God Bless all affected by Florence

Modern Combined Cycle (gas- + steam turbine) power plants (like the ones offered by Siemens... end of commercial break...;-) operate at efficiencies of +60%. No internal combustion engine will ever get anywhere near that figure. Also with a large power plant you can add efficient filters of all kinds, which are near impossible to implement in a car. This is even not taking into account that German thugs preferred to cheat tests instead of offering engineering solutions (with the German Merkel government consistently turning a blind eye)
 
kolibri282;n1140335 said:
Modern Combined Cycle power plants operate at efficiencies of +60%. No internal combustion engine will ever get anywhere near that figure.

You know as well as me that this 60% is just the first step in energy conversion for electric cars. Even with this modern power plant, you must not forget the transportation of electricity to the charger (93%), energy efficiency of lithium batteries (85% new, 60% at his end of life), necessary electric conversions (95%), electric motors (90%) and the mass ratio to moves the extra weight of the battery itself (90%) This gives: 0.6 * 0.93 * 0.6 * 0.73 * 0.95 * 0.9 * 0.9 = 31%
I not see the significant improvement relatively to the Diesel cars.
 
WaspAir;n1140334 said:
You really should drive one of the modern all-electrics before passing judgment.
Well, let’s see: GM is dropping the Volt because it’s a money loser despite direct Federal subsidies and Federal and State buyer incentives in the form of tax deductions. Tesla is also a money loser with its stock tanking. In addition, electric cars pay nothing toward highway construction and maintenance in the form of gasoline taxes.

At least an electric fork lift powered by inexpensive lead-acid batteries pays its own way; the batteries provide essential ballast and the lead content is easily recycled.

That said, I would like to have an electric car for local transport if it was available for a competitive price without my fellow citizens having to pay part of the cost.
 
31% efficiency is roughly the same figure you find for small internal combustion engines. If you now throw in the fact that in Germany more than 35% of the electricity is from renewable sources (as of 10/2018) that means the pollution for an electric fleet of vehicles is just 65% of that of a combustion engine car fleet and the situation is getting even better by the day. I have also pointed out previously that you can reduce the transmission losses to near zero so then you have 0.6 * 1.0 * 0.73 * 0.95 * 0.9 * 0.9=34%. As I said before, all necessary technical means are there, the rest is politics.
 
C. Beaty;n1140341 said:
Well, let’s see: GM is dropping the Volt because it’s a money loser despite direct Federal subsidies and Federal and State buyer incentives in the form of tax deductions. Tesla is also a money loser with its stock tanking. In addition, electric cars pay nothing toward highway construction and maintenance in the form of gasoline taxes.

At least an electric fork lift powered by inexpensive lead-acid batteries pays its own way; the batteries provide essential ballast and the lead content is easily recycled.

That said, I would like to have an electric car for local transport if it was available for a competitive price without my fellow citizens having to pay part of the cost.

The just-discontinued Volt is not an electric car. It is a plug-in hybrid with a 1.5 liter piston engine driving a generator; it's electric-only range is roughly 30 miles. Chevy's recent all-electrics are the Bolt (238 mile range) and through 2016 the Spark EV (replaced by the Bolt). Hybrid sales overall are pretty robust despite Chevy's problems (Toyota has had great success).

Tesla made $311 million in profit for the third quarter of 2018.

Gliders and balloons pay no aviation fuel taxes, but we let them fly anyway. Personally, I think an incentive to clean the air and not to increase our dependence on fossil fuels and the foreign entanglements they provide is fully appropriate for EV drivers.
 
HVDC energy transport is better only when AC efficiency drops in long-distance submarine cables. That does not mean better than 0.93, Juergen.
 
My company gives a figure of 2.6% loss for a 800kV system then you have: 0.6 * 0.974 * 0.73 * 0.95 * 0.9 * 0.9 =33%. But we don't have to argue over a few percent. The official figure for renewable energy in Germany today is 38%, so electric cars even with 2018s technology have a huge advantage over combustion engines.
 
We’re having record low temperatures; -it was 37 [FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]°[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]F (3 [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]°[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]C) in my neck of the woods last night; the Tampa Bay area of Florida but the Al Gore disciples say that proves [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]anthropogenic[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif] global warming is real.[/FONT]
 
You're not alone, Chuck, because the most important point in this debate is to know the difference between weather and climate, but then, your president doesn't know it either, a fact scientists all over the US recently lamented, so your exculpated....;-)

Astha Sarmah from the city of Jorhat in the state of Assam responded throwing so much shade at the US Commander in Chief, that her tweet was liked almost 15,000 times and retweeted more than 3,000 times.

Experts also weighed in, with one climate scientist calling the president 'a dangerous clown' for his remarks.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/worl...single-day-disprove-global-warming/ar-BBQbcgy

Let's examine why this tweet is such a mess, shall we?
https://mashable.com/2017/12/28/dona...r/?europe=true

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbPOv_XLplc

https://www.africanexaminer.com/us-p...r-and-climate/


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/20...er_430344.html
 
[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]C[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]ertainly anomalies don’t [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]necessarily[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif] indicate a trend, Juergen: [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]record cold temperatures no more so than the hurricane that started this thread, Hurricane Florence.[/FONT]
 
average-high-school-graduate-roasts-donald-trump-on-the-difference-between-weather-and-climate

Astha Sarmah from the city of Jorhat in the state of Assam responded throwing so much shade at the US Commander in Chief, that her tweet was liked almost 15,000 times and retweeted more than 3,000 times.
Experts also weighed in, with one climate scientist calling the president 'a dangerous clown' for his remarks.

from here:
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world...ing/ar-BBQbcgy
BBQ3b5K.img?h=446&w=634&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f.jpg
 

Attachments

  • BBQ3b5K.img?h=446&w=634&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f.jpg
    BBQ3b5K.img?h=446&w=634&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f.jpg
    38.2 KB · Views: 0
  • BBQ3b5K.img?h=446&w=634&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f.jpg
    BBQ3b5K.img?h=446&w=634&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f.jpg
    38.2 KB · Views: 0
  • BBQ3b5K.img?h=446&w=634&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f.jpg
    BBQ3b5K.img?h=446&w=634&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f.jpg
    38.2 KB · Views: 0
All heat records, catastrophic hurricanes, torrential rains are systematically shown as implicit consequences of global warming. I never hear politicians say: "No no, it has nothing to do with it. Weather is not climate"
 
I can remember when there was “scientific consensus” that a new ice age was approaching. Then there was “scientific consensus” that human life would be extinguished as a result of cosmic radiation when the Earth’s ozone layer was depleted. Then there was “scientific consensus” that the US Midwest would turn into a desert as a result of acid rain.

The prophets of doom have been at it since the dawn of civilization.
 
Chuck, you are exactly right. I recall the same; it's always something (I guess that they have to move on to something new to get more funding).
Still, as can be seen here, there is no shortage of gullible people to believe each lie.
 
One question that has arisen is whether sea level is rising, or Florida land level is sinking, due to the collapsing of hollowed out limestone sinkholes under practically the whole state. There are also valid questions refuting any rising temps, whole Earth-wise. I'm not talking about any "climate models" here, just good basic temperatures record-keeping. There is also some very good basic science being done on CO2, thermodynamics, historic temperature recording variations with altitude. I leave with you the "Professor Richard Lindzen Climate Lecture(Excellent) 8th Oct, 2018". Its all about the scientific details, and not emotional consensus-speak.
 
One question that has arisen is whether sea level is rising, or Florida land level is sinking, due to the collapsing of hollowed out limestone sinkholes under practically the whole state. There are also valid questions refuting any rising temps, whole Earth-wise. I'm not talking about any "climate models" here, just good basic temperatures record-keeping. There is also some very good basic science being done on CO2, thermodynamics, historic temperature recording variations with altitude. I leave with you the "Professor Richard Lindzen Climate Lecture(Excellent) 8th Oct, 2018". Its all about the scientific details, and not emotional consensus-speak.
 
C. Beaty;n1140387 said:
Then there was “scientific consensus” that human life would be extinguished as a result of cosmic radiation when the Earth’s ozone layer was depleted.

It's strange how recollection is so very personal, and so varied. My recollection is that the ozone depletion danger was recognized and timely international action was taken in the 1980s-90s (banning CFCs in aerosols, air conditioners, etc,. through the Montreal Protocol), without a partisan political denial of the existence of the problem, and the cure worked, with the ozone trend leveling and then gradually reversing over the following years. As I remember it, it was a case of people accepting the science and acting rationally and promptly, while the opportunity was still open, with success on a real problem, not a scare that eventually turned out over time to be just a hoax. We don't worry about this issue as we once did because of successful well-timed intervention, not because we just waited and confirmed that the problem was never real and it just went away on its own.

I also don't recall the ozone research scientists being accused of fabrication in order to get funding, or ordinary people who loved their spray cans latching onto the work of extreme-minority ozone dissenters to justify political resistance. There are always dissenters in science (just look at the research about the health effects of smoking) but we progress through evolving peer-reviewed consensus, not layman's arguments on social media.
 
eutrophicated1;n1140445 said:
One question that has arisen is whether sea level is rising, or Florida land level is sinking, due to the collapsing of hollowed out limestone sinkholes under practically the whole state.
Florida might be sinking, but there's an awful lot of coast everywhere else on the globe.
 
WaspAir;n1140455 said:
we progress through evolving peer-reviewed consensus, not layman's arguments on social media.
Well, Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology until his retirement in 2013, author of over 200 papers on meteorology and climatology and member of the US National Academy of Sciences and of the Academic Advisory Council of GWPF, gives he layman' arguments ?
 
JC’s president, Emmanuel Macron is 100% certain that CO[SUB][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]2 [/FONT][/SUB][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]from burning [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]fossil[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif] fuels causes global warming. [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]That’s what the rioting of the “yellow vests” is all about.[/FONT]

[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]President Macron plans to increase taxes on fuels so much that people are forced to abandon vehicles with IC engines and go electric.[/FONT]
 
Top