New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Based in @ZDan's pie chart then we have a two pronged problem. We need to reduce the transportation slice, without increasing the Electric Power slice. Of course since this is a percentage chart, the "percents" have to go somewhere.

What would be more helpful though is if Transportation was broken down a bit. A pretty small piece of that is personal vehicles. Planes, Trains, and Ships make up most of that 27%.

Originally Posted by chipmunk

And what's gonna happen to that 25% from electricity generation?

If we only add nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, bacterial, biofuels, etc then we will be not adding to the coal and methane based CO2 production used with fossil fuel electricity generation, so the amounts will drop. If businesses and residential move to more renewables then that too will reduce those. Percentages only tell the story of what areas contribute the most, but it doesn't tell anyone how much they produce. We could go from 43 billion metric tons per year to 10k metric tons per year, and the percentage could be identical or agriculture could be 99%, but none of that would matter. What matters in the pie chart is that is that all of those sectors contribute significantly, so they all need to improve.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Here is a basic experiment showing CO2 trapping heat.

I see that the infra-red radiation emitted by the candle is blocked/diminished by CO2 from the experiment. How does this prove that CO2 traps heat? I don't see the surrounding air turning from blue to anything else. Maybe I didn't understand you correctly, are you saying that the CO2 blocks sun's IR radiation from hitting the earth?

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

I see that the infra-red radiation emitted by the candle is blocked/diminished by CO2 from the experiment. How does this prove that CO2 traps heat? I don't see the surrounding air turning from blue to anything else. Maybe I didn't understand you correctly, are you saying that the CO2 blocks sun's IR radiation from hitting the earth?

It absorbs the energy and re-radiates it to it's surroundings.

[bcj]

That graph has been compromised by cherry picking the relative dates for misdirection.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

But reducing the emissions on the 12% will actually have a bigger impact because the "pollution per unit" is significantly higher. For example, there are only about 25,000 commercial and cargo aircraft in service around the globe vs 1.45 Billion registered cars in the world.

So, by unit we are back to planes, trains and ships.

It won't have a bigger impact because it is a smaller piece of the pie. It might seem easier to tackle, but it might actually be harder to go green with cargo ships and aviation than with passenger vehicles.

You forgot to calculate a third component in that comparison. Emissions per kilogram of weight carried per kilometer. A bus or plane will have more emissions than a car, but a bus or plane also carries many passenger and carries/ships multiple pieces of luggage. A shipping container cargo ship stacked to the brim might be transporting the equivalent of 120,000 two ton cars. We know buses moving a group of people from point A to B like to the airport without stops is far more efficient than everyone driving individual cars, but it is also true that freight flying is more efficient than freight driving (see below). We obviously want to address all parts of the pie chart, but passenger vehicles should be the main focus.

https://www.businessinsider.com/flyi...driving-2015-4

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

I see that the infra-red radiation emitted by the candle is blocked/diminished by CO2 from the experiment. How does this prove that CO2 traps heat? I don't see the surrounding air turning from blue to anything else. Maybe I didn't understand you correctly, are you saying that the CO2 blocks sun's IR radiation from hitting the earth?

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/20...lobal-warming/

Energy enters our atmosphere as visible light, whereas it tries to leave as infrared energy. In other words, “energy coming into our planet from the Sun arrives as one currency, and it leaves in another,” said Smerdon.

CO2 molecules don’t really interact with sunlight’s wavelengths. Only after the Earth absorbs sunlight and reemits the energy as infrared waves can the CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb the energy.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

But reducing the emissions on the 12% will actually have a bigger impact because the "pollution per unit" is significantly higher. For example, there are only about 25,000 commercial and cargo aircraft in service around the globe vs 1.45 Billion registered cars in the world.

So, by unit we are back to planes, trains and ships.

What the hell, man, that's some serious pretzel logic...
I mean, yeah, I guess it makes perfect sense to equate the effort required to improve emissions of ONE airliner, to ONE car?!

Also, planes are already reasonably efficient as they can reasonably get as far as CO2 emissions per person-miles traveled. While in the US most people are driving about the LEAST efficient vehicles they can (trucks/SUVs).

To make it simple, US CO2 emissions are ~5 million kilotons/year.
Planes/trains/boats at 12% of that is 0.6 million kilotons/year
Light-duty vehicles at 57% of that is 2.85 million kilotons/year.

If you cut planes/trains/boats CO2 emissions *to zero*, that's a reduction of 0.6 million kilotons/year. You'd get the same reduction if you cut light-duty vehicle emissions by only 21%!

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Please elaborate how this will happen. Still a lot of data unclear. The definitions of the terms used, what all the categories encompass, what data points are omitted or include, what sample space, etc.

Plenty of studies you can look up yourself, I'm not gonna go through them with you line by line. Personally I studied this myself when I was working for an EV company 10+ years ago, and well-to-wheels our vehicle had ~2/3 the CO2 emissions of a similar ICE vehicle even if all the electricity came from coal, and it was less than half if using average US electricity production. For me, I'm satisfied with the generally accepted 1/2 well-to-wheels CO2 emissions for current electric vehicles in the US vs. current comparable ICE vehicles.

In fact, the trend from EPA's website doesn't look bad at all. Since around 2005 it has been on a decline.

The problem is that CO2 levels continue to dramatically rise, and even if we are emitting less every year, it is *still* adding to CO2 levels far above pre-industrial levels every year.

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...carbon-dioxide

We need to do more to further reduce our CO2 emissions, we are already recklessly experimenting with the environment and every year CO2 levels rise we are more and more risking the future.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Please elaborate how this will happen. Still a lot of data unclear. The definitions of the terms used, what all the categories encompass, what data points are omitted or include, what sample space, etc.

In addition to increased electricity generation, now you're looking at emissions due to the production of the equipment to hold the electricity. While the claims of using sulphur and sodium are in the nascent stage, we're still dependent on countries like Myanmar and China for raw materials. And nothing has been proved yet with sulphur and sodium.

In fact, the trend from EPA's website doesn't look bad at all. Since around 2005 it has been on a decline.

If we close fossil fuel plants and replace them with renewables and greener forms of power generation like solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, hydro, etc then we will overall reduce the CO2. If we create carbon capture plants to make biofuels and oil products then we can also offset production emissions of any renewable plants. In this way, energy production capacity goes up, but net CO2 production goes down.

Sodium sulfur batteries aren't new. The tech to make them viable for car applications is new along with lithium sulfur batteries, and we should see them replacing lithium ion very quickly, as battery manufactures adjust their production lines in years and not decades, so I don't know how much you want to argue on the pitfalls of lithium ion production.

https://energystorage.org/why-energy...nas-batteries/

Musk mentioned building a lithium mine in Nevada, but hasn't moved on it probably because he was riding out the pandemic and the future of the company like most, and because chip shortages may have meant a drop in lithium demand, but lithium demand has only skyrocketed prompting him to revisit mining lithium in Nevada, so that could happen. Again, movements will likely be happening in years and not decades, so I don't see any fault in the long term strategy of moving to BEVs and attaining energy independence, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

https://electrek.co/2022/04/11/tesla...s-price-surge/

The trend is going down, but that is almost entirely from the energy sector moving to renewables, and it is only a twelve year trend, so we need to not be overly optimistic, especially when we are still dumping six billion metric tons of CO2 in the air each year.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

It absorbs the energy and re-radiates it to it's surroundings.

IR cameras read IR radiation, not heat. This shows nothing about absorption.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/20...lobal-warming/

So is the radiation coming from the sun. Doesn't it stand to reason that the same CO2 is blocking the sun's IR?

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

IR cameras read IR radiation, not heat. This shows nothing about absorption.

You must be trolling. Nobody is constantly so wrong without trolling. It is impossible.

Go look up how infrared cameras work.

My god man.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

So is the radiation coming from the sun. Doesn't it stand to reason that the same CO2 is blocking the sun's IR?

Did you not take grade 7 science?

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by ZDan

What the hell, man, that's some serious pretzel logic...
I mean, yeah, I guess it makes perfect sense to equate the effort required to improve emissions of ONE airliner, to ONE car?!

Actually, it's reducing the emissions on one passenger plane versus 580,000 cars.

I agree its a little twisted, but converting one passenger plane to Hydrogen would make a huge difference relative to 1 car.