Electric cars?

[qldfrog]

We saw on the TV nes last night that Perth has invested in electric buses, certainly the way to go. As long as the charging station has panels to produce some of the power.

and as long as you do not even try to compute the surface of solar panels needed to power each bus

 

[farmerge]

and as long as you do not even try to compute the surface of solar panels needed to power each bus

BIG, BIG and BIGGER

 

[Smurf1976]

CO2 is NOT an issue and does not cause global warming

It does however impair human mental functioning at levels over ~800ppm according to the (seemingly credible) reports I've read on the subject.

If so, that alone is a massive problem.

 

[mullokintyre]

It does however impair human mental functioning at levels over ~800ppm according to the (seemingly credible) reports I've read on the subject.

If so, that alone is a massive problem.

Submariners are probably the best people to ask about that.
Numerous studies have been done on the effects of CO2 in a closed environment like a sub.
Heres one fromNational Library of Medicine


this compares to one from Berkley labs that found a different conclusion.

Overturning decades of conventional wisdom, researchers at the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) have found that moderately high indoor concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) can significantly impair people’s decision-making performance. The results were unexpected and may have particular implications for schools and other spaces with high occupant density.

“In our field we have always had a dogma that CO2 itself, at the levels we find in buildings, is just not important and doesn’t have any direct impacts on people,” said Berkeley Lab scientist William Fisk, a co-author of the study, which was published in Environmental Health Perspectives online last month. “So these results, which were quite unambiguous, were surprising.” The study was conducted with researchers from State University of New York (SUNY) Upstate Medical University.

On nine scales of decision-making performance, test subjects showed significant reductions on six of the scales at CO2 levels of 1,000 parts per million (ppm) and large reductions on seven of the scales at 2,500 ppm. The most dramatic declines in performance, in which subjects were rated as “dysfunctional,” were for taking initiative and thinking strategically. “Previous studies have looked at 10,000 ppm, 20,000 ppm; that’s the level at which scientists thought effects started,” said Berkeley Lab scientist Mark Mendell, also a co-author of the study. “That’s why these findings are so startling.”

It could just mean that the level of fitness of the submariners is better than the Berkley subjects, or more likely, the submariners are just more cognitively aware to start with.
Mick

 

[qldfrog]

It does however impair human mental functioning at levels over ~800ppm according to the (seemingly credible) reports I've read on the subject.

If so, that alone is a massive problem.

I hope you are kidding @Smurf1976, I hope you are using irony but not that sure.
Explain how the propaganda can affect even the most science litterate among us
800ppm is nearly double the current level..roughly 200%..there is no way mankind can retrieve enough fossil fuel to reach this concentration...the CO2 scam being played is talking about mankind decimated when CO2 increase by 3 or 4 %...
Increase in CO2 level is used routinely by airlines to quieten overnight passengers , and drinking any soft drink would drastically increase the drinker intake..that might explain ;-)
I quote: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8932639/ "

Results:​

Carbon dioxide levels remained below 800 ppm during train rides to and from the airport and inside airports except in a crowded boarding area with ~300 people present. Carbon dioxide levels exceeded 800 ppm inside the airplanes, but the air was filtered with high efficiency particulate air filters. Carbon dioxide levels remained below 800 ppm in common areas of a hotel but exceeded 800 ppm in a hotel room with 2 to 3 occupants and in a fitness center with 3 people exercising. In restaurants, carbon dioxide levels increased above 800 ppm during crowded conditions with 24 or more people present and 75% or more seat occupancy."

None of the atmospheric increase of CO2 will affect human bodies in a negative way directly, but i am sure if a local level of CO2 is doubled by human activity it will be matched by real pollutant, dusts and particles as well as CO ,which are all quite toxic plus nitrogen compounds which can be genuinely horrendous.
In any case, the advantage of EV is indeed the reduction of pollutant in high traffic density but CO2 is the least of our problem.

 

[qldfrog]

As for CO@ level, I read some serious studies stating that the increase of CO2 since the industrial revolution is responsible for a 20% increase yield in food production.
So thanks God for CO2 otherwise millions more would be starving

 

[qldfrog]

and as long as you do not even try to compute the surface of solar panels needed to power each bus

back to figures:
https://gemtek.com.au/project/west-australian-electric-bus-trial/
2 buses charged at a time...overnight with a 180kW charger:
so each bus requires 90kw? Make sense;
as they do charge by night, it means their power if coming from solar must have been stored then release so a 20% loss if using batteries..
So we will need per bus a 100KW daily average production solar farm ( I am nice and use average)

I actually found the actual used figures:

Western Australia’s First Electric Bus Powered by TESVOLT Batteries

Tesvolt batteries have been selected to provide the energy storage solution for Western Australia’s (WA) first electric public transport e-bus. The initiative marks a major step forward in sustainable public transport practices with the state government currently trialling the battery-electric...

www.tesvolt.com.au

Job is done for us:
100 kW array per bus;
so 400 solar panels @ standard 250ish Watt each 1.6sqr meters->

1 bus: 400 solar panel for an area of more than 640 sqr meters (more due to space between etc)

easy to find space in parking roofs, etc for a couple...harder for a whole fleet.I found this interesting
And this is in Perth, one of our sunniest capital city

How Much Electricity Does A Solar Panel Produce?

The amount of electricity a solar panel produces is obviously one of the crucial things that you need to know when looking to install a solar system. Some

www.solarchoice.net.au

This also make it easier to judge how much panels we need if we want to go EV and feed that EV on our own solar panels

 

[Smurf1976]

I hope you are kidding @Smurf1976, I hope you are using irony but not that sure.
Explain how the propaganda can affect even the most science litterate among us
800ppm is nearly double the current level..roughly 200%..there is no way mankind can retrieve enough fossil fuel to reach this concentration...the CO2 scam being played is talking about mankind decimated when CO2 increase by 3 or 4 %...

I've no qualifications relevant to the effects of CO2 on humans so I can only assume those who do such research are using a proper scientific approach in determining their findings. One can only hope that universities and other bona fide medical research organisations are still operating with integrity.

What I can say though is that if we take 800ppm as the point where humans are affected, assuming there's some truth in that, then we don't need to reach anywhere near that level in the earth's atmosphere to become problematic.

Present concentration in the earth's atmosphere is reported to be 412ppm.

Pre-industrial concentration in the earth's atmosphere is reported to be 280ppm.

The smaller the gap between ambient and the acceptable indoor limit, the harder it becomes to satisfactorily maintain the latter by means of ventilation. It's hard to come up with a precise figure but I doubt too many office buildings, for example, have massively over-engineered ventilation.

That said, I'm not making any claims of my own there so far as medical issues are concerned. Just noting that others seem to think it's at least possibly an issue.

What I can say with more certainty is that

there is no way mankind can retrieve enough fossil fuel to reach this concentration

is absolutely true and the single greatest problem with petrol and diesel cars.

Putting aside all issues of economics and the environment, where's the fuel going to come from 20, 50 or 100 years from now if we stick with that technology?

Estimates vary considerably as to how much economically recoverable oil exists but they're all relatively limited. Even the optimistic assessments come up with answers to the effect that it's going to be a problem going forward.

Whether or not the future involves electric cars, I'm pretty confident it doesn't involve anywhere near the scale of petrol and diesel consumption we have today.

 

[Value Collector]

and as long as you do not even try to compute the surface of solar panels needed to power each bus

As I said those buses are powered by canadas mostly renewable grid, only about 15% of canadas electricity is fossil fuel.

 

[Value Collector]

It does however impair human mental functioning at levels over ~800ppm according to the (seemingly credible) reports I've read on the subject.

If so, that alone is a massive problem.

Even if @qldfrog doesn’t believe in global warming, he should care about human health, Melbourne University estimates air pollution from vehicles caused 11,000 premature deaths a year and cost the government $4.5 Billion per year.



https://www.unimelb.edu.au/newsroom...use-over-11,000-deaths-a-year,-research-shows

 

[farmerge]

Even if @qldfrog doesn’t believe in global warming, he should care about human health, Melbourne University estimates air pollution from vehicles caused 11,000 premature deaths a year and cost the government $4.5 Billion per year.



https://www.unimelb.edu.au/newsroom...use-over-11,000-deaths-a-year,-research-shows

View attachment 156193

Nothing like a lunffull of car emissions to up the heartbeat and bring tears to the eyes.
Oxygen masks may well be the answer one day.

 

[qldfrog]

Even if @qldfrog doesn’t believe in global warming, he should care about human health, Melbourne University estimates air pollution from vehicles caused 11,000 premature deaths a year and cost the government $4.5 Billion per year.



https://www.unimelb.edu.au/newsroom...use-over-11,000-deaths-a-year,-research-shows

View attachment 156193

For clarity,I do not scientifically accept that global warming is caused by CO2.
You do not believe in global warming: it is here or it is not.it is 100% factual
It is really hard to know precisely if we are in a such a phase due to massive data corruption and small time scale.
So far and unless proven otherwise, I believe that mankind is increasing the earth temperature by adding heat to the earth system thru nuclear,gas,oil and coal wood burning.
Wind power and hydro are neutral and so perfect.
Solar slightly positive as we capture as much of the sun rays as possible instead of having them reflected...but small influence and not worse than a black road or roof.
I do not deny the fact EVs are better for the immediate users: smog etc..sadly the current battery system being used are really bad environment wise and do not guarantee an overall reduced impact in term of heat balance.
Moreover, they are not affordable and feasible as a replacement of ice in the world
Great in Canada, Iceland in that regard, not so good here or the US,or most of Europe not to say anything of India China and the other 2 third of the world
CO2 is a consequence not a cause.
Electrification can be a solution but we need a different type of battery..sodium maybe whatever but not current ones in a worldwide view.
So if there is a climate crisis, it is mainly an energy usage one and so directly a population size one
CO2 is a distraction and focusing on it like cattle emissions, tree capture etc under the purpose of reducing global warming is a pure scam.
Some consequences are good: cleaner city air,trees; other horrendous: carbon taxes on animals, masks on cattle...
You want to fight global warming, find a new battery system reduce power usage and reduce population.
I am no saint but I grow my own food,moving into a fully off grid house so responsible for my own needs but still very dubious at adding an EV to the lot for environmental reasons.
If I may,it will be for fun or forced,not to save either money or the planet.
And god knows I worked more for this planet than Tesla warriors?

 

[qldfrog]

I've no qualifications relevant to the effects of CO2 on humans so I can only assume those who do such research are using a proper scientific approach in determining their findings. One can only hope that universities and other bona fide medical research organisations are still operating with integrity.

What I can say though is that if we take 800ppm as the point where humans are affected, assuming there's some truth in that, then we don't need to reach anywhere near that level in the earth's atmosphere to become problematic.

Present concentration in the earth's atmosphere is reported to be 412ppm.

Pre-industrial concentration in the earth's atmosphere is reported to be 280ppm.

The smaller the gap between ambient and the acceptable indoor limit, the harder it becomes to satisfactorily maintain the latter by means of ventilation. It's hard to come up with a precise figure but I doubt too many office buildings, for example, have massively over-engineered ventilation.

That said, I'm not making any claims of my own there so far as medical issues are concerned. Just noting that others seem to think it's at least possibly an issue.

What I can say with more certainty is that



is absolutely true and the single greatest problem with petrol and diesel cars.

Putting aside all issues of economics and the environment, where's the fuel going to come from 20, 50 or 100 years from now if we stick with that technology?

Estimates vary considerably as to how much economically recoverable oil exists but they're all relatively limited. Even the optimistic assessments come up with answers to the effect that it's going to be a problem going forward.

Whether or not the future involves electric cars, I'm pretty confident it doesn't involve anywhere near the scale of petrol and diesel consumption we have today.

And yes we need as a society to find better and sustainable energy source, sun and wind (a direct result of sun) are the only sources we have which can be harvested without affecting the earth thermal balance.
Solar panels compensated by increasing white roof road building is a good way to go here in Australia
And we need a battery system to stabilise so new tech for battery to become widespread..so far a wishlist but where focus should be and obviously hydro pumping schemes.
I am scared by fusion.
If achieved..and we are not that far. We will cook that planet with plentiful extra cheap energy while culling cattle and blaming 20's century coal..
Back to EVs..which are fun and exciting technology

 

[qldfrog]

And yes we need as a society to find better and sustainable energy source, sun and wind (a direct result of sun) are the only sources we have which can be harvested without affecting the earth thermal balance.
Solar panels compensated by increasing white roof road building is a good way to go here in Australia
And we need a battery system to stabilise so new tech for battery to become widespread..so far a wishlist but where focus should be and obviously hydro pumping schemes.
I am scared by fusion.
If achieved..and we are not that far. We will cook that planet with plentiful extra cheap energy while culling cattle and blaming 20's century coal..
Back to EVs..which are fun and exciting technology

And BTW,electricity to H2 to synfuels and the problem is solved..using existing fleets,cars distribution centres..yes we still release CO2, it costs more currently than fossil fuel but the released CO2 is the exact one we captured for synfuels production..and we do not need batteries so can used existing fleet but shushhhwhen will engineering or science spoil a good narrative as we have seen with GW and Covid "vaccines"

 

[Value Collector]

For clarity,I do not scientifically accept that global warming is caused by CO2.
You do not believe in global warming: it is here or it is not.it is 100% factual
It is really hard to know precisely if we are in a such a phase due to massive data corruption and small time scale.
So far and unless proven otherwise, I believe that mankind is increasing the earth temperature by adding heat to the earth system thru nuclear,gas,oil and coal wood burning.
Wind power and hydro are neutral and so perfect.
Solar slightly positive as we capture as much of the sun rays as possible instead of having them reflected...but small influence and not worse than a black road or roof.
I do not deny the fact EVs are better for the immediate users: smog etc..sadly the current battery system being used are really bad environment wise and do not guarantee an overall reduced impact in term of heat balance.
Moreover, they are not affordable and feasible as a replacement of ice in the world
Great in Canada, Iceland in that regard, not so good here or the US,or most of Europe not to say anything of India China and the other 2 third of the world
CO2 is a consequence not a cause.
Electrification can be a solution but we need a different type of battery..sodium maybe whatever but not current ones in a worldwide view.
So if there is a climate crisis, it is mainly an energy usage one and so directly a population size one
CO2 is a distraction and focusing on it like cattle emissions, tree capture etc under the purpose of reducing global warming is a pure scam.
Some consequences are good: cleaner city air,trees; other horrendous: carbon taxes on animals, masks on cattle...
You want to fight global warming, find a new battery system reduce power usage and reduce population.
I am no saint but I grow my own food,moving into a fully off grid house so responsible for my own needs but still very dubious at adding an EV to the lot for environmental reasons.
If I may,it will be for fun or forced,not to save either money or the planet.
And god knows I worked more for this planet than Tesla warriors?

It seems to me the math on that would be straight forward eg is the energy we add to the system through burning fossil fuels and nuclear etc enough to account for the increase in heat.

The actual heat energy added by those causes would be tiny compared to the amount of heat that heats the earth surface from the sun.

However it should be easily demonstrated that air containing a higher concentration of CO2 will capture more heat, from the sun than lower concentration.

————————

All this is a moot point though, because fossil fuel vehicles release more waste heat than electric ones, so you should be pro EV’s even on your belief that it’s not CO2

 

[Value Collector]

And BTW,electricity to H2 to synfuels and the problem is solved..using existing fleets,cars distribution centres..yes we still release CO2, it costs more currently than fossil fuel but the released CO2 is the exact one we captured for synfuels production..and we do not need batteries so can used existing fleet but shushhhwhen will engineering or science spoil a good narrative as we have seen with GW and Covid "vaccines"

Synthetic fuels will be part of the answer especially for hard to electrify things like jet engines.

But, for cars it’s a silly idea you will lose about 60% of the electrical energy in the process of converting it to liquid petrol, then as you know 70% of the energy of the petrol is lost in the combustion process, while also polluting the air with poisonous gases.

So you are far better to use that electrical energy to charge Battery EV’s than convert it to synthetic fuels.

——————————-

Not only that, it’s going to be very hard to convince people who are used to charging their cars at home to start attending the petrol bowsers again.

It’s far cheaper and convenient for me to charge at home using my own solar.

My current system:
My Solar panels > charge car at home>consume efficiently (very little waste)


Synthetic fuel system:
My solar panels > sell power to grid for peanuts > convert to hydrogen > convert to synthetic fuel > truck across the country > drive car to petrol station > purchase over priced synthetic fuel> consume it very inefficiently (huge amounts of waste)

 

[pozindustrial]

I wonder why we never hear about humans heating the atmosphere through buildings, vehicles and civilisation quite apart from CO2 emissions. As a kid I rode my bike back to suburbia one night from a country area in winter and marvelled at the instant temperature difference (heat) in the suburbs. At that time it was home heating, but in summer the removal of forest and its replacement by houses and roads must contribute strongly to heating of our atmosphere. Instead of vegetation absorbing large amounts of sun heat we now reflect it with roofs and paving and hold it in the structures and release it later, and in summer or winter we create heat from efforts to moderate the temperature of our homes, factories and offices plus cooking and heating our shower water. Our vehicles produce vast amounts of heat, large industries produce lots of heat so in my opinion we don't need carbon dioxide, we only need civilisation. We must be significantly warming the planet from that alone, so anything we can do to lessen it is a benefit. EVs produce very little heat compared to ICE vehicles because they use their energy source much more efficiently. And we have already had the arguments dispelling the myth that generating electricity is more polluting than extracting and refining and distributing fossil fuels.

 

[Value Collector]

I wonder why we never hear about humans heating the atmosphere through buildings, vehicles and civilisation quite apart from CO2 emissions. As a kid I rode my bike back to suburbia one night from a country area in winter and marvelled at the instant temperature difference (heat) in the suburbs. At that time it was home heating, but in summer the removal of forest and its replacement by houses and roads must contribute strongly to heating of our atmosphere. Instead of vegetation absorbing large amounts of sun heat we now reflect it with roofs and paving and hold it in the structures and release it later, and in summer or winter we create heat from efforts to moderate the temperature of our homes, factories and offices plus cooking and heating our shower water. Our vehicles produce vast amounts of heat, large industries produce lots of heat so in my opinion we don't need carbon dioxide, we only need civilisation. We must be significantly warming the planet from that alone, so anything we can do to lessen it is a benefit. EVs produce very little heat compared to ICE vehicles because they use their energy source much more efficiently. And we have already had the arguments dispelling the myth that generating electricity is more polluting than extracting and refining and distributing fossil fuels.

As I eluded to above, that sort of stuff could be pretty easily calculated, and I imagine that scientists have already looked at that.

But, as I also said, if it’s true that carbon in the atmosphere captures heat, which is easy to prove, it’s just making all those other heat sources you mention worse.

 

[mullokintyre]

I wonder why we never hear about humans heating the atmosphere through buildings, vehicles and civilisation quite apart from CO2 emissions. As a kid I rode my bike back to suburbia one night from a country area in winter and marvelled at the instant temperature difference (heat) in the suburbs. At that time it was home heating, but in summer the removal of forest and its replacement by houses and roads must contribute strongly to heating of our atmosphere. Instead of vegetation absorbing large amounts of sun heat we now reflect it with roofs and paving and hold it in the structures and release it later, and in summer or winter we create heat from efforts to moderate the temperature of our homes, factories and offices plus cooking and heating our shower water. Our vehicles produce vast amounts of heat, large industries produce lots of heat so in my opinion we don't need carbon dioxide, we only need civilisation. We must be significantly warming the planet from that alone, so anything we can do to lessen it is a benefit. EVs produce very little heat compared to ICE vehicles because they use their energy source much more efficiently. And we have already had the arguments dispelling the myth that generating electricity is more polluting than extracting and refining and distributing fossil fuels.

Its called the Urban Heat Island effect.
A good disscussion can be found Here from MIT.
When you look at where the majority of weather stations are (in urban areas, because they have been settled the longest), it goes some way(but not all ) to explaining why we get the headlines about increasing global temperatures.
Mick

 

[Value Collector]

Nothing like a lunffull of car emissions to up the heartbeat and bring tears to the eyes.
Oxygen masks may well be the answer one day.

Dyson are working on headphones that have a built in air purifier, having spent a bit of time in LA during peak smog events, I think there may be a market for this, even just for people with bad spring allergies. It blows purified air into your face.

Probably going to be more popular in places with obviously bad smog such as LA and parts of China etc