I would ask this engineer in the first paragraph, "have you ever been driving along, looked at the gas gauge and and had an immeadiate question in your mind where the next gas station is and will you make it"? The question would possibly be phrased in involuntary explitives that indicate the anxiety. Now imagine that you are certain there is no place to "re-fuel" nearby. Fun.
Range anxiety happens in all types of vehicle (bet it's real fun in a plane). With EVs (current state of the art) unless you plan and monitor carefully it would be very frequent.
I follow your logic Nancy. I'm waiting until an EV could even be produced to withstand NW Minnesota. I'd love to see an EV that can go through a foot or so of snow and ice in -30°F weather during a month or two in winter. This is often a daily drive of only about 15-20 miles. However, just like gasoline vehicles, I'm sure conditions tend to play a part in reajusting your drivable range. Now, say a person were to start with a short-range EV with about an 80 mile capacity on the battery. Heaven forbid you get stuck in your driveway on the way to work. I'm thinking the range would be cut to little more than half. If it were a gasoline vehicle, I could still stop and "gas up" on my way home from work, which would take 5 minutes or less. Where or how am I supposed to get "re-charged" on my home commute? Range-anxiety?!?! You bet!! And for darn good reason as far as I'm concerned.
@GTOlover I think it falls in the same category as to why they can't make an EV for Minnesota. I'll talk to Artic Cat next door and see if they have anything in the works. :) I'm waiting for Subaru or some other 4wheel/all-wheel drive option that can withstand our climate with an EV option.
Somebody needs to market an electric snowmobile, for sure! I'd like to see the belt drive on traditional designs elliminated & replaced with a motor controller. Unfortunately, it takes noticeably more power to drive a sled through snow than it does to go down bare pavement. I know this from firsthand experience by the way as I have a 340cc machine that I converted to summertime use with a set of DIY inline skates up front. Accelleration in the snow was never a big deal and would take a little time to get up to full speed, but on bare pavement I had to really tighten up my grip on the handlebars as I was almost always sliding backwards down the seat on full-throttle launches. 0 to 60 takes about 7 seconds on pavement.
It seems the engineer is trying to convert the language of range anxiety to include all vehicles. This is the "nudge" effect to take away the negative preception of EV's. However, my first answer is, "Yes, I know the approximate range of my vehicle and it is 4-5 times that of the best EV." A suburban with a 42 gallon tank getting approximately 17-19 mpg, translates into over 700 miles! BOOM!
As many have stated over and over. Daily commutes are the perfect fit for the EV. But it is the idea of extra commuting that dictates the buyer. I do not go into a car dealer and say, "I need a vehicle that I can drive 50 miles to work each day." I go into the dealer looking for a car that fits most all my needs. If it happens to be a SUV because I haul around a bunch of kids, supplies, and drive long distances, then that is the vehicle that I look for. Sure, my 9-5 job is only 50 miles, but that is not my immediate thinking. Perhaps we should be thinking more in terms of specialized vehicles for specialized needs. But who can afford 2, 3, or 4 different cars?
Bunter, you also brought out the most practical thought of most buyers. "How do I re-fuel it?" No one worries about a gas station (except maybe in West Texas). But where do you plug in your EV. Also, can I plug it in at home? Special recepticals or wiring required? How long to recharge? These factors are the "range anxiety". Re-fueling has to be considered at the time of purchase!
1. By what definition does anyone consider "average" adequate? A car designed to meet my average needs for range will, by definition, strand me on the road exactly 50% of the time. Not sure about you, but to me that's not acceptable performance.
2. I do know pretty well the range of all of my gasoline cars, and I don't worry about it because (a) none have a range of less than 300 miles; (b) there are gas stations all over the place; and (c) if I do run out of gas, I can carry a 10 pound can of gas back to the car and get it going again.
I do expect electric vehicle technology and infrastructure to improve and become more and more competitive, but I have little patience for engineers who whine about consumers wanting something more than average.
The real problem isn't range anxiety, it's budget anxiety. Why buy an over-priced golf cart that in reality will satisfy 95% of most peoples' needs if you have to buy (or rent) a second car for that 5% of the driving? However, for some people who are road warriors, an EV doesn't even get them through the first half of the morning.
It's interesting that EV engineers are so convinced, they don't 'listen' to the consumer. That sort of attitude will be a death knell to the industry.
I'm a private pilot. There's never any range anxiety...the ground is always less than 2 miles away in most light aircraft, and less than 8 miles in airliners! Better yet, fuel is not required to reach the ground! :)
I suspect that EV industry engineer was promoting the official gospel from his employers. But to be fair, I also think that most consumers have very little concern about the range of their ICE vehicles as any typical car will get at least 300 miles on a tank. It's easy to spend your life doing lots of 150 to 200 mile intervals and never need to think about just exactly how many miles was that really! I ride a small motorcycle with a 2.5 gallon tank, it's a 1984 XL250 bored out to 280cc's. I typically only get about 120 miles on a tank. Normally I try to refill whenever I see my trip meter log over 80 miles, and in my experience this bike really puts the fear of range anxiety into my mind any time I think of taking the bike anywhere! My first thought is always 'Oh crap, did I fill the tank before coming home?' To which I can reassure myself that at least I can take half an hour(finding a hose, getting tools ect...) to siphon enough gas out of one of my other cars to make it to the gas station and spend another 15 minutes before getting on with my day.
So, to sum up - range anxiety does not exist for any EV that can keep up on the highway, can get 300 miles between charges and get a 100% charge in 6 hours or a 40% charge in 1 hour. Are we there yet? - nope!
ps - if the global passenger car fleet is 100% EV, this will equate to a grotesque skyrocketing of energy consumption due to the extra weight being hauled around!
I have had an electric car for over 4 years now and I definitely feel range anxiety. But only when I drive a gas car. With the electric car I plug it in every day when I park it in my garage, that takes about 5 seconds. The next time I go to drive it, it has 180 miles of charge, far more then I drive in a day. When I drive a gas car I start wondering where I can find a gas station, will I be able to get there before I run out, will they be out of gas. It usually takes 5 or 10 minutes to get to the station, wait in line for a pump, refuel and get back to the road. If it is cold, windy or raining it is unpleasant to be out in the elements refueling.
Sometimes I get asked what do I do for long trips? The answer is usually get on a plane. On the 1-3 times a year that I go on a out of town trip a year, if I don't fly I take another car. Exactly what I did when I had a Porsche gas car. There isn't room for any luggage in a roadster so if you want to take an overnight trip by car you take a different car. Like most families we have more then one car so that isn't a problem. My wife isn't a sports car driver, but if she was I guess then we would rent a car if we chose not to fly.
Of course if you got one of the new Tesla sedans you could use their battery swap stations, same or lower price then a tank of gas and faster. Or you could get dinner at the reststop while your car is recharging for free. Tesla will have coast to coast coverage by the end of the year.
"With the electric car I plug it in every day when I park it in my garage, that takes about 5 seconds."
Five seconds huh? Guess it's drawing about a Giga Amp to "refuel" your 180 miles in five seconds :)
Seriously, that's a ridiculous comparison. Five seconds to plug in means you're now ready to charge for 5hours before you can drive another 180 miles. Five minutes at the gas station means you're ready to immediately drive 300+ miles.
He obviously meant it took him 5 seconds to plug the car in. Not to charge it - that takes overnight.
But thanks for playing.
And I agree with hum. I worry about running out of gas a lot more than I worry about running out of juice. I've yet to meet an EV owner who has run out, but I know a couple of Prius owners who have. One was able to make it to a gas station on electric power, the other couldn't and had to be towed. It seems that the bladder in the gas tank renders make the gauge readings unreliable in some situations, to the ppoint where I've heard it referred to as the "fool gauge".
As it happens I'm writing this while sitting in my wif'e's Leaf in an IKEA underground lot. I'm here because I needed to charge. This morning I had a situation where I needed to get to an appointment and couldn't use my Tesla. The Leaf was the alternative, but it didn't have quite enough juice for there and back. No problem: Two minutes on my phone and I located a charger that would give me what I needed.
The only issue was for some reason IKEA doesn't turn on the chargers until the store opens, so I had to wait 5 minutes to charge.
And now I'm good to go, so I'll close by saying even when plans go awry there's often an alternative. Even in an EV.
You're right, my mistake. Forgot to factor that a recharge is a daily routine. 180 miles on that overnight charge would work for my daily commute as it's a minimum 60 miles total, up to 80 or so on shopping days. Now to pay for that EV on a minimum wage income...
And I'm still looking at curb weights too you know!
"They don't buy cars to satisfy their average needs. They buy cars to satisfy their exceptional needs"
This formulation creates, I think, an artificially limited set of choices. I would say we buy cars to satisfy our full range of expected needs. The daily commute is only part of the picture for most drivers. It may be typical, the most frequent use, but the requirements for greater range are still frequent rather than exceptional for most of us.
My daily commute is only 35 miles round trip, great for EVs. Weekend events, sometimes more than one per week require far more range- not infrequently both of or vehicles will see this use for conflicting events. A dedicated EV to commute would mean a third vehicle.
People buy for the real world, not a theoretical scenario someone else imagines. Opinion.
Besides, it's the job of engineers to figure out what consumers want and then design to it. It's not the job of engineers to say, "Here's what you should want."' Amen.
I agree completely with Dennis - seems silly to me that the engineer is trying to project an unrealistic expectation that folks shouldn't be thinking about all of their driving scenarios - even if some are not as frequent as others. Selecting a car wisely includes considering all of the ways it will be used. I would not want to have to rent a car when I have car payments on an expensive EV, just to make the 5 hour drive to see our inlaws that occurs mostly on country back roads to get there...
Thanks Nancy. Your point on rural Texas is good also. Gas/diesel cars work everywhere. All the time. No anxiety. And even inner city dwellers often leave (drive into Chicago on a Friday afternoon sometime).
Rental on top of a car payment! Very good point. Bet that would be satifying.
The reaction of this engineer makes me suspect that he probably does not believe the range issue will be solved anytime soon. Hence he tries to make it go away. The EV fans keep insisting this will soon be a dead issue-but this guy , who is working on "the front lines", sees a need for consumers to adapt. He doesn't see a near term solution. Just a thought.
Of course range anxiety is real, particularly if you are limited to a single vehicle to cover as many of your particular needs as possible. Same for towing needs, carrying 9 passengers, off-roading, etc. Life is choices.
EVs are new technology, with restrictions of capability and available infrastructure. I'm sure the early drivers of gasoline vehicles has the same anxieties.
The tone of the discussion is that an engineer, unable to provide the ideal solution, tries to convince you that it really is not a limitation. Better to evaluate the current state of the technology, identify the market that it serves, and make a product appropriate to that market. The people who find your limitations unacceptable are not part of your market.
I agree with Nancy in that the engineers should consider the needs of the consumers. Most consumers who have the range anxiety in electrical vehicles usually are people who desire to use the vehicle for out of town purposes. While electrical vehicles are de3signed for short range distances, it is important to note that there are consumers who require vehicles for weekend trips and buying an electrical vehicle may not be a good decision.
Andy you are absolutely correct i myself totally agree with Nancy that engineers should keep in mind the requirment of consumers rather than just imposing anything on consumer for there use . According to me personal usage items like cars , bikes , house hold appliances should not be manufactured either fro exceptional scenarios or for common scenarios but the success of the product or item totally depends upon its versitility that is it should be manufactured keeping in mind both the daily routine plus the exceptional scenarios .
Electric cars no doubt is one of the best inventions of this century and the idea is very thought provoking as well but every new creation has its positive points and flaws as well and by pointing out the flaws doesnt mean that one is crticizing on the object instead by these critics solutions to very big problems also come . We say that there is range issue in electric vehicles and below mentioned are some factors that contribute to this issue .
1.In accurate instrumentation that is the instrument used in electric vehicles to measure how much the car can travel with the particular charging diesnt show accurate results .
2.Charging stations currenlty are not too close as compared to gas stations obviously its a new technology and it will take time to evolve but usuaally electric vehicle owners think whether to take this car for drive or not will they get particular charging station on the required time or not .
3. Charging takes long time as compared to gas stations . Secondly manufacturers mention the milage to be covered in specific charging is usually not correct because that milage is simple milage but what if consumer is using accessories in the car , Acs , heater etc .
I have heard that one of the North Eastern Company Hyperdrive is working on the issue of range and developing range extender for these Electric cars . According to them it is low cost and high power density unit which will increase the range of electric vehicles .
Where did you get the idea that EV's are products of this century? They may be predated by Stanley Steamers, but not by much. The technology is improved, but the idea is well over 100 years old. What is new, this century, is the hype, propaganda and government subsidizing a niche vehicle to please a relative handful of people.
Battery energy technology is not there. Improvement is still required. EV's need orders of magnitude more energy than what can be stored in the batteries available today. Tesla and others are putting huge batteries in their EVs and getting marginal range/performance when compared to a gasoline car. When the temp is below freezing these rolling batteries can't deliver enough energy to move themselves let alone provide an occupant the creature comforts of heat, defroster, headlight. And at teh other extreme, the desert environment will prematurly age batteries. Charles F Kettering invented the starter in 1908. That was the end of EVs.
As many have noted before in various forums the battery=computer tech improvement analogy is pretty weak. Batteries are a 200 year old technology. Yes they are improving-but the speed is really rather incremental rather than quatum leaps.
Look at the key focus of this blog-an engineer working directly on these problems is saying that the range issue is in our heads. If he saw the battery tech ready to make a big jump he would not be making these excuses-he would say "hey, in 1, 2...5 years this will be a dead issue.
My impression is that he wants us to accept short range and like it because it isn't going away soon.
Agree that the Prius is a success. A mid-size car (many make the mistake of rating it compact because of the exterior size), for the price of a mid-size with the mileage of a motorcycle. Zero adaptation to use and operate. Pretty easy sale.
The plug-ins and EVs? All cutting prices to improve sales. One could argue that they have cut costs, but as the cuts come right on the heels of dropping sales I have my doubts. That's how biz works, if the products strong you get you maximize your margins, if the product is flagging you try to control inventory growth with lower prices. It's not rocket science.
Batteries are 200 years old but there was no market demand. All the changes have
happened over the last 50 years as portable electronics demand more battery.
i think by 2020, everyone will be saying, well of course, i knew electrics would be a big part of the market.
THere are reasons for this demand pull now, the CAFE at 54 MPG, will push demand,
Continued gas spikes and increasing capacity.
A Prius used to be a funky Tercel, then it became a funky Compact, now it's in the Camry and Avalon. What's the price boost on a hybrid vs an ICE Car? a couple grand, and that pays in gas in the first 2 years. I would expect in the next 2-3 years, Toyota will hybridize their whole fleet, and begin making plug ins across the fleet.
tell you what, we will see what's happening in 2016.
I think the amount of improvement to move a pure EV from toy-to-mainstream will be a good while.
By 2020. Won't surprise me if there is a bit more market penetration but I don't think it will be much. Also won't surprise me if EVs recede, companies get sick of products they have to sell at a loss pretty fast.
I havebeen waiting for Toyota to do a hybrid mini-van (did one in japan). Wish they woud hurry up, especially as I buy used.
I think I would love an EV van that met all my current needs at a market competitive price. I am not anti-EV. But I'm not holding my breath.
Battery Technology is the problem, it has been the problem for 100 years, and it will always be the problem unless a whole new chemistry or physics paradigm is discovered. I am not making this up it is well known. This has been the topic here at Design News numerous times over the past few years, including the fact that the existing chemistries have been exploited. The energy density is not there.
Moore's Law does not apply to batteries or motors or EV related technology. Reminds me of a design review where one performance problem after another gets deferred by the hardware designers with the stipulation that the issue can be fixed with a software change. Then the packaging engineer presents the weight budget and the system is 5% overweight. The software engineer stands and says I'll fix that in the software too.
Well everybody knows that the energy density of batteries is nowhere near the energy density of gasoline. Wiki lists gasoline at 46MJ/Kg, and LiIon at 0.75MJ/Kg. Discount gasoline by about 3X to 15MJ/Kg because on average a 30MPG gas car turns into a 100MPGe electric car. And the battery is subject to temperature as you mentioned. But, the performance is not as bad as indicated. No one wants to displace the ICE based on performance. No one wants to be limited in range.
Again, the driving reason for electric vehicles is because fossil fuels are destroying the planet. ice age CO2 concentration was 180ppm. Pre-industrial CO2 concentration ws 280ppm. Now the CO2 concentration is 400+ppm, and climbing. Do the math.
The climb in CO2 concentration is because of the burning of fossil fuels that would not normally be part of the carbon cycle, where the CO2 being emitted by all sources is balanced by CO2 being absorbed by all sources.
The north pole is bi-stable. It will either be frozen and reflect most of the sunlight. Or, it will be water, absorbing most of the sunlight. It will soon switch states because of the warming. The arctic temperature will no longer be held in check by the ice. It is time to stop this experiment with mother nature.
CO2 models have failed over the last century and especially over the last decade so I challenge "the math". In the 1970's the popular theory was CO2 and particulates were reflecting much of the sun's energy back into space causing the Earth to cool. I prefer the more recent warming theory. Can we vote to decide which way it's going to go? Climate science is environmental activism on steroids.
If you look at the web, and blogs in particular, you will find lots of confusion about climate change. It is first of all because the fossil fuel industry has hired propaganda firms to muddy the water. There may be some people that repeat their message due to being confused. The fossil fuel industry will not go down easily, and is following the same FUD tactic as the tobacco industry.
Reader: I suggest you go to the NASA and NOAA web sites to get the truth. Don't be confused by the bull you find here.
The very sad fact is that we must either take the hard path to move away from fossil fuels, or mother nature will beat the crap out of us. She will not rest until the CO2 is returned to the deep places where it came from.
The temp chart at the bottom the switches is two different NASA charts for the temps in the same time period the original data shows the 1930's as hot as the 1990's-then NASA adjusted it and the 30's got cooler and the 90's hotter.
These are not the engineers that got us to the moon, NASA is just another Gov agency and just as trust worthy as the others. IMO
I don't expect you to just flip your views, just saying you have been drawing info from a very homogenized group that dominates the media.
Well, I think we've run this into the ground, but I had promised you a response and felt obligated to come through, sincerely hope you get this. I really have enjoyed the give and take. Sorry I can't respond to every line of thought here, it is getting to varied and I have other priorities (family starting homeschooling is a big one.)
Thanks for providing links to real people and their presented data. I went through it all. Frankly, only the first link cause me any any doubt. ... But, I was not sure of the presented data. I did spot numerous errors in it though. It is too long to comment on. And at version 4.3, obviously it would be take a long time for me to come up to speed on each claim.
However, I look at this a bit differently. First of all, I don't think global surface temperatures are a very good indicator of global warming. The atmosphere only has a density of 1.2Kg/cubic meter, and a heat capacity of 1.0KJ/Kg. Compare that to water at 1000Kg/cubic meter and a heat capacity of 4.186KJ/Kg. In other words, it is the temperature of the water that counts, and not just the surface water.
Second, heat flows from hot to cold. The cold areas are at the poles, and the great ice volumes: Greenland, Antarctica, polar sea ice. Ice cannot exceed 0 degrees C. It absorbs 335KJ/Kg just to change from ice to water while at 0C. Thus, as long as a surface is covered in ice, the air temperature above the ice has a hard time getting warmer than 0C. A measure of the ice volume is also an important part of telling if the earth is warming or not. Data shows that all the ice is melting faster and faster.
Third, either CO2 is a greenhouse gas or it isn't. The argument that once it blocks it's narrow bands of heat, it is done is not correct. The CO2 absorbs the heat radiation, and either transfers that heat to the more plentiful O2 and N2, or it re-radiates it in a random direction. It acts like a blanket for those narrow bands of radiation. More CO2 is like a more dense blanket. But, eventually, high in the atmosphere, the density of the CO2 and air is too low to prevent the in band radiation to escape to space. As the concentration of CO2 goes up, the elevation at which the radiation escapes goes up. And as the elevation goes up, the temperture of the air goes down. And the amount of band energy goes down with the temperature according to the blackbody theory.
Forth, I look at the 800,000 year ice age history as being instructive. They show a consistent relationship between CO2 and temperature. I understand that ice sheets covered Chicago, and Yosemite during the ice ages. Ice sheets up, sea levels down. Going way back in time, the ice sheets were completely gone, and CO2 levels up to 1000 ppm. During the ice ages, CO2 was 190ppm. Between the ice ages CO2 was 280ppm. Another report showed that methane levels tracked CO2 levels during this period. This leads me to believe that CO2, methane, ice levels, and sea levels are all related by mother nature. We know that the variation was/is caused by orbital variations, primarily by if the northern lattitudes are tilted toward the sun, or away from the sun, when the earth's eliptical orbit is at it's closest approach to the sun. With CO2 now at 400ppm, it tells me that the earth is heading toward a complete loss of ice, and much warmer temperatures. But simple calculations indicate it will take hundreds of years for Greenland and Antarctic to melt completely.
There are some arguments that more CO2 is good, because it increases plant growth. That it does. But, the growth is limited by other nutrients.
There are arguments about water vapor and clouds. I have questions about this also. It would seem to be very important. But, what about the ice age record? Apparantly whatever happened to water vapor and clouds didn't matter.
We know that warm air can hold more water vapor. Because of that, we use warm air to dry out things like fruit and clothes. We would expect the oceans to contribute more water vapor to warmer air, and warmer dry air to dry out land areas. We would expect storms that gain water over the oceans to dump more water when they rain. These weather details are way over my understanding.
Some of the authors you site seem like their prespective is political. Their arguments against warming or climate fear mongering, seems to be driven by a political fear of government regulation. But, I see a different problem. Corporations are driven by a mandate to grow and make a profit. They are not paid to be good citizens. It seems to me that the fossil fuel industry has been feeding the consumer with this wonderful cheap energy, and ignoring the slow build up of greenhouse gases. Us consumers are happy to sip the nectar of gas power, and avoid thinking about the far off consequences to future generations. But, planning is always about the future. And if we only plan for the near term future, while ignoring the long term future, then we are robbing the people of the long term future for our present good fortune.
Some will say so what? Some will wring their fingers in horror. Some will fight to preserve the status quo. Some will fight for justice. Some will think God will intervene. Some will not think about it at all.
Personally, I am on the side of justice. I think the fossil fuels should be saved for later use. I think we should move to renewable energy. I think we need to find a renewable substitute for gasoline. I think we need to find a way to remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere.
I finally have a bit of down time. I can't cover everything but will note some items that stand out in your response.
"First of all, I don't think global surface temperatures are a very good indicator of global warming. The atmosphere only has a density of 1.2Kg/cubic meter, and a heat capacity of 1.0KJ/Kg. Compare that to water at 1000Kg/cubic meter and a heat capacity of 4.186KJ/Kg. In other words, it is the temperature of the water that counts, and not just the surface water. "
I agree completely. The discussion has always centered around surface temps because that has been the primary evidence the AGW crowd has used and based their presentation on. The skeptics have long presented the importance of the heat cycles in the oceans and pointed out the correlation to global temps. It has been amusing this year to watch the AGW folks suddenly holding forth on ocean heat. They have suddenly adopted it as the "explanation" for the "pause" in global temps. For years they have insisted that CO2 overwhelms the natural variations from other sources-now the oceans are so powerful they mask the warming. They have yet to consider that the ocean heat may have overwhelmed other factors and been the cause of the higher surface temp. I think your understanding of this will eventually lead you to "switch teams". Just a thought. ;^D
Here are some links on how the temp records themselves have been handled.
This is a good spot to touch on "politics". This has been political since at least 1988 when Dr. Hansen made his presentation to congress (It was a hot day so the AGW crowd shutoff the AC and opened the windows, good theater, good politics). A few years back Dr. Phil Jones (Hadley CRU) said that the level trend would need to be at least 15 years to be significant. Now they are all saying 30 years. Hansen had only a handful of years of uptrend when he hit the panic button. I love the consistency.
Then there is the IPCC. Look at its original mandate (that also '88), it wasn't to find out whether AWG was happening- but why. They already had a conclusion before they started. Science?
Graphs need proper context. In the short term data that this battle has been over there is very little correlation. If any. Ocean cycles and solar cycles explain it better. IMHO.
CO2 as a blanket. I think your analogy is flawed. I'm not an expert on these items but from my reading and the explanations from my wife, the chemist, it does look like wavelengths that are not resonant just pass right through. We probably aren't going to get anywhere with this but I think a better analogy would be magnetism. The CO2 being like iron balls and only magnetic stuff sticks. Yes, CO2 is a GHG but one with limited function and that function is essentially maxed.
Ah, justice. I first noticed the AGW crowd start pushing this as "even if we are wrong (but of course we are not) it is still the right thing to do". This is a great fall back when an argument is being lost. Not pointing at you there, BTW.
As I have mentioned, I am a Christian, and treating others justly is central to my faith. But I find it is often difficult to discern the just road without knowing the truth of the matter.
Consider a few thoughts on justice challenged situations created by following the AGW creed.
I know a gentleman who works in a "feed the hungry" organization. After ethanol became the darling of the AGW crowd and was driven into use politically (that word again) the supplies of free rice they used started to dry up. Seems other grains had to be allocated to make up for the corn going into ethanol. The poor went hungry. Justice?
Modern agriculture has greatly reduced the percentage on the world's population that is starving. This is driven by inexpensive petro-fuels. Like-wise these fuels, and coal are providing industrial changes in India and China that are raising millions out of poverty. Do we insist they go back? Is that just?
Currently crop hybridization is centered around the long current growing seasons. If the concerns of some scientists who study the solar cycles prove out, and it gets colder the focus will have to shift. If the technicians doing this are constrained by a dogmatic view of AGW their response will be slower, people will suffer.
BTW, oil discoveries have consistently outpaced usage. We aren't going to run out soon.
Should we try to be cleaner? Sure. Are the answers simple? I honestly do not think so.
Well buddy, have we beat this horse to death for now? It has been fun. It has been the most respectful discussion I have ever had with an AGW guy. Good job.
I saw a good argument on your side about surface temperature. I don't remember the site, but something about Watts up? Anyway, it pointed out that the surface temperature record was suspect because so many thermometers were located in urban areas that have been shown to be heating up.
Next, if the earth were entirely dirt, (no ice or water), the average surface temperature would track the net forcing quite quickly because dirt does not easily conduct heat down into great depths. A few feet of dirt would be heated probably within a year. Given that assertion, we would only expect 0.4C increase in average surface temperature for 1.6W/m.sq. Any added temperature increase would have to come from 'amplification'. We would expect the temperature to be proportional to the forcing over these small forcings. Given the noise in the data, the current 'stabilization' of surface air temperatures at 0.8C rise doesn't bother me. Ocean temperatures have not been measured enough yet to indicate anything. Again, ice melt seems to be the best indicator of warming.
I don't have anything to say about politics, other than that it sucks.
The IPCC says with 95% confidence that warming is real, and man made. We know that means a bit more solar absorption than heat radiation output, for whatever reason. If not greenhouse gas, then what?
Of course during the ice ages, the temperature changes first, then the CO2. The driving forcing is the earth orbit change. During heating, the CO2 quickly follows. During cooling, the CO2 lags up t 10000 years. That inability of the earth to absorb the excess CO2 is scary!
Right, we will not settle the science of CO2 as a greenhouse gas easily. There are nice graphs of spectral absorption in space. But, we need nice graphs of differences of spectral absorption in space vs. changes in CO2 concentration. ... hmmm, I think thay have that. http:// www.youtube.com/watch ? v=FqDBcoTSd1M
The CO2 concentration is not uniform, and the satalites can see it. How? I suspect by sending laser beams from space into the atmosphere and measuring the reflections at the CO2 wavelengths. ...
But, that is not the same as measuring a difference in output radiation through the CO2.
Or we need theory that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Final conclusion? I still suspect excess fossil fuel CO2 causing warming, on a very slow time scale, but with an enormous inertia. Sooner or later fossil fuels extraction will require as much energy to extract as is obtained from the fuel. That will be the end of fossil fuels for energy use. Fossil fuels are used for a lot of other purposes. Moving long distance travel to renewable energy is very difficult. But most other energy uses seem simple enough to change to renewable. If we think long term, we should be trying to preserve the planet for future generations. We don't seem to be doing that.
On your side? I suspect it is don't worry. Don't let the government interfere with free enterprise.
My understanding of the ice ages, is that they are caused by the Milankovitch cycles of the earth orbit. When it is an ice age, the northern hemisphere is tilted away from the sun at the same time the earth is closest to the sun in the ellipiical orbit. Naturally then, the southern hemisphere is pointed toward the sun at that time. The ice age is a time of a warm southern hemisphere, and a cold northern hemisphere. Likewise, between ice ages, the opposite is true. A warm northern hemisphere coincides with a cold southern hemisphere.
But, global warming, affects the whole planet. So why the increase in southern sea ice? .... The story I've read is that the antarctic ice shelf (not sea ice), has melted, and cold water has resulted, which allows the antarctic sea ice to expand. Also, that the loss of ice up north exceeds the gain of ice down south.
As for predictions, I think the plot of arctic sea ice vs. time is sufficient evidence of where it has been and where it is going. Of course hind site is always more accurate than prediction.
The "needs" that you listed are EXACTLY why "normal" people, in all and every EV survey are not willing to pay MORE for EV, and actually expect to pay LOT LESS for one, since they perceive the limitations as STEP DOWN from the ICE that are already used to, and quite satisfied with.
When people perceive they are getting LESS they are NOT willing to pay MORE !!!
Again EV proponents go out of their way to hide those results and than claim things like 92% of people would "consider" buying EV.
The fact that they would only "consider" it, if it was LOT LESS than ICE, never gets to be "published" - and in that respect nothing has changed for over 20 years !!!
There are only so many "tree huggers" that are willing to pay premium to drive EV.
There is a large market for vehicles where the owner is not the driver, and the owner can dictate vehicle usage. For example, light delivery vehicles, which are only used in urban environments and during work hours, or service-call technicians. Fleet owners could operate a mix of gas and electric vehicles according to requirements. For some reason, I don't see EV manufacturers targeting that market.
I can unequivocally say that I've had way more range anxiety "attacks" driving my EV than I've ever had with any ICE vehicle. It's true that once you get used to the range limits and while driving your "usual" routes, you don't think much about it. You start out fresh every morning, and the standard commutes and errands go off without a hitch. But throw in an extra side trip and your mind instantly reviews the distance you've traveled so far and whether or not you should even try. So suddenly your vehicle controls some things you would otherwise do. Then there's those trips that are "close", when you see the range meter dipping ever further in the red zone and you start shutting down accessories and driving like a little old lady in the slow lane to conserve. You learn early on the benefits of opportunity charging and that even an hour or two sipping from a 120V outlet could make the difference between making it home or not later in the day. It's *possible* you can experience periods of anxiety-free driving, but that monster is always there under the bed just waiting.
The overhead of owning any vehicle is the elephant in the room. If EV's offered some tangible benefit that made owning a less than ICE-capable car worth it, then perhaps the range limitation would be more readily accepted. But my EV cost more to acquire, just as much to insure, and over the long haul more to maintain than it's ICE counterpart so why anyone would happily accept limited range on top of that is a ridiculous position. We're not talking "exceptions" like towing a boat, taking a trip to Disneyland or seating 8 people. We're talking something as common as a 10 mile detour on the way home or having to pick up a sick child from school in the middle of the day, and then having to park somewhere and charge or arrange for your own alternative way home. That's not range anxiety, it's a hard limit and one I can't think too many people are interested in signing up for.
@Contrarian I was thinking about your 10 mile detour example. Have you ever found yourself in a "rush-hour" traffic jam? I know it's not everyday for everyone, but there are enough people that spend 30-45min. in a traffic waiting line on their daily 20-30 mile trek to and from work to absolutely demolish their range. I can picture a line of EV's that "die" in a traffic jam and all the headaches it would cause. Some people may not even have the option of "sipping" 120v throughout the day while they're at work. Although, there was a silver lining in an article I read on DesignNews last week that contained a new Ford Fusion hybrid with a combined range of over 800 miles. Make it 4 wheel drive and we may be going somewhere, but the EV-only vehicles are sadly, just not up to snuff yet.
@ck_02: Traffic jams really aren't a problem. If you're not moving, you're not drawing (much) current. Going slowly actually increases your range. If the jam doesn't involve having to go any extra distance you're OK.
@a9astrid: No point in using solar panels on an EV. There isn't enough surface area to collect enough energy to do a lot, except maybe run a few accessories like the radio. I think the Prius offers one as an option but it's more for show/feel good/marketing than anything else.
@ck_02: Traffic jams really aren't a problem. If you're not moving, you're not drawing (much) current. Going slowly actually increases your range. If the jam doesn't involve having to go any extra distance you're OK.
........ just make sure you don't have the radio, headlights, heat, defroster or air conditioning on, and resist the urge to find an escape route that would take you out of your way.
@ck_02: All the accessories turned on at once is a fraction of what the traction motor draws. An A/C compressor motor might draw 3kW, the drive motor could be 50kW or more. Accessories can certainly impact range but if you work it out over any given trip they're only a minor percentage of overall draw. 10% difference in range would be a fair estimate unless you sit in the car for hours and hours at a time not going very far.
The example was that if car uses 250Watts per mile and travels at 60 Miles per Hour then it is the same as using 250 Watts per minute or 15kW/h
If you take 15,000 Wats per hour and divide it by the 60 miles traveled then you are back to 250W/mile.
A/C or Heater does not care if you are moving or standing still thus any Power use per distance is meaningless, thus the Watts per Hour. (or minute)
If you travel at highway speed then 3.2kW/h heater will use 3.2kW/h per 60 miles or 53 W/mile.
Get to real life in City average speed that includes waiting at intersections for green light and suddenly that becomes only 17 MPH average (Statistic by DOE for 2012 Urban average speeds over 24 hr period)
And now you are using 187Watts per mile to heat the car, and with good regen in stop and go traffic the power to move the car will be in 160W/mile range.
That is what I wanted to explain, that "accessories" can actually need MORE power than what is needed to propel the vehicle itself in such conditions.
You can't use watts / hour or watts / mile because Watts are a unit of POWER (the rate at which energy is used ---- energy / unit time). You can use joules / hour or joules / mile because joules are a unit of ENERGY. BTW, watt-hours or kW-hours are also units of energy. But, as I said, watts are units of power.
All everyone here is trying to tell you is that you have a punctuation problem! The proper term is WATT-HOUR, not WATT/HOUR. That is the ENERGY term. Your numbers are valid, the presentation with the incorrect terminology is wrong.
@Contrarian: Many thanks for sharing your experiences in the real world. I am sure there will be some insulting responses before this string runs out, but you have beautifully expressed the fears of many people. Life is not so cut and dried that I can daily predict what customer I need to serve, part I need to pick-up or store where I need to stop. As I said, "You are living in the real world." Well said.
Question: How effective would solar panels, built into the hood, roof and trunk lik be in extending the range of an electric vehichle?
It took about a generation for the internal combustion vehichle to be accepted as a replacement for the horse and buggy.
I suggest that for electrical vehichles to become common, a similar paradigm shift is required.
Electric vehichle manufacturers are trying to make a replacement that directly competes with the gasoline powered car.
Instead, they should be offering suburban families a road worthy, street legal, inexpensive car that fits two or three people and some packages for the 90% of communting and errands. Something along the lines of a Smart Car. It would have to be able to deal with snow conditions.
Many such families now drive an old clunker that they call their "station Car," or their "communting car." The insurance rates on it are lower because they don't carry collision or comprehensive and the get a low-milage rate.
For now, leave the larger vehichle market to the intenal combustion engins. When we go on trips, we like the comfort of a larger car to fit luggage. I like to keep a cooler handy in the back seat, and frequently take my children's friends along.
In urban markets, the problem with a rental car is exhorbitant insurance fees and taxes and the time it takes to fill out all the paperwork. I paid over $1000 last summer to rent an economy car for 1 week. And that was with the AAA discount on the already low internet special price.
If somehow the rental costs were cheaper, I would happily buy an electric vehichle for day to day use and get a rental for the "exceptional" uses. Perhaps Zipcar and similar programs can help with this market shift.
There also needs to be better infrastructure for recharging. Rest stop areas need to have good highway signage like you now see on billboard sized sign for gas stations and restaurants.
"Question: How effective would solar panels, built into the hood, roof and trunk lik be in extending the range of an electric vehichle?"
Answer: not at all considering my car is parked in a parking garage all day, and I often drive to/from work in the dark! Also, the energy density of typical insolation (look it up) doesn't produce all that much useful energy with cell arrays of around a square meter, all that could be expected in most EV applications. I'm getting really tired of all the overblown ideas about solar promulgated on an "engineering" blog!
Considering that the range of an EV will get me to work and home just one (1) time, while my gasoline powered vehicle will get me to and from work all week. That is a serious change in mileage. It is not possible for all of us to uproot and move just because our job happens to be 2 miles out of range. I would consider that 100 miles would be the minimum required range for any vehicle. I have had several motorcycles that had that range and it required a stop by the gas station every day, with some miles to spare for a side trip. That allowed for the extra trip without requiring me to push. An electric car with 40 miles is A JOKE because it then becomes just like an ankle bracelet that limits your ability to live your life. You must plan ALL you transportation around the available miles in your battery. And what happens if you just get home from your 40 miles and someone has an accident and needs minor emergency services? - you'll have to wait a couple hours while the battery charges? Even with an empty gas tank you could get them to care faster with just a gas engine.
The all electric car, as presently presented, is nice in theory, but does little to account for the real world. The reason that gasoline works is because it packs a fairly high energy density in a relatively small space. Either we have to make the structure of an electric car much lighter (present safety rules prohibit that...) to compensate for the excess weight of the batteries, or we need to have some miracle battery that has a much much greatere energy density.
And I would like to see an honest evauation of the real polution cost of an electric vehicle. Most comments that I have seen totally ignore that the energy has to come for somewhere and consider that these electric vehicles don't polute because they don't have an exhaust pipe. What is the true impact of one of these vehicles for manufacturing and disposal?
Let's consider a Toyota RAV4 EV. It has a range of 103 miles, and a charging time of "as little as" five hours to achieve that driving range.
Now suppose I want to take a 200-mile (400 miles round trip) business trip. I can drive 103 miles at 55 MPH in 1.87 hours. Then, I have to arrive at a charging station, if I can find one, or call a tow truck. I wait five hours at the charging station (yeah, right, like public charging stations will allow this), then drive the remaining 97 miles in 1.76 hours. If I can't find a charging station, then I am forced to terminate my trip. If all goes well, I travel 200 miles in 8.63 hours, for an average speed of 23 MPH.
Now, let's consider the same trip in my gas-fueled car, which has a range of 334 miles on the highway. I drive the 200 miles in 3.63 hours for an average speed of 55 MPH. On the way back, I will have to stop at a gas station and spend an insignificant five minutes refueling. Gas stations are everywhere, and the owners don't mind me spending five minutes on their property.
So my gas-fueled car got me to my destination 2.4 times faster than the EV. That is a substantial speed advantage.
Rather than calling a tow truck if I can't find a charging station, I could tow a diesel generator to recharge my EV. What? You say diesel exhaust pollutes? Well, how do you thing the electrical energy you use for charging is generated? Yes, that's right; it is probably generated using fossil fuels.
Our battery technology and infrastructure are not ready for EVs yet. Right now, EVs are much more useful than scooters or golf carts. You still need a real car.
Has anyone seen information on battery efficiency? If I charge 100 kWh into a battery, how many kWh will the battery give me back? No, you silly EV people, the answer is not "100 kWh."
In addition to efficiency, what about battery capacity over time? The capacity of all the re-chargable batteries in my electronic devices decreases over time. That brand new laptop may run for 4 hours intially but after a couple years it only lasts for 2 hours. Has anyone ever evaluated the EV battery capacity over time? How much range is lost after a year of driving 30 miles five times a week in an EV with an intial range of 40 miles?
What about charge cycles? The example above would be equivalent to about 200 full charge cycles. How many charge cycles are expected out of these batteries? My electronic devices are reported as having about 1000 charge cycles and in my experience the capacity is only half of what it was when it was new. A twenty mile range after five years of use would be rather dismal.
I haven't really researched EV battery technology so pardon my ignorance. The higher initial price and range are way too far off for my needs so EV's aren't even on my radar.
Most batteries are warranted for 8 years and 100,000 miles. 14 states mandate a 10 year 150,000 mile warranty.
The Chevy Volt limits the State of Charge of its battery not to exceed 80% and not to go lower than 20%. This significantly increases the life of the battery, expected to be many thousands of charge cycles.
If you are a business then even toady by IRS rules you can depreciate any vehicle used by business for business purposes to ZERO in 5 years.
If you are private owner then the long battery warranties of 8 to 10 years may be some sort of pacifier, but the fact is that average car on US roads is now over 11 years old, so for every NEW (age less than 1) car there is somewhere the "average" of a car that is 22 years old !!
I seriously doublt that the battery will be available at any price after the OEM warranty is over, and it will be the same case as with EV 1 - just crush them.
No company that currently sells EV has "retail price" that you can find for Battery pack, only "second hand" anecdotal evidence is available about TESLA Roadster pack that reportedly costs $50,000.
ICE has value as long as it runs, EV value is next to ZERO once the expensive battery is dead. Many Hybrids also will not function once the Traction battery is exhausted.
LEASE EV, (2 to 3 years) and do not even think of BUYING one !!!
"The Chevy Volt limits the State of Charge of its battery not to exceed 80% and not to go lower than 20%. This significantly increases the life of the battery, expected to be many thousands of charge cycles."
I have a silly question: is the stated/advertised range of the Volt based on that 80/20 rule, or is it "theoretical" based on 100%/0%? Not long ago, many manufacturers advertised (for ICE vehicles) "range" based on an inflated EPA highway mileage number. This was a large part of the reason behind a change in the EPA calculation method, and the introduction of the "combined" number required to be used for range calculations.
Please do not just give me another anecdotal story about your personal experience! I drive a 2003 V6 Camry with nearly 150K miles on it, and have on several long trips gotten better than 30MPG at an average speed in excess of 75MPH, with AC running, etc. EPA Highway rating is 28.... but that's NOT scientific proof of anything!
Basically waht it means is that you pay for 100% SOC battery capacity, and you haul 100% of the weight with you all the time, but only use at best 60% (in reality it is 45% TO 55% BEFORE THE ENGINE STARTS).
If 100% would be used, then the car would have the same problems that some Leaf owners have and then have to argue with the OEM when the range per charge declines in 2 years or less.
This way GM can both warranty the battery for 7, 8 or 10 years (depending in which state the car is sold and if it is LEV or PZEV) and "mask" the gradual depletion of range.
When battery on Leaf will only get you 20 miles, you will not be happy, but when your engine on VOLT will start in 20 miles rather than 40, not too many people will notice.
I believe there is more of a anxiety of potential "range anxietyr". No car exec wants to stick out his neck on a technology that could be rejected. The dealer networks amplify this effect because they have to by the rigs up-front and hope someone buys them. The car companies often are blamed for lack of vision, but their consumer feed-back is filtered by the very risk adverse marketing structure. Because of some historical trend, the established dealers in the mid-west seem to get their voices heard more than dealers in the larger markets.
I do think that the range anxiety will actually play in the favor of electric vehicles. People experienced with battery operated tools will know that electric vehicle won't strand you on the freeway like an ICE. You may look a little silly limping to the exit at 30MPH but that is better than walking that mile with a gas can.
I'm in full agreement with the other folks concerns about both range and refuling. Personally the majority of my commuting is >40 miles round-trip but round-trip to my doctor is 105 miles and 120 miles to my wife's doctor with no charging stations anywhere so what's the point of licensing, insuring and maintaining a second vehicle costing a great many times more to purchase than our old caravan that is essentially nothing more than a glorified golf cart?
Hybrid you say? Let's see, between trips to the doctor the gasoline will rot in the tank so when it is needed it won't work anyway. Oh, yes ... wonderful politicians sticking their fingers into everything so the mandated ethanol laced gasoline gets waterlogged from our southern humidity; after a few days in the vehicle tank it's already highly corrosive and within 20 days that same crap-o-line that started our 10% less efficient is >20% less efficient. Two of my clients purchased hybrids, both have spent more time in the repair shop for fuel problems than they have on the road. EV's owned by the local power company can only be parked in the shade otherwise excessive heat from the Florida sun shortens battery life to barely 30%
50+ mpg diesels are in-use in Europe but banned in the USA because of the nonsense EPA reg's and it's the same bureaucrat problem that afflicts production of the highly efficient opposing piston engines.
The author was not being very practical. some people cannot afford 2 vehicles, so the 1st and only one needs to do it all as far as range is concerned. I commute too far for an electric (other than Tesla). Public charging stations are non-existant. In winter the range is very much less than advertised. In summer the battery gets more efficient, but the demand goes up with airconditioning. Try sitting in traffic in Texas in 100+ weather not moving. The AC will eat the battery pretty quickly. Heating would too in winter. The all electric vehicle is not ready for this kind of use. A plug in hybrid would be more practical.
@patb2009 I don't think current alternative fuels have that much of an issue for "range anxiety". For instance, a 20 lb. propane tank can deliver approximately 250 miles. CNG or LNG are around 200-250 miles from what I've seen. Diesel is readily available at most current gas stations. I'm thinking an adapter or "pump" at home to fill LNG/CNG would be relatively viable and most towns (at least in my area) have abundances of NG available so to purchase for vehicles seems easy enough. Heck, the excess is currently being burned off as it is. (Wasteful, IMHO). Propane tanks can be exchanged all over town for around $20 or less. I think availabilty for using an alternative fuel is easily more readily found than current opportunities for "refueling" or replacing energy in an EV for the time being.
" Besides, it's the job of engineers to figure out what consumers want and then design to it. It's not the job of engineers to say, "Here's what you should want."
Here in Canada, and in almost countries where the profession of egineering is controled or ruled, the first role of engineers is the protection of the environnment, the safety and the well being of indiviudals.
Then Engineers can not considered themself as jsimple executing technician, but as professionnals, exercising their full professional judgment and with independency. This a legal obligation.
In consequence, this is a charge of engineers to correctly inform and teach people about technologies and their consequences, plus and minus, danger and false idea about them.
The article misses the point. The planet is warming, with dire consequences coming soon. The reason is our burning of fossil fuels. Using fuel to obtain motion is not efficient. Average power plant efficienty is about 30%. Cars only get 30% when they are driving hard under load. The car average efficiency is more like 20%. But, we have enjoyed big cars and have been blind to the looming CO2 problem. So we still cling to the illusion that it is reasonable to buy a car for the worst case scenerio.
Consider the i-MiEV. It is a light weight (2500lb) mini car with no features, and a limited 62 mile range. But, it can be obtained for $12500 including taxes, after rebates. It gets 118mpg equivalent. Our grid has about 35% renewable (hydro and other). This makes it's fossil equivalent mpg at 181 mpg. Add solar pv to your house, and the car can be said to be running entirely on solar. Meanwhile the grid offers electricity at night for less than 4cents/KWH, and will pay for excess electricity to the grid at 34cents/KWH on summer afternoons. The grid cost of fuel drops to 1cent/mile from the grid.
So getting a small cheap EV for most of your short in-town travel is very economical, and can eliminate CO2 generation for in-town use. If the EV car is cheap enough, then the bigger, heavier, low efficiency vehicle can be used for the exceptional long trip or big load. Then you are led to believe that the big vehicle might just as well be rented, or treated like an RV.
You might want to look at the global temp data sets (GISS,HADCrut, UAH anybody you like) The trend line has been flat for 15 years, some data is closing on 20 years with no warming. Even dyed-in-the-wool AGW champions like Hadley's Dr. Phil Jones admit this.
The correlation between CO2 and temp change is something around 45% (lousy).
The current solar cycle (24) is way under performing expectaions and giving concerns that we may be headed for a solar minima (cold). No promises, but solar minima and cold temps correlate with global temps way better than CO2. We'll see but extra insulation may be a good idea kids.
All we saw was a twenty year rise (like 1915-35 approx.) that correlates well with the ocean cycles (PDO, AMO, MOUSE...etc.)
And there are many serious scientists in relevant fields that have long questioned the whole hysterical theory. Lindzen, Ball, Pielke (Sr. & Jr.), Christie, etc. and many others.
Please down bring Mann's "Hockey stick" up, Gore isn't even using that anymore (I will say Algore and Jim Hansen have shown there is dang good money to be had in scaring people with the boogey-man).
In the 1960's everybody wigged out over a short term cooling trend and predicted a new "ice age".
I recently learned that people believe what agrees with their viewpoint. They only accept facts that agree with them. We are all sort of crazy this way. It should be the other way around, modifying our viewpoint based on facts. So bearing this in mind, please visit this link: http://climate-guardian.com/avatar/
My understanding based on NASA measurements is that CO2 is blocking outgoing radiation. Worse, I just learned that 200 days of burning say a gallon of gas results in a global energy imbalance equivalent to a gallon a day. This energy impalance lasts for centuries.
Have you researched arctic ice volume lately? Greenland ice melt?
The flat temperature you quote is an old long debunked story. The oceans have been absorbing the heat. You need to look at the temperature/CO2 timeline over a longer time scale: 1900 to present.
I think that if you study the issue, trying to sort fact from dogma, you will come to a different conclusion. Truth is, we are in deep shit. Continued warming, rising seas, severe irregular droughts and rains, food shortages, etc. We have set a big ball in motion, and it will not stop until long after we are crushed.
First of all, thanks for the good tempered reply-all too often this issue leads to rather nasty retorts. Appreciate the civility.
Actually I started my look into this issue approx. 8-9 years ago with, I think, a fairly objective stance. I knew I did not know the answers.
I don't have time to cover all your thoughts but will throw in a few items.
CO2 heat absorbtion. IIRC CO2 can primarily abosorb energy in two different band widths 14 or 15 microns (memory lapse) and another that I can't recall at all. The second one is a band that is also absorbed by water vapor-my understanding is that water vapor already saturates the energy abosorbtion in that band-ergo there is nothing left in this bandwidth for CO2 to contribute. In the 14 micron bandwidth CO2 is already near that saturation level, additional CO2 will not contribute any signifigant absorbtion-the capacity is already used.
Ice loss-or the antarctic ice field growth? never makes the news. Losses on the heavily volcanic ANtarctic pennisula do but the growth elsewhere? Nope. The news agencies definately report what fits their viewpoint. Ocean rise has been on since the little ice age, current data suggests it is slowing.
Quite familiar with the long term temp records, hence my point on CO2 correlation. Most presentations I have seen to correlate CO2/temp start in the 70's and go to about 2000. It looks good over that period. Over the whole century the correlation is low.
Extreme weather? Check the records Hurricanes are actually low the last few decades as are strong tornados (since the widespread use of doppler radar more low power tornadoes are detected). Droughts also seem to be in accord with historical norms. Keep in mind that our exposure to news of various weather events has grown exponentially with information technology. Perception is not data.
Ocean heat_ As I noted the ocean cycles are important. In fact the correlation between the PDO and other ocean cycles and global temps is supposed to be high. With the addition of solar considerations it seems to cover the vast majority-if not all- of what we see in the temp records. Just a note also-the actual measured temp peaks in recent decades are very similar to those of the 1930's-we are presented publicly with "adjusted" numbers. Have yet to see an explanation for the adjustments.
The current temperature trends are in accord with ocean/solar cycle evidence and predictions. They are well below the expected levels of CO2 forcing estimates.
Could I be wrong? Certainly, but honestly having looked at a lot of evidence from both sides I sincerely think the weight is strongly indicating natural cycles with little or no human driven components. Don't get me wrong, i don't support foolish wasteful use of reasorces or polluting. As a Christian I feel it is important to use wisely the home God gave us.
Thank you also for pleasant tone. I think your reply confirms the idea that people sort facts according to their loyalties, or world view, or something, because all your write seems contrary to what I have dug up. Where do you get your information? Or has it just been a long time since you checked?
Personally, I take NASA as my basic source of information. I have seen a few other sites that seem truthful to my eye. Check out:
I also mostly trust the skeptical science site, although there is a lot of confusing blogs following their articles.
I think I need to adress this statement-"I think your reply confirms the idea that people sort facts according to their loyalties, or world view, or something".
Certainly today I see things through a lens colored by what I have learned-we all do. But this is not true of the start of my journey. I looked at what the scientists that concluded that the warming was human driven (Anthropogenic Global Warming-AGW) including plenty from NASA, and I looked at the work of those scientists who concluded that the primary causes were natural cycles (I listed jsut a few in an earlier post). I still look at both of their arguements. I also read what they said about each other, and read their commentaries on each others conclusions. My primary worldview, Christianity, does not give any guidance in this question except to seek truth and wisdom. I did not have a "dog in the hunt".
My current position, and no scientific position can ever really be more than a "current position", is the result of this comparison.
I must ask at this point, have you really researched both points of view? As you state " Personally, I take NASA as my basic source of information." NASA is firmly in the AGW camp and the information you recieve there will carry that viewpoint. SkepticalScience is likewise a AGW site.
It appears to me at this point that you are more likely the one with a filter that is influencing what you will look at. Perhaps I am wrong but you do seem to be rather unfamiliar with the opposing views ("all your write seems contrary to what I have dug up"). I am very familiar with the positions and sources you are presenting. Consider whether you are simply relying too heavily on a source that you feel is athoritative (in logic that is an ad verecundium -appeal to authority- fallacy).
Dr. Richard Lindzen (MIT, I believe) has for decades been a critic of the AGW hypothesis, as have Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christie (UAH, maintain the global sattelite temp data set) and Cananda's Dr. Timothy Ball. These are just a few of the many scientist that dispute this theory (in spite of the media narrative that pritends they don't exist).
I also do not think this is a matter of "sorting facts", by and large the facts are not in dispute, it is the interpretation of them. Perhaps "interpretation" was the word you needed.
There does not seem to be any dispute that the earth warmed from the mid 70's to late 90's by either camp. Only recently have the AGW camp accepted that the temp trend line has flattened over the last 15 years (yes I am up to date). But they have now, in general, accepted that this is a fact (they denied it for quite a while). Every data set for global temps indicates this.
The question in all of these issues is "Why?"
The AGW camp widely predicted that the twenty year increasing temp trend would continue unabated and would probalby accelerate. The last 15 years hae required a re-evaluation. they are calling it a "pause" and, as you noted, claiming that ocean heat cycles (absorbtion in this instance) is the reason. This is a bit disingenuous as they have for decades dismissed the ocean heat cycles as insignificant, and dominated by CO2 forcing.
On the other hand the"sceptics" of AGW predicted that the warming trend would abate. They saw global temps as following the ocean and solar cycles as it had correlated well with them in the warming-level-cooling cycle that occured over the first 75 years of the 20th century. (note this up-flat-down cycle occured while CO2 was on a constant up slope). Thus far the trend in the 21st century has confirmed their position. They have not needed to adjust their theories because the leveling of temperatures has been in accord with their predictions.
Currently I feel more confident in going with the team whose predictions are more accurate to date. It is certainly possible that warming will resume/accelerate and I will need to re-evaluate. I am willing to do that if this should happen.
What will you do if the temperatures cycle down?
Please don't go for "concensus". In science there is no such thing, a theory stands or falls on the strength of it's arguements and evidence, not how many people (even scientists) buy into it.
Though I have seen no-one making rash predictions (I currently think the AGW group is guilty of just that) there are many scientists concerned that the combination of the PDO and other oceanic cycles and the unexpectedly weak solar flare cycle (cycle 24) may indicate that a drop more severe than the 50's - 70's drop. Some are concerned that it has charteristics similar to the earlier Dalton and Maunder minima. Some are concerned cycle 25 will be very low. That would be rather nasty.
The next 15 years will give us a great deal more info.
Thank you for your thought provoking response. I hope you are not too offended if I impuned that your lenses were the wrong color. It seems that you are much more familiar with the various arguments and theories than I am. I have only recently dived into this subject, after retirement.
Nevertheless, I can't change my mind based on your words alone. Can you please site these sources of alternate theory that predicts the earth's temperature so well?
It is my understanding that the flat 15 years record was of surface air temperatures. (I'm going from memory). Meanwhile, all other charts I look at showed temperature increasing. There is so much noise in the data (heck, you can't even take a reading that you are sure of to within +/1 1 degree, and they argue about less than a tenth of a degree). If it is surface temperature, in my thinking it doesn't say much. We all know that ice stays at the same temperature as it melts. We all know that water holds about 4000 times more heat per degree than air. We know that earth holds about 1000 times more heat than air.
In other words, I'm not convinced that that particular 15 degrees you are refering to is that important. The sea ice continues to thin, the glaciers continue to melt.
Second, we both know that the earth, moving through space, can only gain or loose heat through three thermodynamic processes: radiation, conduction, or convection. And only radiation applies because we don't have an extra flow of warm mass to the earth.
That leaves us with radiation. .... And, who has taken radiation measurements? Well, I think that is the data presented by Nasa. I understand that scientists have also sampled radiation flow from the earth, and 'sort of' confirmed that it matches the NASA data. It is difficult to measure that from earth.
I can't think of any reason that NASA would be biased in their reports. I don't think it would be easy for them to published biased data based on politics, given that the population is evenly split. I don't know of any conflicting data from any source. Do you?
In conclusion, I think the data supports a shortage of heat from the earth, primarily caused by man made CO2 and methane release, both of whose spectral power match the data.
So, the bottom line is that the current market for EVs is Global Warming Evangelists who are willing to put up with the economics. The rest of us will consider them when they're not perceived as paying more to get less.
I will get you some source links, not bookmarked on this computer.
My comments are from items I have read over several years and I won't likely find one neat and tidy source. I waded through a lot searching for answers.
Background: back in the olden days (when AGW was born) I accepted it at face value, and like every boy growing up in the 60s adored NASA and took in anything they said as gospel.
Fast-forward to the 90's, seen a lot more, college, engineering, life. Still took it at face-value you but one thing rather grabbed my attention. All the folks saying AGW is real were saying vesions of "no seriou8s scientists dispute this". Trouble was my wife and I (she's a chemist) kept seeing items in our professional literature from people who were clearly serious scientists in relevant fields that did not agree.
Whenever I see one group saying I should ignore another group, and unfairly denigrating their persons and credentials I get really curious about why. So I started looking at what these "non-existant" non-serious scientist had to say. It took time. It will take you time also.
NASA-I do not really know why they are pushing AGW. History is full of well meaning scientific groups taht got "it" wrong. It is full of periods when the prevaililng zeitgeist proved to be nonsense.
Surface temps. I think you will find the skeptical of AGW camp to be of similar mind. This 15 years is evidense, lnot proof. as they also veiw the 20 years prior.
Keep in mind that the AGW group was beating the surface temp record drum very hard until it no longer served their view. They used it as primary evidense for a couple of decades. Now...?
Heat in earth and ocean-exaclty. The skeptics have pointing this out all along. Following the cycles and looking at the surface temp records and seeing how/if they fit together.
Sea ice-actually recent years not so much loss in the arctic this year is, thus far, rather a good ice year. There are many factors that affect sea ice, I have come to understand that shifts in ocean currents can bring warmer water north and melt far faster (more heat content as you noted) tahn air temp will. Obviously not a factor on Greenland. Keep in mind taht the southern hemisphere has been in general the reverse though not enough to balanc ethe global temp. Expanding sea ice in particular.
Radiation? Not familiar with the arguements there.
Rats. Just running out of time. This is a long complex issue and blogs are just snap-shots.
Am enjoying the back and forth. Love a good tussle with a fair and good tempered opponent. So rare.
" Joseph Fourier, in 1824, found that Earth's atmosphere kept the planet warmer than would be the case in a vacuum, and he made the first calculations of the warming effect. Fourier recognized that the atmosphere transmitted visible light waves efficiently to the earth's surface. The earth then absorbed visible light and emitted infrared radiation in response, but the atmosphere did not transmit infrared efficiently, which therefore increased surface temperatures. He also suspected that human activities could influence climate, although he focused primarily on land use changes. In a 1827 paper Fourier stated, "The establishment and progress of human societies, the action of natural forces, can notably change, and in vast regions, the state of the surface, the distribution of water and the great movements of the air. Such effects are able to make to vary, in the course of many centuries, the average degree of heat; because the analytic expressions contain coefficients relating to the state of the surface and which greatly influence the temperature.""
A Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius, used Langley's observations of increased infrared absorption where Moon rays pass through the atmosphere at a low angle, encountering more carbon dioxide (CO2), to estimate an atmospheric cooling effect from a future decrease of CO2. He realized that the cooler atmosphere would hold less water vapor (another greenhouse gas) and calculated the additional cooling effect. He also realized the cooling would increase snow and ice cover at high latitudes, making the planet reflect more sunlight and thus further cool down, as James Croll had hypothesized. Overall Arrhenius calculated that cutting CO2 in half would suffice to produce an ice age. He further calculated that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would give a total warming of 5-6 degrees Celsius.
now this was slide rule and pen and paper math.
Since then a century of oservations and science has only showed this is correlating.
the underlying science is simple,Everything else is Politics.
When you can work out the answer on a envelope, it's pretty direct, since then all the first order issues have been worse.
I'm away from the computer, and thus unable to quickly find links to reply with.
I see that someone gave information about radiation for your information. That is very important. Physics. Thermodynamics. How would you expect a rock in space to change temperature?
Well, it could be radioactive like the sun, and the lecel of radioactivity could change.
Or it could be a coal rock on fire, and the rate of bur.ing could change.
Or hot boddies frome spave could bombarde it.
Or the radiation from space falling on it could change.
Or thr radiation from the rock could change.
The rumor I heard is that Congress asked the scientists to check every possible reason for the change in temperature, st considerable taxpayer expence. The evidence rulled out all possibe causes eccept for green
CO2 was found to be the main culprit. The basic problem is that the CO2 generated by burning fossil fuels is in excess of what the earth systems could absorb. Combine that with all the other havok that man has brought to the earth, and we get a growing excess of CO2.
CO2 acts like a blanket that is getting thicker. and who's effective thickness is incteasing. Two spectral bands of CO2 are thus becoming more radiation blocking for heat leaving the earth. Less radiation out means earth temperature rise.
As for temperature readings, the one stretch of flat data seems insignificant. Looking at all the various data, it ic clear that the planet is heating.
What is alarming to me is that every time we burn a gallon of gas, we increase the CO2 imbalance, and thus the energy flow imbalance, for who knows how long? centuries? millinea? It is not just the heat from burning the gas, it is multiplied many many times over.
"Well everybody knows that the energy density of batteries is nowhere near the energy density of gasoline. Wiki lists gasoline at 46MJ/Kg, and LiIon at 0.75MJ/Kg. Discount gasoline by about 3X to 15MJ/Kg "
Trees, true but not very meaningful. A gas car carries a 10 Gallon gas tank with about 60 lbs of gas. An EV carries a 600 lbs battery. Yet an EV makes a very good car, look at the
"Using fuel to obtain motion is not efficient. Average power plant efficienty is about 30%. Cars only get 30% when they are driving hard under load. The car average efficiency is more like 20%."
Yet, despite this supposed "inefficiency", the energy density of a chemical fuel allows our current vehicles to provide useful range, power, and versatility. When an EV can do all that at a comparable cost, then we'll talk. Until then, I'm not switching to a more expensive, less useful vehicle just to make the CO2 Chicken Littles feel good.
You are absolutly right. Currently there is no substitute for petroleum for long distance travel. The Tesla model S comes closest with a 200+ mile range. But at terrible cost: $40,000 in batteries.
You could get a lot better range if you ran a nuclear engine. And it doesn't make CO2 except in the mining operation. Maybe you should try that if range is all that matters. :) Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
The problem is mother nature is charging 1/2% on all the fossil fuel burnings, and she will collect for 1000 years. She does it by warming the planet. Any responsible person would not buy gas if the vendor made this kind of deal.
Here is where we are headed: North Pole sea ice melts (very soon now). Then the north see whose temperature was held in check by the ice starts to rapidly heat up. Did you know that the north pole receives 30% more sun than the equator in the summer? It is those 24 hour days. The weather goes crazy. Droughts, Floods, Food shortages, water shortages, rising seas, polar methane release, mass migrations. riots. Faster and faster the problems mount. Civilization down the tubes.
Like you, I like my ICE car. Vroom Vroom. But, I would also like to die thinking I did not destroy the planet. So, I'm obliged to bite the bullet and go with EV. I think I might have to trade in my van for the RAV4 EV, because the model S is just not practical enough for me. But, I really prefer the van for hauling.
Some people will react differently. I can't control that. But, it just doesn't matter, it is myself that I have to be satisified with. I need to get off of grid power, and petroleum, and only use renewable energy. Hopefully the inconvience will not be too great a burden.
It may be a surprise to many that the actual real life Engine Efficiency is ZERO for over 60% of vehicle lifetime for in City traffic use !
How is that poissible ?
Simply when the car stands still (red lights for example) the engine runs, and is theoretically 15 to 18% efficient at IDLE, but since you are not going anywhere, the final answer is ZERO miles per Gallon and ZERO efficiency, you just consume energy and get nothing in return (well if AC is on at leaast you can keep your cool).
Simple EV, uses ZERO energy when standing still, no matter for how long.
So IN CITY local and slow Traffic is where EV has GREAT advantage and can pay for itself if it is NEV (low speed vehicle), but there comes the catch again, you need "another" vehicle for long distance travel (or fast travel on highway at 70 MPH).
$8,000 NEV can over time pay for itself, but just barely - break even is more likely at $4.00 per gallon fuel cost.
$100,000 EV, which is equivalent in comfort and features to $40,000 ICE, will never pay for itself so every mile that you "save gas" is luxury that cost you 4 top 5 times more per mile than ICE.
(The touted EV performance advantage again in real life doe not matter that much people do not accelerate to 60 MPH in 4 seconds from red light on city streets, or if they do it is not for very long before they get "reckless driving" citation)
After all $60,000 even at $4.00 per gallon will buy enough gasoline for 25 MPG gas burner to travel over 375,000 miles !!!
Funny that no EV proponent that preaches the 2 cents per mile in Electric power cost ever mentions that fact !?
And no matter how good EV warranty you have they will not warranty the Battery for 375,000 miles or 20 years.....
There is a reason why most people don't know the range of their gasoline vehicle (although I think most can calculate it very quickly); it's not a concern because it's a non-factor. The range of EV solutions is viewed as a big deal because depending on the range, it becomes a purchasing factory. Plain and simple.
It appears that the 'high level engineer' is now more about marketing and business development. Engineers can provide a solution to any issue you have; good engineers know the practical limits of the solution.
He could have identified a market niche for his product or tried used some logical justification for it. But instead, he basically called us consumers a bunch of idiots that wouldn't know the difference in range anyway!
I always find it disheartening to hear an engineer sell out and become a propagandist.
Really interesting perspective on an important EV issue, Chuck. I can completely see the point of the EV engineer you talked to--a friend recently asked me if I knew how much fuel mileage my car got, and I honestly couldn't answer (a fact for which he scolded me!). I can see how EV skeptics or naysayers (or traditional automakers) could use "range anxiety) as a way to downplay interest in EVs or discourage people. However, on the other side, fuel range I guess isn't the same as EV range, as I can just go fill up if I think I'm running low. It is an issue for people interested in EVs to know how far they can get on a charged battery. So there are both sides to this issue, and I think you presented it very well.
In as much as driving range may not be an issue for the EV, it cannot be totally ignored. I agree with Toyota's bid to support a hybrid plug-in. this will not only increase the range but also ensure that skeptics are put in check. One should always have a contingency plan no matter how sure they may be. This in the long run will help EV dealers keep up their sales turnover
The range anxiety is a real issue that the engineers should be very concerned about since thinking that people buy cars to satisfy their average needs is quite hypothetical, the exceptional needs come into play more than the basics of which we think we need the car for. Renting a car for the exceptional needs is not something that anyone would like especially if one has spent a considerable amount on the electric car.
Engineers at Fuel Cell Energy have found a way to take advantage of a side reaction, unique to their carbonate fuel cell that has nothing to do with energy production, as a potential, cost-effective solution to capturing carbon from fossil fuel power plants.
To get to a trillion sensors in the IoT that we all look forward to, there are many challenges to commercialization that still remain, including interoperability, the lack of standards, and the issue of security, to name a few.
This is part one of an article discussing the University of Washington’s nationally ranked FSAE electric car (eCar) and combustible car (cCar). Stay tuned for part two, tomorrow, which will discuss the four unique PCBs used in both the eCar and cCars.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.