mbender
Posts: 824
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:11 am
Delivery Date: 31 Aug 2014
Leaf Number: 309606
Location: The Great California Delta, and environs

Re: Denial...was CC- What do we know, when did we know it?

Fri Apr 03, 2015 1:40 pm

WetEV wrote:I think you might like a book I'm currently reading.

"Reason in a Dark Time: Why the Struggle Against Climate Change Failed -- and What It Means for Our Future"
Thank you. I may very well order one, especially since the Kindle version is only $9.99! :)
I think I just felt my paradigm shift.

2012 SL (One of the colors): 2-year lease, 2012+,
2015 S w/QC (A different color): 3-year lease, 2014+,
2017 SV (Same color as 2015 S): 3-year lease, 2017+, lower monthly than either above(!)

WetEV
Posts: 3364
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Denial...was CC- What do we know, when did we know it?

Fri Apr 03, 2015 2:05 pm

AndyH wrote:None of this is new. We've known enough about the planet's energy balance and the primary factors since the 1800s.
Actually Andy, no, there is very important new stuff since the 1800's.

Until the 1950's, the oceans were expected to quickly remove much of the added CO2. Discovery of the Revelle effect in 1957 was key:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Revelle.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Without the Revelle effect, the human release of CO2 isn't a major issue, even very long term. Warming the climate enough to prevent the next glacial advance makes this small warming arguably even a positive.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

AndyH
Posts: 6388
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: Denial...was CC- What do we know, when did we know it?

Fri Apr 03, 2015 4:36 pm

<facepalm> I'm not interested in any more appendage waving or pass-around-the-bigger-magnifying-glass-so-we-can-look-at-the-hair-on-the-left-rear-leg-of-the-pine-bark-beetle exercises.

Of COURSE the picture's been progressively better focused as time's gone on - that's to be expected. The fact remains, however, that we've had plenty of forewarning.

I'm going to stay with scientific papers at this point so I, too, can loose myself in increasingly tinier nits while the world burns around me. The only remaining book that all need to read at this point is Oreskes and Conway's "The Collapse of Western Civilization".
In the prehistory of "civilization," many societies rose and fell, but few left as clear an extensive an account of what happened to them and why as the twenty-first-century nation-states that referred to themselves as Western civilization. Even today, two millennia after the collapse of the Roman and Mayan empires and one millennium after the end of the Byzantine and Inca empires, historians, archaeologists, and synthetic-failure paleoanalysts have been unable to agree on the primary causes of those societies' loss of population, power, stability, and identify. The case of Western civilization is different because the consequences of its actions were not only predictable, but predicted. Moreover, this technologically transitional society left extensive records both in twentieth-century-style paper and in twenty-first-century electronic formats, permitting us to to reconstruct what happened in extraordinarily clear details. While analysts differ on the exact circumstances, virtually all agree that the people of Western civilization knew what was happening to them but were unable to stop it. Indeed, the most startling aspect of this story is just how much these people knew, and how unable they were to act upon what they knew. Knowledge did not translate into power.

For more than one hundred years before its fall, the Western world knew that carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor absorbed heat in the planetary atmosphere...
edit...fixed typos...
Last edited by AndyH on Sat Apr 04, 2015 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The stupid become extinct."-Bill Mollison
2018 Outlander PHEV
2015 smart Electric Drive (lease ended Feb, 2018)
OpenEVSE Plus DIY

mbender
Posts: 824
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:11 am
Delivery Date: 31 Aug 2014
Leaf Number: 309606
Location: The Great California Delta, and environs

Re: Denial...was CC- What do we know, when did we know it?

Fri Apr 03, 2015 8:27 pm

I think the International Geophysical Year (1957) is underappreciated (despite half of Steely Dan writing a song about it, LOL):
WikiPedia wrote:The IGY encompassed eleven Earth sciences: aurora and airglow, cosmic rays, geomagnetism, gravity, ionospheric physics, longitude and latitude determinations (precision mapping), meteorology, oceanography, seismology, and solar activity. The timing of IGY was particularly suited to some of these phenomena, since it covered the peak of solar cycle 19.

Both the Soviet Union and the U.S. launched artificial satellites for this event; the Soviet Union's Sputnik 1, launched on October 4, 1957, was the first successful artificial satellite. Other significant achievements of the IGY included the discovery of the Van Allen radiation belts and the discovery of mid-ocean submarine ridges, an important confirmation of plate tectonics. Also detected was the rare occurrence of hard solar corpuscular radiation that could be highly dangerous for manned space flight.
I can't confirm it now, but I thought I read that "the discovery of" the Keeling Curve (begins 1958) also had its origins in 'the IGY'.
WetEV wrote:Until the 1950's, the oceans were expected to quickly remove much of the added CO2. Discovery of the Revelle effect in 1957 was key: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Revelle.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think I just felt my paradigm shift.

2012 SL (One of the colors): 2-year lease, 2012+,
2015 S w/QC (A different color): 3-year lease, 2014+,
2017 SV (Same color as 2015 S): 3-year lease, 2017+, lower monthly than either above(!)

AndyH
Posts: 6388
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: Denial...was CC- What do we know, when did we know it?

Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:49 pm

WetEV wrote:
AndyH wrote:Why do you argue for "debate" when such faux-debate is doing demonstrable harm to humans and many other forms of life?

Should we abolish predator lists and exonerate pedophiles? Should people should be allowed to yell 'fire' in crowded buildings? How about driving while intoxicated or flying while suicidal? Sacrificing virgins for religious reasons?

A wise society has limitations on behavior when that is known to cause harm to citizens and/or their society. How can anyone think that allowing behavior known to be facilitating the planet's sixth major extinction is somehow acceptable? :shock:
I accept that our society isn't very wise. I'm not that all that wise.

First, debate or no debate, it takes decades to change, and some of the changes aren't waiting for the debate to complete.
Decades to change? If that's all, we'd be in good shape - after all, it's been more than 3 decades since the news piece I posted above. It's been 6 decades since the scientific community went to world leaders and told them that we had a problem - and since Capra made "The Unchained Goddess" that talks about Greenland melting and Miami under water... And it's been many more than sixty years since we first knew (not guessed, but KNEW) that greenhouse gasses were a problem and that we were dumping a LOT of them.

1958:


Again - and again and again - the 'debate' is FALSE. It does NOT deserve 'equal time' or ANY TIME for that matter. It's utter and complete trash. Mother Nature doesn't debate and she doesn't hire lawyers or pay turncoats to quibble. She simply builds larger storms to send to the Philippines and New York, and reminds the pine bark beetles and fungi that their job is to recycle the dead so that the nutrients that used to be in ponderosa pine and human form are ready for what's coming next, and sends critters to live in the new reefs we used to call 'Miami'.
WetEV wrote: Electric cars, for one, have exceeded my hopes. I'm just thrilled to be able to plug into the local mostly hydro power and not spew out additional CO2. Solar cells, for another. While not practical (yet) locally due to lack of sun, I'm investing in some remotely.
Electric cars aren't even a significant factor in the solution. They're not part of the first or second groups of emitters. They're a tiny part of the distant third GHG emitters. Anyone that thinks they're doing good for the planet by driving an EV is delusional - and it doesn't matter how long they've waited.
WetEV wrote:The planet's sixth major extinction is driven by human land clearing for farming, lumber demand, vacuuming the oceans for fish and other things: as well as climate change. Make no mistake, if human population growth doesn't stop there will not be a lot of nature left, and a lot of the natural variety will be gone forever. (OK, "just" tens of millions of years, but that is forever on the scale of human lifetimes and human societies.) The problem is not just climate change.
The problem IS climate change! What you're apparently missing is that we don't NEED to clear any more land for farming or lumber. We don't NEED to make more ocean creatures extinct. We don't NEED to keep doing the things we're doing. We have more than enough farmland, building materials, and protein sources to feed more than 10 billion human souls. That's a bogus excuse.
WetEV wrote:Debate doesn't cause global climate change, release of CO2 does. We all release CO2. I do, you do, making Leaf cars does, organic farming (sometimes) does, making solar cells (currently) does. This is all of us, not just the deniers. We need to change ourselves as well as changing their minds. It takes time.
None of those functions MUST emit CO2 - but the problem is the net of the sources and sinks. We know how to not only make all those things without emitting new carbon, but we know how to sequester more carbon than we've released to the atmosphere since the 1600s - and it doesn't take politicians, or deniers, or laws to do it. Some are already doing it! There are carbon NEGATIVE PV panels and batteries and cars being built. We know that real organic farming is a massive carbon sink - and we've got more than 45 years of peer reviewed science behind that.

Again you say deniers or debate don't cause problems - but the reason the USA has led the world in feet-dragging, and the reason we rubbed off on Canada and Australia and the UK so they would do the same, is because not enough Americans stood up when the IDIOTS started lying to everyone! No, Wet - Reg doesn't emit more than anyone else - but you, he, and everyone else in your camps are the primary reason that we're NOT fixing the problem. How do I know? Because OTHER COUNTRIES didn't drink the denial Cool-Aid and they're kicking our collective asses and making REAL progress. German citizens stood up - got into the streets - got water-cannoned, arrested, and beat - in order to take control of their energy and that is a primary reason Germany has led the world in greenhouse gas emissions. Do NOT even TRY to tell me that there's nothing we can do, or that it doesn't matter if the deniers keep sucking at the Koch teets. :evil:
"The stupid become extinct."-Bill Mollison
2018 Outlander PHEV
2015 smart Electric Drive (lease ended Feb, 2018)
OpenEVSE Plus DIY

greengate
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:31 pm
Delivery Date: 04 Feb 2013
Location: Wilmette, IL

Re: Denial...was CC- What do we know, when did we know it?

Sat Apr 04, 2015 5:26 am

AndyH wrote:
WetEV wrote:
AndyH wrote:Why do you argue for "debate" when such faux-debate is doing demonstrable harm to humans and many other forms of life?

Should we abolish predator lists and exonerate pedophiles? Should people should be allowed to yell 'fire' in crowded buildings? How about driving while intoxicated or flying while suicidal? Sacrificing virgins for religious reasons?

A wise society has limitations on behavior when that is known to cause harm to citizens and/or their society. How can anyone think that allowing behavior known to be facilitating the planet's sixth major extinction is somehow acceptable? :shock:
I accept that our society isn't very wise. I'm not that all that wise.

First, debate or no debate, it takes decades to change, and some of the changes aren't waiting for the debate to complete.
Decades to change? If that's all, we'd be in good shape - after all, it's been more than 3 decades since the news piece I posted above. It's been 6 decades since the scientific community went to world leaders and told them that we had a problem - and since Capra made "The Unchained Goddess" that talks about Greenland melting and Miami under water... And it's been many more than sixty years since we first knew (not guessed, but KNEW) that greenhouse gasses were a problem and that we were dumping a LOT of them.

1958:


Again - and again and again - the 'debate' is FALSE. It does NOT deserve 'equal time' or ANY TIME for that matter. It's utter and complete trash. Mother Nature doesn't debate and she doesn't hire lawyers or pay turncoats to quibble. She simply builds larger storms to send to the Philippines and New York, and reminds the pine bark beetles and fungi that their job is to recycle the dead so that the nutrients that used to be in ponderosa pine and human form are ready for what's coming next, and sends critters to live in the new reefs we used to call 'Miami'.
WetEV wrote: Electric cars, for one, have exceeded my hopes. I'm just thrilled to be able to plug into the local mostly hydro power and not spew out additional CO2. Solar cells, for another. While not practical (yet) locally due to lack of sun, I'm investing in some remotely.
Electric cars aren't even a significant factor in the solution. They're not part of the first or second groups of emitters. They're a tiny part of the distant third GHG emitters. Anyone that thinks they're doing good for the planet by driving an EV is delusional - and it doesn't matter how long they've waited.
WetEV wrote:The planet's sixth major extinction is driven by human land clearing for farming, lumber demand, vacuuming the oceans for fish and other things: as well as climate change. Make no mistake, if human population growth doesn't stop there will not be a lot of nature left, and a lot of the natural variety will be gone forever. (OK, "just" tens of millions of years, but that is forever on the scale of human lifetimes and human societies.) The problem is not just climate change.
The problem IS climate change! What you're apparently missing is that we don't NEED to clear any more land for farming or lumber. We don't NEED to make more ocean creatures extinct. We don't NEED to keep doing the things we're doing. We have more than enough farmland, building materials, and protein sources to feed more than 10 billion human souls. That's a bogus excuse.
WetEV wrote:Debate doesn't cause global climate change, release of CO2 does. We all release CO2. I do, you do, making Leaf cars does, organic farming (sometimes) does, making solar cells (currently) does. This is all of us, not just the deniers. We need to change ourselves as well as changing their minds. It takes time.
None of those functions MUST emit CO2 - but the problem is the net of the sources and sinks. We know how to not only make all those things without emitting new carbon, but we know how to sequester more carbon than we've released to the atmosphere since the 1600s - and it doesn't take politicians, or deniers, or laws to do it. Some are already doing it! There are carbon NEGATIVE PV panels and batteries and cars being built. We know that real organic farming is a massive carbon sink - and we've got more than 45 years of peer reviewed science behind that.

Again you say deniers or debate don't cause problems - but the reason the USA has led the world in feet-dragging, and the reason we rubbed off on Canada and Australia and the UK so they would do the same, is because not enough Americans stood up when the IDIOTS started lying to everyone! No, Wet - Reg doesn't emit more than anyone else - but you, he, and everyone else in your camps are the primary reason that we're NOT fixing the problem. How do I know? Because OTHER COUNTRIES didn't drink the denial Cool-Aid and they're kicking our collective asses and making REAL progress. German citizens stood up - got into the streets - got water-cannoned, arrested, and beat - in order to take control of their energy and that is a primary reason Germany has led the world in greenhouse gas emissions. Do NOT even TRY to tell me that there's nothing we can do, or that it doesn't matter if the deniers keep sucking at the Koch teets. :evil:
+1 X 1,000,000. Well stated indeed.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

WetEV
Posts: 3364
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Denial...was CC- What do we know, when did we know it?

Sat Apr 04, 2015 4:32 pm

AndyH wrote:
WetEV wrote:I accept that our society isn't very wise. I'm not that all that wise.

First, debate or no debate, it takes decades to change, and some of the changes aren't waiting for the debate to complete.
Decades to change? If that's all, we'd be in good shape
In some ways, it was too late in 1980. People have a hard time wrapping their brain around the time delays involved. If we stopped releasing CO2 today, the climate would continue to warm for hundreds of years. The sea level would rise for tens of thousands of years. In 2030, we will see about half of the warming that we were already committed to in 1980. Plus some additional from the more recent releases of CO2. Hope we like the changed climate, far to late to change what we have already done. People have a hard time thinking of 20 years as a "short period" of time. But on climate change, it is.

Waiting till it gets bad is waiting too long, but that is what we are doing currently. We are NOT in good shape.
AndyH wrote:And it's been many more than sixty years since we first knew (not guessed, but KNEW) that greenhouse gasses were a problem and that we were dumping a LOT of them.
Sixty years?? That is an overstatement. Why? We have already discussed the Revelle effect, published in 1958. In 1955, 60 years ago, it was very widely believed that almost all of the fossil fuel CO2 was going into the oceans. If so, the likely effect of burning all the world's fossil fuels was less than a doubling of atmospheric CO2, and the likely warming was a degree Centigrade or so over the time span of burning all the fossil fuels, and that this warming was thought to be a good thing. Not one single person understood enough about ocean chemistry and had the data to back that up, 60 years ago today. Sure, people had guessed before 1958 that CO2 was accumulating fast enough to become a problem next century, but they didn't have both theory and data to support that theory. In 1958, they had the theory. Before 1972, the Keeling curve had gotten to point of showing that CO2 was accumulating. 1972 is about when I started to get interested in climate change. Yet, 1972 was in the middle of a long pause in warming:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl ... 1975/trend" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Convincing people to change wouldn't have been easy in 1972. I'm reasonably sure that I was one of the 1% most concerned on this issue, most people didn't care, or know, or wanted to discuss it. Oil embargoes and "The Rolling Stone's" climate change theory of global cooling were far more on people's minds. We have made progress since then.

I doubt if many people had heard much about this issue before 1988. I'm not sure if we have made progress since then... But about 1988 to 1998 is the time frame when the nails went into coffin of reasonable doubt on climate change.

Andy, overstatement isn't wise. It is important to build and maintain a consensus on this issue not only for next year, but for the future. An overstatement now might convince someone now, but when they find out you were wrong they might well disbelieve the rest of your statement.
AndyH wrote:Again - and again and again - the 'debate' is FALSE. It does NOT deserve 'equal time' or ANY TIME for that matter.
Your alternative is _____?
AndyH wrote:Mother Nature doesn't debate and she doesn't hire lawyers or pay turncoats to quibble.
A point I often make.
AndyH wrote:
WetEV wrote: Electric cars, for one, have exceeded my hopes. I'm just thrilled to be able to plug into the local mostly hydro power and not spew out additional CO2. Solar cells, for another. While not practical (yet) locally due to lack of sun, I'm investing in some remotely.
Electric cars aren't even a significant factor in the solution. They're not part of the first or second groups of emitters. They're a tiny part of the distant third GHG emitters. Anyone that thinks they're doing good for the planet by driving an EV is delusional - and it doesn't matter how long they've waited.
Oh? Gasoline, mostly for cars, released about 1,075 Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide in the USA. That is not including the refining, extraction and transportation of the gasoline.

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/mon ... ec12_8.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemi ... s/co2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Image

That is about 20% of the total. I'd say that is a significant target for reduction.
AndyH wrote:
WetEV wrote:The planet's sixth major extinction is driven by human land clearing for farming, lumber demand, vacuuming the oceans for fish and other things: as well as climate change. Make no mistake, if human population growth doesn't stop there will not be a lot of nature left, and a lot of the natural variety will be gone forever. (OK, "just" tens of millions of years, but that is forever on the scale of human lifetimes and human societies.) The problem is not just climate change.
The problem IS climate change! What you're apparently missing is that we don't NEED to clear any more land for farming or lumber. We don't NEED to make more ocean creatures extinct. We don't NEED to keep doing the things we're doing. We have more than enough farmland, building materials, and protein sources to feed more than 10 billion human souls. That's a bogus excuse.
Yet, sadly, that is what is happening. Climate change is just part of the problem.
AndyH wrote:
WetEV wrote:Debate doesn't cause global climate change, release of CO2 does. We all release CO2. I do, you do, making Leaf cars does, organic farming (sometimes) does, making solar cells (currently) does. This is all of us, not just the deniers. We need to change ourselves as well as changing their minds. It takes time.
None of those functions MUST emit CO2 - but the problem is the net of the sources and sinks. We know how to not only make all those things without emitting new carbon, but we know how to sequester more carbon than we've released to the atmosphere since the 1600s - and it doesn't take politicians, or deniers, or laws to do it. Some are already doing it! There are carbon NEGATIVE PV panels and batteries and cars being built. We know that real organic farming is a massive carbon sink - and we've got more than 45 years of peer reviewed science behind that.
Optimistic Andy, to be polite. Sure we can make things with no new carbon, but mostly we release carbon. Yes, we can make biofuels and not burn them, and other ways of sequestering carbon... but very little carbon is sequestered, and the largest amount in garbage dumps. And more, of course, including more wind, solar and nuclear power. But mostly, we are not doing this things. We are releasing increasing amounts of CO2.
AndyH wrote:Again you say deniers or debate don't cause problems - but the reason the USA has led the world in feet-dragging, and the reason we rubbed off on Canada and Australia and the UK so they would do the same, is because not enough Americans stood up when the IDIOTS started lying to everyone! No, Wet - Reg doesn't emit more than anyone else - but you, he, and everyone else in your camps are the primary reason that we're NOT fixing the problem. How do I know? Because OTHER COUNTRIES didn't drink the denial Cool-Aid and they're kicking our collective asses and making REAL progress. German citizens stood up - got into the streets - got water-cannoned, arrested, and beat - in order to take control of their energy and that is a primary reason Germany has led the world in greenhouse gas emissions. Do NOT even TRY to tell me that there's nothing we can do, or that it doesn't matter if the deniers keep sucking at the Koch teets. :evil:
Germany is releasing almost the same amount of CO2. Last year saw a tiny decline, mostly due to less energy being used. While renewable power has grown, mostly at the expense of nuclear, soft coal lignite has been growing as a fraction of the total.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

AndyH
Posts: 6388
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: Denial...was CC- What do we know, when did we know it?

Sat Apr 04, 2015 4:51 pm

WetEV wrote:Germany is releasing almost the same amount of CO2. Last year saw a tiny decline, mostly due to less energy being used. While renewable power has grown, mostly at the expense of nuclear, soft coal lignite has been growing as a fraction of the total.
Sorry, no. Absolutely no. You cannot even support that with cherrypicks from WUWT.

Since the EnergieWende kicked off in the 1990s, Germany's cut their GHG emissions more than 23%. Yes, in the past couple of years there's been an emissions bump - but it is a tiny blip that has already been reversed and it didn't take even a tiny bite out of that 23%.

Wet - continuing to post whoppers like that - whoppers that we have addressed on this forum many times already - is a denial tactic. Please be better than that.
Perhaps because German success would therefore belie the supposed necessity of fossil-fuel and nuclear energy, some media regularly report the Energiewende’s failure or supposed impossibility. As I highlighted, Germany’s renewables revolution is in fact highly successful and strong as ever, but that hasn’t stopped three myths from gaining traction in the media: 1) Germany’s supposed turn back to coal, 2) how renewables undermine grid reliability, and 3) how renewables subsidies are cratering the German economy. None of those are true, and here’s why.
http://blog.rmi.org/separating_fact_fro ... revolution
According to preliminary calculations, Germany’s greenhouse gas emissions increased by 1.6% in 2012, the Federal Ministry for the Environment (BMU) and the German Environment Agency (UBA) informed in a joint press release. Germany, however, met its obligations under the Kyoto-Protocol, lowering greenhouse gas emissions by 25.5% compared with 1990, while it would only have been obliged to lower emission by 21% on average for the period 2008 to 2012, BMU and UBA pointed out.
http://www.germanenergyblog.de/?p=12352

There's plenty more here on MNL (including data more current than 2012) and I'll post them when I locate them. I'll also address the other...points...you brought up when I can do so without a wretch response. :(

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.p ... 36#p341236
Image

Edit...
As has been reported on this forum already, while it is true that Germany has brought some new coal generation on-line in the 20-teens, it is due to a twist of German contract law, not because they needed the generation as they phased out nuclear or because of their transition. It is because those plants were already in planning since well before the nation adopted the Third Industrial Revolution path in the early 2000's (2004?) and it was illegal to terminate the plants once construction was underway. They have shuttered more than twice the capacity of older, dirtier, coal plants than the newer, cleaner, plants they have brought on-line.

Feb 17, 2015
http://www.energypost.eu/energiewende-dark-side/
Image
Image
Image
But we know that coal generation did increase in 2012 and 2013. Why was that if not to make up for renewable shortfalls? There is in fact a ready explanation. As renewables and coal increased, and nuclear dropped, overall power generation in Germany increased from 613 to 633 terrawatt-hours (TWh) from 2011 to 2013. Did Germans use that much more energy then? No! In fact, domestic power consumption declined during the same period!

Figure 3, which shows power exports and imports, throws light on the question. The blue line in the graph depicts the amount of imported electricity in TWh. From 2000 to 2007 imports stayed level, despite a brief increase. The red line stands for the amount of exported energy. In 2002 exports started to rise steeply and stayed well above the blue line. In other words, since 2002 Germany has been an electricity exporting country. It also imports, but exports exceed imports.
Finally, no country is an island. When Europe's largest consumer of natural gas starts having trouble with their 'local' supplier, they still have to keep the lights on...
In the winter of 2011-2012, Russia even reduced imports to Germany by as much as 30 percent
because Russians were consuming so much gas themselves during a long cold spell. While Germany
does have sufficient storage reserves to cover such gaps, domestic production of renewable gas will
make supply more consistent.
http://energytransition.de/wp-content/t ... ion_en.pdf
Last edited by AndyH on Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:58 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"The stupid become extinct."-Bill Mollison
2018 Outlander PHEV
2015 smart Electric Drive (lease ended Feb, 2018)
OpenEVSE Plus DIY

AndyH
Posts: 6388
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: Denial...was CC- What do we know, when did we know it?

Sat Apr 04, 2015 10:22 pm

WetEV wrote:
AndyH wrote:Electric cars aren't even a significant factor in the solution. They're not part of the first or second groups of emitters. They're a tiny part of the distant third GHG emitters. Anyone that thinks they're doing good for the planet by driving an EV is delusional - and it doesn't matter how long they've waited.
Oh? Gasoline, mostly for cars, released about 1,075 Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide in the USA...That is about 20% of the total. I'd say that is a significant target for reduction.
Global climate change is a result of global emissions, not just US emissions. This is a denier-scale misrepresentation. :(

The number one sector is energy for buildings. The second is agriculture - mostly beef. In addition, much of the land use change is also for beef. A distant third is ALL transportation - from aircraft to trucking to passenger cars and trucks to ocean-going transports burning bunker fuel. All of transportation is only 13% of the total - personal transport isn't even 20% of that.

Image
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemi ... lobal.html

Image

Image

I'm not at all suggesting that transport is NOT a problem - and haven't changed my position that we should be electrifying transportation as much and as quickly as possible - but focusing on this to the exclusion of the much larger problems guarantees only that there will be a few more Tesla owners in the log books when Homo sapiens is declared extinct.
"The stupid become extinct."-Bill Mollison
2018 Outlander PHEV
2015 smart Electric Drive (lease ended Feb, 2018)
OpenEVSE Plus DIY

AndyH
Posts: 6388
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: Denial...was CC- What do we know, when did we know it?

Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:06 pm


“If you’re in a position that is different from 97 percent of scientists, that does raise basic competency questions in terms of whether people are going to want to give you the keys to the White House,” said Lehane.
"The stupid become extinct."-Bill Mollison
2018 Outlander PHEV
2015 smart Electric Drive (lease ended Feb, 2018)
OpenEVSE Plus DIY

Return to “Politics & Other Controversial Topics”