Climate change and human responsibility

[La Flames Fan]

Originally Posted by tkflames

Between this thread, my LinkedIn and facebook feeds the last month or so, there is a large group of people that have completely embarrassed themselves. We pride ourselves on the freedom of speech, yet when a teenager echoes the words of 1000s of scientists (whether right or wrong), a large group of people have elected to respond in a manner that is intended to intimidate, bully or be outright aggressive. It is embarrassing.

I understand that this results from fear that many have about their livelihoods and identity in their careers. However, this response of intimidation and attack of the person as opposed to the ideas is doing a huge disservice to the province and future. Alberta is not separating, the Canadian economy is not imminently crashing as a result of this, but we sure are putting ourselves in a huge hole by not having difficult conversations about this now and instead trying to spread a message of hate against a teenager.

Oh my god...It's so cringey. I feel so embarrassed for some people. When did LinkedIn become a political soapbox? Social media really has brought out the worst in people.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by La Flames Fan

Oh my god...It's so cringey. I feel so embarrassed for some people. When did LinkedIn become a political soapbox? Social media really has brought out the worst in people.

All kinds of attacks on Greta, and nary an attack on the IPCC report she keeps referring to.

Shoot the messenger?

[La Flames Fan]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

All kinds of attacks on Greta, and nary an attack on the IPCC report she keeps referring to.

Shoot the messenger?

There's no reasoning with someone crying tears of impotent rage.

[flamesfever]

My question would be, "What is the safety risk of having all our cars powered by lithium batteries...or eventually our planes?"

[GGG]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

My question would be, "What is the safety risk of having all our cars powered by lithium batteries...or eventually our planes?"

Fairly low,

Lithium fires occur in similar types of impacts where gas fires occurred. We solved carrying around explosive fuels we can mitigate risks with chemically reactive fuels.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

There's various sources

The 2nd link is especially good thanks for that. Tons of data.

[Street Pharmacist]

Couple more points I want to touch on. I didn't quote anyone because I see these points in various parts so this is just a bunch of my $0.02

-People decry Cobalt mining and lithium mining, but oil drilling has just as bad of environmental/human rights issues. It's a red herring. Cobalt is essential for most batteries, but due to price fluctuations, the race is on to find batteries without Cobalt. It will happen soon.

-battery recycling will be a difficult nut to crack, but there are some things worth considering. First, after 30% capacity loss it will no longer be good for vehicles, but there's lots of life left as a backup grid power source. Renault is already doing this with old Zoe batteries and it's working very well. I do agree that somehow there needs to be a recycling plan though

-people aren't thinking in exponential growth, only linearly. Photovoltaic growth is exponential rising at 30% year over year. Unless that stops, that's a 15-20x growth after 10 years. It's over 2% now. Wind is showing a similar path. Same goes for ev adoption. Tesla sold 400,000 cars this year. They sold 40,000 just 4 years ago. Disruption doesn't follow linear lines, and it's mostly market demand is driving it, not environmentalism. Per kWh, it's simply cheaper in many parts of the world to build PV or wind. That is only going to accelerate as coal, gas, and oil can't really get much cheaper. Solar and wind continue to get cheaper

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

My question would be, "What is the safety risk of having all our cars powered by lithium batteries...or eventually our planes?"

I think the question could be posed this way

What is the safety risk of all our cars and planes carrying highly explosive liquid fuel?


While lithium batteries do burn due to thermal runway, it's not likely to be more or worse than gasoline or jet fuel. It took decades to make carrying fuel more safely and I'm sure the same thing will happen with lithium batteries.

[Muta]

Berkshire Hathaway firm announces launch of $200 million Alberta wind power farm

https://globalnews.ca/news/6033959/s...eaking-ground/

Awesome to see! Any projects in this province right now is a good thing.

[Bill Bumface]

Ignoring all political slants/aspects, I found this pretty interesting:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/canad...T8FHe35Q%3D%3D

The amount of hydro that is exported from BC, Manitoba Ontario and Quebec is about 60,000 GWh per year. This would replace the Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Alberta and Saskatchewan coal power production almost exactly. Canada would then look a lot like New Zealand in terms of renewable electricity self-sufficiency, at over 80%. It would deliver on Canada’s international carbon commitments nearly all by itself. Canada would rank in the top five countries in the world for low carbon electricity grids.

I think a big problem is measuring all of this by emissions within the borders of each country. Our emissions related to exported electricity or hydrocarbons should be put on the shoulders of the consumers.

Just as how Chinese emissions should be on our shoulders because of all the cheap crap we buy from them, yet hold our noses at their human rights and environmental records. Those heavily polluted foreign cities are largely because of the consumption of western foreigners, and the "score" should be kept as such.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

-people aren't thinking in exponential growth, only linearly. Photovoltaic growth is exponential rising at 30% year over year. Unless that stops, that's a 15-20x growth after 10 years.

It's over 2% now. Wind is showing a similar path.

You have exponential growth, until suddenly you don't. 2018 Solar PV new capacity additions barely changed from 2017, and wind peaked in 2015.






Not surprisingly, this has been heavily influenced by China, where wind peaked in 2015 at 34 GW new capacity and is trending towards 21 GW this year, and solar went from 17 GW (2015), 34 GW (2016), 53 GW (2017), 45 GW (2018) and only 11.4 GW in the first half of 2019. This trend is completely normal, years of boom then a bust such as that seen in Germany.

Same goes for ev adoption. Tesla sold 400,000 cars this year. They sold 40,000 just 4 years ago.

But Q3 2019 vs 2018 unit sales in the US have fallen significantly, and global units are almost exactly the same, even though Tesla has opened new markets. And China New Energy Vehicles sales have fallen dramatically, like everywhere else, as government subsidies were withdrawn earlier this year, with a 34% drop in sales for September 2019 compared to 2018.


https://www.ft.com/content/adeb6c18-...4-b25f11f42901

Per kWh, it's simply cheaper in many parts of the world to build PV or wind.

Until they realize that a kWh produced at one time period doesn't always have the same value as a kWh produced at another. And then you have to add in the cost of reliable generation, or storage to make up for the unreliability of wind and solar, and the economic disruption of brown outs and black outs.

That is only going to accelerate as coal, gas, and oil can't really get much cheaper. Solar and wind continue to get cheaper

And you see the consequence, staggeringly expensive electricity every where solar and/or wind have high penetration, Denmark, Germany, Australia, California.

[PeteMoss]

Yes - protip for Alberta as you move off coal. Don't do it how we did it in Ontario.

We are paying boatloads of cash for power we don't even need.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by accord1999

But Q3 2019 vs 2018 unit sales in the US have fallen significantly, and global units are almost exactly the same, even though Tesla has opened new markets. And China New Energy Vehicles sales have fallen dramatically, like everywhere else, as government subsidies were withdrawn earlier this year, with a 34% drop in sales for September 2019 compared to 2018.

Dunno where you're getting your numbers.



Gigafactory China is close to being online I'd guess they'll get another 200,000 sales in the next year out of it.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by zamler

Dunno where you're getting your numbers.



Gigafactory China is close to being online I'd guess they'll get another 200,000 sales in the next year out of it.

Probably because you posted a different stat than what he did:

Q3 USA Sales 2018 - 69925
Q3 USA Sales 2019 - 54700

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Probably because you posted a different stat than what he did:

Q3 USA Sales 2018 - 69925
Q3 USA Sales 2019 - 54700

They are basically selling every car they produce so if they sell elsewhere, they don't have anything to sell in the US.

The company said it delivered 97,000 new cars in the third quarter, a rise of almost 2 percent from the previous period. Production rose to 96,155 cars, a 10 percent increase. Tesla said that it took in a record number of net orders in the quarter and that it was entering the fourth quarter with a growing backlog.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/b...sla-sales.html

[Fuzz]

Tesla's problem is the unprofitable Model 3 is cannibalizing the profitable Model S and X market.

[zamler]

Last I read the Model 3 is profitable not to be confused with Tesla over all in the red due to build out costs.

[Fuzz]

I'm not sure if it is, but if so, it isn't nearly as profitable as the Model S.

“The Model 3 hasn’t reached a combination of sales volume and price that produces profits,” said Erik Gordon, a business professor at the University of Michigan who follows Tesla. Investors have to worry about whether it can reach a profitable combination, he added.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/b...gs-report.html


So it must be making some profit for that statement to be true. Probably really depends on the model. The base one can't be making money as they vowed to get it to 35k, and they aren't here yet. If it was profitable, they'd be cutting the price on the base to meet that.

[zamler]

It shouldn't be a surprise that a 100K+ car is making more profit than a 60K car should it? I'm thinking the Lexus LS is more profitable than the ES. Tesla was smart in how they rolled out their lineup high end first, GM doesn't seem to understand this concept they bring out mid tier BEVs or serial hybrids and have to make too many compromises. The result being hardly anyone buys them.

But I think that illustrates we are not going to see a long range BEV priced like a Corolla any time soon.

[Fuzz]

No but Tesla's problem is people are buying the 60k car instead of the 100k one.