Jump to content

dadof2

One For The Americans

Recommended Posts

Although Scott Morrison is definitely a major impediment to the Australian government doing anything constructive regarding emissions reduction (he's actually an impediment to doing anything productive on just about anything at all - the term "leader" cannot be applied to him in any way!) the alternatives aren't too rosy either. Far too many vested interests in continuing to dig holes in the ground and flog coal around the world. Our labour party is only slightly less conservative than our conservative party on these things. At least we have a political system that does enable Greens and Independent candidates to get elected, even if it is fundamentally a 2-party adversarial system.

There's no need to go as far from the population centres as the Nullarbor for solar power, the transmission losses from there would be astronomical! We've plenty of low productivity land with high solar insolation quite close to all the capital cities. Even here in Victoria (our most densely populated state) a company is currently building a 250ha 85MW photovoltaic farm less than 200km from Melbourne. South Australia installed a 150MWh Tesla battery in 2018, it's already saved consumers in that state $150 million dollars and delivered it's French owners a €23.2 million profit in the first half of this year. Unfortunately, just like our Covid response, Morrison the Moron leaves it all to the States to manage while he fudges the figures on carbon and pretends the solution to fossil fuels is to swap between them. Unbelievable.

Not sure if you've seen it, but researchers in Queensland have identified a seaweed that when fed to ruminent animals significantly reduces their methane output - a large contributor to greenhouse gas production globally. No doubt we'll end up selling that technology to overseas investors so we can continue to do what we know best - dig holes.

Now if the USA can get through this current election process in a civilised manner and rejoin the world as a cooperative member (re-join is a little generous I know) ....

Right, it's 9:15am, better go get my shovel.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

9 hours ago, bikerpet said:

...There's no need to go as far from the population centres as the Nullarbor for solar power, the transmission losses from there would be astronomical! ...

Turn the power into hydrogen.  Great fuel for all sorts of things (trucks , trains etc).  Also the technology to move electric over long distances with little loss exists it is just too expensive at present.

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/carbon-nanotube-based-cables-carry-four-times-the-current-of-copper/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Good to see a mature conversation on here.

Re electric vehicles, what's the current thinking on the environment impact of creating/disposing of batteries ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
1 hour ago, b40rt said:

Good to see a mature conversation on here.

Re electric vehicles, what's the current thinking on the environment impact of creating/disposing of batteries ?

Manufacture is very bad news.   The mining operations have a heavy environmental impact and can be problematic in the countries where mining takes place.  The newer batteries can - I believe - be recycled and re manufactured.  Like anything if you work out the potential market then you start to run out of materials.

EV are not the future nor the solution.  As per the earlier discussion they are all about cutting pollution in cities and air quality.  They also appear to me to be a big turn off for many people and ammunition in the climate change denial and disinterest propaganda.  They are the greenwash from a lot of governments with made up targets of so many EV by such and such a date as if that is somehow doing what is needed to stop climate change.

There are an estimated 22m cars in Africa and as best I know none of the African governments are committed to EV.  I would hazard a guess that as EV displace the ICE in Europe the old ICE cars will be exported.  So the CO2 output will be the same, just in a different place.  It is hard to imagine the charging points and grid capacity being available in developing nations within 20 years.  The only answer is to change fuel for existing ICE technology and to promote the easy change to renewable energy for other non-transport uses.

I like the E-Motion bikes and the idea of the lack of maintenance, no carb to get full of crud and so on, but green?  Not even close.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
13 hours ago, ChrisCH said:

Turn the power into hydrogen.  Great fuel for all sorts of things (trucks , trains etc).  Also the technology to move electric over long distances with little loss exists it is just too expensive at present.

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/carbon-nanotube-based-cables-carry-four-times-the-current-of-copper/

I don't think so, it's 2,000km to Melbourne, 2,500 to Sydney, Brisbane even further. Australia is one of the most urbanised societies in the world, mostly centred on the east coast. Sure it's possible to build pipes to carry it, but why? That's just more energy invested in steel, concrete, diesel transport etc. Renewables lend themselves to distributed power generation, that's an asset, not a liability in most cases.

Laboratory carbon conductors are interesting, but they aren't here now, solar power is. So we need to work now to implement available solutions.

13 hours ago, b40rt said:

Good to see a mature conversation on here.

Re electric vehicles, what's the current thinking on the environment impact of creating/disposing of batteries ?

As Chris said, there are always going to be issues when you dig big holes and refine dirt into the desired components so that's not going to go away in the short term.

There are however technologies available now to reclaim lithium from used batteries and cheaply and cleanly recycle it into raw material for more batteries. Lithium Australia is an IP leader in that area (don't worry, we'll be sure to sell them off overseas and go back to digging holes).

With vehicle batteries the service life is determined by capacity more than other factors. Once a vehicle battery capacity drops too far it needs replacing, however lithium batteries maintain their ability to provide usable power even as their capacity drops. This means used car batteries can remain very useful for stationary power for years to come. There are already companies taking used vehicle batteries, testing and reconfiguring (for individual failed cells) then selling them as household power storage. In that role they have many years of serviceable life remaining, with the loss of capacity easily offset by slightly expanded size.

12 hours ago, ChrisCH said:

EV are not the future nor the solution.  As per the earlier discussion they are all about cutting pollution in cities and air quality.  They also appear to me to be a big turn off for many people and ammunition in the climate change denial and disinterest propaganda.  They are the greenwash from a lot of governments with made up targets of so many EV by such and such a date as if that is somehow doing what is needed to stop climate change.

There are an estimated 22m cars in Africa and as best I know none of the African governments are committed to EV.  I would hazard a guess that as EV displace the ICE in Europe the old ICE cars will be exported.  So the CO2 output will be the same, just in a different place.  It is hard to imagine the charging points and grid capacity being available in developing nations within 20 years.  The only answer is to change fuel for existing ICE technology and to promote the easy change to renewable energy for other non-transport uses.

I like the E-Motion bikes and the idea of the lack of maintenance, no carb to get full of crud and so on, but green?  Not even close.

I partly agree. I think EV are the solution for a significant part of the biggest problem countries - developed countries produce vastly more GHG than less developed ones, and a very significant part of that is from transport. So EV's are a good, relatively quick fix.

Yes, ICE vehicles will continue to be a problem and that does need to be addressed with alternative fuels and probably legislation to avoid "dumping" of old vehicles - we need to take responsibility for the problems we (the developed world) have created. There are no single solutions to this, we need to implement solutions of all sorts as they are available and appropriate. NOW.

I find it absolutely bizarre that people find EV a turn off. Not enough power? The Tesla S is likely the fastest accelerating production vehicle in the world, at a fraction of the price of some pretty exotic supercars. When you move into supercar country then the new crop of EV's are outperforming the ICE equivalents pretty consistently - and they've only been at it for a few years, not decades of refinement behind them. Weird.

I also don't really get commenting that EM bikes are "Not even close" to green. The only "green" would be not to make frivolous toys such as trials bikes at all! Perhaps that's what you meant Chris?

Stack an EM against a Beta or whatever brand you choose and it's probably "greener" over it's life span - similar amounts of metal, rubber, plastic, but less exhaust emission (it still has exhaust in most places - we still generate the majority of our electricity from fossil fuels). I'll bet that the total emission from most trials bikes is just a tiny fraction of the emission from the cars used to move them from place to place, so bringing up these sorts of comments is simply adding to the resistance to change without really adding value to the discussion.

Trials bikes must be the ideal platform for battery EV - short run time, high torque, low power, small size. You couldn't invent a better transport device to electrify!

We've drifted somewhat off-topic from "One for the Americans", but I'll plead that it's because the USA is such a major part of the global emissions problem. Fortunately it's looking like despite the massive shortcomings of the USA electoral process (what a truly bizarre implementation of "democracy"!) they might be getting a president who can see that emissions are an existential threat and who might take some steps in the right direction. Good luck.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
8 hours ago, bikerpet said:

...I find it absolutely bizarre that people find EV a turn off. Not enough power? The Tesla S is likely the fastest accelerating production vehicle in the world, at a fraction of the price of some pretty exotic supercars. When you move into supercar country then the new crop of EV's are outperforming the ICE equivalents pretty consistently - and they've only been at it for a few years, not decades of refinement behind them. Weird...

It's just human nature.  People (especially older conservative people) are resistant to change and fearful that the new way of doing things will leave them behind.  My dad was a good engineer but would run a mile from a computer and steadfastly refused to listen to me if I tried to explain how computers work.  He could fix anything mechanical, but software bamboozled him.

Electric cars have two real problems; one is cost and the other is range.  Bikes less so and as you say trials bikes are probably an ideal, but totally unnecessary "toys".  Electric bicycles are a mixed bag, mostly they are bought for fun but then they get people cycling that otherwise would not.  I have zero problem with any of them, bikes or cars but cars still give off particulates from the tyres and still cause congestion and so on.  The biggest blow has been the Covid outbreak which (quite understandably) turns people off public transport.

In 20 years electric cars will be commonplace and no one will think about it.  The same happened with unleaded petrol.  We are in the same process with ethanol in gasoline.  It is not long before even the dinosaurs stop noticing.  Just tax fossil hydrocarbons enough and the market will take care of it.  That's why we need politicians that are pro intervention and not free market libertarians like Trump or Morison (and in the pay of big oil as well).  Anyway back to the US, it looks like DJ has had his day and so the US will be back in the Paris agreement next year.  That has to be a good thing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
3 hours ago, ChrisCH said:

It's just human nature.  People (especially older conservative people) are resistant to change and fearful that the new way of doing things will leave them behind. 

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
4 hours ago, ChrisCH said:

It's just human nature.  People (especially older conservative people) are resistant to change and fearful that the new way of doing things will leave them behind.  My dad was a good engineer but would run a mile from a computer and steadfastly refused to listen to me if I tried to explain how computers work.  He could fix anything mechanical, but software bamboozled him.

That is not true to all respects, because of this reasons:
1st: It has shown that older or more grown up people are more easy to convince to really new ideas in political matter then younger as they have not so much time left over to live with the consequences!

2nd: What might set older persons off is their experiences of lifetime, thus younger people are mostly more erratic, more dogmatic, more ideologic and more fearsome against new and especially other ideas because they think they have to live with the consequences. Thus younger people can stick easily to new ideas without thinking too much about the consequences, while people with more experience might get more reserved because they can see a different outcome too. 

3rd: That is the reason while high rank's or position in politics are bound to a degree of experience in grown years, look up the age limits to minister, prime minister, president, Just kings and queens can get that position quite early and as we have seen in the British case with good consequences. 

That is not my personal opinion instead part of the "Spieltheorie" a theory that handles about interactions and decisions depending economic and is part of economic science and looks up by using math why we buy what and when under which conditions which is a likewise process as to get along with meanings and political directions.

The Spieltheorie got the Nobel prize in 1995, was invented by Reinhard Selten.

This year the theory was used to set up a better way to do auctions in future and again won Nobel prize in 2020.

I strongly believe that this theory might be the better solution for antique Socialism and Communisms and to bone hard Capitalism.

Electric power is nice but still cant be applied to all kind of vehicles instead to try to promote either energy from to what it can't do we should have a dualism of energy as long as other forms or better forms of energy storage has been created. Electric storage nowadays is not the best way and sadly produces so much waste the customer doesn't see we should be careful where we apply it. Instead fuels which do not harm the environment so much should be developed and do exist already.

To the election in the US it isn't an election of my country so I wait, watch and will respect the final outcome which should be a result of a fair ongoing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
2 hours ago, pschrauber said:

...That is not my personal opinion instead part of the "Spieltheorie" a theory that handles about interactions and decisions depending economic and is part of economic science and looks up by using math why we buy what and when under which conditions which is a likewise process as to get along with meanings and political directions.

The Spieltheorie got the Nobel prize in 1995, was invented by Reinhard Selten.

...

Spieltheorie (game theory in English) is about mathematical models not human nature.  It was not and is not a study of people but of mathematical modelling.  Like most econometric models it makes assumptions which often turn out to be less accurate than the model assumes.  For example it is a general rule in most economic theories that humans are rational (which we are not), so we have - for example -  the so-called "law of supply and demand".  This states that as cost goes up demand comes down.  But it is wrong.  There are many instances of this we all know from everyday life, gold for example tends to be wanted more as the price rises as it is seen as an investment.  Rationally however gold prices are manipulated by those institutions that have tonnes of it salted away.

Very few economic theories have held true over time beyond the ability of the theorem to give a general indication.  Marx took the view that in the long term profitability falls due to competition.  This is one example that has stood the test of time and has become mainstream thinking despite the source of the theory.  Keynes' marginal propensity to consume is another fairly robust theory.

People's irrationality has been a life long fascination for me, for example if you believe in "law and order" why vote for a crook like Trump or equally Mr Johnson here in the UK?  Yet many do.  People see what they want to see, not that which is actually there.  I guess if I cannot get my head round that by now I never will.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
5 hours ago, ChrisCH said:

Spieltheorie (game theory in English) is about mathematical models not human nature.  It was not and is not a study of people but of mathematical modelling.  Like most econometric models it makes assumptions which often turn out to be less accurate than the model assumes.  

People's irrationality has been a life long fascination for me, 

I wholeheartedly agree. Mathematical theories to fit irrational human actions are interesting and sometimes illuminating, but they have never been accurate.

Daniel Kahneman's work on human decision making processes ("Thinking, fast & slow" is the non-academic source) which spun off Behavioural Economics ("Predictably Irrational" by Dan Ariely) is to me the most illuminating model for much of our apparently crazy human behaviour.

Perhaps applying that thinking might allow me to understand how Americans typically believe their electoral system is a sound model of democratic process. I'm at a complete loss to understand why a nation would leave voting for the powerful national leader to the vagaries of individual state law, under the supervision of invested party members, with a bizarre system whereby the popular vote is apportioned to representatives who frequently can (& sometimes do) vote against the popular vote. Then, when there's a disagreement it comes back to wildly varying State law to adjudicate. Truly weird. Oh and to even get to vote you have to register with one of two parties, who you may not even want to vote for in the first place!

Probably much more representative than 1 person, 1 vote, count them up, managed by an independent body with nationally consistent process and law. :wacko: not sure how though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I mailed my vote in knowing full well that it would be counted by people who knew how to count past 20 with their shoes off. This has saddened a bunch of yokels (insert non heart felt condolence here). No USA election has ever stoped counting votes on election day because the priority is accuracy. No election stops counting just because a political party is ahead. Fake news is a label that people put on things they don't understand or agree with here. Electoral college has till mid December to ratify the results so any complaint today is invalid regardless. 

God bless you all and my electrified employer. Democracy will not fail here. 

 

--Biff

PS. I've been on zippy's lawn... no guns were pointed and he made me move a bunch of logs.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
On 11/4/2020 at 5:45 AM, lineaway said:

Well it's early Wednesday morning and the fake news has Biden leading, when in fact Trump is leading. The betting odds now favor Trump winning.

 

 

When you are sucked in to regurgitating phrases like "fake news" and then that news actually turns out to be true, tell us how that feels?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
On 11/4/2020 at 10:10 AM, bikerpet said:

I applaud your voice of reason and try to keep believing there are enough who have a similar perspective that we might avoid the worst of the coming climate catastrophe.

As for the old vehicles, you're right, but while it may not be ideal at least buying only efficient new vehicles is moving things the right direction. Unlike the willfully blind who continue to purchase such obscenities as a new Chevy Suburban for instance! And it's a perverse benefit of our rampant consumerism that at least those old cars will be deemed "waste" in relatively short order, we can be thankful in a weird way for planned obsolescence.

Of course skipping the fossil burners completely would be better, but it's certainly still a step too far for many. Our recharging infrastructure in rural Australia is still a bit sparse for me to easily move to electric, but it is changing fairly quickly.

Scrapping vehicles is not the complete picture though is it? Over production and use of energy and materials in that, regardless of the enviromentally soundness of the vehicle produced has to be taken into consideration as well surely? I saw somewhere that the installation and production of a wind turbine takes 25 years to recoup the damage in production. Dont get me wrong im all for saving the plant but there is a con with every pro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
2 hours ago, nigel dabster said:

Scrapping vehicles is not the complete picture though is it? Over production and use of energy and materials in that, regardless of the enviromentally soundness of the vehicle produced has to be taken into consideration as well surely? I saw somewhere that the installation and production of a wind turbine takes 25 years to recoup the damage in production. Dont get me wrong im all for saving the plant but there is a con with every pro.

Firstly congratulations to Mr Biden who it appears is just now awaiting some adult behaviour from the incumbent (might be a long wait).

Second, I think this is an important point Nigel, a lot of the CO2 from a vehicle is the manufacture of it and the disposal and recycling of it.  If you take the whole life CO2 of a typical car the output from the exhaust is not the only issue.  By using renewable energy to make and recycle vehicles it is reducing the overall problem from the transport sector.  Sadly due to people like Mr Trump we are way too late in this process.  The actual automotive fuel could have been tolerated longer if the electricity for production and recycling had been generated without fossil CO2.  We now find ourselves in the "emergency" stage due to the lies and obstinacy of the Trumps, the Bolsonaros and the Morrisons of the world.  If true and effective remedial action is to be taken it will hit us all hard.  Personally it makes me angry that my enjoyment of motorcycling and trials in particular is threatened because we come to the solution too late.  The right course of action 30 years ago and we would be in a good place now with just as good a lifestyle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...