|
|
Post by aubrey on Jun 10, 2017 9:56:59 GMT
The point is, that's where you found it: that's the kind of place where you find everything.
And if the Native Americans thing was just an angle used by the Greens to justify their protests, why don't they do the same with every protest? The fact is, Native Americans were involved, and the pipeline did break a treaty.
The Paris Accord imposed no binding CO2 emissions targets on anyone: it was all voluntary. In any case, you objection to it is based on a wilful ignorance of science, so - bleh.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 10, 2017 12:31:04 GMT
Oh stop bleating on so pathetically as if a blog that carries a report from Reuters taints the original message. You just can't deal with information that you don't like.
You're crass.
Deal with the Canadian Government's attempt to involve China in development of its Tar Sands or STFU!!
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 10, 2017 12:36:52 GMT
Well spotted! Its just a propaganda effort to try to keep the green pot boiling and to fire up rapacious nations to demand Climate Guilt Reparation from the West - just like the whole series of UNFCCC COP shindigs that preceded it.
Trump is the first leader to call out the naked Green Emperor. Well done Trump!
|
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jun 10, 2017 12:55:38 GMT
Oh stop bleating on so pathetically as if a blog that carries a report from Reuters taints the original message. You just can't deal with information that you don't like. You're crass. Deal with the Canadian Government's attempt to involve China in development of its Tar Sands or STFU!! The source taints the story - of course it does. It's as if you got every story about refugees from the Express. You get all of yours from right wing sources, so you don't get to see an alternative narrative. And your constant harping on about all this sort of thing stems from your wilfully ignorant rejection of science. I was going to say he's the first to lie about it, but he's not even that. But Christ, you're aligning yourself with a mendacious idiot like that. You'll be coming out with all his racist ideas next: those you haven't come out with already, like. |
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jun 10, 2017 13:34:30 GMT
If you get all your stories from the same few sources, you will have no idea how unimportant they are. For instance, you'll find - or be directed to - one paper that seems to question, say, the idea Arctic ice is shrinking (though it won't actually say that) and ignore the dozens, hundreds, that say the opposite. That's why sources matter. If you stuck to proper science sites you'd find it very hard to unearth papers that support your view of AGW: you'd have to go through a lot of them, and even then you'd more than likely have to twist what they say.
So you don't bother with that: you wait until some misrepresentation turns up on a right wing site somewhere.
|
|
excoriator
Madrigal Member 
nearly a genius
Posts: 37,165
|
Post by excoriator on Jun 10, 2017 14:08:57 GMT
March is an idiot, Aubrey. You can't expect her to get her head round complex arguments like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 15, 2017 12:02:40 GMT
New Study: Large CO2 Emissions From Batteries Of Electric CarsIVL, the Swedish Environment Institute has, on behalf of the Swedish Transport Administration and the Swedish Energy Agency, investigated the climate impact of lithium-ion batteries from a life-cycle perspective.
Date: 12/06/17 Johan Kristensson, New Technology
Enormous hope rests on electric cars as the solution by the motor industry to climate change. However the batteries of electric cars are not environmentally friendly when manufactured. Several tonnes of carbon dioxide are being released, even before electric batteries leave the factory.
Batteries for electric cars were included in the study. Lisbeth Dahllöf and Mia Romare have produced a meta-analysis, that is, a review and compilation of existing studies.
The report shows that battery manufacturing leads to high CO2 emissions. For each kilowatt-hour storage capacity in the battery, emissions of 150 to 200 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent are generated, already in the factory.
The researchers have not studied individual car brand’s batteries, just how they were produced or what electrical mix they used. But to understand the importance of battery size here’s one example: Two standard electric cars on the market, Nissan Leaf and Tesla Model S, have batteries of approximately 30 kWh and 100 kWh respectively.
On purchase of the car, CO2 emissions of approximately 5.3 tonnes and 17.5 tonnes, respectively, have already been released for batteries of these sizes. By way of comparison, a trip for a person returning from Stockholm to New York by air causes emissions of more than 0.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide, according to the UN organization ICAO’s calculation model.
Another conclusion of the study is that about half of the emissions occur during the production of raw materials and half during the production of the battery in the factory. The mining itself accounts for only a small part of between 10-20 percent.
The calculation is based on the assumption that more than half the electricity used by the battery plant is generated from fossil fuels. (In Sweden, electricity is mainly from zero-carbon nuclear and hydropower, as a result of which lower emissions can be achieved.)
The study also reveals that CO2 emissions rise almost linearly with battery size, even though data is scarcer in this area. This means that a Tesla-size battery contributes more than three times as much CO2 as Nissan Leaf’s battery...
The authors emphasises that a large part of their study was about finding out what data was available and finding out what information they hold. In many cases they found that it was difficult to compare existing studies with each other.
A colleague at IVL has calculated how long you need to drive a petrol or diesel car before it has released as much carbon dioxide as an electric car battery. The result was 2.7 years for a battery of the same size as Nissan Leaf and 8.2 years for a battery of Tesla size, based on a series of assumptions.
“It’s great for companies and government to embark on ambitious environmental policies and to buy climate-smart cars. But these results show that one should not think of choosing an electric car with a larger battery than necessary, he says, and points out that politicians should also address this in the design of instruments.
An obvious part to look at in life cycle analyzes is recovery. The authors of the report note that what characterises batteries is the lack of the same as there is no financial incentive to send the batteries for recycling and that the volumes are still small.
Cobalt, nickel and copper are recycled, but not the energy required to make the electrodes, says Mia Romare, pointing out that recycling points are resource conservation rather than carbon dioxide emissions.
Peter Kasche from the Energy Agency, the publishers of the report, stresses the importance of the close relationship between the size of the electric battery and CO2 emissions.
One really needs to make sure to optimise electric batteries. One should not drive around with a lot of kilowatt hours unnecessarily. In some cases, a plug in-hybrid may be the optimum, in other cases a clean battery device.
Full story in Swedish www.nyteknik.se/fordon/stora-utslapp-fran-elbilarnas-batterier-6851761
|
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jun 15, 2017 12:32:57 GMT
You got that through Niggy's lot again, didn't you? (First result when you google the headline.) I really doubt that you're reading through Swedish science sites. But in any case, this is from the manufacture of batteries, and is already known: batteries will only get better. The paper also says Sh, showing an unforeseen concern about CO2 emissions, and advocating subsidies: two firsts on one post - but is this to continue? Does the paper say anything about how much CO2 is released in the manufacture of a petrol engine, by the way? Anyway: The ‘electric cars aren’t green’ myth debunked |
|
excoriator
Madrigal Member
nearly a genius
Posts: 37,165
|
Post by excoriator on Jun 15, 2017 13:56:10 GMT
The problem with electric cars is not whether they are green or not, but rather how practical they are.
Not everyone is prepared to wait hours to charge them, and as the energy density of batteries - despite huge improvements - is still only about 1% that of diesel or petrol, so you have to charge them a lot more often. This is a deadly combination I believe.
Even if a perfect battery existed with the energy density of a fuel tank and capable of being filled in two minutes, they would still not be practical. To get energy comparable to a tank of diesel into a car in electrical form would require everyone to get out of the vehicle and to move many feet away from is behind a safety fence. The power level required is comparable to that of a small substation! You do NOT allow people close to that sort of thing. This is a limitation of fundamental physics, and is not amenable to technological improvements.
The whole idea of battery cars is fatally flawed.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 15, 2017 19:07:02 GMT
THE LONDON TOWER BLOCK INFERNO
Cladding the exterior of buildings with hazardous materials to improve insulation so that the nation can better meet its CO2 emissions targets rather than meeting desirable safety and fire protection standards is the triumph of Green ideology over common sense.
Its a scandal that bureaucrats and decision makers are so beguiled by Green Targets that they are rendered incapable of objective judgement.
|
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jun 15, 2017 19:47:59 GMT
You're against insulation now? But of course, blame the Greens. Not someone wanting to do it on the cheap.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 16, 2017 6:54:39 GMT
I am certainly not against insulation so long as it is safe and effective but there is a point beyond which it may not make sense to over-insulate - especially when it is driven by green ideology.
Using retro-fitted external sheet hydrocarbons is not safe, full stop.
Insulation can be fitted to internal walls of dwellings without compromising the fire integrity of high-rise flats.
Or, if push comes to shove, they can be demolished and replaced with low rise housing with integral insulation of an appropriate type - NOT sheet petroleum!
|
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jun 16, 2017 7:10:48 GMT
How do you tell whether something is or not?
Is it when, after a period of insulation not being bothered about much, and then someone starts saying it's important, and they does not agree with you on certain political and scientific subjects - then that's ideologically motivated? Otherwise, if they do agree with you, then that's not?
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 20, 2017 22:29:12 GMT
How the obsession with climate change is creating perverse consequences for the environment.
  The system of accounting for carbon dioxide emissions from land use changes and forestation is a notoriously complex one open to abuse. Ironically, much of the forests due to be chopped down will end up being burnt in power stations. How the obsession with climate change is creating perverse consequences for the environment.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 20, 2017 22:36:42 GMT
By looking at the consequences of the policy, namely, does it create "perverse incentives" that actually damage the environment - like the two examples above and like the promotion of diesel engined vehicles. These purportedly reduce CO2 emissions (harmless) per mile, but actually spew out genuinely toxic products into the air of cities that harm health UNLIKE CO2 which is plant food that makes forest and plants grow faster and more densely and in turn increases the carbon sinks that absorb the purportedly dangerous CO2!
|
|
