(...) But why just work on merely at the scale of the rounding error but at huge cost?
Exactly as my analogy: upgrading the $5 DMM's probe with a $60 fluke probe so as to increase accuracy. Not exactly the best way to improve.
You say that because you can't afford a fluke prrrrrrrrr
Because it makes people feel good without actually having to face the difficult issues: Developing useful public transport ("Heretic! Firewood! Torch!" ), changing how we build cities, changing lifestyles.
(...) But why just work on merely at the scale of the rounding error but at huge cost?
Because it makes people feel good without actually having to face the difficult issues: Developing useful public transport ("Heretic! Firewood! Torch!" ), changing how we build cities, changing lifestyles.
IMHO public transport (especially a subway) is great for crowded cities but as soon as you move further away public transport takes you from a place where you aren't to a place you don't need to be. Even in a crowded country like the NL public transport is a workable solution for a minority of the people.
free_electron, I live in the South Bay as well, and the Leaf (and similar EVs) is a perfect match to my family's driving patterns. My wife and I both need cars, but my daily drive is a very predictable 12 miles each way from San Jose to Cupertino, easily within the Leaf's range. It would make a lot of sense for me to drive a Leaf for my daily commute and while she could drive a more traditional hybrid for her longer and less predictable traveling. And of course any long trips, we'd take the hybrid.
Given the prevalence of two car households in the US, I don't think our usage model is that weird.
Now, the Tesla battery is in the 200 to 300$ per kilowatt cost... Tesla claims it is actually less than what the industry thinks iti is. Tesla says their battery is less then 1/4 of the total cost of the car (COST, not sale s price) so that 85Kw battery pack is in the 15K to 20K$ range ... but has more than TRIPLE the energy than the leafs.
So this raises the question.
Why on earth do the traditional car makers keep mucking about with obviously obsolete battery technology.
- it is 3 times more expensive
- it can't be swapped
- there is no supercharging it
Take the leafs 24Kw battery pack...
...so that 85Kw battery pack...
IMHO public transport (especially a subway) is great for crowded cities but as soon as you move further away public transport takes you from a place where you aren't to a place you don't need to be. Even in a crowded country like the NL public transport is a workable solution for a minority of the people.
For me, as a rail fan, public transportation is a journey, not a destination.
But, yeah, i am just BSing myself...
In that contrail-free three days, average temperature in the USA increased 1.1F to 1.8F (1.8F = 1C). This is a scientific fact reported by most major scientific journal such as Scientific Americans and Nature magazine.
...
Am I making it up? Here are some references:
Wiki: September 11, 2001 climate impact study
The grounding of planes for three days in the United States after September 11, 2001 provided a rare opportunity for scientists to study the effects of contrails on climate forcing. Measurements showed that without contrails, the local diurnal temperature range (difference of day and night temperatures) was about 1 °C (1.8 °F) higher than immediately before; however, it has also been suggested that this was due to unusually clear weather during the period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail
Quote of Nature magazine from GreenMedInfo: "The Phenomenon: A 1.8 Degree Celsius Increase In Temperature in North America"
The study found "...an anomalous increase in the average diurnal temperature range (that is, the difference between the daytime maximum and night-time minimum temperatures) for the period 11-14 September 2001."
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/artificial-weather-revealed-post-9-11-flight-groundings
In that contrail-free three days, average temperature in the USA increased 1.1F to 1.8F (1.8F = 1C). This is a scientific fact reported by most major scientific journal such as Scientific Americans and Nature magazine.
...
Am I making it up? Here are some references:
Wiki: September 11, 2001 climate impact study
The grounding of planes for three days in the United States after September 11, 2001 provided a rare opportunity for scientists to study the effects of contrails on climate forcing. Measurements showed that without contrails, the local diurnal temperature range (difference of day and night temperatures) was about 1 °C (1.8 °F) higher than immediately before; however, it has also been suggested that this was due to unusually clear weather during the period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail
Quote of Nature magazine from GreenMedInfo: "The Phenomenon: A 1.8 Degree Celsius Increase In Temperature in North America"
The study found "...an anomalous increase in the average diurnal temperature range (that is, the difference between the daytime maximum and night-time minimum temperatures) for the period 11-14 September 2001."
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/artificial-weather-revealed-post-9-11-flight-groundings
You understand your references do not support your statement, right? They do not say the average temperature increased by 1°C.
The fact that a temperature increase was not measured would be why people are "ignoring" this effect--there is no effect to look at.
Which statement does it NOT support? All of them support my statement about 1C/F increase during that 3 days. (I edited, because there is some reports 1.1C-1.8C, some report 1.1F-1.8F, but C or F doesn't matter, this number is "an anomalous increase" to use Nature Magazine's words.
local diurnal temperature range (difference of day and night temperatures)
average diurnal temperature range (that is, the difference between the daytime maximum and night-time minimum temperatures)
Take the leafs 24Kw battery pack...
...so that 85Kw battery pack...
Just for clarity, do you mean kW or kWh with these numbers?
The other question it raises would be is Tesla full of shit?
Which statement does it NOT support? All of them support my statement about 1C/F increase during that 3 days. (I edited, because there is some reports 1.1C-1.8C, some report 1.1F-1.8F, but C or F doesn't matter, this number is "an anomalous increase" to use Nature Magazine's words.
Please review and carefully understand the meaning of the following phrases:Quotelocal diurnal temperature range (difference of day and night temperatures)Quoteaverage diurnal temperature range (that is, the difference between the daytime maximum and night-time minimum temperatures)
They do not mean what you think they mean.
The 3 days in question is a full degree (F or C).
Please review and carefully understand the meaning of the following phrases:Quotelocal diurnal temperature range (difference of day and night temperatures)Quoteaverage diurnal temperature range (that is, the difference between the daytime maximum and night-time minimum temperatures)
They do not mean what you think they mean.
The other question it raises would be is Tesla full of shit?I don't think so as it trumps all other cars, electric or not, in any test they throw at it.
Part of the cost of the battery is the form factor. The traditional car makers all insist on having a custom made brick shape to build the pack. This requires custom tooling, custom assembly lines etc. Tesla went with a well known form factor. So they did away with all the overhead. it already existed. They altered the chemistry a bit (which has no impact on assembly line ) and squirt an intumescent around the cells.
So they profit form economy of scale.
And this is only the individual cells. The pack itself is another cost.The traditional car makers have to find a way to cram it in the engine compartment. Tesla's is a very simply pancake box. the cells go in vertically. I think the cost of assembly is much lower on the tesla pack than the custom odd shaped pack for the other makers.
@IanB: IMHO the effect Rick is pointing at is that the absence of contrails has an effect on the temperature extremes. If you look at the pictures on the Wiki page about contrails you can see the contrails are easely visible from space and can cover a significant surface. Clouds work as an insulating blanket keeping the earth cool during the day and warm during the night. Absence of the contrails (artificial clouds) could have an effect on the temperature extremes but that doesn't mean they have any effect on global warming/cooling.
@IanB: IMHO the effect Rick is pointing at is that the absence of contrails has an effect on the temperature extremes. If you look at the pictures on the Wiki page about contrails you can see the contrails are easely visible from space and can cover a significant surface. Clouds work as an insulating blanket keeping the earth cool during the day and warm during the night. Absence of the contrails (artificial clouds) could have an effect on the temperature extremes but that doesn't mean they have any effect on global warming/cooling.
I understand. But Rick said "average temperatures went up by 1 degree during those three days". That is simply not true.
If Rick had said "temperature fluctuations between day and night went up by 1 degree and maybe that points to something worth exploring" then we would not even be having a debate.
In all things technical, precision is everything.