Page 18 of 18

Re: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

Posted: Sat May 18, 2013 6:33 pm
Not everyone believes in Europe.

Hey Jim - do you believe in Chicago? Do you believe in Europe?

(sorry... I should have asked first...)

Re: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

Posted: Sat May 18, 2013 8:11 pm
jimbennett wrote:
Here is analysis of the requirements to build a leaf. Discuss
Could you provide something more detailed?
Besides the numbers in the article itself dont add up:

Lets assume that Lomborg is right and
When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds.
Not sure where the extra 16,000 pounds of Co2 would come from, since an electric car has generally LESS parts than gasoline car.
According to this source http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integra ... 303na1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
its 12.5 kg (27 lb) CO2 per kg (2.2 lb)of Battery. The leaf battery is ~ 648 lb, so that would amount to ~ 8,000 lb of CO2 extra for the battery.

Do you think it is realistic that the manufacturing of a battery would amount to MORE emission than making a whole gasoline car?

But lets take him at face value and assume the EV starts with 16000 pounds overhead .

As Lomborg in that article further goes on:
Thus, the life-cycle analysis shows that for every mile driven, the average electric car indirectly emits about six ounces of carbon-dioxide. This is still a lot better than a similar-size conventional car, which emits about 12 ounces per mile.
So there is a 6 ounce difference per mile. That means after a mere 16,000 x 16/6 = 42,666 miles the EV would draw even, not after 80,000. Even with his silly claim of an EV starting out with 16,000 extra pounds of CO2, over the lifetime of a car, e.g. a 100,000 miles, EVs would still come out ahead 21,750 pounds.

Anyway, 42,000 or 80,0000, that's just a factor of 2 off, so this guy has already demonstrated how "precise" his statements are.
I am sure he is a trustworthy source.

Maybe he just confused the amount of CO2 for making an EV with that of making a gasoline car? After all twice as much or half as much don't matter to him.

Finally, 6 ounces per mile equals 106 g C02 per Km. If you assume that the LEAF gets on average 6.4 km / kWH this would imply that the average CO2 amount to produce one kWH is 680 g. Only coal or oil produce that much Co2 and the US power mix is not 100 % oil and coal. The US average is 618 g/kWH, and sinking.

Admittedly, being off by 10% is not a big deal for someone who thinks 2 times more is the same ballpark.

In WA, the amount of CO2 going into one kWH is just 163 g, about 4 times lower than Mr. Lomborg estimates.

The article you linked does not provide a detailed analysis, but just throws around some numbers, apparently not grounded in any facts or research. If you want to reconfirm your preformed opinions, this might work, but if you want to know the truth, not so much.

Re: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 3:21 pm
klapauzius wrote:
jimbennett wrote:
Here is analysis of the requirements to build a leaf. Discuss
Could you provide something more detailed?
Besides the numbers in the article itself dont add up:

Lets assume that Lomborg is right and
When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds.
Not sure where the extra 16,000 pounds of Co2 would come from, since an electric car has generally LESS parts than
gasoline car.
According to this source http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integra ... 303na1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
its 12.5 kg (27 lb) CO2 per kg (2.2 lb)of Battery. The leaf battery is ~ 648 lb, so that would amount to ~ 8,000 lb of CO2 extra for the battery.

Do you think it is realistic that the manufacturing of a battery would amount to MORE emission than making a whole gasoline car?

But lets take him at face value and assume the EV starts with 16000 pounds overhead .

As Lomborg in that article further goes on:
Thus, the life-cycle analysis shows that for every mile driven, the average electric car indirectly emits about six ounces of carbon-dioxide. This is still a lot better than a similar-size conventional car, which emits about 12 ounces per mile.
So there is a 6 ounce difference per mile. That means after a mere 16,000 x 16/6 = 42,666 miles the EV would draw even, not after 80,000. Even with his silly claim of an EV starting out with 16,000 extra pounds of CO2, over the lifetime of a car, e.g. a 100,000 miles, EVs would still come out ahead 21,750 pounds.

Anyway, 42,000 or 80,0000, that's just a factor of 2 off, so this guy has already demonstrated how "precise" his statements are.
I am sure he is a trustworthy source.

Maybe he just confused the amount of CO2 for making an EV with that of making a gasoline car? After all twice as much or half as much don't matter to him.

Finally, 6 ounces per mile equals 106 g C02 per Km. If you assume that the LEAF gets on average 6.4 km / kWH this would imply that the average CO2 amount to produce one kWH is 680 g. Only coal or oil produce that much Co2 and the US power mix is not 100 % oil and coal. The US average is 618 g/kWH, and sinking.

Admittedly, being off by 10% is not a big deal for someone who thinks 2 times more is the same ballpark.

In WA, the amount of CO2 going into one kWH is just 163 g, about 4 times lower than Mr. Lomborg estimates.

The article you linked does not provide a detailed analysis, but just throws around some numbers, apparently not grounded in any facts or research. If you want to reconfirm your preformed opinions, this might work, but if you want to know the truth, not so much.

Admittedly, I don't have numbers for this. I would think if the benefit is so clear, it wouldn't be difficult to get the information from the manufacturers. Does anyone yet know how long the batteries will last? 100,000 miles seems optimistic. Other threads speak to a degradation issue for the battery pack.

Re: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 3:34 pm
AndyH wrote: I strongly recommend you do a bit of research before throwing rocks - you just hit yourself in the head. Again.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/i ... e-refugees

http://www.relocate-ak.org/2012/anthc-c ... ty-health/

One degree? Maybe you ought to step away from the keyboard for a bit and meditate on the meaning of 'average'. While you're there, consider the definition of 'permafrost', then ask yourself how one degree could be melting something that used to be considered 'permanently frozen'. I'll give you a hint - it's much more than one degree warmer in the Arctic.

I'm sure the 700 souls lost in Chicago in 1995 will feel much better now that you've explained that heat isn't an issue for humans. Maybe they'll come back? No?
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books ... 41018.html

If you read your own articles, you will find the Alaskan village has to move 9 miles!! Any more thoughts on the Dust Bowl?

Any measurable increase in methane from the Arctic yet, or is this more fear mongering?

As for cold deaths, check out this.

Re: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 4:46 pm
jimbennett wrote:If you read your own articles, you will find the Alaskan village has to move 9 miles!!
I am assuming you would be happy to abandon a home you owned and lose your investment?

Re: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 6:09 pm
jimbennett wrote:

If you read your own articles, you will find the Alaskan village has to move 9 miles!! Any more thoughts on the Dust Bowl?

Any measurable increase in methane from the Arctic yet, or is this more fear mongering?

As for cold deaths, check out this.
Right - only 9 miles. That's a sales tactic - trivialize objections. The problem with your tunnel vision is that you keep ignoring the fact that PERMAFROST, by definition, should not be melting...

So long, Jim. I'm done rolling in the mud.

Re: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 6:23 pm
jimbennett wrote: Admittedly, I don't have numbers for this. I would think if the benefit is so clear, it wouldn't be difficult to get the information from the manufacturers. Does anyone yet know how long the batteries will last? 100,000 miles seems optimistic. Other threads speak to a degradation issue for the battery pack.
100,000 miles is optimistic, although in moderate climates, doable, maybe with just a module replacement here or there. Even so, the battery, after serving its automotive purpose, can still be used for years as storage device.

It is difficult to asses the total CO2 balance of making things. For EV vs. gasoline car you would have to factor in all the parts that an EV does not have:

the ICE
many more gears, because of the much more complex transmission
the whole exhaust system
lubricants
etc.

I am sure, that all the extra parts make up for the CO2 of the battery.

Keep also in mind that a gasoline car takes more maintenance, that should be factored into the balance as well.

Overall, I think it is plausible that ICE and EVs take about the SAME amount of CO2 to manufacture, especially when the EV manufacturing is becoming as streamlined and efficient as the ICE construction.

Re: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:02 am
More fuel for the (forest?) fire:

Some Trees Use Less Water Amid Rising Carbon Dioxide, Paper Says
- New York Times, July 10, 2013

New research suggests that trees in at least some parts of the world are having to pull less water out of the ground to achieve a given amount of growth.

"Some scientists say they believe that this may be a direct response to the rising level of carbon dioxide in the air from human emissions, though that has not yet been proved.
...
[The] collaborators were able to rule out several possible explanations, leaving one likely candidate: the rising level of carbon dioxide in the air. That increase apparently means plants are able to partly close their leaf pores and still get enough of the gas. And closing pores reduces the evaporation of water from the leaf, meaning the tree needs to suck less of it out of the ground."

http://nyti.ms/12iCAF6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:46 am
Amazing, Exxon and Koch Brother's tentacles reach even into this forum. Actually no surprise. The article totally ignores Global Warming, the deadly effect of excess CO2 in our atmosphere. It is not a poisonous gas, it just makes our planet too hot for human survival. But unfortunately the Koch Brothers don't care about that, profit right now is more important to them.

Re: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 12:14 pm
According to scientists over 1/3 of the carbon dioxide that is being produced is absorbed into the oceans which increases the water's acidity. The result is that all the coral reefs are dying off. The extinction of coral basically eliminates a huge source of food and shelter for many aquatic species which then takes out a huge link in the food chain for species that don't even live in or near coral reefs.

I think I'm going to ride my bicycle from now on.