This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
"Electric Cars Are Doing More Harm Than Good" Professor Warns
"An electric car does not make you green... You’re better off filling up at the pump," if you live in Canada. According to a new study by professor Chris Kennedy, even if every driver in Canada made the switch - from gas to electric - the total emissions might not actually go down... since in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, electric cars generate more carbon pollution over their lifetimes than gas-powered cars. Paging Al Gore...
As CBC reports, trying to go green by replacing your gas guzzler with an electric car? In some provinces, that may actually be worse for the environment, a University of Toronto researcher says.
In Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, electric cars generate more carbon over their lifetimes than gas-powered cars, said Chris Kennedy, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Toronto, in an interview with CBC's The Current Tuesday.
That's because those provinces generate much of their electricity by burning coal, so consuming more electricity – by charging your electric car battery, for instance – significantly boosts carbon emissions.
"So… literally, if you're living in Alberta, Saskatchewan or Nova Scotia, an electric car does not make you green?" asked Anna Maria Tremonti, host of The Current. "You're better off filling up at the pump?"
"You're better off filling up at the pump," Kennedy agreed. "Or if you really want to go for something greener, you should be buying a conventional hybrid car."
However, in the rest of Canada, driving an electric car is the greener choice, he found.
He figured that out by looking at the carbon emissions generated by gas and electric cars over their entire life cycle, taking into account the source of electricity used to charge their batteries and how the gas used to fuel a conventional car is produced in different parts of the world.
The carbon emissions from electricity generation are measured in tonnes of CO2 emitted per gigawatt hour of electricity produced. That ranges from:
- Close to 0 for hydroelectric, nuclear and renewable energy.
- 500 to 600 for natural gas power plants.
- 1,000 for coal-fired power plants.
For a given country or province, if average emissions were under 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour, then switching from conventional to electric cars, buses and trucks will lead to a reduction in carbon emissions, Kennedy reported in a study published in the journal Nature Climate Change earlier this month.
In some Canadian provinces, that reduction in emissions can be quite dramatic – B.C., Quebec, Manitoba, and Newfoundland all produce less than 20 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour of electricity, so driving an electric car can reduce emissions to close to zero.
Ultimately, however, the study's goal isn't to help consumers make decisions about what car to buy, Kennedy said.
The take-home message is actually for governments in some Canadian provinces and other countries: That they need to get their average emissions below the 600-tonne threshold so they can benefit from technology like electric cars.
"Electrification," he said, "is the most pivotal strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions worldwide."
* * *
Just wait til China gets wind of this...
- 60536 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


Deceptive headline. The article itself says that electric cars generated fewer emisions everywhere except a few provinces because they happen to rely mostly on coal. "B.C., Quebec, Manitoba, and Newfoundland all produce less than 20 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour of electricity, so driving an electric car can reduce emissions to close to zero." Not that you'd even remotely guess that from reading the headline.
Red-herring headline. CO2 is not the problem. Has never and will never be.
I'll worry about CO2 when i see Al Gore living in a cardboard box. Until then, not so worried.
And did Mr Professor also calculate the carbon difference in the production of giant battery vs a conventional 4 cylinder engine and all the down stream mining, refining and production involved ?
This is good.
Wanna be green??
There's these big critters called "horse" that eat grass for fuel to go
But I'm smarter than to settle for just riding a "horse"
Cause there's even BIGGER critters around me called "mooooose" that eat grass even under water!
So I'm fixin to git me a nice big "4x4" amphibious mooose to be green!
Large mammals fart methane, which is many times worse than CO2. I denounce you for agitating for crimes against Gaia and order you to remand yourself into custody until such time as there is a position available at one of the reeducation camps. Get it through your skull, there is no known way to live entirely green, and so therefore you must die, or at least not reproduce.
You environmental criminals disgust me.
But horses automatically replenish the roads, with fresh road apples. Does a Jackass produce less methane? We should monitor all of Al Gore's orifices to be certain. Who's gonna volunteer?
u just don't wanna' b Headbanger's bitch ;-)
"Electric Cars Are Doing More Harm Than Good"
Yep, they are destroying the sex lives of people, flagging them as total poindexters or policy-wonk govies, harming their chances. Although poindexters/policy-wonk govies not mating is probably a good thing for society in general.
How about a 200 LB tattoed swamp donkey rollin down the road in her 3 ton Yukon smokin newports and callin her homeboy on the cell?
Excellent point Stackers. Most advanced batteries require large quantities of rare earth metals. Mining those metals then refining them as well as the manufacture of batteries requires far more energy input than that from casting and machining steel or aluminum.
I don't buy into any of the carbon footprint bunko. It is shocking at the lack of real scientific methods found in the warming claims.
Same with ethanol when you include ALL the costs.
Couldn't do that without pising off the farm lobby though.
Who cares about the truth
Or a wooden one six feet below ground.
I will be worried about CO2 when Al Gore self-sequesters his 0.01%, ivy league pie hole
I'll rest easier when cows stop farting and Al Gore stops breathing while exhaling that poisonous, deadly CO2. Oh wait, cow farts are insignificant.
Best if you checked up on ocean acidification....very straightforward...simple chemistry (probably not a strong suit for some here, I am guessing).
More CO2 = lower ocean pH.
Already cannot hatch oysters on both US coasts...who knows what sorts of dire problems exist beyond the things we care enough about eating to study well?
Yes, the ocean has gone from pH 8.3 to pH 8.1. It is becoming more acidic.
Newsflash: Even though 8.1 is more acidic than 8.3, IT IS STILL ALKALINE!
Just stop with the nonsense please.
Hell yea!... Just think, when it gets down to 6.8 to 6.0, we can grow fucking tomatoes in it...
I don;t think the oyster farmers would agree with your dubious use of semantics...
Just what would you call an increase in pH??
Bueller?
Don't be shellfish.
Save the ERSTERS!!! [That's how you say it in BAL-MER]
Bel Air = BLAIR
Down to the ocean = DOWNEY OCEAN
Highlandtown = HALLANTAHN
pavement = PAYMENT
"O's" = The Balmer Orioles
Star Spangled Banner = "O"!!! say can you see that Star Spangled Banner yet wave... Heard loudly at any AWAY game where the Orioles or Ravens are playing during the national anthem...
i dont knows use was from bawlmore hon....sadly me toos....
A more BASIC solution if the pH goes up, it would be less acidic. BTW, several people a year die on the Gulf Coast from oysters, nothing more than shit filters, barely classified as a living animal. If you survive them, they are great fare with a frosty mug of brew. I quit them a few years ago, scared of them.
Good data maunfacturing, Serfs Up. Alkalinity in any given part of the ocean can change by that much in minutes, or if you change testing location by mere metres. There is also the question called buffering - to which I'm sure you've got a trite and dishonest reply.
Serfs are what you want to turn the population into.
Projecting are we?
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/lsuatoni/media/Co2TimeSeries.gif
Outlaw Volcanoes!!!! Because what happens at an active volcano is a representative sample for the rest of the ocean...being a near total dead zone with all that fire, acids, and newly deposited lava flows.
How do you like your plankton? Barbeque style?
Yeah....so I call bullshit on those whose though processes are entirely too linear.
\facepalm....
Do you really think that you are more of an expert than the entire scientific community? It certainly appears so...
"Do you really think that you are more of an expert than the entire scientific community? It certainly appears so"...
Do you really think that you are more of an expert than the entire GOVERNMENT FUNDED scientific bureaucratic, regulatory vested interests? It certainly appears so...
There, that should fix it. Keep your comments grounded in the truth.
It wasn't me that claimed a paper was wrong for completely asinine reasons...
Here is a more complete list of papers that agree with what I posted
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ocean+acidification&btnG=&hl=en&as_...
And this one in particular
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL040999/full
Now run along, you are out of your league...
That's right Flak, the ENTIRE scientific community believes in AGW.
And that's when you know the argument is over. Why do you guys always resort to that crap.
Oh, please do list those academic/scientific institutions that do not agree with the conclusion that we are responsible for the observed global warming over the past 150 years or so...
We are all ears and the ball is in your court...
97% of scientists believe what? I may only have a high school education, and a poor student at that, but I'm smart enough to question what I read from the self described experts.
http://www.climecon.org/97-of-scientists-believewhat.html
Hee, hee, hee...
You must practice self-delusion to be so good at it...
Well, it's better than practicing the art of shilling. It's obvious that you're horrible at it.
Go figure a self-professed petro engineer support the global warming meme that would drive up the cost of his only product in the marketplace.
You really do not a fucking clue what I do, do you?
Oh, you've changed you mind again?
.
Fallacy of Special Pleading. Please name those institutions which are free of funding from sources that support AGW/AGCC. PLease also provide data about global temps over the last 300,000 years, and let me know if you "feel like a threat...to the planet...today"
Sorry, read the fine print on that fallacy, doesn't apply if the people being appealed to are the recognized experts,
Do I need to remind you of the BEST collaboration funded in no small part by the Kochs... You know, the one that was going to set shit straight according to WUWT...
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
Now run along with your strawmen
I'm tired of being cold, the food will grow faster in richer CO2 and I really don't care if NYC goes 10 ft. under water. It needs a good flushing but the bad thing is it will disperse the two legged rats to pollute other welfare dens. Bet our asses they won't disperse to Detroit, the parasites have killed that host. There are thousands of other serfdom taxers that are on life support
Global warming is another plot by the private property haters to control every aspect of our lives. The only difference in freedom and slavery is private property rights. We are already 1/2 slaves to the evil taxes, while the collectors and manipulators are siphoning off the fruits of our labor. Hey, they are rioting in Greece due to the parasites having to lose their bennies. Coming soon to the other PIIGS but probably France will crash first.
Put the popcorn in the microwave but to get the non-MSM near truth you will have to stream RT. Fox is a POS and the others are total lies.
Oooh...Combo logical fallacy. Argument ad populum with a side of Appeal to Authority.
I did sleep at a Holiday Inn express last night. I have also been fortunate enough to hang (a.k.a. discuss) with some pretty severe academics at Cal Tech who admit that we don't have the answers. All we have is what we know. Zealotry in support of what we know is nothing more than religion.
If all these scientists and professors who are supposedly making independent scientific decisions based only on the science were what they claim to be. Almost 100% of them are sucking on the government teat with their salaries and grants. If they didn't parrot the Manmade Global Warming mantra they would be out of work in a heartbeat.
The "Climate Research Unit" at the University of East Anglia receives over $20 million in grants a year. Talk about a fucking gravy train! This was the school in the Climategate scandal where they were caught redhanded scuttling the peer review process.
They are all whores.
That's rich. You attempt to portray a very complex physio-chemical system as "simple chemistry", then add a childish insult, and then cite problems with U.S. oyster hatcheries as proof of the non-problem of ocean acidification. Your "simple" equation is far from reality. Please stop obfuscating.
Flak is a shill, always has been. It just took a few months for everyone to catch on.
And you are still a babbling idiot with acute verbal diarrhea...
Get that "heat multiplier" thingie sorted out yet?
Learn how to read yet? It's obvious you can't make a rational argument already. Three years and you're still relying on ad-oms thinking they will rattle my cage here. It hasn't worked so far hero, get a clue.
But if plant nutrition CO2 is not the problem, how could they make you accept spraying tens of thousands of tons of aluminium, barium, strontium into the air to "cool the planet" with geoengineering?
And who would need aluminium resistant patents on plants?
And how could you tax the air otherwise, without touching the EXPONENTIAL GROWTH PROBLEM because of compound interest on debt based money?
There's gotta be a twist for the clicks to come in.
The Tylers know their audience. You know, the guys who say it is ridiculous to think that humans can affect the climate by dumping untold amounts of shit into the air on a daily basis worldwide, but who freak out (correctly) when the latest story about a single nuclear power plant in Fukishima comes around.
If carbon is shit, then you are a pile of it.
So there's still a story on the front page of ZH about the Monsanto guy who won't drink his product, with the obvious implication being that he knows how dangerous it really is. Ever try to leaving your car running in your garage with the door closed? Since the emissions are harmless, it should be fine.
You know as well as I do that carbon monoxide isn't the bogeyman of climate change, carbon dioxide is.
There is a difference between real pollution and fake pollution (i.e. carbon pollution, ie. carbon dioxide).
The article equates carbon pollution with CO2, which fills your lungs with every breath you take.
The stop breathing you mook!
YOU'RE producing CO2!!
Radiation is also naturally occurring. So more must be better, right?
Why yes it is, now that you mention it
Now go stick you head in the microwave and get healthy!
I'm overdosed on radiation every day... BECAUSE I LIVE IN A BANANA FUCKING REPUBLIC!!!
though have to clean the snot-coffee mixture from my computer...that's some funny shit!!
Wait until tomorrow... It's not even SUNDAE yet!!!
Oh fudge!!!
LetThemEatRand, you're poor at argumentation. One straw man after another. Why don't you prove to us that CO2 is bad? That would be the quickest and easiest way to get us on your side, instead of engaging in these pointless insults.
So, what -- I'm going to conduct my own scientific study for you? I could spend a whole bunch of time collecting and linking studies which you would just tell me are biased because scientists will say anything for a grant. I do get it. You don't want to be told what to do, and accepting that dumping shit into the air may be bad, means that you would have to change your own behavior. So from an ideological standpoint, you reject it. I think I even understand why the same people who reject the science of carbon emissions have no problem getting freaked out about Fukishima. No one here plans to build their own nuclear plant, so it is not a threat to anyone personally to accept that radiation spewing into the environment is bad. I don't expect to convince you of anything because you have already made up your mind. But my original point -- which is objectively true -- is that the headline for this article is utterly deceptive, no doubt due to similar ideological bent.
The reason most people are upset about Fukishima is that we believe radiation is bad for us. We believe that it can cause cancer and kill us fairly quickly. That science could be wrong and it's possible that radiation is actually good and healthy for us, but most of us don't seem to question that or want to take that chance. Perhaps part of the reason for that is that I've never seen any scientists, insiders, or intelligent, rational, and educated people questioning it, so I accept it with a higher degree of confidence myself.
Anthropogenic global warming and CO2 pollution is another story completely. I've seen many scientists, insiders, and seemingly intelligent people questioning it. Your attempts at psychoanalysis are weak. I happen to generate very little pollution and wouldn't mind if our world was more frugal. The chief reason I don't affirm that CO2 emissions are bad is that I'm a skeptic and I haven't seen conclusive evidence that they are.
Everything is a pollutant in the right doses, including water and oxygen. The question is what dose of CO2 is OK or even good for us. Also, it's impossible for us not to change our environment in some way as we change (ie. as humanity occupies the whole planet): we can control for some factors, but we'll just be shifting the effects ("pollution"?) elsewhere (perhaps out of sight, out of mind). I know that we must change ("pollute") our environment simply by being alive, so the question is in what way should we change it.
The scare tactics used by global warming alarmists make them seem far from biased or interested in the truth, in my opinion, which makes me even more skeptical of them. They seem more like politicians than scientists, and I happen to be scientifically-minded and to distrust politicians.
You're right that the title for this crappy article is deceptive, as many are on ZH. You could've stopped at that.
You know who is most skeptical of man made climate change? Oil, gas and coal producers. They are quite sure it is a hoax. So why would you be more skeptical of scientists than oligarchs?
> Oil, gas and coal producers. They are quite sure it is a hoax.
I haven't researched their opinions on it, but that wouldn't surpise me because those industries are full of engineers, who tend to be skeptical and want to see real data before they'll believe something.
> So why would you be more skeptical of scientists than oligarchs?
And there you have it, another straw man attack.
Just to clarify, I'm more interested in science than in scientsts. A so-called "scientist" without data and evidence but with convictions is just a believer.
Do you ever wonder if it's not everyone else who is crazy, but perhaps you who ought to rethink your position? It seems like emotional stubbornness and ad hominem attacks are all you have to defend yourself against those evil "deniers". Please stop caricaturizing us; we are honest, sane, and intelligent people who simply refuse to believe in something without evidence.
There are no shortage of engineers that would love to recieve a 7 or 8 figure paycheck from fossil fuel interests if they could only take the freely available public data and show AGW was a crock...
The fact that none of them can should be telling you something...
For completeness here is the data:
Surface temperatures:
NASA GISS (NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies)
NCDC (National Climate Data Center)
HadCRU (Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit)
ECA (European Climate Assessment & Dataset Network)
GHCN version 1, especially for data prior to 1880.
GSOD, Global Surface Summary of the Day (from NCDC)
Satellite-based atmospheric temperature estimates:
RSS (Remote Sensing Systems)
UAH (University of Alabama at Huntsville)
UW-RSS (University of Washington/RSS)
UW-UAH (University of Washington/UAH)
UMD (University of Maryland)
Sea Ice
HadISST (Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit)
Sea Ice Extent and Area Data (National Snow and Ice Data Center)
Daily data for sea ice extent from the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency
Daily Data from GSFC.
Daily N.Hem Sea Ice Area from Cyrosphere Today
Daily S.Hem Sea Ice Area from Cyrosphere Today
Daily Global Sea Ice Area from Cyrosphere Today
Sea Level
Satellite-derived Sea Level from the sea level site of the University of Colorado.
Snow Cover
Rutgers University global snow lab
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI)
PMOD composite of satellite data
ACRIM composite of satellite data
IRMB composite of satellite data
Lean (2004) (reconstruction by proxy)
Multiple reconstructions of TSI.
Sunspot Numbers
Greenhouse Gases
Mauna Loa Atmospheric Observatory CO2
WDC for Greenhouse Gases
Daily and Hourly CO2 data
Climate Sensitivity
Estimated climate sensitivity
Data Archiving Pages:
ESRL/CDC (Earth System Research Laboratory/Climate Data Center)
ESRL/CDC timeseries (time series of climate variables)
WDC for paleoclimatology
CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)
Monitoring and Data Index from NOAA/NWS Climate Prediction Center
Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology Climate Change page
The burden of proof is on you to prove AGW, not on others to disprove your theory. Thanks for the ad hominem attack on engineers. Let me guess, you're some kind of liberal arts or environmental science student harboring hatred because you Starbucks doesn't pay 7 figures?
And what is the common denominator in every one of Flakmeister's links?... Government funded research. Thank God the American public is way more concerned about their own prosperity rather than flakmeister's ED issue.
Let's see the verified deposits of Suspicious Observers, ya know, for transparency. really, weally Soon
Thats the thing I wonder about your denial of man-made climate change when such a vast majority of climate and even other scientists agree on it. Maybe you should rethink your position.
http://www.climecon.org/97-of-scientists-believewhat.html
I never have seen a study where anywhere near a majority of climate scientists didn't believe in man-assisted climate change. And you are worried it isn't 97 percent? Classic. lol
You're joking right? Our own self-proclaimed petro engineer is in 100% support of the AGW scam. He/she evens posts proof that he/she isn't the only one. The oil industry benefits directly from higher oil prices.
If this misguided "science" were true (that CO2 produces heat), all the world's energy problems would be solved, because it would be sufficient to place a large transparent glass container filled with CO2 over a house and thus have a new free, energy source, and plenty of it. The problem then would be how to control the overabundance of energy.
Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.
Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."
The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.
Figueres is perhaps the perfect person for the job of transforming "the economic development model" because she's really never seen it work. "If you look at Ms. Figueres' Wikipedia page," notes Cato economist Dan Mitchell: Making the world look at their right hand while they choke developed economies with their left.
Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021015-738779-climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm#ixzz3RPyGBcqz
C02 does not produce heat..
When your first sentence is conceptually and factually wrong we can safely ignore the ensuing nonsense you post...
Thanks for playing...
Ahh, look who's back to assert that he's right and everyone else is wrong.
Who are we today, Flakmeister?
Napoleon?
If the shoe fits...
So, are you also saying that C02 produces heat?
Are you the second fool who thinks C02 creates heat?
The IPCC own documents says that it's force multiplier for thermal radiation. That means they are saying it creates heat.
Nope. CO2 does not create heat. Simple concept to understand, even for you. Simpleton that you are.
Yes, I'm the simpleton. Reading comprehension FAIL.
Force multiplier for thermal radiation???
Why don't we have ray-guns based on C02 then????
You are truly DK in its finest form....
It's in their own literature asshat.
It's obvious you don't even know this discussion well enough to comment.
Show me the formula. After thirty years of this research there should be an equation for it right? It is a natural law isn't it?
Show it to me. How much heat does one molecule of CO2 produce?
You are the only fool who says CO2 creates heat. It TRAPS heat.
The sad thing is that the asshats here fail to realize that only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere acts as a GHG...
Naw, the sad thing is that people like you profess so much expertise that you can't even understand the situation well enough to realize when you're wrong.
That or that you're a stooge/shill. I know which one I am betting on.
CO2 absorbs and emits heat, it doesn't trap anything. The backradiation theory states that CO2 absorbs OLR and reradiates it back to the surface which produces more heat, ergo CO2 PRODUCES more heat. You don't even know your own theory. Or do you believe in the "slowed cooling" version of the GHE?
Very few people (i.e. YOU) seem to be aware that what we call the "greenhouse effect" in the atmosphere is not actually the same thing as the "greenhouse effect" in a real greenhouse building. That puts one automatically into the contention that, if you explain that there is no radiative GHE in the atmosphere, then people will respond with the confusion over the greenhouse effect in a real greenhouse which everyone knows really does exist, but without actually knowing why it exists. Isn’t that just a wonderful example of misdirection?
When you enter into discussion on global warming you enter a bizarro-world-opposite-land where terms and definitions mean either the opposite of what they should logically mean, or completely alternative things entirely. Call it academic illiteracy. The act of reading is not sufficient qualification for being classed as literate: comprehending what is read is what is in the domain of actual human cognition. Such is, and will continue to be, impossible, so long as such abuse of language, reason, and the scientific method, is allowed to persist.
The issue has never been about whether radiation moves freely about in the atmosphere (it does), the question is whether once it has arrived at the surface, does it get more than one go at generating heat (i.e. "back radiation" heating)? The answer is "no" because a) no such phenomenon as "back radiation heating" is cited in any thermodynamics textbooks and b) nor has any such effect been measured empirically. GHE believers are left not knowing whether to support the "back radiation" heating or the "delayed cooling" (i.e."blanket effect") argument for the GHE; this is because each is a contradiction in terms and may separately be shown to not have any empirically proven basis. The Laws of Thermodynamics probably play a part in this.
There also seems to be a plain logical contradiction, when we consider the role of non-GHG’s under the atmospheric GHE paradigm. If non-GHG’s such as nitrogen and oxygen don’t radiate, then, aren’t they the ones trapping the thermal energy which they sensibly pick up from the sunlight-heated surface and from GHG’s? If on the other hand they do radiate, then aren’t they also GHG’s? If a GHG radiates, and the others gasses don’t, then doesn’t that mean that GHG’s cause cooling because they provide a means for the atmosphere to shed thermal energy? If the GHE is caused by trapping heat, then aren’t all non-GHG’s contributing to the effect since they can’t radiatively shed the thermal energy they pick up? Isn’t how we think of the GHE therefore completely backwards? In any case, everything with a temperature is holding heat; the only place trapping can be thought to be occurring is in latent heat of water vapor
One of the most baffling and unacceptable aspects of the GHE hypothesis, one commonly taken for granted, is its overt violation of the most well established laws of thermodynamics. In particular, the first violated law is generally referred to as the 1st LoT or the law of conservation of energy, which states that, inside a thermodynamic system, energy cannot be created from nothing (or destroyed), without work being performed on the system by the external surroundings (or work done by the system on the surroundings). Also often violated is the 2nd LoT, which addresses the transmission of heat and the principle of entropy, stating the impossibility of the spontaneous movement of heat from a cooler body to a warmer one and the irreversibility of all natural processes, as entropy must increase in all processes.
According to supporters of the GHE, the 1st LoT does not function and atmospheric gases have the power to raise Earth's surface temperature, simply by sending some outgoing IR radiation back to the ground, often called "backradiation." A typical example is provided here
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/learning-from-a-si...], in which 120 of the 240 W/m2 of outgoing IR radiation would be "backradiated" by greenhouse gases to Earth's surface, which would lead to an increase in surface thermal energy from 240 to 360 W/m2 (240 + 120) and more the term "amplified" is used to describe this suppose effect (i.e. PRODUCES).
Sound amplifiers amplify sound but this process requires additional energy from the power supply and not simply the echoing of sound. This fantasy that creates energy out of nothing is a classic example of the terrible mistakes that are being spread by the media to the public without any critical verification or filtering by the media and with uncritical acceptance by the majority of the public. Even if atmospheric gases were able to backradiate as much as 50% of the radiation they receive, there is a macroscopic failure here as there is not enough energy to cause the claimed warming. In fact, it is simply not true, as heat is transmitted by the surface to the atmosphere following the temperature gradient and simply cannot move against the direction of this gradient.
A gas such as CO2, whose emissivity is only 0.002, does not heat but rather cools itself, as it absorbs and emits very little energy, only two thousandths of the radiant energy it receives. In fact, CO2 is used industrially as a refrigerant (have you ever wondered why extinguisher cylinders contain CO2 foam?).
To be able to emit up to 324 W/m2 of radiant energy, according to the modified Stefan-Boltzmann equation (324 = 5.67-8 × 0.002 × T4 ), this gas wouldhave to be at 1027°C! And this, please note, is imaginatively assuming a 100% CO2 atmosphere! And, with reference to the emissivity of the air, as clearly explained also by Prof. Nasif Nahle in his recent paper:
"Observations on "Backradiation" during Nightime and Daytime", since "the observed (measured) total emission of air is 0.2" (Nahle), then according to the SB equation, a "backradiation" of 324 W/m2 emitted by the air with 0.2 emissivity would require an air temperature of 138 C! Thus, it is impossible for atmospheric gases to emit at night a backradiation of 320 W/m2.
If you going to come on here and spew the typical "CO2 traps heat" and "who are you to disagree with all the scientists in the universe" crapola, at least learn the dogmatic theories you believe in first.
Give it a break...
You have been pwned...
And posting a cut 'n paste (unattributed, i.e. plagiarized) of a bullshit misinterpretation of the 2nd Law you dug up at some denier site don't cut it...
But it does demonstrate your intellectual honesty or lack thereof...
Let me slow it down for you. According to the 2nd LoT the radiative energy from the sun is used up in conversion to heat, the transformation incoming shortwave radiation being absorbed and released into longwave radiation. It's used up see? Even if it were "backradiated" it couldn't produce more heat. Entropy. There is no such thing as perpetual motion and that is what the "backradiation" version of the GHE holds. That's what you believe.
It's what he's paid to believe.
I think that if you were serious about what you're saying, you would not be here at this stage of the game wasting your time at Zero Hedge. Rather, someone with integrity would be out there fighting tooth and nail, desprerate to find someone to listen to your theories. If you knocked on Exonn's door and told them you had something, they'd be taking you out for lunch to hear what you've got. But you are instead here at every turn to rattle our cage. Or is that it? You're here hoping that you'll be invited out for lunch because you won't pound the pavement?
Get a job.
Jesus. These are not my theories. This is Physics 101, General Chemistry. It's in the textbooks. It was taught to me my senior year in high school. Like I said, literacy is not the ability to read, it is the ability to comprehend what is written.
But you are instead here at every turn to rattle our cage.
That's right. I'll fight the good fight. I've had it with the ignorant regurgitation of illogical, unnatural nonsense, and canned retorts by self-proclaimed experts on the subject. I will be waiting at every turn to harass the hell out of you.
Exxon funds climate NGOs. They don't want the competition from coal to power cars.
The IPCC claims that AR5 is based on some 30,000 published science articles. You are suggesting that the people responsible for those articles don't understand basic physics and chemistry? Or are you suggesting the IPCC is lying?
Why don't we go look at the real names of the people responsible for AR5?
Here's the 4 Working groups reports that comprise AR5
One should pick any or all of these reports, click on it, and look in the annex section at 'Expert Reviewers, Government Reviewers and Other Scientific Advisors '
people here may be surprised. Remember, these are on top of the 10s of thousands of scientists that published the base science articles. Then consider that similar efforts have been made in four assessment reports previously going back over 20 years.
These people are not, unlike yourself, self proclaimed experts. You unhappy about the publish or perish paradigm? Like it or not these people worked very hard to get their name on that report. Does their product get ignored because they 'played the game'?
I suggest you stop arguing about GHG mechanisms, and chemtrails/haarp, and start focusing on the political science that is going to rear it's antique ugly head in Paris. You're barking up the wrong tree here on da hedge. It is not constructive. Now get to work Mr Joker ; )
Yes. Forget about the GHG mechanisms and pay attention to the politics. And that is exactly why climatology isn't a science and why dupes like you eat up everything they say blindly. It's why you don't understand even the most elementary part of the theories, even though you are a strong advocate for them.
Forget about the science, pay attention to the politics.
That says it all.
I don't understand the elementary parts / mechanisms of a nuclear bomb either.
By your logic, "that is exactly why" nuclear weapons/physics isn't a science and I'm a dupe. That's ridiculous.
Why don't I understand these elementals? One look at the culture I grew up in should help answer that question. The internet came along and I turned the tv off two decades ago.
Again, by your logic, because I don't understand all the science, I should not advocate for or against nuclear weapons or AGW. Despite the overwhelming evidence that they both exist. I was told we experimented with nuclear bombs before we finally dropped one on a city. We are now running an experiment with GHGs. Is it smart to run that experiment if there's a 1% chance it will result in CCC? Especially when 8-10 billion people are going to run out of a finite resource (fossil fuel) anyway?
It's the political science we're lacking, not the nuclear or climate science. That is what we should be/will be coming face-to-face with in Paris. When I say "all roads lead to Paris", what I'm trying to get across is that the events going on in our world today, ALL OF THEM, are the manifestation of our political scientific deficits. FFS we might not get to Paris before the whole damned thing explodes! There is nothing on the agenda after Paris to bring all countries together to make a deal that I know of and AR6 won't be finished before ~2020....
I have also indicated many times that this may well be the end of the line for the United Nations, and that whether one thinks that's a good thing or a bad thing, it is a change that in this "climate" really could produce WWIII.
Finally, climate research will appeal to the Homeland generation (I'd prefer the name Homeworld) given the proper signal in Paris.
p.s. Evo Morales pretty much said it all in Peru last December. Note his position at the podium. He lambasted the UN after briefly speaking on behalf of China + 77.
(there's a language selector in the player)
OK MB, if you don't understand the theories or the mechanisms nor think you need to understand them, that's fine. Don't go around acting like you do and preaching to other people. You want to talk politics then talk them. Don't say CO2 traps heat when you don't even understand what that means and refuse to do a little research on the subject. Don't tell other people how to live based on something you don't understand. You can politicize all you want but keep your mouth shut when it comes to the science. You have admitted now that you don't understand it and you don't need to understand it. There is no evidence, no casualties, no nothing. Everything in climatology is hypothetically based on models that aren't accurate. The observations aren't even within the bounds. That means it's a failed hypothesis ok. Everyone knows the results of nukes, they are plainly visible. The comparison is absurd. Using the good name of science for a fraud in order for countries to sing a song together is atrocious. Science is going to suffer a great black eye because of numbskulls like you! The future of science is compromised because of this.
Is it smart to run that experiment if there's a 1% chance it will result in CCC? Especially when 8-10 billion people are going to run out of a finite resource (fossil fuel) anyway?
Do you not see the contradiction between those two sentences?? Think before you speak. There aren't enough fossil fuels on the planet to result in a CCC! Pull your head out.
Sure, all us numbskulls should accept an anonymous blogger's claim that burning all the known reserves of coal, oil, gas, and wood will 100% not result in CCC. Sure. Ignore the IPCC ladies and gentlemen, The Joker has spoken.
That goes for you too Elon Musk, you numbskull:
Is it smart to run that experiment if there's a 1% chance it will result in CCC? Especially when 8-10 billion people are going to run out of a finite resource (fossil fuel) anyway? - paraphrasing Elon Musk
Charlie Rose - Robert A. Lutz & Elon Musk interesting snippet - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO0DRa5gLoI
Oh I forgot, Musk is an immaculate hypocrite and a professional liar (ZH toldz me dat) and I need to do a phd in physics so I can review the links you're about to provide that prove 100% CCC won't result.
Funny, you didn't express any thoughts on what Evo Morales said.
See you in late December : )
if the CHEMTRAILS!!!! don't get us first.
When not told what to do directly, we are programmed. For much of the planet, life as we know it is just a series of Statist experiments in behavior modification.
Mice responding to where the oligarchy places the cheese in the maze.
When your experiment is complete, be prepared to show you work. This was always the mantra in math classes. There is a reason for it. What passes for science now, is failing that mantra.
global warming, or, sorry, climate change nowadays, is nothing but a scam. First it was global cooling, which we had to spend tons and tons of money to combat. Then it was global warming, but the planet wasnt really getting any warmer, so now its climate change. And every time things go against their dire predictions, it gets spun away as also being caused by climate change(like their prediction that we would be having many more Cat-3 and higher hurricanes making landfall every year, which the opposite has happened) Everything ends up as "heads I win, tails you lose" since everything gets blamed on global warming, even when it goes against their original predictions. And what is the end game? TAXES. They want to tax all activity that generates carbon emissions. And what generates carbon emmissions? ALL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY. So all of this is done in order to tax money from some huge supra-national govt in order to redistribute wealth. And those who run these stupid conferences every year(which you and I are forced to pay for) HAVE FUCKING ADMITTED IT ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. I don't understand why someone like you, LTER, who is so skeptical, and so distrusting of the oligarchs and govts that run the world, buy this line of bullshit FROM THE VERY SAME PEOPLE hook line and sinker. They are known liars, everything else they say, you would call bullshit. but not this. Why is that?
Carl Sagan taught at Cornell where the ice sheets had been several miles thick as they carved out the finger lakes. He, at least, had some reason to fear global cooling. I never did figure out how those ice sheets melted. Mastadon farts?
- Ned
There is a lot of that with ZH. How many "All Time High" headlines have there been when they are only including the time from 2009 to the present or something along those lines? Answer: Too many to count.
ATOH, perhaps this is one motiviation for Obama crushing the coal industry. Perhaps.
ZH is an extremely biased and manipulative news source. Most of the articles on here are utter crap. The rest have to be taken with a heavy grain of salt. The comments are always much better than the actual articles.
If you're a newborn babe who has never seen or read anything else, then yeah, a lot of the stuff posted on ZH is crap. But for someone who has read a lot of other stuff from wide-ranging sources, it's indispensable. Places like here or market-ticker.org or shtfplan.com or Alex Jones or wherever have only started to really be heard in the last decade or so, and they bring out a lot of info that otherwise might never see the light of day. You're complaining because you need to filter it? Jeez, I suppose that means you're not filtering stuff you hear from NPR or CNN or Media Matters or wherever. I feel bad for you if that's the case.
Let's make it simple: filter everything with your own common sense. EVERYTHING. If your mom tells you something, take her biases into account and double-check what she says with other sources. I learned this early...to this day my Mom's all-time favorite president is Jimmy Carter. Seriously. I love her, but I'm sad that she votes. If your dad or your teacher or your lover or the person you trust most in the world tells you something, check it. Figure out their biases and take them into account when you hear stuff from those sources. I thought this stuff was automatic, but I guess not.
If your filter is good, you can get some good stuff even from the National Enquirer:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/24291/7-stories-national-enquirer-actuall...
I'm not saying that I trust any other news source, merely that I don't trust ZH either. The stuff on here has such an obvious spin. Flaws in the title, as above, or in the article are often quite obvious. Furthermore, they like to post articles from a few particularly crappy bloggers, and those entire articles can be junked.
It sounds like we're in agreement: filter EVERYTHING.
I agree that ZH is a valuable source, once you filter out the crap and the obvious spin on articles.
Sensational tabloid style is how I see titles on zh now. The content follows the same styles.
Not even trying to hide it anymore either. "Like the dollar ZH still ranks takes the prize relative to all the other bullshit" strangely enough.
Something to be said for same stupid point of view repeated endlessly no matter what reality says. "Mainstream media" has too much of an ego to be beholden to even consistency.
That's why there are always women in the lead...
Yes, but has this guy compared the use of the same natural gas directly in transport, in say a car for example, against running that gas through the grid first then looping it out through T&D to power its electric competition? Bzzzt, sure as hell doesn't look like it gauging from this article. Twisted fucking headline, indeed.
The part that the author missed is that he should be evaluating the CO2 for the ADDITIONAL generating capacity that will have to be added to charge the autos. Averaging in the hydro that currently eists and is not epandable is nonsense. And the other feature that may have been overlooked is the transmission line loss of efficiency in getting the electric energy to the plug. It is not nearly as simple as measuring CO2 at the power generating plant. Lots of opportunities for energy loss through transmission and the different conversions before the wheels actually turn. Adjust that also for providing interior heat during cold periods, free for the ICE, and it gets even worse for the EV unicorn.
This is a trivial comparison. It would have been more interesting if the prof had included Nat Gas in his regional calculation
You can break a lot of laws (see: Clinton, Hillary Rodham) but you can't break the laws of thermodynamics.
I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do... www.globe-report.com
Left out in most discussions of electric cars is that electricity moves over power lines and there is always some line voltage drop, caused by the loss of some electrical energy as the electricity powers itself across transmission lines. That electricity loss is wha causes power lines to heat up slightly. Power companies try to keep the loss at under 5%. For people living near high capacity power lines, the ionizing electricty is not good health news. On the other hand, delivering gasoline to service stations by tanker trucks uses up a far lower per centage of the energy potential of the delivered gasoline and the gasoline can be stored. Science has not got around to a cost effective way to store large amounts of electrical energy on site. Batteries are expensive and chilling water at night to be available for cooling on a hot day is even more expensive.
Ethanol is another "placebo" for the green crowd. Takes more energy to make it than it puts out. Not to mention it uses our food source to produce, and uses immense amounts of water from our aquifers.
Ethanol is another govt racket...the shit ruins small engines. I was reading somewhere that it also corrodes certain components of fuel lines, creating a fire hazard.
Same with the new retarded "safety" gas cans with spring loaded nozzles. Every time it gets warm, pressure builds, causing gas to shoot out when you use it.
Thanks a lot you dumbell govt frauds. Fuck you.
BTW headline of this story is misleading too...sounds like it's the coal that's dirty duh!
Don't forget all the fucking fertilizers used to grow it!
Total depletion of soil for such short sighted frivolous BS. Good soil is a valuable resource to be sustained with composting. Injecting urea is not enough.
IMO this is critical to impoverishing future generations.
Ethanol is a corporate racket enabled by their ownership of the legislative process...
Very simple really...
True. Comparing anything like this electric or gas car debate is pretty hard like the "price discovery" the finance turds talk about. It's nearly impossible to gauge everything like the batteries, oil/filter changes, anti-freeze, disposal...all that because those industries have tons of experts like Monstanto's guy saying to drink roundup, as well as the author of this story. Expert proponents on all sides will just lie. And it does work because everyone is arguing about it and nobody knows for sure what the truth is.
I think mr. integrity presidential candidate Scott Walker is already for ethanol after he was against it. In other words he just got bribed.
Walker does what the Kochs (among others) tell him to....
He didn't get bribed, he has always been on the payroll in a manner of speaking...
More like the corn farmers ,through their lobbyists, paid off Congress to enact such stupid laws.
This is not an issue of the end use consumption. This is an issue of the generation source of the power. Increases the demand in the off-peak is when base load runs. But we call it base load because it's always running. It's not like I fire up and down a coal in the during the course of a day. It would otherwise run whether this marginal load from electric vehicles is there or not.
I worked for a power company that thought they needed to promote electric vehicle development in areas where their plants sold. In the end, the vehicles are not going to introduce enough demand to make a difference. The strain on the distribution system is a different issue entirely.
I wouldn't worry about it. I'd worry about what it takes to produce a battery. From the demands on water to the hazardous process required to extract the minerals to produce the battery.
And then the disposal of the battery at the end of its life. You need to calculate the energy to build and maintain the car over its life, vs a gasoline powered car to come up with the answer as to whether its a greener alternative or not.
By weight, practically everything in a gas car can be recycled cheaply. Not so much when dealing with a battery powered car.
FLYWHEELS!!
I kid thee nott!
Way back when.. Could be '67
There was a car made
By Exide
It had a flywheel
To store up power
It moved like crazy
But I'm just growing old!
It turned really weird, though.
Our pal Al invented batteries
"An electric car does not make you green.
-
The carbon emissions from electricity generation are measured in tonnes of CO2 emitted per gigawatt hour of electricity produced. That ranges from: Close to 0 fro hydroelectric, nuclear and renewable energy."
Unless the nuclear power is produced with Thorium (which happens to be an extractable constituent part of the very coal being incinerated at the coal plants everyone seems to want to shudder ) there is the very small matter of nuclear waste and nuclear safety.
IMHO, conventional nuclear power is not green. Liquid Salt Thorium may prove to be if/when it is pursued seriously...
"IMHO, conventional nuclear power is not green"
Ask the Japanese about Fukishima. Its probably the most destructive environmental power source man has ever created. The earth won't die, but everything living on it is at risk not from global warming, but from nuclear material poisoning.
Hence a 41 foot tall by 250 mile long wall.
Crap article; obvious agenda at play. This guy must not have analyzed how much electricity is used to refine petroleum into gasoline.
I'm looking forward to viable fusion energy so this kind of deception just disappears.
Well, you are probably going to wait a long while---anyone who has a barrel of oil to sell will lobby against anything that would cut into their profits. Fusion would essentially make oil worthless.
No, his agenda is to shut down the coal plants... not end annoying electric cars that are driven by annoying people...
By Peter Braun — November 14, 2013
The global warming potential for EVs that rely on natural gas – generally considered to be the cleanest fossil fuel – show an improvement of only 12 percent over gasoline, and break even with diesel.
Most alarming, EVs that depend on coal for their electricity are actually 17 percent to 27 percent worse than diesel or gas engines. That is especially bad for the United States, because we derive close to 45 percent of our electricity from coal. In states like Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, that number is much closer to 100 percent. That’s right folks; for residents of some of the most populous states, buying an EV is not only toxic, it’s warming the planet more than its gas-powered counterparts.
With cars that supposedly generate “zero tailpipe emissions,” how are these pollution numbers even possible? The simple answer is that as well as being messy to produce; battery production requires a tremendous amount of electricity. The initial production of the vehicle and the batteries together make up something like 40 percent of the total carbon footprint of an EV – nearly double that of an equivalent gasoline-powered vehicle.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/hold-smugness-tesla-might-just-worse-e...
Read the conclusion of the study that was quoted/utilized in your puff piece article:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x/full
EVs when powered indirectly by coal aren't as green as they could be....
What a fucking surprise...
I must have missed something in my six semesters of general chemistry, organic chemistry, and biochemistry. They never told me that carbon was pollution. What a waste of money that education was. They must have been lying when they told me that carbon is a basic building block of life. That CO2 was essential for life. Those bastards.
I also must have been sleeping in my physics classes when they covered the emissive properties of CO2. They might have mentioned that anything that emits heat can't, by definition, trap heat but I probably slept through it.
It sounds like some consumers have been kept in the dark, which is where we’ll all be if everyone switches to electric cars and there isn’t enough power production left over to keep the lights on.
For urban environments they make more sense anyway because (a) the short range is not an issue, (b) the pollution is created 100 miles away, in a central location where it can be better managed, (c) they really are much more efficient in gridlock situations.
Where range is not an issue they are overall more efficient than hybrids. Little vehicles designed for urban environments, just by being smaller (lighter), save additional energy ... or would if collision regulations allowed.
One or two more notches up in battery (or supercapacitor) technology and they will really take off, need some combination of lower battery prices, higher capacity, and faster recharging.
I'm a bit surprised at how well they're going already, I've been aware of their downsides for thirty years.
ps - not even mentioning that their power source can be cleaner, solar, nuke, hydro.
Electric car plus home solar wind generated power. Whats not to like, just dispose of batteries properly as an operating cost. Nothing new in this article.
Cost, efficiency, effectiveness, reliability to name a few.
Horses for courses. If you live where power comes from a clean source, go electric. Canada is not a good place for solar, like VA where I live. But large parts of it have hydro - pretty clean.
My Volt has been driven since Oct 2011 till present using 48 gallons of gas (the odd long trip) and ZERO grid energy (I'm off-grid with solar). Works for me, and when the rest of the suckers are Mad-Maxing looking for the "precious fluid" - I'll have transport. It's one of many ways to "stack". Most here hate GM (I don't care) or anyone who will disrupt their illiquid oil investments and have confirmation bias (one way or the other) about AGW.
I don't care about that either - I don't have kids. I care about having fun now, being ready later. Fuck you if you can't take a joke. Winning, Bitchez.
You're going to prissy pedal around in your Volt during a Mad Max scenario? That would be a great movie. A Forrest Gump character in a Mad Max style movie. Oh how about this... Mr. Magoo driving around in a Volt narrowly missing all the Mad Max action with Zombies!
Yes. I have been saying this for years. You have to look at EROEI. It's always been a scam and if you sit down for 5 minutes with a pencil and paper you can see that. Not only that but if you take another 5 minutes and research the toxicity of the batteries you'll find it's much worse then the gas you're burning.
This hardly qualifies as news. Anyone that isn't a moron figured this out before the electric car was even invented. This is not news.
I don't drink/eat either one. You point? Li is scarce enough to be recycled. Gasoline is almost all burned.
Here's the point.
More fossil fuels get burned making this shit then sitting at home with the lights off.
So if you really care kill yourself because you'll use less energy if you're dead....and you won't be expelling all that evil carbon by breathing.
I just read "stupid professor Chris Kennedy..."
Just two questions: Who financed the study? Is stupid professor Chris Kennedy related to some organisation or company?
Best for the climate is nuclear powered cars anyway....
should we even bother to discuss the battery in those electric cars?
They eat them in Mumbai