2/3rds EVs by 2032... Realistic? (and time to horde diesels?)

[turbobrick240]

Why is the core of the planet still 10,000Deg? Hotter than the surface of the sun. After 4.5 billion years its still that hot? BS that its residual heat from planetary collisions of the past. A rock in space without heat production cools off from radiation leaving the body.

A lot of the heat in Earth's core is indeed residual from the planet's creation 4.5B years ago. And a lot of it is a result of decay of radioactive isotopes. Geothermal energy is an often overlooked source of tremendous energy potential.

How has Earth's core stayed as hot as the sun's surface for billions of years?

This article was originally published at The Conversation. The publication contributed the article to Space.com's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.Shichun Huang, Associate Profe

www.space.com

.

 

[nwdiver]

The earth is a MOTOR powered by the magnetic flux of the SUN! Previous warm periods on earth all lead with the HEAT and then the rise in CO2. The planet warms up from inside then volcanic activity increases and then releases the higher CO2. How do these climate change scientists explain that? They dont, they ignore it because it dont fit the narrative.

It has been explained.

The climate record shows that temperature rise precedes CO2 rise due to feedback mechanisms that amplify or dampen initial warming or cooling. As the Earth warms, feedback mechanisms cause the melting of ice sheets, which decreases the Earth's albedo and leads to further warming. This melting also releases stored CO2 from the oceans, which amplifies the warming effect by trapping more heat in the atmosphere. This positive feedback loop is why the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations due to human activities is causing a rapid and unprecedented warming of the planet.

Everyone is entitled to their own belief set about why what's happening is happening,

So facts don't matter? We all get to inhabit the reality we're most comfortable with?

This isn't subjective. It's empirical, testable, measurable, verifiable.

• Either CO2 has risen >40% in the past century to >400ppm or it hasn't
• Either we've emitted enough CO2 from burning hydro carbons to have caused that rise or we haven't
• That additional CO2 is causing an increase in radiative forcing of ~1.5w/m^2 or it isn't

Facts matter

 

[turbodieseldyke]

2. Also renewable diesel should become the standard in the US phasing out #2.

Congratulations, you just Cash For Clunker'd every diesel with a DPF.

 

[Daemon64]

Congratulations, you just Cash For Clunker'd every diesel with a DPF.

You are completely wrong. Renewable diesel is 100% compatible for every single diesel from modern to past. It is chemical identical in many ways to #2, it is NOT the same as biodiesel.

For Reference:

https://www.greenproductionguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GPG_RD_Final_062220.pdf

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/263134

“It’s been a miracle fuel. Not one Diesel Particulate Filter has needed cleaning or replacement since 2015 using Renewable Diesel.”

I also appreciate that it is Cetane 83, thats interesting to me.

 

[turbodieseldyke]

You are completely wrong. Renewable diesel is 100% compatible for every single diesel from modern to past. It is chemical identical in many ways to #2, it is NOT the same as biodiesel.

I beg forgiveness for thinking Renewable Cherokee Hair Diesel is the same as Cherokee Hair Biodiesel.

 

[Abacus]

We'd still be driving catless cars burning leaded gasoline if we let the market decide. Government oversight isn't always 100% evil.

I disagree. The government isn’t some great savior and private sector innovation and regulation isn’t all chaotic. In fact, I contend emissions would be cleaner and cars more efficient if the government would just get out of the way. Every single thing they touch gets messed up more and they’ve proven time and again they can’t run a business efficiently.

But he's way off on wind and solar. Installed solar in Maine is up 10x in the five years since he ran for state senate and lost.

If solar is up it doesn’t mean he’s wrong, just that more people drank the Kool-Aide. And so what if he lost, what does that have to do with anything, including his position on wind and solar he defended time and again?

 

[gearheadgrrrl]

There was nothing stopping automakers from reducing emissions before the reductions were mandated in the 1960s, but no automaker bothered. There was nothing stopping automakers from installing seat belts before they were required, only Volvo did. The free market knows how to make money. Provide safety and protect the environment, not so much...

 

[dieseldonato]

The free market gives us what we want. If you wanted a seat belt or smog pump then buy a vehicle with those features. It's really that simple.

 

[gearheadgrrrl]

The free market gives us what we want. If you wanted a seat belt or smog pump then buy a vehicle with those features. It's really that simple.

Thanks for an excellent explanation of why the libertarian fantasy won't work.

 

[Abacus]

There was nothing stopping automakers from reducing emissions before the reductions were mandated in the 1960s, but no automaker bothered. There was nothing stopping automakers from installing seat belts before they were required, only Volvo did. The free market knows how to make money. Provide safety and protect the environment, not so much...

If you have to go back to the 1960's for a example then you aren't able to defend your position. If people wanted seat belts in their cars and bought ones with them, then auto manufacturers would make cars with them. If people wanted fuel efficient cars then the free market would drive that technology. Governments force things on people they do not want and stand in the way of innovation, just look at the simple gas can as an example, or quite literally anything they touch. They messed that simple gas can up so royally I used to buy mine from Canada. Surely draconian countries like Russia and China are more to your liking if the free market is such a bad thing. But my point is that the government doesn't produce, they only take. It's the private sector that does the innovating, the production, and has the sales. The government is merely in the way most of the time, all while getting rich off the fleecing of others' hard work.

As to protecting the environment, not so much either. I have worked in the environmental services sector for the last 31 years and the government is anything but helpful or your friend. I could easily write a dissertation on the topic so if you want to go down that road I am more than willing.

 

[Bob S.]

I have worked in the environmental services sector for the last 31 years and the government is anything but helpful or your friend. I could easily write a dissertation on the topic so if you want to go down that road I am more than willing.

That would be and worthy dissertation and likely turn into a best seller.

 

[gearheadgrrrl]

Abacus, Volvo made seat belts standard in 1959 and it differentiated them enough to establish a beach head here and in many export markets, SAAB and some of the other imports did the same. Fuel economy was one of the big selling points for the imports, while Detroit was happy as pigs in the mud the imports established a similar beach head here and pretty much took the whole car market away from Detroit. But government regulations were still needed to push MPGs higher, and seat belts didn't go mass market 'til governments like my home state of Minnesota mandated them in 1964.

As for the private sector driving innovation, much of that innovation is built on government funded research- For example the media we're communicating on was developed by the Defense Department and public universities.

 

[DuraBioPwr]

A lot of the heat in Earth's core is indeed residual from the planet's creation 4.5B years ago. And a lot of it is a result of decay of radioactive isotopes. Geothermal energy is an often overlooked source of tremendous energy potential.

How has Earth's core stayed as hot as the sun's surface for billions of years?

This article was originally published at The Conversation. The publication contributed the article to Space.com's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.Shichun Huang, Associate Profe

www.space.com

.

It has been explained.

The climate record shows that temperature rise precedes CO2 rise due to feedback mechanisms that amplify or dampen initial warming or cooling. As the Earth warms, feedback mechanisms cause the melting of ice sheets, which decreases the Earth's albedo and leads to further warming. This melting also releases stored CO2 from the oceans, which amplifies the warming effect by trapping more heat in the atmosphere. This positive feedback loop is why the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations due to human activities is causing a rapid and unprecedented warming of the planet.

What drove the initial warming in previous warm spells? That is always missed. Dinosaurs driving cars tipping the atmosphere into a feedback loop as you describe? Its the SUN! Yes it impacts the atmosphere AND the core of the planet. First lesson in heat transfer is did you consider radiation or convection or conduction in your calcs? They are all linked and the current climate change hypothesis totally ignores what is happening under our feet and the heat that transfers into the atmosphere and its contribution to feed back loops. What drove the tipping into an ice age? The SUN!

There is a group of scientists finally working on understanding the changing output of the planetary core and its influence on the surface. I cant find any links right now. Nothing is steady state why would we think the core would be stable as well?

Radioactive decay and collision heating from 4.5b years ago I just dont buy it. This article says about half in radioactive decay.

What Keeps the Earth Cooking? - Berkeley Lab

From the planet’s core to its surface, heat enables Earth’s magnetic field, spreads the sea floor, and keeps continents on the move. Much of the heat is “radiogenic,” from the radioactive decay of elements in the crust and mantle, but how much? By measuring neutrinos from deep in the Earth...

newscenter.lbl.gov

 

[nwdiver]

What drove the initial warming in previous warm spells? That is always missed. Dinosaurs driving cars tipping the atmosphere into a feedback loop as you describe? Its the SUN!

Nope. Not missed. Named after the guy that discovered it. Milankovitch cycles. Cold ocean water is more soluble to CO2. CO2 cycled between the oceans and atmosphere. When there is more CO2 in the atmosphere this increases radiative forcing amplifying the tiny warming caused by the shift in Earths orbit. Not the sun. The sun doesn't have a cycle that would explain the Ice Ages.

Governments force things on people they do not want and stand in the way of innovation,

The whole premise of 'The tragedy of the commons' is 'forcing' people to do something that's not in their individual self-interest to promote our collective interest.

The idea government stands in the way of innovation ignores all of history. .... are you not familiar with how VW was founded? Do you think we'd have Nuclear power without the Manhattan Project? To this day there isn't a single private source of enriched Uranium and not thru lack of trying. The internet started as a DARPA project. Do you like GPS? Should we not have cheap natural gas from fracking? That was a 30 year DOE project. Weather forecasting? Solar is only affordable because the German and Chinese governments scaled it to levels the private sector could only fantasize about. Etc, etc, etc.....

 

[P2B]

Radioactive decay and collision heating from 4.5b years ago I just dont buy it. This article says about half in radioactive decay.

What Keeps the Earth Cooking? - Berkeley Lab

From the planet’s core to its surface, heat enables Earth’s magnetic field, spreads the sea floor, and keeps continents on the move. Much of the heat is “radiogenic,” from the radioactive decay of elements in the crust and mantle, but how much? By measuring neutrinos from deep in the Earth...

newscenter.lbl.gov

Then why quote an article that says half is radioactive decay and the rest is primordial heat?

"One thing that’s at least 97-percent certain is that radioactive decay supplies only about half the Earth’s heat. Other sources – primordial heat left over from the planet’s formation, and possibly others as well – must account for the rest."

 

[gulfcoastguy]

Been off a couple of days dealing withe the new puppy currently called Poopster for obvious reasons.

The energy received from the Sun on Earth in a single day, estimated at 173,000 terawatts (TW), is approximately 277 times greater than the average daily energy generated from burning hydrocarbons, which is roughly 1.6 exajoules (EJ).

There would be no need for hydrocarbons if we developed better solar recovery technologies.

Now let's subtract the 70% covered by water(currently) then subtract the percentage used to grow food crops and currently covered by roads and other structures not conducive to being covered by solar panels. Then of the area that could hold solar panels allow 20% conversion factor during daylight hours and subtract 10% due to transmission loss. Okay China, India, Brazil, and other countries are going to want to increase their use of energy per citizen. Add to that and third world countries are still increasing in population. Now if we remove coal electricity we will have to increase solar electricity to compensate, the same with energy derived from petroleum and natural gas all assuming that we can persuade China and India to also stop using these fuels. Good luck finding the necessary minerals to produce all of these solar panels. Nuclear power plants could provide a sizable amount of the required energy in a microscopic fraction of the area and with modern plants could use the existing once used fuel rods stored by every nuclear power plant. The other solution is 70% less people. Volunteers? Soylent Green?

 

[turbobrick240]

There's no reason the decision has to be solar/wind or nuclear. We can have both. It just happens that renewable sources like solar/wind produce far cheaper energy and take a fraction of the time to bring online. That's why the market is installing wind and solar at breakneck speed and nuclear at a snails pace. I expect that will continue over the next decade or two at least.

One moment, please...

 

[nwdiver]

There's no reason the decision has to be solar/wind or nuclear. We can have both. It just happens that renewable sources like solar/wind produce far cheaper energy and take a fraction of the time to bring online. That's why the market is installing wind and solar at breakneck speed and nuclear at a snails pace. I expect that will continue over the next decade or two at least.

One moment, please...

Except ~$1/w renewables very quickly cannibalize the demand $15/w nuclear needs to maintain a 90% CF so it's only hilariously expensive instead of tragically expensive. Hard to maintain a 90% CF if there's no demand when there's any sun or wind.

More wind and more solar means more red and less black for nuclear budgets

Why the U.S. government plans to spend billions to keep money-losing nuclear plants open

 

[Abacus]

They’re installing it a breakneck speeds due to subsidies, subsidize coal at the same rate and it’d take off too. Let’s be honest here.

 

[gearheadgrrrl]

So you want to spend taxpayer's dollars to subsidize the worst fuel?

 

[Abacus]

It’s called an example. I didn’t say I wanted to subsidize coal, I said if they did at the same rate it’d have the same growth.

But I’m curious, how did you get what you wrote from what I wrote?

 

[turbobrick240]

Except ~$1/w renewables very quickly cannibalize the demand $15/w nuclear needs to maintain a 90% CF so it's only hilariously expensive instead of tragically expensive. Hard to maintain a 90% CF if there's no demand when there's any sun or wind.

More wind and more solar means more red and less black for nuclear budgets

Why the U.S. government plans to spend billions to keep money-losing nuclear plants open

From that article:

“To hit these decarbonization goals, you need a lot of things to be put together, to be stitched together. And one of those is nuclear power,” Bilicic said.

Price on carbon could fix the market
One way to look at the problem is that in deregulated energy markets, there’s no accounting for greenhouse gas emissions in deregulated energy markets. Price alone wins.

Putting a price on carbon emissions might help sustain an otherwise deregulated energy market while still achieving climate goals.

“If we did have a carbon pricing environment, those nuclear power plants would be more valuable,” Bilicic said. “And implicit in this public policy debate is some recognition that that value is not being acknowledged in the marketplace, and we need these plants to produce that value.”

That’s one reason why Bilicic supports the government subsidy for nuclear power plants.

“In my view, it’s not like the money is being just given for no purpose,” Bilicic told CNBC. The money “is being given because of a recognition that these nuclear power plants produce a benefit that they’re not being paid for in the marketplace.”

 

[turbobrick240]

Fossil fuels and nuclear get enormous government subsidization. Renewables would the cheapest energy source even without subsidies.

Renewable Energy Is Now The Cheapest Option - Even Without Subsidies

Over recent years the march towards an energy industry ruled by renewables has been on the agenda of many countries and international bodies. Aside from their non-depleting and replenishing nature, renewable energy is poised to lessen the world's carbon footprint and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

www.forbes.com

 

[Abacus]

Then you agree with ending all subsidies. Great, we’re in agreement on that.

 

[nwdiver]

Then you agree with ending all subsidies. Great, we’re in agreement on that.

Yes. ALL subsidies. Including adding in the external costs.

THE TRUE COST OF FOSSIL FUELS

Fossil Fuels are getting a free ride to the tune of ~$1T/yr rising to >$4T/yr by 2030. Add that into the cost.

 

[dieseldonato]

The problem with wind and solar is the lack of wind and sunlight. In 21 we had solar panels put in the house 10.8 kw system. We would have went fully off grid, but between prices and the sheer volume of batteries needed to power the house it was 100% not worth going off grid. Even a diy solution would have been $20k in batteries. The genrac power wall would have been 6 fully loaded modules at about $10k each. Heck the rest of the system was under $30k. System cost per month works out to about $200.00. Regular electeic bills were $280-350 per month. With the battery bank you could triple the per month cost of the system. It's very rare for us to import power from the grid to the point where system production during the day doesn't cover it. Add in the $10.00 per month line fee, still under normal electric bill cost. Every component of the system has a 20 or 25 year warranties, and the panels are guaranteed to produce 97% at year 20. The best warranties for battery systems can't be extended past 10 years.... tech needs to catch up big time before everyone skates down this electric only slope....

 

[turbodieseldyke]

believes in climate change.
also believes wind and sunshine reception will remain exactly the same, despite changing climate.

 

[turbobrick240]

The problem with wind and solar is the lack of and sunlight. In 21 we had solar panels put in the house 10.8 kw system. We would have went fully off grid, but between prices and the sheer volume of batteries needed to power the house it was 100% not worth going off grid. Even a diy solution would have been $20k in batteries. The genrac power wall would have been 6 fully loaded modules at about $10k each. Heck the rest of the system was under $30k. System cost per month works out to about $200.00. Regular electeic bills were $280-350 per month. With the battery bank you could triple the per month cost of the system. It's very rare for us to import power from the grid to the point where system production during the day doesn't cover it. Add in the $10.00 per month line fee, still under normal electric bill cost. Every component of the system has a 20 or 25 year warranties, and the panels are guaranteed to produce 97% at year 20. The best warranties for battery systems can't be extended past 10 years.... tech needs to catch up big time before everyone skates down this electric only slope....

I'm in the same boat- haven't added any storage to my PV setup yet. Net metering is working well for now. Ultimately, I'd like to go completely off-grid once battery costs drop by 75% or so. Maybe sodium ion will be the dominant storage battery by then.

 

[dieseldonato]

I'm in the same boat- haven't added any storage to my PV setup yet. Net metering is working well for now. Ultimately, I'd like to go completely off-grid once battery costs drop by 75% or so. Maybe sodium ion will be the dominant storage battery by then.

There are several battery techs I've been following, a flow battery seems the best for stationary/ off grid use, but it uses some pretty nasty chemicals that make lithium fires look like child's play. I think solid state would be the next best, but I may be surprised with the sodium batteries.

 

[nwdiver]

believes in climate change.
also believes wind and sunshine reception will remain exactly the same, despite changing climate.

Is 2 + 2 = 4 a 'belief' or .... 'math'.

• Either CO2 has risen >40% in the past century to >400ppm or it hasn't
• Either we've emitted enough CO2 from burning hydro carbons to have caused that rise or we haven't
• That additional CO2 is causing an increase in radiative forcing of ~1.5w/m^2 or it isn't