The Lemon Fool

xeny wrote:

djbenedict wrote:

xeny wrote:
So it's important to collapse the pyramid sooner rather than later?

So the size of the pyramid is irrelevant.

surely the size of the pyramid in the next generation is utterly critical then? We're currently increasing CO2 at about 2.5ppm/year. The higher people * standard of living (controlling for CO2 intensity) is, the faster it will go up each year.

Don't we want to minimise the level it is at when we get to these hoped for net zero CO2 emitters so they're starting off with as low a level as practicable?

Especially given that doing so would guarantee a level of success with this issue....

To plough on without a care in the world because 'something's going to turn up tomorrow to sort it all out' feels like sheer stupidity to me, but hey ho....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

The very first match on google for EV efficiency says
"According to the US Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “EVs convert about 59%–62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels"

So I don't see how the "round trip efficiency typically >85%" can possibly be true. At very best it is going to be 62% of 62%. And I suspect much worse as regenerative braking isn't usually nearly as efficient as a motor in drive. and not all braking can be regenerative, unless you're a very careful driver. It'll have a tiny effect on overall efficiency. But not much. I seriously doubt it is enough to cancel out the extra weight during acceleration (and uphill)

Regardless, I still maintain that "OVERALL electric cars are just slightly more efficient than typical petrol ones." - which is where we started.

Gryff

Isn't that somewhat academic given that EVs are currently either far to expensive or don't have sufficient range for the average driver ?

richlist wrote: don't have sufficient range for the average driver ?

I think that might be a myth

I had the pleasure of meeting this guy when he was in Melbourne: https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -australia
- I know quite a few electric car drivers in Aus, where distances are a little bit more of an issue than in the UK

-sd

There is the issue of actual range versus real world usage range......we all know the manufacturers will quote a figure that doesn't always reflect reality. Turn on electrical extras and watch the range dwindle significantly.

Then there is the perceived problem of range and charging stations.

For many the decision is based on confidence, or lack of it that they can travel from A to B without problems.......not there yet in the eyes of many.

But electric cars don't need to be good enough now, we just need indication that they will be in a decade's time. I think the signs are that they will out-perform ICE cars in total cost of ownership, comfort and performance by then, so petrol cars will become a niche interest.

xeny wrote:

djbenedict wrote:

xeny wrote:surely the size of the pyramid in the next generation is utterly critical then? We're currently increasing CO2 at about 2.5ppm/year. The higher people * standard of living (controlling for CO2 intensity) is, the faster it will go up each year.

Don't we want to minimise the level it is at when we get to these hoped for net zero CO2 emitters so they're starting off with as low a level as practicable?

Yes, obviously. But, to state the obvious, changing the birth rate does absolutely nothing about the emissions of the 7.5 billion people on the planet already. Therefore, if you actually want to have an impact you need to change behaviour. This is in fact a double win, because it can immediately reduce emissions, and it also reduces the emissions of future generations.

Itsallaguess wrote:To plough on without a care in the world because 'something's going to turn up tomorrow to sort it all out' feels like sheer stupidity to me, but hey ho....

That is exactly what you are suggesting, to my mind. Never mind what the 7.5 billion people produce in terms of CO2, but worry about whether 0.07 billion people are added or not. This is what we call penny wise and pound foolish in other contexts.

djbenedict wrote:

xeny wrote:

djbenedict wrote:

Yes, obviously. But, to state the obvious, changing the birth rate does absolutely nothing about the emissions of the 7.5 billion people on the planet already. Therefore, if you actually want to have an impact you need to change behaviour. This is in fact a double win, because it can immediately reduce emissions, and it also reduces the emissions of future generations.

Agree wholeheartedly - I just don't see a mechanism to achieve it by a sufficient degree (i.e. reduction per person) as well as by a sufficient fraction of the population.

The stick approach won't allow re-election in a democracy.

There's not enough carrot available.

Throw in that profligate demonstration of resource access is an important part of the mate selection process (flash car, big house etc...) and I don't think enough people will change enough.

If a government tries to legislate a hint of a hair shirt, then it won't get re-elected as it will be perceived as a fall in living standards, rather as the current political pain in the US and UK is at least partly tied in with the impact of the 2008 GFC on living standards.

xeny wrote:

djbenedict wrote:Yes, obviously. But, to state the obvious, changing the birth rate does absolutely nothing about the emissions of the 7.5 billion people on the planet already. Therefore, if you actually want to have an impact you need to change behaviour. This is in fact a double win, because it can immediately reduce emissions, and it also reduces the emissions of future generations.

Agree wholeheartedly - I just don't see a mechanism to achieve it by a sufficient degree (i.e. reduction per person) as well as by a sufficient fraction of the population.

The stick approach won't allow re-election in a democracy.

There's not enough carrot available.

Throw in that profligate demonstration of resource access is an important part of the mate selection process (flash car, big house etc...) and I don't think enough people will change enough.

If a government tries to legislate a hint of a hair shirt, then it won't get re-elected as it will be perceived as a fall in living standards, rather as the current political pain in the US and UK is at least partly tied in with the impact of the 2008 GFC on living standards.

Don't be too gloomy. Electricity production by renewable resources is over 25% in the UK and growing rapidly. Cars, houses, aircraft and almost anything else you care to think of are all much more energy efficient than they used to be. The carbon intensity of the economy is in multi-decadal decline.

The most effective way to achieve this (to my mind) is to impose targets on businesses via technical standards and regulation, rather than try to directly alter consumer behaviour. Taking these actions at an international (e.g. EU-wide) level, rather than at a national level, also avoids the issues you describe above.

xeny wrote:Throw in that profligate demonstration of resource access is an important part of the mate selection process (flash car, big house etc...)

Is it though? Most couples I know fell in love with someone, not their things. Maybe I'm lucky.

I see that Miss Thunberg is now in the US. It must have been a long swim.

https://www.teslarati.com/greta-thunber ... egger/amp/

I see she had already met Arnie in Vienna earlier this year....ah, a jet setting lifestyle!

monabri wrote:I see that Miss Thunberg is now in the US. It must have been a long swim.

She went on a massively publicised trip by multi million pound sailing yacht. Where have you been for the last 6 weeks?

Tesla 3 eh? Well that's only 85% coal powered then.

Gryff

gryffron wrote:

monabri wrote:I see that Miss Thunberg is now in the US. It must have been a long swim.

She went on a massively publicised trip by multi million pound sailing yacht. Where have you been for the last 6 weeks?

Tesla 3 eh? Well that's only 85% coal powered then.

Gryff

Very nice publicity stunt.
If she had really wanted to be green it would have been a wooden yacht with canvas sails and natural fibre ropes and rigging.
However, a quick glance at some of the photos appear to show something made from the finest products of the petro-chemical industry.
Even the toilet was a plastic bucket. What's wrong with a proper thunderbox over the back end?

Markab01

Traditional wooden ships is doable. This company has been doing it for years, and a couple of others in construction. But there appear to be only 2 existing ships, so presumably didn't fit her busy schedule.

Gryff

djbenedict wrote:

xeny wrote:Agree wholeheartedly - I just don't see a mechanism to achieve it by a sufficient degree (i.e. reduction per person) as well as by a sufficient fraction of the population.

Don't be too gloomy. Electricity production by renewable resources is over 25% in the UK and growing rapidly. Cars, houses, aircraft and almost anything else you care to think of are all much more energy efficient than they used to be. The carbon intensity of the economy is in multi-decadal decline.

Just to substantiate this point, there was a good article in The Economist recently, actually mostly about offshore wind, but with this illuminating figure:



The full article is at https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/ ... ind-market

Damn, this thread is in danger of getting complacent in its view of the UK. That 1990 start date is hand-picked to cast Blighty in the best possible light.

The big influence in it is the decline of coal, though there's also offshoring of our carbon output. The joker is creative accounting: I don't know how much that accounts for, but it's altogether less well-understood than, say, Carillion's or Thomas Cook's or Patisserie Valerie's finances.

UncleEbenezer wrote:That 1990 start date is hand-picked to cast Blighty in the best possible light.

Perhaps. But the CO2 emissions reductions don't really take off until 2008

UncleEbenezer wrote:Damn, this thread is in danger of getting complacent in its view of the UK. That 1990 start date is hand-picked to cast Blighty in the best possible light.

The big influence in it is the decline of coal, though there's also offshoring of our carbon output. The joker is creative accounting: I don't know how much that accounts for, but it's altogether less well-understood than, say, Carillion's or Thomas Cook's or Patisserie Valerie's finances.

I'm guessing, but It possibly ignores the amount of crude oil we have exported - which will affect the world carbon output - is that what you meant by offshoring the carbon output?.
Its interesting that the SNP are red hot on carbon-free energy generation, but the Scottish economy, in the event of independence, would be heavily dependent on crude oil exports. I'm not sure I can square that circle.

scotia wrote:Its interesting that the SNP are red hot on carbon-free energy generation, but the Scottish economy, in the event of independence, would be heavily dependent on crude oil exports. I'm not sure I can square that circle.

Without getting into the politics of it, my common sense would say the carbon release counts against whoever burns* it, rather than who takes it out of the ground.

* - or equivalent

Scott.