New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[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.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

...We obviously want to address all parts of the pie chart, but passenger vehicles should be the main focus.

My point is passenger cars have been the main focus literally for decades, to the point where we are down to where we have to decrease CO2 in supporting industries to make a difference. Exchanging ICE for EV is a very debatable "solve the problem" thing to me.

Most of this was tongue in cheek, but there is a smidgen of truth in what I'm saying.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

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.

But the *effort* required to "convert" one passenger plane to hydrogen? EVEN HUGER! It's just an absurd comparison all around.

And again, reduce plane emissions to ZERO, *and also ships and trains*, and that's only as much as if you reduce "light-duty" vehicle emissions by 21%. Which is easily doable even without changing technologies, just give trucks/SUVs the same CAFE mpg requirements as cars, and don't give bigger cars a CAFE break vs. smaller cars.

[Irace86.2.0]

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?

Yes, just like a blanket would help block the sun from directly hitting your body if you were laying out in the sun, but it would also insulate heat from leaving, which is the bigger problem. You would be better off laying on the beach without a blanket on top of you than with.

It isn’t a perfect analogy, but from the quote and from your reading you should should have learned that the visible spectrum passes through CO2 to the Earth, but is radiated back out as IR, which gets trapped, so more is getting trapped than getting reflected.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

My point is passenger cars have been the main focus literally for decades, to the point where we are down to where we have to decrease CO2 in supporting industries to make a difference. Exchanging ICE for EV is a very debatable "solve the problem" thing to me.

Most of this was tongue in cheek, but there is a smidgen of truth in what I'm saying.

I get your point, but it might even be easier to switch to biofuels from plants and carbon capture than transforming planes and cargo ships to run on hydrogen and to build the supportive industry than to move to BEVs. I think moving to both is probably going to happen at the same time with some investment going everywhere, so doing both isn’t mutually exclusive.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by ZDan

But the *effort* required to "convert" one passenger plane to hydrogen? EVEN HUGER! It's just an absurd comparison all around.

And again, reduce plane emissions to ZERO, *and also ships and trains*, and that's only as much as if you reduce "light-duty" vehicle emissions by 21%. Which is easily doable even without changing technologies, just give trucks/SUVs the same CAFE mpg requirements as cars, and don't give bigger cars a CAFE break vs. smaller cars.

A reduction is a reduction, doesn't matter where it is done.

There have already been a "commercial grade" 6 passenger plane (ZeroAvia) that has flown on Hydrogen.

Airbus has committed to flying a full zero emission aircraft by 2035. They are working on converting an A380 (SN001 used as a testing mule) for testing.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

A reduction is a reduction, doesn't matter where it is done.

Your original point was that bigger cuts could be more reasonably made with planes. This is NOWHERE NEAR true. Big cuts in aircraft emissions are going to be *exceedingly difficult* to realize, and still won't affect overall CO2 emissions anything like as much as could be *easily* achieved in cars.

FWIW, I'm an aerospace engineer and have studied and modeled aircraft performance. Liquid hydrogen carries *way* less energy per volume than jet fuel, so you need about 4x the volume for similar range. Add to that it needs to be kept at cryogenic temperatures!
For gaseous hydrogen, even lower energy density by volume, even at 10,000psi! These are huge fundamental problems.

Also, while burning hydrogen + oxygen gives water, you can rest assured a LOT of energy was expended producing that hydrogen, and storing it.

There have already been a "commercial grade" 6 passenger plane (ZeroAvia) that has flown on Hydrogen.

One normal engine and one electric motor driven prop powered by hydrogen fuel cells? Let me know when commercial flights with this plane happen... I'm fricking DUBIOUS!

Airbus has committed to flying a full zero emission aircraft by 2035. They are working on converting an A380 (SN001 used as a testing mule) for testing.

That is a demonstrator for hydrogen combustion, not a hydrogen aircraft. Those dainty little tanks are just to power a small jet engine mounted cutely to one side of the top of the fuselage. The engines the plane is using to actually fly are conventional.

This is a long LONG way from a "hydrogen airliner"!

[Spuds]

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?

Here is an article that does a good job explaining the phenomenon.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/20...house%20effect.

TLDR, CO2 specifically acts on Infrared light. The light coming in is more visible light (hence daylight), which is not affected by CO2. The light leaving is more infrared light (earth doesn't visibly glow last I checked), half of which is reflected by CO2. So CO2 allows all the visible light in, but reflects half the infrared light going out.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Your original point was that bigger cuts could be more reasonably made with planes.

My point was that bigger improvements potentially could be gained by reducing emissions on other forms of transport at this point. The focus has been almost exclusively on private vehicles for decades with disproportionately little attention paid to other areas that could have just as big an impact.

Look, I get it, you don't agree. OK, fair enough. I do truly believe at this point though if all new cars sold tomorrow were zero emissions, and the production of the power that drives them was zero emissions, it would be decades (based on sale through of the fleet) before there would be a significant difference. It's time to turn this into a stronger multifront effort.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by ZDan

This is a long LONG way from a "hydrogen airliner"!

You gotta start somewhere.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

My point was that bigger improvements potentially could be gained by reducing emissions on other forms of transport at this point. The focus has been almost exclusively on private vehicles for decades with disproportionately little attention paid to other areas that could have just as big an impact.

No, cars/trucks/SUVs are *still*, *BY FAR* the low-hanging fruit.

By design, most in the US are driving oversized overweight incredibly gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs I mean it's almost as if the regulations are written by the fossil fuel and US auto industries...

"Light-duty" vehicles are by far the major contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in the transportations sector, and are also EXACTLY where we could *easily* see meaningful, HUGE reductions. Unlike with aircraft, which overall contribute less, and for which getting big reductions is going to be *exceedingly* difficult.

I do truly believe at this point though if all new cars sold tomorrow were zero emissions, and the production of the power that drives them was zero emissions, it would be decades (based on sale through of the fleet) before there would be a significant difference. It's time to turn this into a stronger multifront effort.

Yeah, even if we stop emitting CO2 right now, levels will be above 400ppm for decades and we will continue to see the effects of that. But that doesn't mean we should just keep emitting as much as we can, that will be even worse!

Big changes need to happen, and a lot of them would *benefit* the people and make their lives BETTER. But we have to have representation that doesn't serve fossil fuel industry and BANKS. Indeed it looks pretty grim...