An interesting take on vehicle energy using very different logiv. I don't agree with it 100% but it is an interesting take on this issue.
http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotivee ... ERSION.pdf
I have only skimmed the article but I plan on reading it in an entirety sometime soon.
Jeep: Earth's "Greenest" Car Company
Jeep: Earth's "Greenest" Car Company
Dupuy Bateman IV
Ok that is interesting.
Of course it makes one serious flaw. Many countries in the world, including the state that I live in, rely on renewable energy, rather than burning fossil fuels etc. If the energy used in burning oil to make a care can be essentially converted into a greater energy cost, but one entirely from renewable energy sources, that's a massive win for the environment.
I also love the bit at the start where it says; "We took a worse case scenario
of $80 per barrel of oil"
$80 a barrel of oil certainly sounds like worst case scenario to me.
Of course it makes one serious flaw. Many countries in the world, including the state that I live in, rely on renewable energy, rather than burning fossil fuels etc. If the energy used in burning oil to make a care can be essentially converted into a greater energy cost, but one entirely from renewable energy sources, that's a massive win for the environment.
I also love the bit at the start where it says; "We took a worse case scenario
of $80 per barrel of oil"
$80 a barrel of oil certainly sounds like worst case scenario to me.
I agree we need to move away from fossil fuels. This accounts for what is needed for a vehicle in the long run, from when its made to when its sent to a junk yard. Hybrid cars need batteries and other components every 5-12 years. Last time I check batteries wast is not to great for the enviorment. I'm all for hybrids they need to be bough so they become cheaper and the technology becomes better. On that note I cant wait for fuel cell and I really hope someone figures out a way to efficiently run a car off compressed air.Jeremy wrote:Ok that is interesting.
Of course it makes one serious flaw. Many countries in the world, including the state that I live in, rely on renewable energy, rather than burning fossil fuels etc. If the energy used in burning oil to make a care can be essentially converted into a greater energy cost, but one entirely from renewable energy sources, that's a massive win for the environment.
I also love the bit at the start where it says; "We took a worse case scenario
of $80 per barrel of oil"
$80 a barrel of oil certainly sounds like worst case scenario to me.
Right now as it stands no country in the world that I know of gets more than 20% of their energy from renewable resources. Germany and the Netherlands are rapidly reproaching 20% and will surely surpass 20% in the near future. they only huge problem about renewable energy is that is not extremely efficient yet. The best solar panels on the market right now are at about 26% efficiency. I am all for renewable resources, hell if my family had the money we would have solar panels on our roof and be getting money from the power company every month.
Dupuy Bateman IV
Actually there are quite a few countries that rely almost solely on hydro electricity. My state (Tasmania) also does.
I think you're confusing issues though. The environmental problems with batteries are separate to the environmental issues of global warming, and I think global warming is a much more serious issue, so it's better to face the problems associated with dangerous chemicals and to lower our emissions.
On a slightly related note, it's interesting to see a recent report that says that China, a much poorer country, spent twice as much money on renewable energy than the US did last year. China looks well on target to reach its goal of 15% renewable energy sources by 2020.
China is currently the 80th worst producer of greenhouse gas emissions per person (USA 5th, Australia 8th).
I think you're confusing issues though. The environmental problems with batteries are separate to the environmental issues of global warming, and I think global warming is a much more serious issue, so it's better to face the problems associated with dangerous chemicals and to lower our emissions.
On a slightly related note, it's interesting to see a recent report that says that China, a much poorer country, spent twice as much money on renewable energy than the US did last year. China looks well on target to reach its goal of 15% renewable energy sources by 2020.
China is currently the 80th worst producer of greenhouse gas emissions per person (USA 5th, Australia 8th).
Jeremy, do you have a source so we can see which countries? I'm not being lazy, I tried but couldn't find anything except for Iceland at about 70%. Do you know if there is a list of countries with percentages or something?Actually there are quite a few countries that rely almost solely on hydro electricity
Scott Kirchner
http://www.ausfootbag.org
http://www.ausfootbag.org
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_e ... urce-hydro
Admittedly all third world countries that don't generate a great deal of power.
Norway is 99.3 though (and the rest is natural gas and wind, so their electric generation is entirely carbon free).
Admittedly all third world countries that don't generate a great deal of power.
Norway is 99.3 though (and the rest is natural gas and wind, so their electric generation is entirely carbon free).
Thanks Jeremy, good source.
Off topic but some news on Kyoto and post the upcoming climate meeting in Bali:
It looks like China is willing to commit to emission targets. That should put some pressure on the US, they are quickly running out of excuses.
Australia just signed Kyoto.
Apparently Japan is not going to meet their targets and are looking to avoid further commitments.
Source: Australian Financial Review. Print so no link.
Off topic but some news on Kyoto and post the upcoming climate meeting in Bali:
It looks like China is willing to commit to emission targets. That should put some pressure on the US, they are quickly running out of excuses.
Australia just signed Kyoto.
Apparently Japan is not going to meet their targets and are looking to avoid further commitments.
Source: Australian Financial Review. Print so no link.
Scott Kirchner
http://www.ausfootbag.org
http://www.ausfootbag.org
Interesting about Japan, since they'll be a country that will feel serious effects from climate change, although not that surprising given the attitudes of Fukuda. I'm really hoping the Democratics poll strongly in the 2009 elections, and hopefully we'll see a shift towards genuine action by 2012 - I think a strong Democratics vote in 09, even if they don't win power, will result in a shift towards the left from the Liberals.
It was fantastic news about Australia. Certainly about time. I posted about it in my blog as well. Of course it's pretty meaningless, given our ridiculous target of increasing our emissions by 8%, rather than reducing them, and indeed were one of the only countries that were basically on track to reach our target before we'd decided what the target was, so we didn't need to put in any effort.
Good demonstration of Howard's policies of short term gain for Australian interests at any expense, and pretty disgraceful that we didn't ratify the protocol (we signed it years ago) until just now, considering we always looked like we'd come close to our target.
The efforts China are putting in are fantastic - I'm totally on board at the moment. I'm also pretty happy with the Governator. It was also good to read in New Scientist that despite the media attention, nuclear power around the world is dropping rapidly. We'll have about 90 plants less in the world within the next 30 years. There are countless studies that show nuclear power does not reduce greenhouse gasses and that it's not a solution to climate change, so we should be spending our money elsewhere, and it's good to see that the world basically agrees with the science.
It was fantastic news about Australia. Certainly about time. I posted about it in my blog as well. Of course it's pretty meaningless, given our ridiculous target of increasing our emissions by 8%, rather than reducing them, and indeed were one of the only countries that were basically on track to reach our target before we'd decided what the target was, so we didn't need to put in any effort.
Good demonstration of Howard's policies of short term gain for Australian interests at any expense, and pretty disgraceful that we didn't ratify the protocol (we signed it years ago) until just now, considering we always looked like we'd come close to our target.
The efforts China are putting in are fantastic - I'm totally on board at the moment. I'm also pretty happy with the Governator. It was also good to read in New Scientist that despite the media attention, nuclear power around the world is dropping rapidly. We'll have about 90 plants less in the world within the next 30 years. There are countless studies that show nuclear power does not reduce greenhouse gasses and that it's not a solution to climate change, so we should be spending our money elsewhere, and it's good to see that the world basically agrees with the science.