diy solar

diy solar

Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?





And there are some news floating around (need to verify as it only came out today) that Audi just rolled back on switching to EV by 2026.
 
Last edited:
Yet switching everyone over to EV's and making sure those EV's are only recharged with "green" energy would only net an 8% reduction in carbon emissions.

And only use "green" energy in the production of all components of said car as well as the EV's themselves.

I am sure the carbon footprint of those children in the African cobalt mines is fairly small
 
Stop and think about all claims, don't repeat what someone else comes up with "on information and belief".
I did caveat it with the data from an AI... but sure, let's think about the two you mentioned as I don't think the AI was that far off.

Fuel cell "Exposure to exhaust emissions and fine particulates" ?? 🌧️
It's not all exhaust. Tires and brakes contribute to fine particulates too:
...Brake dust is the source of approximately 20% of total PM2. 5 traffic pollution. [ref]
Tires are probably a wash across all three categories as it's probably dependent on weight and that seems a near wash. There's also new tech coming out to help with this that is the same for all three categories.

But, because of regenerative braking, EVs not only do less friction braking overall, they can also use drum brakes (video on it) which put less particulates into the air.

Recycling...EV "Batteries can be recycled, but challenges remain"
Thanks for the car link, a little surprised about the 20% as that seems low.

The delta between the cars is pretty much what you talked about in that post and earlier (fluids, belts, engine, catalyst muffler, battery).
Jerry says 95% of batteries are recycled, but internet numbers are all over the place. It's still early days for the tech and bound to improve.

So, still looks like the AI was right in giving EVs the win. ; -)
 
Last edited:
























 

The evidence is rolling in fast. This month, Hertz, which purchased 100,000 Teslas to great fanfare in 2021, executed a squealing 180-degree turn and began dumping one-third of its EV fleet, taking a $245 million charge against its earnings. Its pledge to buy 175,000 EVs from GM will likely go up in smoke, too. Outside of wealthy, trendy communities, consumers are walking past plug-in EVs and snapping up hybrids and gasoline-powered engines instead.

In the fourth quarter of 2023, EV sales crawled up by just 1.3%. According to Edmunds, EVs tend to sit on dealer lots for about three weeks longer than gasoline-powered cars. With Mercedes Benz EQS units languishing for four months, the company’s chief financial officer recently acknowledged that the market is a “pretty brutal space.” Customers are staying away despite a price war in which Ford, Tesla, and GM slashed EV prices by 20%, on average, leading Ford to lose $36,000 on each unit sold.

At the same time, state governments have been pumping EVs with enormous subsidies, even as their own budgets are bleeding red. California still pours $7,000 into each new EV (on top of the maximum $7,500 federal credit), despite reporting a record $68 billion budget deficit. New Jersey sends a $4,000 check to EV buyers, despite shrinking revenues. How long can these states keep the money spigot open?

EV doubters like Toyota – which instead bet on hybrids – now look prescient. Over the past year, Toyota’s share price outperformed GM’s by 40%. After taking flak from enthusiasts and Wall Street analysts, Toyota chairman Akio Toyoda declared last October that people are “finally seeing reality.” Automobile unions surely are relieved, considering that EVs require 90% fewer parts and 30% fewer manhours to manufacture.
 
I did caveat it with the data from an AI... but sure, let's think about the two you mentioned as I don't think the AI was that far off.


It's not all exhaust. Tires and brakes contribute to fine particulates too:

Tires are probably a wash across all three categories as it's probably dependent on weight and that seems a near wash. There's also new tech coming out to help with this that is the same for all three categories.

But, because of regenerative braking, EVs not only do less driction braking overall, they can also use drum brakes (video on it) which put less particulates into the air.

From my experience maintaining ICE, brake pads last about as long as tires. They wear down a similar thickness, maybe 1/40th the volume.

Tires wear faster on EV, due to considerably greater weight, also harder acceleration.
Or so we hear. But also tires are different composition to reduce rolling resistance. What are the tradeoffs?

According to AI,

EV: "Minimal health impact due to zero tailpipe emissions"
ICE & Fuel cell: "Exposure to exhaust emissions and fine particulates"

AI apparently thinks tire dust is negligible for EV, so (when defending AI's summary), you can't use tire dust to indict ICE or fuel cell.

AI thinks Fuel Cell has harmful "exhaust emissions", in contrast to EV "zero tailpipe emissions.

You are capable of thinking, AI clearly is not. It just regurgitates statements from humans, even when incorrect. I would have expected it to break down and analyze the data points as we are doing.

"regenerative braking", you say.

But for fuel cell? A fuel cell car is a hybrid EV, but with smaller battery, probably lighter vehicle. Surely it uses regenerative braking, just like EV/ICE hybrids.

I see no reason to say (hydrogen) fuel cell vehicle represents greater health hazard (at point of use) than battery.
 
Full Stop.
The whole "CO2 Bad" is the biggest scam since Covid.

The most significant thing I have seen on the entire topic is the graph you gave of light spectrum escaping from Earth.

With 0ppm CO2, significant heat is radiated to space as IR.
At 400ppm CO2, the spectrum has a dip for IR.
At 800ppm CO2, no perceptible decrease in IR emissions.

The spectrum for present CO2 (modeled) was compared to measured by satellite. The other two were modeled only.

IR did not drop to zero. It appears the present CO2 level is sufficient to block virtually all IR coming from Earth's surface. Is the IR which continues to radiate coming from upper atmosphere?

Anyway, it showed more CO2 had vanishingly small impact on heat loss through radiation.
I think other sources of warming deserve more attention. Methane coming from under melting glaciers? Drill, baby drill! (and convert it to less harmful H2O and CO2.)
 
The most significant thing I have seen on the entire topic is the graph you gave of light spectrum escaping from Earth.

With 0ppm CO2, significant heat is radiated to space as IR.
At 400ppm CO2, the spectrum has a dip for IR.
At 800ppm CO2, no perceptible decrease in IR emissions.

The spectrum for present CO2 (modeled) was compared to measured by satellite. The other two were modeled only.

IR did not drop to zero. It appears the present CO2 level is sufficient to block virtually all IR coming from Earth's surface. Is the IR which continues to radiate coming from upper atmosphere?

Anyway, it showed more CO2 had vanishingly small impact on heat loss through radiation.
I think other sources of warming deserve more attention. Methane coming from under melting glaciers? Drill, baby drill! (and convert it to less harmful H2O and CO2.)

How about the elephant in the room really driving earth's climate?


 
How about the elephant in the room really driving earth's climate?

The problem with saying this is that earlier, you tried to discredit the temperature data.

This statement acknowledges the temperature data is real and that warming is real BUT that it's something else driving the warming.
 
The problem with saying this is that earlier, you tried to discredit the temperature data.

This statement acknowledges the temperature data is real and that warming is real BUT that it's something else driving the warming.

Have you ever considered that many sources could be lying/half-truthing?
This is a very common tactic, where they will present some truths, but fill it with BS so that the whole thing seems like BS? And vice versa?
What i am trying to say, is that when you do enough research on the subject the whole CO2 narrative is complete scam, its only goal is control grid via carbon/energy credits
I always assume people are intelligent enough to take the breadcrumbs that i post and do their own research
 

Green Billionaires Press Hollywood to Promote Armageddon Climate Messages in Movies​

Green billionaires are pouring money into discreet campaigns to persuade Hollywood writers to catastrophise the climate in future film and television scripts. One of their main vehicles is Good Energy, which tells writers that showing anger, depression, grief or other emotion in relation to the climate crisis, “can only make characters more relatable”. Los Angeles-based Good Energy is funded by numerous billionaire foundations including Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Sierra Club and the Climate Emergency Fund; the latter operation is part-funded by Aileen Getty and is one of the paymasters of the Just Stop Oil pests.

Good Energy aims to weave climate alarm into all types of film-making, “especially” if it is not about climate. With the support of Bloomberg, it recently published ‘Good Energy – A Playbook for Screenwriting in the Age of Climate Change’. It claims the Playbook is “now the industry’s go-to guide to incorporating climate into any storyline or genre”. As with almost all green campaigning groups, Good Energy would not exist without the support of billionaire funding. These operations seek a supra-national collectivist Net Zero solution to a claimed climate emergency. Good Energy acknowledges it would not exist without this funding, adding, “as collaborators and champions, each has provided a unique contribution for which we are endlessly grateful”.

Announcing the launch of the ‘Playbook’, Bloomberg Philanthropies, the tax-efficient ‘charity’ channel for distributing the wealth of former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, noted that “accurate and relatable storytelling about climate impacts and solutions can grow public support and motivate decision makers”. As regular readers of the Daily Sceptic will recall, billionaire foundations are grooming populations around the world by funding a variety of press, political and academic operations. Most significant non-profit bodies seeking to stop the use of hydrocarbons are funded from these sources. Few green campaigns arise from ‘grass roots’ these days. Put to the vote, for instance, the Green Party in the U.K. loses most of its election seat deposits.

Since this is La La Land, Good Energy has some relevant advice for writers to normalise climate friendly actions. “Let’s reimagine what it looks like for a character to eat a plant-rich diet (Michelin Green Star restaurant, yes!), attend a protest or upcycle vintage clothes. And if your story requires a yacht, why not make it solar powered.” That last idea might appeal to super-yacht lover Leonardo DiCaprio, but private planes, the preferred method of transportation for many high-end Hollywood stars, might be a problem. Hypocrisy a problem with all this? Not according to the Playbook, which quotes climate activist Bill McKibben that “hypocrisy is the price of admission in this battle”. For plebs, gammons, fly-overs and deplorables, this of course translates as “you do what you are told and radically change your lives – we don’t give a flying flamingo”.

Needles so say, a mere climate crisis is not enough for über-woke luvvies. It is not separate from other critical social issues like racism, sexism, economic injustice and war. The Playbook notes that “indigenous people are the first climate scientists, and indigenous people are leading us through this climate crisis”. Climate can be a “generative lens with which to view any subject or character”, the Playbook helpfully notes. For scripted entertainment, observes Good Energy, “the emotional truth is as important as the literal truth”.

Good Energy was started in 2019 and its influence and services seem to be growing within the U.S. west coast film industry. Rolling Stone recently profiled the operation in an article titled ‘How Hollywood is Crafting A New Climate Change Narrative’. One of Good Energy’s “standout” projects last year was a collaboration with Scott Z Burns on the series Extrapolations for Apple TV+. This was said to be the first mainstream show centred entirely around climate. It starred Meryl Streep in eight interconnected stories over 33 years and was said to explore how the planet’s changing climate will affect family, work, faith and survival. Rolling Stone reports that the operation is “dedicated” to ensuring that within three years, 50% of contemporary TV and film acknowledges climate change.

It is unsurprising that the power of film and TV to influence large audiences is being captured to promote a political message. During the 2021 COP 26 meeting in Glasgow, seven soap opera programmes in the U.K. including Coronation Street and Eastenders joined forces to highlight climate change. Most of the plot lines were clumsily inserted into existing storylines and in an era of declining audiences, the experiment does not appear to have been repeated.

Nevertheless, elite billionaires are pulling out all the stops to insert climate Armageddon messaging into all forms of media. As I write, the BBC climate disinformation reporter Marco Silva is possibly learning how to improvise on the theme of a mango during his six-month sabbatical at the Oxford Climate Journalism Network. Past funders of the course include the European Climate Fund, which is supported by Extinction Rebellion funder Sir Christopher Hohn. Previous course attendees were told to pick a fruit such as a mango and discuss why it wasn’t as tasty as the year before due to the impact of climate change.

Truly, La La Land meeting the make-believe world of BBC Verify.
 
The earth has been through many ice ages, so I don't think warming/cooling is denied by anyone.
(except those who believe the Earth didn't exist prior to 6000 years ago.)
 
Have you ever considered that many sources could be lying/half-truthing?
This is a very common tactic, where they will present some truths, but fill it with BS so that the whole thing seems like BS? And vice versa?
What i am trying to say, is that when you do enough research on the subject the whole CO2 narrative is complete scam, its only goal is control grid via carbon/energy credits
I always assume people are intelligent enough to take the breadcrumbs that i post and do their own research

I know they lie and exaggerate.

However, the core science of how C02 impacts absorption of certain spectrums of light and thus can impact heating of air is solid and easily tested.
 
However, the core science of how C02 impacts absorption of certain spectrums of light and thus can impact heating of air is solid and easily tested.

Without CO2, IR escapes to space.
CO2 acts as dark glasses, attenuating the IR light.

How much of that IR light as already been blocked? What incremental difference would doubling CO2 make?
 
AI apparently thinks tire dust is negligible for EV, so (when defending AI's summary), you can't use tire dust to indict ICE or fuel cell.
I suspect it's not the AI that's biased, it's the crap on the internet. ; -)

I would have expected it to break down and analyze the data points as we are doing.
In fairness to the AI, if you ask it a single specific question it probably will. I just asked for a table comparing the 3 techs and then faithfully cut/paste it without alteration and said in the original post it was just a basis for discussion.

"regenerative braking", you say....But for fuel cell? A fuel cell car is a hybrid EV, but with smaller battery, probably lighter vehicle.
Great question!
Same thing even for an ICE hybrid (although they gain the weight of the electric motor and battery). The car needs to have the added complexity/weight for the electric motor and battery. F=ma, so according to the AI a 5,000 pound car decelerating from 30 to 0 in 5s is .125 kWh. Same car from 60 to 0 in 20s is .5 kWh. So, doesn't seem like it takes a lot of battery (or capacitor). Seems like any hybrid would get that regenerative boost. Hmm, if they're doing that than it seems like they could go to drum brakes too since (disc brakes became popular to solve the heat buildup problem). That's in theory... I bet in practice EVs are a lot better/efficient at recapturing braking energy.

I see no reason to say (hydrogen) fuel cell vehicle represents greater health hazard (at point of use) than battery.
Did a little bonus research... fuel cell cars have bigger batteries than ICE vehicles to smooth out the total power availability under variable driving conditions. So, while an ICE hybrid may or may not be as efficient/capable in terms of regenerative breaking based on storage and eMotor, it sounds like a fuel cell hybrid vehicle is more than capable and would be as "clean" as an EV minus any possible hydrogen problems.
Good call! (y)


IR did not drop to zero. It appears the present CO2 level is sufficient to block virtually all IR coming from Earth's surface. Is the IR which continues to radiate coming from upper atmosphere?
This might help.
 
Back
Top