"Offset for low income people? Where's that supposed to come from? You one of those guys that thinks the rich can provide all $$$ to run everything? Hint: They're not THAT rich:"
Call it a tax break, which rich people benefit from all the time.
A properly designed and er, well-regulated carbon tax can and will work - if gov't can keep the "makers" from cheating the system. These latter years, it's seems to be very difficult to do.
Oil prices have been very high for years, despite America's domestic production being at its highest in a long time. You're not going to drill your way out of the coming climate disaster but will merely have a bigger hole to bury yourself it. If we find ways to stave it off, it'll be because of reduced usage of oil and other carbon-intensive fuels.
No single tech will replace petroleum - that's why we're pursuing more than one option. And the less you spend on paying for gas, the more you have to buy electrons. Some sort of offset or special pricing will be needed for low-income folks who see their electric bills go up if power prices rise.
There's also still a lot that can be done for efficiency, even if you don't shift all the way to Passivhaus standards.
Wrong answer: keep drilling. I hope to live long enough that the only person being told to "drill, baby, drill" is Todd Palin.
Nope. Nissan Leaf, Tesla Model S, Ford Focus Electric, Chevy Spark or any other decent BEV with that supplies reasonable range for most North Americans or Western Europeans.
Yes, there are very legitimate reasons to dislike some of Obama's policies but the rightwingnuts have wasted years with birther stupidity, obstinate obstruction of things they previously supported to the point where the GOP Senate Leader filibustered his OWN bill!!
There's also a carbon anode which I suspect would be the focus of development. It's not likely they'll put too much effort into vanadium boride in the short-term.
There's already the ZEBRA battery, used in a few EVs since 2007. I think insulation isn't such a big problem when the batteries are large as there's a fair bit of thermal mass. The threshold for the ZEBRA is somewhere upwards of 20 kWh but that would depend on the shape.
The Tesla Model S which used a flat, relatively thin pack on the floor of the vehicle would definitely be a challenge.
If you want something that's closer to commercial production, keep an eye out for Sumitomo's low-temp molten-salt battery, due in the next year or two.
With an iron anode, the energy content is roughly the same as petrol - ~ 10000 watt-hours per liter. But the most you can hope for an a straight gasoline ICE is about 30%, whereas a battery is likely to be 2.5x as efficient. A carbon anode, which is more likely to be developed is nearly double that of iron so if this tech pans out and it looks to be quite affordable, it'll kill the demand for fossil fuels in almost all light-duty vehicles and make it possible to have hybrid long-haul trucks.
I was half-joking but I was also half-serious. While waiting outside a single-person bathroom at one of our sites, I could hear the person inside answering interview questions. He must have been really desperate to find another job.
Ken Ham would think that the RFCs on Avian Carriers were groundbreaking science and is not a Google consultant with 20 yrs of IT under his belt. His followers are mostly led-by-the-nose idiots; Lauren's are largely grizzled geeks & distrustful nerds.
You're looking for a prediction of something that didn't happen? "Zero warming" is utterly wrong. What could be said is that there was no "statistically significant" increase in surface temperatures where there are adequate measuring stations ie not the poles.
Many of the things that could be done and should have been begun decades ago will make life better for pretty much everyone.
Better housing standards - the roots of the Passivhaus dates back to the '70s and there are even older ideas that would have saved a lot of money if they'd been followed.
Solar power / heating - Carter's initiative from 1980, if it had been pursued would have changed the face of America and the breakthroughs we're waiting for may have come a decade or more ago. But his "gasohol" idea would probably have fallen flat.
If the climate isgoing to change because of our input, we should figure it how much and in what direction. It does appear that we are causing more rapid change than ever before short of a major cataclysm.
"Evolve at this particular point in history"? How wide is that historical point? 1000 years, 20,000 years? More? Less?
Slashdot Mirror
"Offset for low income people? Where's that supposed to come from? You one of those guys that thinks the rich can provide all $$$ to run everything? Hint: They're not THAT rich:"
Call it a tax break, which rich people benefit from all the time.
A properly designed and er, well-regulated carbon tax can and will work - if gov't can keep the "makers" from cheating the system.
These latter years, it's seems to be very difficult to do.
Oil prices have been very high for years, despite America's domestic production being at its highest in a long time.
You're not going to drill your way out of the coming climate disaster but will merely have a bigger hole to bury yourself it.
If we find ways to stave it off, it'll be because of reduced usage of oil and other carbon-intensive fuels.
No single tech will replace petroleum - that's why we're pursuing more than one option.
And the less you spend on paying for gas, the more you have to buy electrons. Some sort of offset or special pricing will be needed for low-income folks who see their electric bills go up if power prices rise.
There's also still a lot that can be done for efficiency, even if you don't shift all the way to Passivhaus standards.
Wrong answer: keep drilling. I hope to live long enough that the only person being told to "drill, baby, drill" is Todd Palin.
Nope.
Nissan Leaf, Tesla Model S, Ford Focus Electric, Chevy Spark or any other decent BEV with that supplies reasonable range for most North Americans or Western Europeans.
+1 Insightful
Yes, there are very legitimate reasons to dislike some of Obama's policies but the rightwingnuts have wasted years with birther stupidity, obstinate obstruction of things they previously supported to the point where the GOP Senate Leader filibustered his OWN bill!!
Darmok truly sucked.
I've seen it several times and with each viewing, I disliked it even more.
Oops, must be Bush's fault :-)
I watched that recently and was astonished at their stranglehold on the market. Kudos to 60 Minutes for digging this up.
we simply don't know.
There's also a carbon anode which I suspect would be the focus of development. It's not likely they'll put too much effort into vanadium boride in the short-term.
There's already the ZEBRA battery, used in a few EVs since 2007. I think insulation isn't such a big problem when the batteries are large as there's a fair bit of thermal mass. The threshold for the ZEBRA is somewhere upwards of 20 kWh but that would depend on the shape.
The Tesla Model S which used a flat, relatively thin pack on the floor of the vehicle would definitely be a challenge.
Here's another that's very energy dense - molten-air batteries: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-m...
If you want something that's closer to commercial production, keep an eye out for Sumitomo's low-temp molten-salt battery, due in the next year or two.
Have a look at molten-air batteries - http://phys.org/news/2013-09-m...
With an iron anode, the energy content is roughly the same as petrol - ~ 10000 watt-hours per liter. But the most you can hope for an a straight gasoline ICE is about 30%, whereas a battery is likely to be 2.5x as efficient. A carbon anode, which is more likely to be developed is nearly double that of iron so if this tech pans out and it looks to be quite affordable, it'll kill the demand for fossil fuels in almost all light-duty vehicles and make it possible to have hybrid long-haul trucks.
Right. Paris has been rolling out fiberoptic by sewer robot for years.
I was half-joking but I was also half-serious. While waiting outside a single-person bathroom at one of our sites, I could hear the person inside answering interview questions. He must have been really desperate to find another job.
See here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Not always. Especially when the person in question is something of an expert and the rebuttal consists entirely of "he's wrong"
Ken Ham would think that the RFCs on Avian Carriers were groundbreaking science and is not a Google consultant with 20 yrs of IT under his belt.
His followers are mostly led-by-the-nose idiots; Lauren's are largely grizzled geeks & distrustful nerds.
Guess you're okay with them spying in the bathrooms, too.
Lauren Weinstein is no lightweight; there's a good reason he's a Google consultant and have 400,000 followers. It's not for his singing & dancing.
You're looking for a prediction of something that didn't happen?
"Zero warming" is utterly wrong. What could be said is that there was no "statistically significant" increase in surface temperatures where there are adequate measuring stations ie not the poles.
And even that isn't really true - https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...
What are you talking about?
A somewhat benign infection can suppress a more virulent one. But how to know which is which?
I'm backing the ones that are trying to run through our resources more slowly.
About 60% of that rise has been in only the past 30 years.
That history you're referring to had very few temp rises as quick as what we're seeing now although there were some.
One of the most important factors, which is not currently in play and won't be for thousands of years is an orbital forcing or Milankovitch cycle.
Many of the things that could be done and should have been begun decades ago will make life better for pretty much everyone.
Better housing standards - the roots of the Passivhaus dates back to the '70s and there are even older ideas that would have saved a lot of money if they'd been followed.
Solar power / heating - Carter's initiative from 1980, if it had been pursued would have changed the face of America and the breakthroughs we're waiting for may have come a decade or more ago.
But his "gasohol" idea would probably have fallen flat.
If the climate isgoing to change because of our input, we should figure it how much and in what direction. It does appear that we are causing more rapid change than ever before short of a major cataclysm.
"Evolve at this particular point in history"? How wide is that historical point? 1000 years, 20,000 years? More? Less?