Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday December 02 2019, @10:23AM   Printer-friendly
from the The-Department-of-Doooom-and-Hope dept.

The emissions gap report for 2019 is out.

The report presents the latest data on the expected gap in 2030 for the 1.5°C and 2°C temperature targets of the Paris Agreement. It considers different scenarios, from no new climate policies since 2005 to full implementation of all national commitments under the Paris Agreement. For the first time, it looks at how large annual cuts would need to be from 2020 to 2030 to stay on track to meeting the Paris goals.

I find its contents are both worrisome and heartening. Carbon emissions are still growing worldwide, but the costs of carbon-neutral technologies are starting to compete with existing carbon-emissive technologies.

-- hendrik


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 02 2019, @11:05AM (12 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 02 2019, @11:05AM (#927064) Journal

    How does China fit into this picture?

    We do understand that if every country on earth cuts emissions to zero, but China continues to "develop", all the reductions mean nothing. Right? We all understand that, right?

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @01:35PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @01:35PM (#927097)

      So until China comes in line, we should be allowed to continue to pollute, right ?

      And since China will never come in line, then we should be able to continue to pollute forever, or at least until I'm dead and I don't care anymore, right ?

      How convenient.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday December 02 2019, @04:49PM (4 children)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday December 02 2019, @04:49PM (#927203) Journal

        So until China comes in line, we should be allowed to continue to pollute, right ?

        As I demonstrate below, China emits less per capita than the US.

        So, it's actually "Until China comes in line I should be allowed to pollute MORE than a Chinese person."

        • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @06:30PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @06:30PM (#927246)

          Natural laws deal in absolutes, and absolutes only. Anyone raising that "per-capita" whinge plainly admits that he/she/it DOES NOT CARE about nature, except as an excuse to push some crazy "social justice" agenda, the world and everything in it be damned.

          • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday December 03 2019, @12:09AM (1 child)

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday December 03 2019, @12:09AM (#927436) Journal

            Quick, someone ring up Fibonacci to let him know ratios don't exist in nature. He's gonna be PISSED!

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 03 2019, @09:31AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 03 2019, @09:31AM (#927587)

              if it's the bodypart you use in place of brain. Additionally, make a tattoo on it, that braying stupidity isn't cute.

        • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Tuesday December 03 2019, @04:40AM

          by darkfeline (1030) on Tuesday December 03 2019, @04:40AM (#927542) Homepage

          Based on the actions of its government and its citizens, a Chinese citizen's life is worth significantly less than a US citizen's life, so it all evens out in the end.

          --
          Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @02:58PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @02:58PM (#927134)

      They have less than half the emissions/capita of the US, Australia, or Canada. So pretty good! Regardless, I think you're probably correct. That the whole idea of trying to fight global warming by reducing emissions is most likely pointless. If/when clean energy is cheaper than non-clean energy, then clean energy will dominate. Until then, it won't.

      The reason is very simple. China is rapidly industrializing but India is right behind it. And one of these days Africa will presumably also start doing things. And these countries are going to use, as a matter of necessity, whatever is cheapest to develop with. Even if the west created some sort of 'green fund' to try to subsidize them with, it would be unlikely to be accepted if it imposed any sort of restraint on their own right to develop as they see fit. The reason is simple. Imagine funding for Chinese energy infrastructure was dependent on the US today. That's a dependency relationship that would end up being abused. I'd say sooner or later, but it'd probably happen almost immediately.

      So we need to focus on:

      1) Reducing the cost of clean energy through technological development and increased production efficiency.
      2) Advancing technology in atmospheric scrubbing. It's a critical technology for terraforming or recovering from various natural disasters like a 'super-volcano' anyhow - both of which will be needed, sooner or later.
      3) Start developing infrastructure inland. Right now the biggest problem with climate change is that big cities tend to spring up where people like to live. People like to live near the coast.
      4) Working on contingencies in case all of the above fail. See: Netherlands. [psmag.com]

      Also drop the cosplay cult and screechy doomsday girl. It makes interest in climate change embarrassing.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @04:48PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @04:48PM (#927202)

        > People like to live near the coast.

        Not so fast...many large cities are not near the coast.
        Wiki shows Chongqing as the largest city at 30 million (~500 miles from the coast)
        Chengdu is a bit further inland 16 M
        Moscow 15 M
        Kinshasa 11 M
        Delhi 11 M
        Mexico City 9 M

        • (Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Monday December 02 2019, @05:38PM

          by curunir_wolf (4772) on Monday December 02 2019, @05:38PM (#927225)

          80% of the world's population live within 60 miles of the coast.

          650 million people live in low-lying areas less than 10 meters above sea level.

          --
          I am a crackpot
      • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday December 02 2019, @08:25PM

        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Monday December 02 2019, @08:25PM (#927322)

        You forgot

        5) Stop subsidizing fossil fuels.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday December 02 2019, @04:43PM (1 child)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday December 02 2019, @04:43PM (#927199) Journal

      How does China fit into this picture?

      Per capita, they're emitting about the same as the EU, so, significantly better than the US.

      While the global data provide valuable insight for
      understanding the continued growth in emissions,
      it is necessary to examine the trends of major
      emitters to gain a clearer picture of the underlying
      trends (figure ES.2). Country rankings change
      dramatically when comparing total and per capita
      emissions: for example, it is evident that China now
      has per capita emissions in the same range as the
      European Union (EU) and is almost at a similar level
      to Japan.

      If you look at the graph, here, you can see they are still growing, but that it's plateauing. [unep.org]

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by darkfeline on Tuesday December 03 2019, @04:44AM

        by darkfeline (1030) on Tuesday December 03 2019, @04:44AM (#927543) Homepage

        Most of those citizens (the poor in rural areas) aren't benefiting from the emissions (just like how they aren't benefiting from their land getting seized to develop ghost towns to inflate the property bubble). You could kill off most of them and China's emissions would be about the same.

        If we included a bunch of third world nations into the US population, our per capita emissions would be looking pretty good too, never mind that we aren't doing much for them (same state as China, really).

        --
        Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by canopic jug on Monday December 02 2019, @11:29AM (18 children)

    by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 02 2019, @11:29AM (#927071) Journal

    The costs of the petrochemical energy sources would become very expensive quite suddenly were there subsidies to be cut or moved to sustainable energy production. Fossil fuels were subsidised to the tune of $87 billion (approx € 79 billion) [theconversation.com] in 2017 alone for just Europe. That's way more than double what the subsidies were less than ten years ago. World-wide, fossil fuel subsidies are estimated to be over $400 billion per year, [iea.org] at least in 2018. The external costs for fossil fuels are estimated to be about $5.3 trillion in damage [eesi.org], so it's net loss to continue in any way, shape, or form with fossil fuels.

    In other words, fossil fuels are neither cheap nor even cheaper than long term alternatives.

    Take away the subsidies and use the money for advancing society, such as through developing renewable energy sources. Perhaps as little as 10% would be needed for a transition to renewables [theguardian.com]. The other 90% could then be used to fight the very large political fight needed to wrest power away from the few monied interests steering various national governments into fossil fuel support and keeping them on the petrochemical leash.

    --
    Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by PiMuNu on Monday December 02 2019, @02:17PM (4 children)

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Monday December 02 2019, @02:17PM (#927113)

      I followed the link for the first "source":

      http://theconversation.com/fossil-fuel-subsidies-reach-us-87-billion-in-eu-countries-and-theyre-growing-123733 [theconversation.com]

      and this pointed me at the paper

      https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10023/10412/Stefanski_EconDiscPap_1705.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y [st-andrews.ac.uk]

      The author seems to be claiming 87 billion in subsidies based on fitting emissions data to GDP and inferring the amount of subsidy based on some economic model. It is a very weird way to do things, and must have large systematic uncertainty which is not quoted (the paper does seem to have some statistical uncertainty, but they can be controlled); so I think these numbers are suspect. For example, Fig. 1a shows order-of-magnitude variations between emissions and GDP for different nations.

      I admit, I didn't have time to really dig, but it looks like pretty shoddy pseudo-science to me.

      • (Score: 2) by canopic jug on Tuesday December 03 2019, @09:55AM (3 children)

        by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 03 2019, @09:55AM (#927589) Journal

        Well you can find other sources easily enough. Here is the International Monetary Fund's assessment, via Forbes, which says that the US spends 10x on fossil fuel subsisdies than it does on education [forbes.com]. Globally, USD$5.2 trillion was spent on the subsidies in 2017. That could have been a lot of wind turbines or solar panels or, better, a mixture of those with proper research and development.

        Fusion is another area which has been cut back again and again until it has become farcical. Conquer that and we get basically free eletricity indefinitely.

        --
        Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
        • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday December 03 2019, @10:43AM (2 children)

          by PiMuNu (3823) on Tuesday December 03 2019, @10:43AM (#927591)

          > Here is the International Monetary Fund's assessment,

          Fair enough.

          > Conquer that and we get basically free eletricity indefinitely.

          I am a little sceptical about this claim, as a professional who works with these sorts of things every day. Fusion reactor requires superconducting whojamithingies, liquid lithium blankets, etc etc. The running costs associated with all that gubbins is massive.

          Nuclear fission is expensive due to operating costs, not the cost of the fuel.

          • (Score: 2) by canopic jug on Tuesday December 03 2019, @11:51AM (1 child)

            by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 03 2019, @11:51AM (#927599) Journal

            I'm not putting a timeline on achieving fusion power, just stating that the benefits seem obvious once it becomes available. However, the resrarch budgets have been miniscule and get reduced further often. Without money, it cannot go forward. There have been occasional improvements despite that. One recent imrovement is that the containment fields have become more useful and controllable [iop.org].

            --
            Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
            • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday December 03 2019, @12:30PM

              by PiMuNu (3823) on Tuesday December 03 2019, @12:30PM (#927602)

              > I'm not putting a timeline on achieving fusion power

              I never said anything about timeline. The issue is rather one of cost. I believe that the operational costs of running a production fusion reactor will be expensive. "Free energy" does not meet reality.

    • (Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Monday December 02 2019, @05:17PM (12 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 02 2019, @05:17PM (#927215) Journal

      The costs of the petrochemical energy sources would become very expensive quite suddenly were there subsidies to be cut or moved to sustainable energy production.

      Nonsense. Most of the alleged subsidies either don't exist or actually make oil more expensive.

      Fossil fuels were subsidised to the tune of $87 billion (approx € 79 billion) in 2017 alone for just Europe.

      Even if we take the allegation at face value, that's not much subsidy.

      The external costs for fossil fuels are estimated to be about $5.3 trillion in damage

      So what? Those costs aren't based on reality, such as that much of that cost is due to poor flood insurance policies in the US rather than fossil fuels, and exaggerated costs of sea level rise, air pollution, etc. Second, it ignores the other side of the balance sheet. Cheap fossil fuels have enormous positive externality. My take is that the overall balance is going to be a wash.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Monday December 02 2019, @08:43PM (9 children)

        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Monday December 02 2019, @08:43PM (#927328)

        Nonsense. Most of the alleged subsidies either don't exist or actually make oil more expensive.

        Citation Required.

        Even if we take the allegation at face value, that's not much subsidy.

        $87 billion is not much? Compared to what?

        My take is that the overall balance is going to be a wash.

        Your feelings don't count.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 03 2019, @10:57PM (8 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 03 2019, @10:57PM (#927876) Journal

          Nonsense. Most of the alleged subsidies either don't exist or actually make oil more expensive.

          Citation Required.

          From your link which claimed $87 billion in EU subsidies on fossil fuels .

          In general, poor transparency makes it difficult to determine how much money is involved when quantifying fossil fuel subsidies. In my research I’ve developed an indirect method that infers the size of fossil fuel subsidies by comparing how much fossil fuels countries use. Countries that appear to use “too little” fossil fuels are indicative of polices that act like taxes. Conversely, countries using “too much” fossil fuels suggest that subsidies dominate. Using this techniques we can examine the size of subsidies across the EU.

          In other words, they're not measuring subsidies, they're just claiming they exist based on usage level alone. Also, policies that aren't subsidies/taxes, but which encourage or discourage fossil fuel consumption were counted.

          Even if we take the allegation at face value, that's not much subsidy.

          $87 billion is not much? Compared to what?

          Compared to the EU's fossil fuel sector. Oil alone is about $200 billion (430 million tonnes [europa.eu] times somewhere around $450 per tonne, Brent crude pricing).

          My take is that the overall balance is going to be a wash.

          Your feelings don't count.

          Why don't you find something that does count and get back to me on that?

          • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday December 04 2019, @01:15AM (7 children)

            by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday December 04 2019, @01:15AM (#927922)

            We both know there's no point, don't we? You have no problem moving goalposts and arguing in bad faith until the cows come home.

            You are actually arguing that $87 billion in subsidies in a $200 billion market is "not much".

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 04 2019, @02:55AM (6 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 04 2019, @02:55AM (#927954) Journal

              We both know there's no point, don't we? You have no problem moving goalposts and arguing in bad faith until the cows come home.

              In other words, you have nothing to add to your previous post.

              You are actually arguing that $87 billion in subsidies in a $200 billion market is "not much".

              There's also natural gas and coal, let us not forget. And the $87 billion isn't really subsidies in the first place.

              • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday December 04 2019, @06:42PM (5 children)

                by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday December 04 2019, @06:42PM (#928202)

                It's fine, I get it. Your team tells you that climate change is not real, or won't do much, or where ever they are at now, and you prefer not to think for yourself.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 04 2019, @07:15PM (4 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 04 2019, @07:15PM (#928226) Journal
                  If you ever want rational discussion, you know where to find me. I think a simple question will demonstrate what a utter tool you are here. Why don't your links ever compare like to like? That is, if a paper decides there is $87 billion in fossil fuel subsidies using a particular methodogy, then why don't they also calculate subsidies for other energy sources the same way? It's just propaganda.
                  • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday December 04 2019, @10:06PM (3 children)

                    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday December 04 2019, @10:06PM (#928266)

                    Fucking hilarious.

                    First of all, I did not provide the link, someone else did, so check your reading comprehension.

                    Secondly, I'm a tool? You are what your ruling class calls a useful idiot because you're happy to parrot whatever propaganda you soak up, and they're more than happy to keep providing it.

                    You have no interest in a rational debate, you just want to "win", and like everyone on your team you don't care how.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 04 2019, @10:48PM (2 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 04 2019, @10:48PM (#928273) Journal

                      Secondly, I'm a tool? You are what your ruling class calls a useful idiot because you're happy to parrot whatever propaganda you soak up, and they're more than happy to keep providing it.

                      So you didn't even provide those links? Then you've contributed nothing to this discussion. How about you start by trying to back up some of your accusations? This is propaganda? Then show how it is. I'm "moving goalposts"? Show it. $87 billion is a "lot" of "subsidies" for a European market? Show it. It's tiresome to hear the babble over and over again. Can you back that talk up?

                      • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday December 04 2019, @11:12PM (1 child)

                        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday December 04 2019, @11:12PM (#928278)

                        OK then, whatever.

                        Consider the title of the post is "2019 Emissions Gap Report". The point was made that if we stopped subsidising fossil fuels, their use would reduce.

                        America spends over $20bn per year on fossil fuel subsidies [theguardian.com] including:

                        ...continued US government subsidization of fossil fuel industry production, including $2.5bn per year for the exploration of new fossil fuel resources...

                        If that is not very much, stop giving it to the oil companies and maybe build some roads or schools with it. After all, if the oil industry can't make a profit on exploration, why should taxpayer's fund it for them?

                        I found this bit about European subsidies [euractiv.com] which says:

                        EU governments provided on average €55 billion per year in fossil fuel subsidies between 2014 and 2016, according to research contracted by the European Commission, a level which stayed broadly stable over that period.

                        So whatever the figure happens to be, it is entirely set up to make fossil fuels cheaper.

                        OK? That took 5 minutes.

                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 05 2019, @01:30PM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 05 2019, @01:30PM (#928443) Journal

                          Consider the title of the post is "2019 Emissions Gap Report". The point was made that if we stopped subsidising fossil fuels, their use would reduce.

                          I agree and would favor the elimination of all energy generation and consumption subsidies, including those for nuclear and renewable sources.

                          As to the $61 billion figure (valuation of 55 billion Euro in present day), note that it's already lost more than $20 billion from the "estimate" of the first link. They just can't stop sexing up the numbers.

                          There is a profound dishonesty here with the discussions of fossil fuel subsidies and externalities. Here, if it took only 5 minutes to find decent numbers for fossil fuel subsidies, then why the need for a shifty research methodology that generates a higher number? Why didn't that paper generate similar numbers for the subsidies for those other energy sources?

                          Let's look at a study [europa.eu] that did so. On page 262, they break down subsidies by energy source with "RES" being all renewable sources (hydroelectric, solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, etc.). Fossil fuels are the expected 55 billion Euro in 2016 (and near constant through the previous decade through 2008) while RES is 75 billion (grew from 25 billion Euro in 2008).

                          That doesn't accurately describe the subsidy issue since fossil fuels are consumed for far more energy than renewables. Here [europa.eu], it is claimed that in 2016 there was fossil fuels consumption of 1093 million tonnes of oil equivalent while renewable sources generated 216.6 million tonnes of oil equivalent - including energy consumption of transportation. So we have roughly 50 Euro subsidies for one unit of fossil fuels consumed and 350 Euro per unit for renewable sources. The subsidy per unit of consumption is seven times higher for renewable sources compared to fossil fuels.

                          This is the basis of my defense of the assertion that elimination of fossil fuel subsidies would not result in a huge jump in the cost of fossil fuels.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @09:19PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @09:19PM (#927347)

        I just have to know which subsidy has the direct effect of making oil more expensive. Plus, if they do make oil more expensive for everyone, then even more reason to get rid of them.

        And that 80 million EUR a year doesn't sound like much, but represents over 20% (1/5th) of their profit. But I guess it is good to know that if over 20% of your after-tax income just disappeared that it wouldn't bother you, since it is "not much."

        • (Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Tuesday December 03 2019, @03:45AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 03 2019, @03:45AM (#927528) Journal

          I just have to know which subsidy has the direct effect of making oil more expensive.

          Demand-based subsidies. A number of countries have artificially cheap oil or other fossil fuels. That means higher consumption of oil and hence, pushing the price of oil in the markets higher.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by anotherblackhat on Monday December 02 2019, @11:37AM (14 children)

    by anotherblackhat (4722) on Monday December 02 2019, @11:37AM (#927073)

    Solar panels continue to drop in price about 7% every year.
    Batteries prices (dollars/joule) continue to improve about 16% every year.
    As batteries improve, Electric Vehicles continue to drop in price.

    If these trends continue, the cost of solar+batteries is expected to drop below all other forms of electricity generation long before the end of the century.
    Also, it won't be long before EVs are essentially the only kind of new car sold.
    In a lot of places, solar+batteries is already the cheapest option.
    (In case it isn't obvious, your residential solar can charge your EV, so we don't need to upgrade the grid either.)

    Clean Disruption [youtube.com] makes the case that we'll be more than 80% solar by 2030.
    2030.

    • (Score: 2, Funny) by ewk on Monday December 02 2019, @12:10PM (3 children)

      by ewk (5923) on Monday December 02 2019, @12:10PM (#927078)

      "Batteries prices (dollars/joule) continue to improve about 16% every year."

      I'd rather have that improvement on the joules/dollar ratio :-)

      --
      I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday December 03 2019, @01:13PM (2 children)

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday December 03 2019, @01:13PM (#927606) Homepage
        To improve the dollars/joule relationship from 1 currency per quantity by 16% would take it to 0.84 currencies per quantity.

        To improve the joules/dollar relationship from 1 quantity per currency by 16% would take it to 1.16 quantities per currency, or 0.862 currencies per quantity.

        So you'd rather pay 0.862 than 0.84 for the same thing, eh?
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 2) by ewk on Tuesday December 03 2019, @02:09PM (1 child)

          by ewk (5923) on Tuesday December 03 2019, @02:09PM (#927631)

          No, I'm a simple guy where improvement means simply more :-)... I'd rather see my joules/dollar going from 2/1 to 3/1 than I'd see my dollars/joule going from 2/1 to 3/1.

          Those pesky fringe cases where improvement actually might mean getting smaller... we don't need those! :-D

          --
          I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday December 03 2019, @02:31PM

            by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday December 03 2019, @02:31PM (#927638) Homepage
            > Those pesky fringe cases where improvement actually might mean getting smaller... we don't need those! :-D

            Yes, we could improve matters by reducing the number of those things.
            --
            Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @12:29PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @12:29PM (#927081)

      Also, it won't be long before EVs are essentially the only kind of new car sold.

      The old cars keep polluting long after they are thrown out.

      https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/air/how-can-africa-breathe-easy-when-millions-of-used-cars-from-the-west-hit-roads-every-year--60248 [downtoearth.org.in]

      and we have one atmosphere and all that.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @06:50PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @06:50PM (#927271)

        No, Virginia, THAT was one-time promotional action.
        https://where-is-tesla-roadster.space/live [where-is-tesla-roadster.space]

    • (Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Monday December 02 2019, @03:00PM (1 child)

      by Coward, Anonymous (7017) on Monday December 02 2019, @03:00PM (#927136) Journal

      “Since coal is still a major resource, we will continue to rely on coal when we need it - and right now for instance, the economy is slowing and renewables are still relatively weak,” said Lin Boqiang, dean of the China Institute for Energy Policy Studies.

      From In China, coal creeps back in as slowing economy overshadows climate change ambitions. [reuters.com]
      So maybe renewables will suck 7% less next year, but it sounds like they've got a long way to go.

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday December 02 2019, @03:35PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 02 2019, @03:35PM (#927156) Journal

        There will continue to be demand for clean coal to fill Christmas stockings.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @05:00PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @05:00PM (#927208)

      > Batteries prices (dollars/joule) continue to improve about 16% every year.

      Saw a simple calculation recently (sorry, don't have a link) that called BS on some battery price predictions. Many projections seem to be based purely on trend information, with no understanding of the cost of the raw materials (lithium, nickel, cobalt, etc). Unless there is a major reduction in the cost of extraction of the elements of the battery, there is a low price floor when the cost of the battery is mostly based on cost of the constituents.

      I don't see lithium mining and refining getting any cheaper, but who knows? More likely (in my mind), the countries that have a good source are going to wake up and start taxing or otherwise controlling the supply. Is there a future OLEC cartel (like OPEC, but for lithium)?

      • (Score: 2) by anotherblackhat on Monday December 02 2019, @07:38PM

        by anotherblackhat (4722) on Monday December 02 2019, @07:38PM (#927301)

        Many projections seem to be based purely on trend information, with no understanding of the cost of the raw materials (lithium, nickel, cobalt, etc).

        Examining the historical cost of lithium, nickle, cobalt, etc. I see no real correlation with battery prices.
        It's as if the cost of manufacturing a battery had almost nothing to do with the cost of the raw materials…

        Current downward trends are mostly due to volume production and economies of scale, not lower raw materials costs.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @05:10PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @05:10PM (#927213)

      > Also, it won't be long before EVs are essentially the only kind of new car sold.

      You may think so, but sales are starting up awfully slowly for some of the established companies. Roger Penske owns Audi dealerships and he recently commented in Automotive News that sales were terrible this year, stocked ~30 BEV Audi SUVs at one dealer and they sold 7 of them over the spring and summer (or similar numbers, have forgotten exact details). He was also involved in the Smart-E BEV and that never took off in sales (although an oddball friend is very happy with his).

      Check resale value of electric cars (with possible exception of Tesla) and you will see very low prices.

      As much as they might be nice cars, BEVs are still, by and large, bought for other reasons than pure economics (wanting to be seen as green, etc.) Also, bought by people with driveway (and garage) for convenient home charging. Anyone with on-street parking can't do that.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @06:46PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @06:46PM (#927266)

      If a price reduction is accompanied by similar reduction of lifespan, the only "achievement" is better scamming the users. Also, any reduction in lifespan means more pollution and worse total energy efficiency (as in, energy produced/discharged through the lifespan, divided by energy spent producing the device).

    • (Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Monday December 02 2019, @06:47PM (1 child)

      by Pslytely Psycho (1218) on Monday December 02 2019, @06:47PM (#927268)

      (In case it isn't obvious, your residential solar can charge your EV, so we don't need to upgrade the grid either.)

      In the northern U.S. solar isn't popular due to weather. In the winter we live under overcast skies with snow and ice much of the time, severely reducing it's effectiveness. In the fall and spring we tend to have storms that reduce it's effectiveness, again due to overcast skies. Due to latitude we also get fewer hours of sunlight in the winter months, to a minimum of just over eight and a half hours in Seattle. Solar panels simply are not much of an option in the northern states.

      (Precipitation is rain, snow, sleet, or hail that falls to the ground. In order for precipitation to be counted you have to get at least .01 inches on the ground to measure.)

      On average, there are 152 sunny days per year in Seattle. The US average is 205 sunny days.
      Seattle gets some kind of precipitation, on average, 155 days per year.
      Seattle gets 38 inches of rain, on average, per year. The US average is 38 inches of rain per year.
      Seattle averages 5 inches of snow per year. The US average is 28 inches of snow per year.

      On average, there are 189 sunny days per year in Chicago. The US average is 205 sunny days.
      Chicago gets some kind of precipitation, on average, 125 days per year.
      Chicago gets 38 inches of rain, on average, per year. The US average is 38 inches of rain per year.
      Chicago averages 35 inches of snow per year. The US average is 28 inches of snow per year.

      On average, there are 180 sunny days per year in Detroit . The US average is 205 sunny days.
      Detroit gets some kind of precipitation, on average, 124 days per year.
      Detroit, gets 34 inches of rain, on average, per year. The US average is 38 inches of rain per year.
      Detroit, averages 31 inches of snow per year. The US average is 28 inches of snow per year.

      Even if you installed solar on every home, apartment, and garage you would have to supplement it for more than 1/3 the year, so yeah, you will have to expand the grid. You might be ok in Yuma, Arizona (308 sunny days per year) but not Buffalo, New York (155 sunny days per year ).

      Living here, I can affirm that in the PNW solar is almost not-existent, even though Washington currently has a 26% solar subsidy, it is rarely used as the R.O.I. is so low. Solar is not the cure-all you suppose it to be.

      **weather average information source: https://www.bestplaces.net/climate/city/illinois/chicago [bestplaces.net]

      --
      Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
      • (Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Monday December 02 2019, @06:55PM

        by Pslytely Psycho (1218) on Monday December 02 2019, @06:55PM (#927277)

        not-existent

        Fuck, why do I always see the mistake as I hit submit, but not when I'm previewing....arrrgh!

        non-existent.

        --
        Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @03:46PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 02 2019, @03:46PM (#927160)
(1)