How Much Money Will You Pay For Green Energy?

[TimG]

There is a set of criteria mentioned here:

And the club of climate scientists meets that criteria. What is your point?

As to whether scientists see themselves as 'insiders' or 'outsiders' who knows, but there are other reasons why groupthink shouldn't take hold.

Given the climategate emails we have ample evidence of group think like behaviour so you are going to have to provide a lot more than your assertion that it is not going on.

Yes, I do -we have actual temperature readings that show the data is wrong.

Sigh. As any one who has passed a statistics course knows: you cannot use the variable you are regressing with to show that the data is wrong. I am amazed that you get so exercised about people who claim that CO2 is not a GHG when you make statements which are just as misinformed. Edited August 22, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

And the club of climate scientists meets that criteria. What is your point?

They do not. They're diverse, spread out over various universities and they compete with each other on a level as well.

Given the climategate emails we have ample evidence of group think like behaviour so you are going to have to provide a lot more than your assertion that it is not going on.

This is a circular explanation: they agree, therefore it's group think.

Sigh. As any one who has passed a statistics course knows: you cannot use the variable you are regressing with to show that the data is wrong. I am amazed that you get so exercised about people who claim that CO2 is not a GHG when you make statements which are just as misinformed.

Yes, you can discard data that you know is wrong.

[TimG]

They do not. They're diverse, spread out over various universities and they compete with each other on a level as well.

They form a cohesive group which self-identifies. They may compete interally but when faced with external criticism they circle the wagons to defend the tribe. We have seen this behavour over and over again. It is group think.

This is a circular explanation: they agree, therefore it's group think.

No - it is attitude towards outsiders and the us-vs-them mentality which makes it group think.

Yes, you can discard data that you know is wrong.

I really don't know what to do. You are convinced the world is flat so it is hard to have a rational discussion based on the premise that the world is round.

To state it once again: you can only discard data if you have independent evidence that the data is wrong. Independent evidence must be information other that what you are regressing the data against. For example, a biological study showing that this species of tree experiences slower growth at CO2 concentrations greater than 350ppm would be independent evidence. The temperature data is not independent evidence because you are using temperature data in your correlation.

Edited August 22, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

No - it is attitude towards outsiders and the us-vs-them mentality which makes it group think.

That alone is not enough to call this Groupthink.

To state it once again: you can only discard data if you have independent evidence that the data is wrong.

We have real data that indicates it's wrong.

[TimG]

We have real data that indicates it's wrong.

Did you even read what I wrote! I explained that temperature data CANNOT be used because that is the data you are regressing with. It is like asking a company to audit itself - sure there is a chance that the company will do fine but without an independent audit you can't know. Why is this concept so hard to understand? There is no real data that tells us the data is wrong. There is only speculation and hypothesis. Edited August 22, 2011 by TimG

[Wild Bill]

Truth be told, all that you are convincing me of is that your have a nest egg that contains a large investment in oil companies.

That goes for a large portion of pro-oil posters as well.

Yep! You had to conclude with an "ad hominem", didn't you? If I don't want to drink the "greeen" Kool-Aid then I must be rich and evil.

In reality I'm poorer than Oleg! I could make far more money on welfare if I wasn't philosophically adverse to the idea. Certainly I would qualify.

I guess I must be insane! How else could you be so wrong?

[Saipan]

.... says the oil company in an industry that has over $115 574 267 150 000* in business left to do in oil based on current proven reserves and price of oil.

Have YOU stop buying gasoline and heating oil?

[Saipan]

That's basically a conspiracy theory and there's not much anybody can do to refute the idea that the scientists are lying to save their jobs.

Reminds you of "Big Oil", eh

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Have YOU stop buying gasoline and heating oil?

No but, electric cars would be a hell of a lot cheaper if they hadn't been blocked in California by the oil industry.

My gas budget is $60/week MAX. I rarely go over it.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Yep! You had to conclude with an "ad hominem", didn't you? If I don't want to drink the "greeen" Kool-Aid then I must be rich and evil.

In reality I'm poorer than Oleg! I could make far more money on welfare if I wasn't philosophically adverse to the idea. Certainly I would qualify.

I guess I must be insane! How else could you be so wrong?

You've just been brainwashed by the wealthy that want you to have no power, and no money so that you continue to work your menial job. Take pride in it!

[bush_cheney2004]

No but, electric cars would be a hell of a lot cheaper if they hadn't been blocked in California by the oil industry.

How so....the cars were leased. Do Canadians buy their cars in California and then try to import them? Are Canadians subject to CARB emissions standards, which drove EV1 development in the first place? I think not.

Edited August 23, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[MiddleClassCentrist]

How so....the cars were leased. Do Canadians buy their cars in California and then try to import them? Are Canadians subject to CARB emmissions standards, which drove EV1 development in the first place? I think not.

Have you watched "Who Kill the Electric Car?" They expose the issues quite well.

People were BEGGING to buy their cars. Had a waiting list in the thousands. Instead they were crushed. In what business do you crush a product that people are begging to buy? They even raised money to buy them!

The oil industry really had a dirty hand in it lobbying to change regulations and make it less favourable to enter the market, as well as spread misinformation to the public.

If electric cars hit mass production, you'd see a proliferation of them across North America. They'd all of a sudden become more affordable. The oil companies knew this and they fought to prevent it. There are no mass produced electric cars on the market yet.

The defining moment of the documentary for me was when they the corporatists were downplaying the waiting list that was in the thousands. "Once we described the product's limitations the list whittled down..." ... excuse me, what idiot would try to tell people who wanted to get into one of the vehicles all of the limitations.

Edited August 23, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Wild Bill]

You've just been brainwashed by the wealthy that want you to have no power, and no money so that you continue to work your menial job. Take pride in it!

I do take pride in it! I used to work for big high tech international corporations, then the industry collapsed. That left me old enough for a new experience - age discrimination!

So after some lame attempts at some companies who were next door to criminal, I became my own boss!

I now build and repair guitar amplifiers and such equipment! I'm fortunate enough to have a good reputation. I have customers from the casual to the famous and have some that ship their amps in from across Canada.

I don't make anything like the money I used to but keeps slowly getting better as the customer base grows. At least I do get treated to a lot of free beer!

I'm much happier being a tech than I ever was as a salesman. It appeals to my religion, which is "Utilitarian". It means that I think and value in terms of what works. Most people don't, I find. They have strong ideas on the way things OUGHT to be, if only people would believe as they do and do as they say! Insisting that the world change to get your premise to work is stupid and futile to a Utilitarian. They know that it's much easier to deal with the parameters as they are and come up with a working paradigm that fits reality.

But Hey! Thanks for the advice! I'll value it as much as the sarcasm that came with it!

I suspect you were an ABBA fan, or perhaps Celine Dion.

[bush_cheney2004]

Have you watched "Who Kill the Electric Car?" They expose the issues quite well.

Yes...it's an American documentary by Chris Paine.

People were BEGGING to buy their cars. Had a waiting list in the thousands. Instead they were crushed. In what business do you crush a product that people are begging to buy? They even raised money to buy them!

How many Canadians leased or bought them?

The oil industry really had a dirty hand in it lobbying to change regulations and make it less favourable to enter the market, as well as spread misinformation to the public.

Yes, it sure did. Building LEV/ULEV/PZEV's was much more practical. Automobile emissions technology for vehicles you drive in Canada can find their source at the California Air Resources Board (CARB), started in the 1960's.

If electric cars hit mass production, you'd see a proliferation of them across North America. They'd all of a sudden become more affordable. The oil companies knew this and they fought to prevent it. There are no mass produced electric cars on the market yet.

Nonsense....they are available and quite expensive (Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt). Go buy one if you wish.

The defining moment of the documentary for me was when they the corporatists were downplaying the waiting list that was in the thousands. "Once we described the product's limitations the list whittled down..." ... excuse me, what idiot would try to tell people who wanted to get into one of the vehicles all of the limitations.

Because the limitations were significant. If you think it's such a great idea, raise the capital and build an electric car at a loss just to please tree huggers.

Edited August 23, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

Because the limitations were significant. If you think it's such a great idea, raise the capital and build an electric car at a loss just to please tree huggers.

No need for that... real electric cars from real car companies are already on market and many more are close to hitting it. Considering the limitations of battery technology in 2011 and how it is just starting to become possible to have a viable electric vehicle, I have my doubts about the viability of the electric car designs of the 90s.

[bush_cheney2004]

No need for that... real electric cars from real car companies are already on market and many more are close to hitting it. Considering the limitations of battery technology in 2011 and how it is just starting to become possible to have a viable electric vehicle, I have my doubts about the viability of the electric car designs of the 90s.

Exactly, as I described above. And still the vehicles are not cheap with mass economic appeal. Economics matters.

[Bonam]

Exactly, as I described above. And still the vehicles are not cheap with mass economic appeal. Economics matters.

Indeed. But with electric cars approaching a reasonable price point, I think the market for them will grow substantially over the coming years. Hot tip: invest in companies that produce electric car batteries and/or develop new battery technologies.

[bush_cheney2004]

Indeed. But with electric cars approaching a reasonable price point, I think the market for them will grow substantially over the coming years. Hot tip: invest in companies that produce electric car batteries and/or develop new battery technologies.

I'm way ahead of you on that idea, by many years. There is a new market for "range anxiety".

[Wild Bill]

Exactly, as I described above. And still the vehicles are not cheap with mass economic appeal. Economics matters.

Have you been noticing this universal belief, usually held by non-technical or practical people, that increased volume will INEVITABLY and QUICKLY result in a drastic price reduction? They have no understanding to back this premise up but they accept it as a Law of the Universe!

I think it comes from what we all have witnessed in the computer industry. Moore's Law states that every 2 years the size of available memory doubles and the cost drops in half! The cost of computer power keeps nose-diving. A PC-XT was a couple of thousand dollars when new. Today we buy such computing power as to have been not just a defense department secret but likely totally unavailable just a few years ago!

The catch is that the chemistry, composition and physics behind semiconductors and computer chips lends itself more easily to these advances than other materials. Where is it written that electric car battery technology will follow the same curve? Most of what makes up an electric car is already mature technology. We've had wheels, steering wheels, car seats and car bodies for a century or so! Only the power train is new and actually, not all that new.

So perhaps if you had to make your own electric car for mass marketing you would quickly discover that there is nowhere near as much room for cost reductions with volume as there was with computer chips.

Different applications have different factors. A blanket assumption that everything will follow the same curve as computers in the same time frame is rather naive, if not silly!

I'm not saying that there won't be cost reductions with electric cars. Of course there may, but they may not be as big or happen as fast as people are assuming. Potential customers might believe in magic but a manufacturer must be far more sure of the variables or he's out of business!

Uneducated people seem to take technology for granted as a magic wand that will give them whatever they want! Dalton McGuinty takes it for granted that volume will make his MicroFit and Fit programs cost-effective, when to a technical eye his premise is full of holes. I've posted before the old standard joke shared by almost all techs and engineers, illustrated by a cartoon pinned to the wall of their desk "cube" that shows a manager giving a flipchart presentation of a flow chart, pointing to one spot and saying something to the effect of "Engineering miracle will be produced here!"

The joke is that engineers and techs know that most non-technical managers actually believe and act as if this is true and possible!

Now things appear to have gone a step farther. The "great unwashed" not only believe that electric car technology was perfect and profitable but that a manufacturer would deliberately abandon the idea so that A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT COMPANY that sells oil might lose some money!

Who says fantasy is dead?

[bush_cheney2004]

The catch is that the chemistry, composition and physics behind semiconductors and computer chips lends itself more easily to these advances than other materials. Where is it written that electric car battery technology will follow the same curve? Most of what makes up an electric car is already mature technology. We've had wheels, steering wheels, car seats and car bodies for a century or so! Only the power train is new and actually, not all that new.

You are spot on...the very same issues are in play for battery storage capacity and energy densities, which has improved, but not to the point of displacing more affordable alternatives. Electric vehicles have existed for over 100 years, and were in use for short haul utility in the beginning of the 20th century. GM's EV1 was developed in direct response to CARB legislation mandating a percentage of zero emission vehicles for that specific market, not national or international consumer demand.

Now things appear to have gone a step farther. The "great unwashed" not only believe that electric car technology was perfect and profitable but that a manufacturer would deliberately abandon the idea so that A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT COMPANY that sells oil might lose some money!

Well, if we have seen anything here at MLW, it is the consistent bleating of conspiracy theorists. What they won't tell you is that the "pollution" footprint for manufacturing a shiny new hi-tech electric vehicle is far greater than buying a small used ULEV/PZEV gas/diesel engined car.

[TimG]

Different applications have different factors. A blanket assumption that everything will follow the same curve as computers in the same time frame is rather naive, if not silly!

So many people miss this point. A better battery has been a holy grail for 100 years or more and riches awaited the person or company that could come up with it yet we are still decade or more away from an EV that can be something other than a second car for big city types. The problem with batteries is the charge time and the basic physics that governs power transfer over a wire. If you want to charge a 30KWh battery in an hour you will need to deliver 125 amps from a 240V outlet. The infrastructure required to deliver such power to a fleet of EVs is mind boggling.

EVs will never be viable as long as people can afford gas. A cheaper battery won't change a thing.

Edited August 23, 2011 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

...EVs will never be viable as long as people can afford gas. A cheaper battery won't change a thing.

Nor should they be, and as you have indicated, current sales of Nissan and GM product is partially reliant on government tax subsidies for consumers. Gives new meaning to the term "Cash for Clunkers".

[Bonam]

Where is it written that electric car battery technology will follow the same curve?

It is following the same curve, just stretched out in time. It's still exponentially accelerating, just like computer technology. Almost any performance measure of state-of-the-art technology follows the same characteristic curve. Whether it is computer performance, miniaturization of mechanical components, energy storage, material properties, biotech, nanotech, etc. Individual technologies mature and stop progressing, but are soon displaced by new technologies that continue the exponential growth of the underlying performance measure.

For example, consider how computers went from electromechanical components to relays to vacuum tubes to transistors to integrated circuits while following the same smooth exponential curve.

The exact same is true with battery technology. As the energy density of various types of batteries has been maxed out, new technologies with better performance have come around to offer increased performance. This trend will only continue.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Bonam

[Saipan]

It may go even faster, as we don't want to depend on Arab oil. G.W. Bush spent huge amount of money on the electric cars development.

Problem is Ontario (specifically) is rather behind with its resistance to electric bicycles.

[TimG]

It is following the same curve, just stretched out in time. It's still exponentially accelerating, just like computer technology.

No technology is guaranteed to progress to the point where it becomes preferable to the alternatives. It really does not make a difference how much EV technology advances it will do nothing about the electrical infrastructure required to charge the things and the time it takes to transfer watts from the grid into the battery. The basic laws of physics place limits on what can be achieved.