Oh boy, TS, it always seems to descend into pointless political crap with your posts.
So you have no reply whatsoever. Not only is it not pointless, it’s directly related to what we’re discussing.
Ah, baiting. The classic last resort of the intellectually clueless and insecure. (There are a couple of others who do do this in the Forum fairly often).
All I want is a discussion. If it means “baiting” someone into answering questions asked of him, so be it. If you refuse to respond, what can anyone possibly think but the conclusions to which they’ve already come based on what you’ve said? You don’t believe that you can be trusted to find the truth on your own; that’s the conclusion. From that it can be suggested that you’re unable or unwilling to accept that what you’ve been told by people in positions of authority is–or can be–wrong. That’s a dangerous way to live.
A number of things require correction in your post. (And I have no idea what you mean by '4 or 5 times as efficient').
1) Both the US Supreme Court and thr EPA would disagree with you about CO2 not being 'pollution.' In a famous 2007 court ruling, the SCOTUS ruled precisely that it is, thereby giving the EPA explicit authority to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases. You can look it up. It's the letter of the law. Period.
2) There's lots of analysis comparing hybrids and electrics to gasoline-powered vehicles. The average emissions savings for Prius in a typical year, compared to an average similar sized car on gasoline, is about 10-15 tonnes of CO2. (It's quite easy to calculate from data provided by the Energy Information Administration of the US, www.eia.gov), depending on miles driven, type of gas etc. Yes, that's a non-zero amount, but not a huge amount. Given the embedded emissions in the grid, an electric car delivers only about 10% more CO2 savings than a hybrid, that's all. In some places, such as central and southeast US, especially during certain parts of the day, electrics are worse than hybrids in terms of their emissions (Data on the CO2 content of US electricity is maintained and updated by the EPA regularly for the 8-10 different grids in the country).
3) If we set a goal of, say, saving 25% in CO2 emissions savings from driving passenger cars, given the 10-(say)17 tonnes of savings for a typical electric or hybrid, it is a matter of simple arithmetic to then calculate how many of those we would need on the road. The numbers are staggering. Somewhere between 40-80 MILLION (yes, MILLION) electrics and hybrids. That's 20-40% of the total US passenger car population. And how many electrics and hybrids are there on US roads now? Less than 1 million. It's a pipe dream relative to the scale of what's required.
4) What do you mean by "doesn't pollute all over the place"? Any pollution often quickly ends up all over the place. For example, it does not matter where a molecule of GHG is emitted, the predicted impact on the earth's temperature is the same. Particulate pollution quickly ends up spreading across the globe -- e.g., Chinese smog and particulates end up on US shores every day, contributing to brown cloud in the West coast coast cities. Emissions and soot from coal plants in the US end up in the East Coast as acid rain and as carbon (and other particulate matter) deposits and on the Arctic ice sheets (In fact the latter problem is resulting in massive loss of albedo that regulates the earth's tempetartures, resulting from arctic ice sheet declines, and increasing the risk of permafrost loss).
It would be take me too much effort to gives you the cites to back up all this (not easy as I am on my iPad) but if you're interested, there's tons of research that back up these claims, and you can easily look it up.
Where to begin.
The 'of course' of C02 not being a pollutant is that - no matter what political declaration - it is insane to think otherwise (or do you also think water is a pollutant?).
(But if you cannot think for yourself why that is, no explanation will help.)
I would be surprised if a Prius saves any emission, wrong choice for a study, wrong choice of a car.
You don't know what 'efficient' means?
Well think about this: 80% of the chemical energy released by a combustion engine is useless, an electrical engine effectively uses 98% of the supplied energy ...
Local pollution, you don't understand that? I explained that quite clearly, read my post again (hint, find the word 'captured', another hint, why o why do city's ban certain types of vehicles or even forbid them to drive...difficult one).
Edit, I forgot, one thing in your post is right 'black carbon' is a main attributer to 'global warming', for example local cooking fires in India are so massive in combination that the emitted soot makes the glaciers of the Himalayas a little darker and as a result melt a lot more than expected.
Well, I extend the term pollution to all factors included in generating the fuel/gasoline/electricity. One might consider nuclear power very very clean - if you neglect the small aspect of nuclear waste for a moment same with fracking, changes of climate due to wind energy, impact to flora and fauna etc. so from that perspective it is far more to be considered than what goes up into the air.
The efficiency gain of electric vehicles is not that clear. When taking your number this does not take into account that eg you'd need extra heating systems as the efficiency of electric engines is too high and do not generate sufficient waste heat. Then, modern cars increasingly incorporate recuperation of energy. The link below gives a factor of 2.5 in favor of the electric vehicle. But that is based on an average fuel consumption that's 50% higher than what you get today typically from a European car.
And while you can transport gasoline quite easily long distances this is more complex when looking at electricity. The distribution of electricity to power electric vehicles in a global basis is another factor in that equation.
I'm not saying that EVs do not make sense. I just have a hard time to seeing an electric only vehicle as the solution. Instead I see a mix based on area and requirements with hybrid solutions and fleet mixes. Where hybrid takes into account for example hydrogen engines, eg as well.
I am glad you understand 'efficiency', not everyone does...
Transporting lots of electric energy with super high efficiency isn't a problem in Europe, at least in the near future it won't be.
Compared to transporting gasoline is no problem at all (in fact transporting and storing gasoline is huge waste of energy, think about how it gets to a petrol station...).
You can argue how much of an advantage a electric car is, but a simple comparison in cost will give you a factor 4 (and that's in Europe where electricity is taxed even more than petrol (and that's already taxed insanely)).
That is excluding the almost total lack of maintenance cost of an electric car (another huge advantage).
Hybrids are dead, adding complexity is never a good idea.
I really need to hook my Wacom back up and get back to drawing. All these ideas that need hammering out rattling around and falling into neuronal sinkholes...
There's lots not very credible in that LA Times story. How does a Chinese citizen of modest means, with modest parents who (unless it was not mentioned in the article) don't have powerful ties to the Communist Party wind up going into the coal mining business, a business that requires extensive capital?
Even if he does build the 'best electric cars', that might solve some pollution problems, but it won't solve traffic jams - it could actually make them worse because more people might drive. Also, what everyone conveniently forgets with electric cars is that the power for them has to come from someplace. And in China, for one, they burn a lot of coal to generate electricity. So it doesn't really reduce pollution by much, it just moves it to a different place.
>>In the spring, the company rolled out what it calls %u201CLe Super Phones%u201D and said it had sold 1 million units by August.
Then why is he using what appears to be an iPhone in the photograph?
As for Apple, if they wanted to hide car development, why wouldn't they simply form a separate corporation with a separate executive team? They could always roll it back into Apple or license that organization the Apple name once a car they're ready to release a car. Frankly, I still don't understand why Apple wants to be in this business. If they think they understand electric power trains so well, why can't they make a cell phone battery that lasts more than 1 1/2 days?
I can’t remember. I know I’ve done up little things in the past, but I can’t quite remember what. I know I did a mockup of an interface for a Network Attached iTunes Library Utility (allowing for far simpler sharing of local media between household devices), but that’s done in the old OS X style and needs to be updated.
Originally Posted by zoetmb
How does a Chinese citizen of modest means, with modest parents who (unless it was not mentioned in the article) don't have powerful ties to the Communist Party wind up going into the coal mining business, a business that requires extensive capital?
Thing is, while that’s unlikely to believe, so is (universally accepted) every financial and economic number coming out of China today. When the entire economy cannot be trusted as factual, can the backgrounds of those in charge of it be trusted?
I’ve always been open to the idea of an Apple Car–even way back when Steve first returned. I like the idea; I think that they more than most could do for cars what they’ve done three times now for computers. And while they’ve had front companies before, I just don’t see this specific instance being them. Could be wrong, of course.
I can’t remember. I know I’ve done up little things in the past, but I can’t quite remember what. I know I did a mockup of an interface for a Network Attached iTunes Library Utility (allowing for far simpler sharing of local media between household devices), but that’s done in the old OS X style and needs to be updated.
Old OSX style meaning pre-Lion? I thought you may have shown some of your previous work given anantksundaram's reply.
Quote:
I’ve always been open to the idea of an Apple Car–even way back when Steve first returned. I like the idea; I think that they more than most could do for cars what they’ve done three times now for computers. And while they’ve had front companies before, I just don’t see this specific instance being them. Could be wrong, of course.
Their choices were probably much safer bets, as they fell into a price range where many people can simply pay out of pocket without enormous stress. A car consumes a much greater percentage of a person's income for most people. Of course I've spent very little on cars (purchased used then driven for many years), so I might not be a good example there.
The 'of course' of C02 not being a pollutant is that - no matter what political declaration - it is insane to think otherwise (or do you also think water is a pollutant?).
(But if you cannot think for yourself why that is, no explanation will help.)
I would be surprised if a Prius saves any emission, wrong choice for a study, wrong choice of a car.
You don't know what 'efficient' means?
Well think about this: 80% of the chemical energy released by a combustion engine is useless, an electrical engine effectively uses 98% of the supplied energy ...
Local pollution, you don't understand that? I explained that quite clearly, read my post again (hint, find the word 'captured', another hint, why o why do city's ban certain types of vehicles or even forbid them to drive...difficult one).
Edit, I forgot, one thing in your post is right 'black carbon' is a main attributer to 'global warming', for example local cooking fires in India are so massive in combination that the emitted soot makes the glaciers of the Himalayas a little darker and as a result melt a lot more than expected.
Good thing I waited to respond. Looks like you added a lot to your original post (the one I saw in my email a while ago, and am able to respond only now).
1) What you claim is a 'political' declaration was made by the US Supreme Court, during the Bush era, with a majority conservative make-up. Are they 'political' or ruling on a matter of law? I've noticed people fling this accusation all the time, especially about decisions with which they disagree. It's just possible that, say, the SCOTUS does law, scientists do science, Apple is just being Apple, and the only ones interpreting such things as being 'political' or 'insane' are folks like you. (I realize you didn't bring up scientists and Apple, but I am making a generalized statement about a lot of the vapid posts I see here in the same vein).
2) Do I think 'water is a pollutant'? I don't understand the question. Did you mean 'water vapor'?
3) You may not like the Prius (I don't either), but to make a blanket statement like "wrong choice of car" is outright silly. And opaque, to boot.
4) I know what "efficient" means. All the many variations of it. I just have no clue what you mean by it. Indeed, it appears you are not able to explain it, judging by your response. So my question in moot.
5) What "local pollution"? You never used those words in your original post (you said, and I quote, "added benefit is that it doesn't pollute all over the place and centralized pollution can be captured far more efficiently"), so don't make up new ones now. In any event what is "local (captured) pollution". If it is 'captured', it is meaningless from the standpoint of an "emissions" measurement anyway so I have no clue what you're saying there. You sound confused. You do know that the electricity generation industry is a massive source of GHG emissions, toxic chemical and radiative emissions, soot and many crazy forms of particulates, and so on, right? Some may be captured, but a great deal of it escapes and causes massive externalities. See, for example, this GAO study: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-545R. Not exactly the cleanest source of energy for a vehicle.
6) I agree with you that soot from cooking and wood/dung burning is a huge problem.
Transporting lots of electric energy with super high efficiency isn't a problem in Europe, at least in the near future it won't be.
Why, have the Europeans found a room temperature superconductor?
[SIZE=8px]Yes, I know that 220 is better for distance transmission than 120. :p [/SIZE]
They're all going to be cave dwelling, candle using Muslims soon
My power company very proudly states that it gets over 50% of its energy from nuclear and renewable sources.
Nuclear power doesn't scare me, but I would like to see more research poured into pebble bed reactors and new kinds of power companies challenging monopoly state protected utilities.
Nuclear power doesn't scare me, but I would like to see more research poured into pebble bed reactors and new kinds of power companies challenging monopoly state protected utilities.
Oh, nuclear power is cool. When it works. And in the few cases it doesn't it creates national parks for millennia. But this is just the bloody obvious. The real fun starts when you look at where that innocent radioactive waste is going. It's a phantastic business opportunity. And if you're really interested where the US and France and other countries do away with these little glowing gems try looking up deserted Russian marine harbors, or small villages in the nowhere (Mayak eg), or some deserted areas in the US (Hanford eg), or idyllic island (check out Lanyu island of Taiwan), for example. Generally, any rural place where the local folks receive regular visits by strange people dressed in white overalls wearing masks and carrying some beeping equipment around is a good hint. Luckily, those places are far far away and those people, well, as well. And let's be honest: who gives a sh*t about them?
Those places (often Inhabitated) offer the same radioactivity as Tchernobyl. And those who have the balls to check the containers after 20 years are finding these things are cracking. A bit. Every year. But hey, we're good. In case this should eventually turn out to be a problem well be long gone. And surely civilization will thank us and by then have developed an elegant and safe solution. Let's say in 10.000 years or so.
Edit: here's a link to a pretty good documentary: It's in German/French and made by a renowned and fact-oriented station.
My power company very proudly states that it gets over 50% of its energy from nuclear and renewable sources.
Do you have a breakdown of those 50%? Is it 48% nuclear and 2% renewable? Relative to nuclear I posted above. And also renewable per SE does not equal environmentally friendly.
Why, have the Europeans found a room temperature superconductor?
[SIZE=8px]Yes, I know that 220 is better for distance transmission than 120. :p [/SIZE]
Not that I'm aware of, though a lot of research takes place, in Europe also.
Europe is currently (no pun intended) implementing an ultra high voltage network to connect the new solar and wind farms of Morocco and the hydro power of Scandinavia to Central Europe.
As you probably know, higher voltage and power loss have an inverse square relation.
Comments
So you have no reply whatsoever. Not only is it not pointless, it’s directly related to what we’re discussing.
Ah, baiting. The classic last resort of the intellectually clueless and insecure. (There are a couple of others who do do this in the Forum fairly often).
No bite.
All I want is a discussion. If it means “baiting” someone into answering questions asked of him, so be it. If you refuse to respond, what can anyone possibly think but the conclusions to which they’ve already come based on what you’ve said? You don’t believe that you can be trusted to find the truth on your own; that’s the conclusion. From that it can be suggested that you’re unable or unwilling to accept that what you’ve been told by people in positions of authority is–or can be–wrong. That’s a dangerous way to live.
Where to begin.
The 'of course' of C02 not being a pollutant is that - no matter what political declaration - it is insane to think otherwise (or do you also think water is a pollutant?).
(But if you cannot think for yourself why that is, no explanation will help.)
I would be surprised if a Prius saves any emission, wrong choice for a study, wrong choice of a car.
You don't know what 'efficient' means?
Well think about this: 80% of the chemical energy released by a combustion engine is useless, an electrical engine effectively uses 98% of the supplied energy ...
Local pollution, you don't understand that? I explained that quite clearly, read my post again (hint, find the word 'captured', another hint, why o why do city's ban certain types of vehicles or even forbid them to drive...difficult one).
Edit, I forgot, one thing in your post is right 'black carbon' is a main attributer to 'global warming', for example local cooking fires in India are so massive in combination that the emitted soot makes the glaciers of the Himalayas a little darker and as a result melt a lot more than expected.
I am glad you understand 'efficiency', not everyone does...
Transporting lots of electric energy with super high efficiency isn't a problem in Europe, at least in the near future it won't be.
Compared to transporting gasoline is no problem at all (in fact transporting and storing gasoline is huge waste of energy, think about how it gets to a petrol station...).
You can argue how much of an advantage a electric car is, but a simple comparison in cost will give you a factor 4 (and that's in Europe where electricity is taxed even more than petrol (and that's already taxed insanely)).
That is excluding the almost total lack of maintenance cost of an electric car (another huge advantage).
Hybrids are dead, adding complexity is never a good idea.
Why, have the Europeans found a room temperature superconductor?
Yes, I know that 220 is better for distance transmission than 120.
Quote:
I really need to hook my Wacom back up and get back to drawing. All these ideas that need hammering out rattling around and falling into neuronal sinkholes...
Did you ever post any of the old ones?
Even if he does build the 'best electric cars', that might solve some pollution problems, but it won't solve traffic jams - it could actually make them worse because more people might drive. Also, what everyone conveniently forgets with electric cars is that the power for them has to come from someplace. And in China, for one, they burn a lot of coal to generate electricity. So it doesn't really reduce pollution by much, it just moves it to a different place.
>>In the spring, the company rolled out what it calls %u201CLe Super Phones%u201D and said it had sold 1 million units by August.
Then why is he using what appears to be an iPhone in the photograph?
As for Apple, if they wanted to hide car development, why wouldn't they simply form a separate corporation with a separate executive team? They could always roll it back into Apple or license that organization the Apple name once a car they're ready to release a car. Frankly, I still don't understand why Apple wants to be in this business. If they think they understand electric power trains so well, why can't they make a cell phone battery that lasts more than 1 1/2 days?
Did you ever post any of the old ones?
I can’t remember. I know I’ve done up little things in the past, but I can’t quite remember what. I know I did a mockup of an interface for a Network Attached iTunes Library Utility (allowing for far simpler sharing of local media between household devices), but that’s done in the old OS X style and needs to be updated.
Thing is, while that’s unlikely to believe, so is (universally accepted) every financial and economic number coming out of China today. When the entire economy cannot be trusted as factual, can the backgrounds of those in charge of it be trusted?
I’ve always been open to the idea of an Apple Car–even way back when Steve first returned. I like the idea; I think that they more than most could do for cars what they’ve done three times now for computers. And while they’ve had front companies before, I just don’t see this specific instance being them. Could be wrong, of course.
I can’t remember. I know I’ve done up little things in the past, but I can’t quite remember what. I know I did a mockup of an interface for a Network Attached iTunes Library Utility (allowing for far simpler sharing of local media between household devices), but that’s done in the old OS X style and needs to be updated.
Old OSX style meaning pre-Lion? I thought you may have shown some of your previous work given anantksundaram's reply.
Their choices were probably much safer bets, as they fell into a price range where many people can simply pay out of pocket without enormous stress. A car consumes a much greater percentage of a person's income for most people. Of course I've spent very little on cars (purchased used then driven for many years), so I might not be a good example there.
Where to begin.
The 'of course' of C02 not being a pollutant is that - no matter what political declaration - it is insane to think otherwise (or do you also think water is a pollutant?).
(But if you cannot think for yourself why that is, no explanation will help.)
I would be surprised if a Prius saves any emission, wrong choice for a study, wrong choice of a car.
You don't know what 'efficient' means?
Well think about this: 80% of the chemical energy released by a combustion engine is useless, an electrical engine effectively uses 98% of the supplied energy ...
Local pollution, you don't understand that? I explained that quite clearly, read my post again (hint, find the word 'captured', another hint, why o why do city's ban certain types of vehicles or even forbid them to drive...difficult one).
Edit, I forgot, one thing in your post is right 'black carbon' is a main attributer to 'global warming', for example local cooking fires in India are so massive in combination that the emitted soot makes the glaciers of the Himalayas a little darker and as a result melt a lot more than expected.
Good thing I waited to respond. Looks like you added a lot to your original post (the one I saw in my email a while ago, and am able to respond only now).
1) What you claim is a 'political' declaration was made by the US Supreme Court, during the Bush era, with a majority conservative make-up. Are they 'political' or ruling on a matter of law? I've noticed people fling this accusation all the time, especially about decisions with which they disagree. It's just possible that, say, the SCOTUS does law, scientists do science, Apple is just being Apple, and the only ones interpreting such things as being 'political' or 'insane' are folks like you. (I realize you didn't bring up scientists and Apple, but I am making a generalized statement about a lot of the vapid posts I see here in the same vein).
2) Do I think 'water is a pollutant'? I don't understand the question. Did you mean 'water vapor'?
3) You may not like the Prius (I don't either), but to make a blanket statement like "wrong choice of car" is outright silly. And opaque, to boot.
4) I know what "efficient" means. All the many variations of it. I just have no clue what you mean by it. Indeed, it appears you are not able to explain it, judging by your response. So my question in moot.
5) What "local pollution"? You never used those words in your original post (you said, and I quote, "added benefit is that it doesn't pollute all over the place and centralized pollution can be captured far more efficiently"), so don't make up new ones now. In any event what is "local (captured) pollution". If it is 'captured', it is meaningless from the standpoint of an "emissions" measurement anyway so I have no clue what you're saying there. You sound confused. You do know that the electricity generation industry is a massive source of GHG emissions, toxic chemical and radiative emissions, soot and many crazy forms of particulates, and so on, right? Some may be captured, but a great deal of it escapes and causes massive externalities. See, for example, this GAO study: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-545R. Not exactly the cleanest source of energy for a vehicle.
6) I agree with you that soot from cooking and wood/dung burning is a huge problem.
1) What you claim is a ‘political’ declaration was made by the US Supreme Court... Are they 'political' or ruling on a matter of law?
Yes, that’s a political institution.
So you admit that law exists outside the bounds of scientific thought or pretense.
They're all going to be cave dwelling, candle using Muslims soon
Yes, that’s a political institution.
So you admit that law exists outside the bounds of scientific thought or pretense.
1) I know what you think. The question was not put to you.
2) Um... what?
My power company very proudly states that it gets over 50% of its energy from nuclear and renewable sources.
My power company very proudly states that it gets over 50% of its energy from nuclear and renewable sources.
Nuclear power doesn't scare me, but I would like to see more research poured into pebble bed reactors and new kinds of power companies challenging monopoly state protected utilities.
Oh, nuclear power is cool. When it works. And in the few cases it doesn't it creates national parks for millennia. But this is just the bloody obvious. The real fun starts when you look at where that innocent radioactive waste is going. It's a phantastic business opportunity. And if you're really interested where the US and France and other countries do away with these little glowing gems try looking up deserted Russian marine harbors, or small villages in the nowhere (Mayak eg), or some deserted areas in the US (Hanford eg), or idyllic island (check out Lanyu island of Taiwan), for example. Generally, any rural place where the local folks receive regular visits by strange people dressed in white overalls wearing masks and carrying some beeping equipment around is a good hint. Luckily, those places are far far away and those people, well, as well. And let's be honest: who gives a sh*t about them?
Those places (often Inhabitated) offer the same radioactivity as Tchernobyl. And those who have the balls to check the containers after 20 years are finding these things are cracking. A bit. Every year. But hey, we're good. In case this should eventually turn out to be a problem well be long gone. And surely civilization will thank us and by then have developed an elegant and safe solution. Let's say in 10.000 years or so.
Edit: here's a link to a pretty good documentary:
Do you have a breakdown of those 50%? Is it 48% nuclear and 2% renewable? Relative to nuclear I posted above. And also renewable per SE does not equal environmentally friendly.
Not that I'm aware of, though a lot of research takes place, in Europe also.
Europe is currently (no pun intended) implementing an ultra high voltage network to connect the new solar and wind farms of Morocco and the hydro power of Scandinavia to Central Europe.
As you probably know, higher voltage and power loss have an inverse square relation.