no impact on the overall energy situation.
One thing that bothers me is they are bending the numbers.
Why?
Why use an US average mileage of just 19.8 mpg (which includes light trucks) when the average car mileage for the 2005 model year was 30 mpg (CAFE std = 27.5)?
Note: Using CORRECT gas mileage figure of 30 mpg reduces the Prius savings to $320/yr
Why add a 20% penalty on CO2 production (for well to tank emissions) for gasoline engines but then use a measure for electrical generation that just includes END USER production of CO2 or a CO2 cost for the battery production?
Why use the STATE LEVEL EMISSION factor for CO2 emissions (Calif = 1/2 US aveage) when you are using US averages for everything else (i.e. if using Calif State Level Emission factors then don't use the 8 cent per kWh rate, use Californias 12 cent per kWh)
Finally they show a little less than a $300 savings for adding the PEHV feature but why don't they give an estimate of the cost/life expectancy of the PEHV feature?
Why?
Arthur
Finally a reason to be proud of living here in southern California!
Answer man asking questions...what IS the world coming to?
If scientists wanted to study the interaction between radiation and cloud cover they could always perform a highly unethical experiment: release a tremendous amount of radiation into the atmosphere and see what it does to clouds in the environment.
Unfortunately, that experiment has already been performed... accidentally: the Chernobyl disaster.
On April 26th, 1986 the reactor released a huge cloud of radioactive particles into the atmosphere. If radiation increases cloud cover, there should have been clouds surrounding the facility for weeks. There was no evidence of unusual cloud coverage surrounding the facility after the disaster.
Sloan and Wolfendale reviewed the cosmic ray connection to global warming, and found several different ways that discount the explanation. Of course, no matter how good their evidence, for some people this is a political matter now - no amount evidence will ever be enough.
My bold.
My bold.
A
Incorrect. Economic viability is not in question; it's already been demonstrated by Google's initiative.
Actually NO.
Economic viability is when they can sell them to the population IN GENERAL.
There are typically sufficient 'early adopters' who can sustain a cottage industry, but the point is that would have no impact on the overall energy situation.
One thing that bothers me is they are bending the numbers.
Why?
Why use an US average mileage of just 19.8 mpg (which includes light trucks) when the average car mileage for the 2005 model year was 30 mpg (CAFE std = 27.5)?
Note: Using CORRECT gas mileage figure of 30 mpg reduces the Prius savings to $320/yr
Why add a 20% penalty on CO2 production (for well to tank emissions) for gasoline engines but then use a measure for electrical generation that just includes END USER production of CO2 or a CO2 cost for the battery production?
Why use the STATE LEVEL EMISSION factor for CO2 emissions (Calif = 1/2 US aveage) when you are using US averages for everything else (i.e. if using Calif State Level Emission factors then don't use the 8 cent per kWh rate, use Californias 12 cent per kWh)
Finally they show a little less than a $300 savings for adding the PEHV feature but why don't they give an estimate of the cost/life expectancy of the PEHV feature?
Why?
Arthur
Finally a reason to be proud of living here in southern California!
Answer man asking questions...what IS the world coming to?
QUOTE (tikay+Jun 24 2007, 02:01 PM)
Answer man asking questions...what IS the world coming to?
He's always asked pertenant questions.
He's always asked pertenant questions.
You are sooo right! Thanks for making him think, I used to try...now i am durned outwitted in here! 
QUOTE (tikay+Jun 23 2007, 10:13 PM)
You are sooo right! Thanks for making him think, I used to try...now i am durned outwitted in here!
No you're not.
I know in many threads you read more than you post.
So do I.
Arthur
No you're not.
I know in many threads you read more than you post.
So do I.
Arthur
QUOTE (Trippy+Jun 23 2007, 08:53 PM)
the ocean's ability to buffer is depenedent on the amount of Carbonate on the sea floor, and that exactly balances the amount of carbon sequistered as fossil fuels
Actually, the oceans have far more Carbonate than fossil fuels.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/C...cle_diagram.jpg
Note the numbers in black, which is GigaTons of Carbon storage.
Fossil Fuels = 4,000 Gigatons
Deep Ocean = 38,100 Gigatons
Arthur
Actually, the oceans have far more Carbonate than fossil fuels.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/C...cle_diagram.jpg
Note the numbers in black, which is GigaTons of Carbon storage.
Fossil Fuels = 4,000 Gigatons
Deep Ocean = 38,100 Gigatons
Arthur
I'd say Trippy is largely correct. The screw-ups in the science, as it has always been given the statistics of quantum mechanics and basic chemistry, is feedback.
Specifically, in this hard-shell case, is dimethyl sulphide. And from what I understand (or just heard once) that is an orginal Gaia feedback. Today, maybe it would be understood as intelligent design; or from my perspective what God has promised about rain and the conquering power of withholding it.
Good day,
MrB.
Specifically, in this hard-shell case, is dimethyl sulphide. And from what I understand (or just heard once) that is an orginal Gaia feedback. Today, maybe it would be understood as intelligent design; or from my perspective what God has promised about rain and the conquering power of withholding it.
Good day,
MrB.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jun 23 2007, 08:53 PM)
You're missing the part where I said that 'Partial Pressure' of Carbon Dioxide was important. Increasing the partial pressure of carbon dioxide increases it's solubiility in sea water.
No, I'm missing the part where someone shows that increasing the PCO2 from its rather trivial 0.03% to a still rather trivial 0.06% will alter ocean chemistry such that it will prevent plankton from forming shells.
This will be particularly interesting because during the Cretacious Period (Cretacious = CHALK BEARING, i.e. when the White Cliffs of Dover were formed), the CO2 levels were WAY higher than today and the Coccos of the day had no problem producing shells.
In fact the CO2 levels didn't really start falling till the late Eocene when the pCO2 was even then ~ 1500 ppm and then decreased in several steps during the Oligocene, and reached modern levels about the same time that the earth began its cyclical (and losing) battles with Glaciation.
Still, all this time, plankton has been able to make shells.
This is not a trivial point as Plankton are the basis for most of the food chain in the ocean and thus their inability to form shells would be a REALLY BAD THING.
So, when someone announces the equiv of "an asteroid is heading towards earth that will destroy life as we know it"
BUT FIRST, let's look at the weather for this upcoming 3 day holiday.....
One has to wonder if they REALLY mean it.
Arthur
No, I'm missing the part where someone shows that increasing the PCO2 from its rather trivial 0.03% to a still rather trivial 0.06% will alter ocean chemistry such that it will prevent plankton from forming shells.
This will be particularly interesting because during the Cretacious Period (Cretacious = CHALK BEARING, i.e. when the White Cliffs of Dover were formed), the CO2 levels were WAY higher than today and the Coccos of the day had no problem producing shells.
In fact the CO2 levels didn't really start falling till the late Eocene when the pCO2 was even then ~ 1500 ppm and then decreased in several steps during the Oligocene, and reached modern levels about the same time that the earth began its cyclical (and losing) battles with Glaciation.
Still, all this time, plankton has been able to make shells.
This is not a trivial point as Plankton are the basis for most of the food chain in the ocean and thus their inability to form shells would be a REALLY BAD THING.
So, when someone announces the equiv of "an asteroid is heading towards earth that will destroy life as we know it"
BUT FIRST, let's look at the weather for this upcoming 3 day holiday.....
One has to wonder if they REALLY mean it.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 25 2007, 01:18 AM)
No, I'm missing the part where someone shows that increasing the PCO2 from its rather trivial 0.03% to a still rather trivial 0.06% will alter ocean chemistry such that it will prevent plankton from forming shells.
This will be particularly interesting because during the Cretacious Period (Cretacious = CHALK BEARING, i.e. when the White Cliffs of Dover were formed), the CO2 levels were WAY higher than today and the Coccos of the day had no problem producing shells.
In fact the CO2 levels didn't really start falling till the late Eocene when the pCO2 was even then ~ 1500 ppm and then decreased in several steps during the Oligocene, and reached modern levels about the same time that the earth began its cyclical (and losing) battles with Glaciation.
Still, all this time, plankton has been able to make shells.
This is not a trivial point as Plankton are the basis for most of the food chain in the ocean and thus their inability to form shells would be a REALLY BAD THING.
So, when someone announces the equiv of "an asteroid is heading towards earth that will destroy life as we know it"
BUT FIRST, let's look at the weather for this upcoming 3 day holiday.....
One has to wonder if they REALLY mean it.
Arthur
Agreed.
Completely agreed.
Like I said. The conclusion is only as good as the data fed into the mechanism.
This will be particularly interesting because during the Cretacious Period (Cretacious = CHALK BEARING, i.e. when the White Cliffs of Dover were formed), the CO2 levels were WAY higher than today and the Coccos of the day had no problem producing shells.
In fact the CO2 levels didn't really start falling till the late Eocene when the pCO2 was even then ~ 1500 ppm and then decreased in several steps during the Oligocene, and reached modern levels about the same time that the earth began its cyclical (and losing) battles with Glaciation.
Still, all this time, plankton has been able to make shells.
This is not a trivial point as Plankton are the basis for most of the food chain in the ocean and thus their inability to form shells would be a REALLY BAD THING.
So, when someone announces the equiv of "an asteroid is heading towards earth that will destroy life as we know it"
BUT FIRST, let's look at the weather for this upcoming 3 day holiday.....
One has to wonder if they REALLY mean it.
Arthur
Agreed.
Completely agreed.
Like I said. The conclusion is only as good as the data fed into the mechanism.
**NEWS FLASH**
This just in!! sometime in the far far future, an asteroid is going to be heading in the general direction of this planet, and could, potentially, wipe out all living things existent currently here!! ....now in the local weather forecast......for the Next three days we predict SUMMER!! and the SUN will be SHINING!! in it's Full Usual GLOW!! throughout the entirety of the SUMMER!! period.
(notwithstanding cloud cover obscuring YOUR personal view of it)
This just in!! sometime in the far far future, an asteroid is going to be heading in the general direction of this planet, and could, potentially, wipe out all living things existent currently here!! ....now in the local weather forecast......for the Next three days we predict SUMMER!! and the SUN will be SHINING!! in it's Full Usual GLOW!! throughout the entirety of the SUMMER!! period.
(notwithstanding cloud cover obscuring YOUR personal view of it)
One of the problems with the assumption of man-made global warming is that, if one assumes it to be true, than other actions should be taken. If it is false these same actions could create problems that could have been avoided. It is important to iron this out first before acting using irrational fear to drive social policy. The herd doesn't think right under stress.
For example, substituting ethanol for fossil fuels doesn't change the CO2 balance. But on the bright side, it does create renewal fuel. But it is marketed as a solution to global warming due to the fear. But this renewal fuel can create other problems that don't currently exist. If ethanol goes forward by law, farmers will devote more land to corn and less to soybeans. This means the price of all processed food will rise, i.e, many products use corn and/or soy. The result is higher cost of living with little iimpact on global warming or not.
Picture if there is a drought. The price of ethanol would sky rocket causing further inflation in both fuel and food. With the price high, it may be cost effective to divert water away from cities, leading to the price of water to get higher. Now there are two international leverage factors over world economies. At least fossil fuels are buried, are not weather dependant, and do not affect the food supply. It is only one problem and not two potential problems that do nothing for global warming or not.
Ethanol is useful for the future but the best way is to do it is in a way that is win-win. There are already processes that can convert any type of organic waste into ethanol. We could dig up landfills and convert all the plastic, wood, paper and even sanitary sludge into ethanol. There will never be a shortage of garbage. The speculators don't bet on garbage futures, creating wealth without productivity. This too does nothing for global warming or not but doesn't create as the same scope of potential problems. It may create local problems but not global problems.
For example, substituting ethanol for fossil fuels doesn't change the CO2 balance. But on the bright side, it does create renewal fuel. But it is marketed as a solution to global warming due to the fear. But this renewal fuel can create other problems that don't currently exist. If ethanol goes forward by law, farmers will devote more land to corn and less to soybeans. This means the price of all processed food will rise, i.e, many products use corn and/or soy. The result is higher cost of living with little iimpact on global warming or not.
Picture if there is a drought. The price of ethanol would sky rocket causing further inflation in both fuel and food. With the price high, it may be cost effective to divert water away from cities, leading to the price of water to get higher. Now there are two international leverage factors over world economies. At least fossil fuels are buried, are not weather dependant, and do not affect the food supply. It is only one problem and not two potential problems that do nothing for global warming or not.
Ethanol is useful for the future but the best way is to do it is in a way that is win-win. There are already processes that can convert any type of organic waste into ethanol. We could dig up landfills and convert all the plastic, wood, paper and even sanitary sludge into ethanol. There will never be a shortage of garbage. The speculators don't bet on garbage futures, creating wealth without productivity. This too does nothing for global warming or not but doesn't create as the same scope of potential problems. It may create local problems but not global problems.
The co2 could perhaps could be pumped into containers until it is dry. The other component of the combustion of of Ethanol would be water in another tank. Essentially meaning that the Ethanol is pumped into the engine that powers the car whilst the contents of one container empties the other to container fills up. The co2 would be pumped out of the engine by a belt connected to the cam shaft like a supercharger sucking out rather that pumping extra air in.
The dry co2 could be used in the textile/plastics an all sorts of industries that would buy it.
The dry co2 could be used in the textile/plastics an all sorts of industries that would buy it.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Jun 25 2007, 06:50 AM)
This just in!! sometime in the far far future, an asteroid is going to be heading in the general direction of this planet, and could, potentially, wipe out all living things existent currently here!! ....now in the local weather forecast ....
Robin,
POTENTIALLY is clearly NOT the same as "where its EXPECTED to be by 2100"
What, according to that post is EXPECTED by 2100
That Plankton "can't make shells"
But what happens when Plankton can't make shells is that they DIE.
So let me get this straight.
According to this the majority of OCEAN life is EXPECTED to DIE by 2100 (plankton being the starting food supply for MOST life in the ocean)
But in the meantime let's sign a KYOTO protocol that EXEMPTS the WORLD'S LARGEST (and fastest growing) producer of the gas (along with India, Mexico, Brazil etc) that is expected to kill the oceans so that they can catch up to in CO2 per capitia with the more industrialized nations?????
I must be missing something.
Arthur
Robin,
POTENTIALLY is clearly NOT the same as "where its EXPECTED to be by 2100"
What, according to that post is EXPECTED by 2100
That Plankton "can't make shells"
But what happens when Plankton can't make shells is that they DIE.
So let me get this straight.
According to this the majority of OCEAN life is EXPECTED to DIE by 2100 (plankton being the starting food supply for MOST life in the ocean)
But in the meantime let's sign a KYOTO protocol that EXEMPTS the WORLD'S LARGEST (and fastest growing) producer of the gas (along with India, Mexico, Brazil etc) that is expected to kill the oceans so that they can catch up to in CO2 per capitia with the more industrialized nations?????
I must be missing something.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 25 2007, 02:20 PM)
So let me get this straight.
According to this the majority of OCEAN life is EXPECTED to DIE by 2100 (plankton being the starting food supply for MOST life in the ocean)
But in the meantime let's sign a KYOTO protocol that EXEMPTS the WORLD'S LARGEST (and fastest growing) producer of the gas (along with India, Mexico, Brazil etc) that is expected to kill the oceans so that they can catch up to in CO2 per capitia with the more industrialized nations?????
I must be missing something.
Arthur
You can't sit back and say 'well they're not doing it, so i won't either'.
This is not the mindset of a leader. The United States must lead the rest of the world in green energy, forest, farm, and ocean management.
According to this the majority of OCEAN life is EXPECTED to DIE by 2100 (plankton being the starting food supply for MOST life in the ocean)
But in the meantime let's sign a KYOTO protocol that EXEMPTS the WORLD'S LARGEST (and fastest growing) producer of the gas (along with India, Mexico, Brazil etc) that is expected to kill the oceans so that they can catch up to in CO2 per capitia with the more industrialized nations?????
I must be missing something.
Arthur
You can't sit back and say 'well they're not doing it, so i won't either'.
This is not the mindset of a leader. The United States must lead the rest of the world in green energy, forest, farm, and ocean management.
QUOTE (MDT+Jun 25 2007, 07:52 AM)
One of the problems with the assumption of man-made global warming is that, if one assumes it to be true, than other actions should be taken. If it is false these same actions could create problems that could have been avoided. It is important to iron this out first before acting using irrational fear to drive social policy. The herd doesn't think right under stress.
I just thought this needed repeating.
In the meantime, we are still dumping a lot of stuff into our environment that we know are problems.
I just thought this needed repeating.
In the meantime, we are still dumping a lot of stuff into our environment that we know are problems.
NO,
If it is such a serious problem that THE OCEANS ARE EXPECTED TO DIE by 2100, then NO ONE should get a pass.
That's like sitting on the STERN of the Titanic and saying, "Gosh, I'm glad the collision was in the BOW".
The framework of Kyoto tells me that the UN framers (the same ones that run the IPCC) REALLY don't think its nearly as serious an issue as these articles about Plankton being unable to make shells by 2100 would suggest.
So, WHICH is corrrect?
Do we need to come up with mainly a POLITICAL/ECONOMIC solution (a la Kyoto) or must we impose DRACONIAN measures to ensure our very survival.
(Film at 11)
Arthur
If it is such a serious problem that THE OCEANS ARE EXPECTED TO DIE by 2100, then NO ONE should get a pass.
That's like sitting on the STERN of the Titanic and saying, "Gosh, I'm glad the collision was in the BOW".
The framework of Kyoto tells me that the UN framers (the same ones that run the IPCC) REALLY don't think its nearly as serious an issue as these articles about Plankton being unable to make shells by 2100 would suggest.
So, WHICH is corrrect?
Do we need to come up with mainly a POLITICAL/ECONOMIC solution (a la Kyoto) or must we impose DRACONIAN measures to ensure our very survival.
(Film at 11)
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 25 2007, 10:20 AM)
(SNIP) Robin, I must be missing something. Arthur (SNoP)
Yup! ........(I) was just joking!
As for the rest (I) have no idea if you are missing something or not...just not a clue....but (I) could admonish you for your 'lie of omission' as, if you look at the map of the planet that is Lumpy earth you can see the Blue (Indicative of lower gravity) over Hudson's Bay, in Northern Canada, that indicates a lower gravitational effect, couple that to the reality that a Low pressure system develops over Northern Quebec, just east of Hudson's bay, (Nearly) every winter, and tends to hang around there all winter, (Generally) (I) can point out that you have indulged in lies of omission all along, as (I) have never seen a post of yours that brought the gravitational factors into account concerning the weather systems that are a part of what all of these discussions are, generally, focusing upon.....(Smile ....Authur)......
As for the rest (I) have no idea if you are missing something or not...just not a clue....but (I) could admonish you for your 'lie of omission' as, if you look at the map of the planet that is Lumpy earth you can see the Blue (Indicative of lower gravity) over Hudson's Bay, in Northern Canada, that indicates a lower gravitational effect, couple that to the reality that a Low pressure system develops over Northern Quebec, just east of Hudson's bay, (Nearly) every winter, and tends to hang around there all winter, (Generally) (I) can point out that you have indulged in lies of omission all along, as (I) have never seen a post of yours that brought the gravitational factors into account concerning the weather systems that are a part of what all of these discussions are, generally, focusing upon.....(Smile
....Authur)......
QUOTE
If scientists wanted to study the interaction between radiation and cloud cover they could always perform a highly unethical experiment: release a tremendous amount of radiation into the atmosphere and see what it does to clouds in the environment.
Unfortunately, that experiment has already been performed... accidentally: the Chernobyl disaster.
On April 26th, 1986 the reactor released a huge cloud of radioactive particles into the atmosphere. If radiation increases cloud cover, there should have been clouds surrounding the facility for weeks. There was no evidence of unusual cloud coverage surrounding the facility after the disaster.
Sloan and Wolfendale reviewed the cosmic ray connection to global warming, and found several different ways that discount the explanation. Of course, no matter how good their evidence, for some people this is a political matter now - no amount evidence will ever be enough.
My bold.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
If scientists wanted to study the interaction between radiation and cloud cover they could always perform a highly unethical experiment: release a tremendous amount of radiation into the atmosphere and see what it does to clouds in the environment. Unfortunately, that experiment has already been performed... accidentally: the Chernobyl disaster. On April 26th, 1986 the reactor released a huge cloud of radioactive particles into the atmosphere. If radiation increases cloud cover, there should have been clouds surrounding the facility for weeks. There was no evidence of unusual cloud coverage surrounding the facility after the disaster. Sloan and Wolfendale reviewed the cosmic ray connection to global warming, and found several different ways that discount the explanation. Of course, no matter how good their evidence, for some people this is a political matter now - no amount evidence will ever be enough. |
My bold.
A