Global Warming - Right & Wrong

Legume

JohnInCarolina

File this one under “galactically stupid”

JohnInCarolina

Gulfcoastguy

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5izy_ZU986g&pp=ygU4R3JlYXQgd2VzdCByYWlscm9hZCBlbmdsYW5kIGJhdHRlcnkgZWxlY3RyaWMgIGxvY29tb3RpdmU%3D

dbCooper

@Gulfcoastguy - Informative video, thanks for sharing.

Seems to me rail transportation could be advantageously suited for battery power.  My thinking is with a train, the destination and route are always known upfront.  That should allow for using battery swap stations.  As opposed to non-starter recharging stations.

Some want battery power to predominate long-haul trucking (CA in particular).  Like trains, they would also require battery swap, not recharge, infrastructure to prevent efficiency losses.  To me that is a much bigger challenge than rail.  Interesting times we're in.

Ozzie_Isaac

dbCooper said:

@Gulfcoastguy - Informative video, thanks for sharing.

Seems to me rail transportation could be advantageously suited for battery power.  My thinking is with a train, the destination and route are always known upfront.  That should allow for using battery swap stations.  As opposed to non-starter recharging stations.

Some want battery power to predominate long-haul trucking (CA in particular).  Like trains, they would also require battery swap, not recharge, infrastructure to prevent efficiency losses.  To me that is a much bigger challenge than rail.  Interesting times we're in.

What if there were “charging” sections along the rail lines?  Say every 500 miles of track there is a mile long section that charges as the train goes by?

plus no need for engines, each car could have a motor and batter pack.

dbCooper

Ozzie_Isaac said:

dbCooper said:

@Gulfcoastguy - Informative video, thanks for sharing.

Seems to me rail transportation could be advantageously suited for battery power.  My thinking is with a train, the destination and route are always known upfront.  That should allow for using battery swap stations.  As opposed to non-starter recharging stations.

Some want battery power to predominate long-haul trucking (CA in particular).  Like trains, they would also require battery swap, not recharge, infrastructure to prevent efficiency losses.  To me that is a much bigger challenge than rail.  Interesting times we're in.

What if there were “charging” sections along the rail lines?  Say every 500 miles of track there is a mile long section that charges as the train goes by?

plus no need for engines, each car could have a motor and batter pack.

My thinking was in terms of locomotives staffed by engineers/conductors.  They have some defined milage and/or time limits for shift length.  Crew change could be the time batteries get swapped out was where I was going.

Your thoughts seem more expensive and complicated (autonomous and individually powered cars?).  Hard to shake the engineering mentality?   😁

Gulfcoastguy

These are intended for short range commuter trains. In fact the first versions were surplus subway trains from the London tube system. That version could travel up to 186 miles on a single charge. At the stop to deliver passengers, or at 150 mile intervals or so or stations , two shoes would drop and contact a third rail. Then, and only then, the third rail would energize and recharge the battery in 3.5 minutes. Probably about the same time it takes to swap passengers. Battery swap would be unnecessary and more expensive.

Botch

Gulfcoastguy said:

These are intended for short range commuter trains. In fact the first versions were surplus subway trains from the London tube system. That version could travel up to 186 miles on a single charge. At the stop to deliver passengers, or at 150 mile intervals or so or stations , two shoes would drop and contact a third rail. Then, and only then, the third rail would energize and recharge the battery in 3.5 minutes. Probably about the same time it takes to swap passengers. Battery swap would be unnecessary and more expensive.

Hmm, that's interesting and I hadn't heard of that before; the suggestion of a mile of energized track, out of every 500, would have huge safety implications, as in falling on subway tracks (and I had doubts it could recharge in 1/500th of the run time, but if a 3.5 minute charge could give you 186 miles of run, that changes everything).  
And with raised, high-speed trains like they have in Japan and elsewhere, maybe continually-charged track, the full length (eliminating accelerating/braking the mass of heavy batteries altogether), can work...? 
 
EDIT:  Oh, and I'm not understanding "subway trains from the London tube system"; there are no 150-mile runs there.  We always took a surface train from London suburbs, then in city center transferred from those trains to the tubes via foot.  But that was 40 years ago now for me, have things changed?  

fishlessman

Bumper cars are a proven tech.....a highway full of bumper cars 

Gulfcoastguy

Botch said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

These are intended for short range commuter trains. In fact the first versions were surplus subway trains from the London tube system. That version could travel up to 186 miles on a single charge. At the stop to deliver passengers, or at 150 mile intervals or so or stations , two shoes would drop and contact a third rail. Then, and only then, the third rail would energize and recharge the battery in 3.5 minutes. Probably about the same time it takes to swap passengers. Battery swap would be unnecessary and more expensive.

Hmm, that's interesting and I hadn't heard of that before; the suggestion of a mile of energized track, out of every 500, would have huge safety implications, as in falling on subway tracks (and I had doubts it could recharge in 1/500th of the run time, but if a 3.5 minute charge could give you 186 miles of run, that changes everything).  
And with raised, high-speed trains like they have in Japan and elsewhere, maybe continually-charged track, the full length (eliminating accelerating/braking the mass of heavy batteries altogether), can work...? 
 
EDIT:  Oh, and I'm not understanding "subway trains from the London tube system"; there are no 150-mile runs there.  We always took a surface train from London suburbs, then in city center transferred from those trains to the tubes via foot.  But that was 40 years ago now for me, have things changed?  

When they took surplus trains out of the subway and added some batteries. Then they took the modified train and used it on an above ground connector between the great western train line and a line north of it . In Wales if I remember right. Don’t know the name of the 2 towns.

lousubcap

From today's Washington Post- (a teaser copied here as it is behind a paywall).  

By Brady Dennis, 

Kevin Crowe and 

John Muyskens

Photos and videos by Jahi Chikwendiu

May 22, 2024 at 5:00 a.m.

MIAMI

On the worst days, when the backyard would flood and the toilet would gurgle and the smell of sewage hung thick in the air, Monica Arenas would flee to her mother-in-law’s home to use the bathroom or wash laundry.

“It was a nightmare,” Arenas, 41, recalled one evening in the modest house she shares with her husband and teenage daughter several miles north of downtown Miami.

She worried about what pathogens might lurk in the tainted waters, what it might cost to fix the persistent problems and whether the ever-present anxiety would ever subside.

Residents in neighborhoods around Arenas’s have similar tales to share — of out-of-commission toilets, of groundwater rising through cracks in their garage floors, of worries about their own waste running through the streets and ultimately polluting nearby Biscayne Bay.

As sea levels rise, so do concerns about waste from septic tanks running into the Little River and other waterways and polluting Biscayne Bay. (The Washington Post)

For all the obvious challenges facing South Florida as sea levels surge, one serious threat to public health and the environment remains largely out of sight, but everywhere:

Septic tanks.

Millions of them dot the American South, a region grappling with some of the planet’s fastest-rising seas, according to a Washington Post analysis. At more than a dozen tide gauges from Texas to North Carolina, sea levels have risen at least 6 inches since 2010 — a change similar to what occurred over the previous five decades."

Botch

Good thing their Gov desantis signed a bill removing all references of "climate change" from the schools; that'll fix 'em right up.  

HeavyG

Gift link for the article @lousubcap mentions:

https://wapo.st/44Wv0XJ

It is a good read about an issue that will likely end up costing federal taxpayers billions of dollars to address purely local problems.

Botch

HeavyG said:
It is a good read about an issue that will likely end up costing federal taxpayers billions of dollars to address purely local problems.

Not sure I agree it's a "purely local problem".  Insurance costs are skyrocketing, or even being left dry, in so many areas of the country; some areas of mountainous CA you can't get fire insurance anymore, same with flood insurance in parts of FL, AL and probably other areas (more to follow).  Tornadoes, which used to hit in July and August in the "Tornado Belt", are now a year-round phenomenon across more and more of the US, and I'd like to see an estimate of the tornado costs (federally) of just the last week thru TX, KS, NE, SD, MO, AK, MN and especially IA just last night (been communicating with the cousins a lot today).  
 
A couple months ago I read an article about how car insurance is getting hit too; I thought that was a separate money stream from property insurance, but it's not (wish I'd saved that link).  Is there anyone here on this forum whose car insurance did NOT at least double in the past 2 years? (I don't want to know dollar amounts, just doubling: yes/no).  
 
I got my MS in IE, '93-'94.  One of the real interesting classes for me was "Current Topics in Industrial Engineering", it covered patent laws, liability, environmental impacts, worker engagement, supply chain/geopolitical factors, and insurance trends.  One thing I found really surprising that, for whatever reason, flood insurance was subsidized by the Feds, no other insurance (besides FDIC-type stuff) was.  One case study was a woman who built an expensive home on stilts somewhere on the Missouri (Mississippi?) river, and a flood washed her home/belongings away, and flood insurance replaced everything.
FIVE times!  
 
Close to that time, the laws had been changed, and federal subsidizing of flood insurance was ended.  BUT, since then, it was reinstated (Who owns homes/property on banks of rivers/lakes/oceanside? The wealthy.  Who does one half of our federal government work for?  The wealthy).  Once again, federal funding for a "local" problem.  

Gulfcoastguy

My parents live 85 miles inland. None of the insurance will insure your new house if the roof is 10 years and one day old. 

I only live a few miles from the Gulf but my elevation is 28 feet. I am dropping my federal flood insurance this year. The price is bumping on a thousand dollars and only a few years ago was about 300. My Allstate agent said that the federal insurance only covers rising water. My regular insurance (nearly 3K) covers everything else. No claims in 22 years. 

I have taken most reasonable steps to reduce my carbon footprint: bought a relatively small used house, added insulation, changed lights, added a high efficiency heat pump, added a white metal roof, electric car, electric lawnmower, electric weed eater. I would probably move if funds were unlimited. Sort of interested in Eastern Kentucky but I doubt that it will ever happen.

fishlessman

I bailed from the fema flood ins a few years ago when it hit 9k. Went with Lloyd's of London for about 1k for floods

JohnInCarolina

@Botch - I don't know if you listen to podcasts or not, but The Daily (from the New York Times) had an episode recently on the possible collapse of the US home insurance market:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/15/podcasts/the-daily/climate-insurance.html

Worth checking out if you have a spare 30 minutes.  The podcast is free, you don't need a subscription to the NYT to listen to it.

Botch

JohnInCarolina said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/15/podcasts/the-daily/climate-insurance.html

Worth checking out if you have a spare 30 minutes.  The podcast is free, you don't need a subscription to the NYT to listen to it.

Sobering read, thanks for posting it.  It hadn't occurred to me that high insurance costs would drive down housing markets, but it makes sense.  
A side effect here in the West may be downsizing actual homes, and get out of this cookie-cutter McMansion mentality.   

HeavyG

Botch said:

HeavyG said:
It is a good read about an issue that will likely end up costing federal taxpayers billions of dollars to address purely local problems.

Not sure I agree it's a "purely local problem".  Insurance costs are skyrocketing, or even being left dry, in so many areas of the country; some areas of mountainous CA you can't get fire insurance anymore, same with flood insurance in parts of FL, AL and probably other areas (more to follow).  Tornadoes, which used to hit in July and August in the "Tornado Belt", are now a year-round phenomenon across more and more of the US, and I'd like to see an estimate of the tornado costs (federally) of just the last week thru TX, KS, NE, SD, MO, AK, MN and especially IA just last night (been communicating with the cousins a lot today).  
 
A couple months ago I read an article about how car insurance is getting hit too; I thought that was a separate money stream from property insurance, but it's not (wish I'd saved that link).  Is there anyone here on this forum whose car insurance did NOT at least double in the past 2 years? (I don't want to know dollar amounts, just doubling: yes/no).  
 
I got my MS in IE, '93-'94.  One of the real interesting classes for me was "Current Topics in Industrial Engineering", it covered patent laws, liability, environmental impacts, worker engagement, supply chain/geopolitical factors, and insurance trends.  One thing I found really surprising that, for whatever reason, flood insurance was subsidized by the Feds, no other insurance (besides FDIC-type stuff) was.  One case study was a woman who built an expensive home on stilts somewhere on the Missouri (Mississippi?) river, and a flood washed her home/belongings away, and flood insurance replaced everything.
FIVE times!  
 
Close to that time, the laws had been changed, and federal subsidizing of flood insurance was ended.  BUT, since then, it was reinstated (Who owns homes/property on banks of rivers/lakes/oceanside? The wealthy.  Who does one half of our federal government work for?  The wealthy).  Once again, federal funding for a "local" problem.  

The thrust of the article was regarding septic tanks. Septic tanks for much of Florida and many other coastal communities have been a known problem for DECADES thus a concern all of these communities have had ample time to deal with. Local problems require local solutions.

It's all too easy, yet typical, that even those folks who think the ever increasing federal debt is a real problem will still be expecting Uncle Sam's credit card to provide everyone the hundreds of billions of dollars to fix their old problems. And in typical fashion wingnut pols will vote against such a spending bill but be right there in their home district boasting about how they "brought home the bacon".

Gulfcoastguy

Well today they issued the worst hurricane prediction on record.

Botch

Gulfcoastguy said:

Well today they issued the worst hurricane prediction on record.

I saw that too.  

lousubcap

 The latest regarding EV's:

For electric vehicle makers in particular, and humans hoping to escape the worst of global warming in general, there may not actually be a reason to panic about EV sales just yet. Sure, sales were flat in the first quarter, Ford dramatically scaled back expansion plans and Elon Musk fired 10% of Tesla’s employees. But for every sign of a slowdown, another suggests an adolescent industry on the verge of its next growth spurt. In fact, for most automakers, even the first quarter was a blockbuster. Six of the 10 biggest EV makers in the US saw sales grow at a scorching pace compared to a year ago—up anywhere from 56% at Hyundai-Kia to 86% at Ford. And a sampling of April sales came in hot, too. 

One of the biggest worries would-be EV owners have is something called range anxiety—finding a charging station before your battery runs out on a long drive. Well, China EV giant BYD seems to have made some progress on this front, at least for hybrids. It unveiled a new hybrid powertrain that’s capable of allowing a car to travel more than 1,250 miles without recharging or refueling. The upgrade means some of BYD’s dual-mode plug-in electric hybrid cars can manage the equivalent of New York to Miami, or Munich to Madrid, on a single-charge and full tank. The milestone marks BYD’s latest achievement in slashing fuel consumption over five generations of hybrids since their first debut in 2008."

JohnInCarolina

@lousubcap - while the US market is obviously important, to me the key thing with EVs is to look at global sales.  There, the picture continues to be quite good.   I remain of the view that the EV wave is coming, and the only question is which side of it you're on.  

lousubcap

And this latest on the vegan leather company-

"Volkswagen to the rescue. The German automaker will invest $5 billion to form a joint venture with struggling electric vehicle maker Rivian Automotive, throwing a lifeline to the startup and giving VW access to the American EV company’s technology. VW said it will invest $1 billion immediately in Rivian and an additional $4 billion over time. The companies said the new venture will be “equally controlled and owned,” and plan to develop “next generation” battery-powered vehicles with leading-edge software. Rivian’s shares jumped in aftermarket trading, gaining as much as 37%. Through Tuesday’s close, Rivian’s stock had fallen 49% on the year. "

JohnInCarolina

@lousubcap - they’re a good company making quality vehicles - glad to see that.

JohnInCarolina

JohnInCarolina

lousubcap

US Offshore Wind Farm Shut Down After Turbine Debris Fouls Beaches

Linked here:
https://gcaptain.com/us-offshore-wind-farm-shut-down-after-turbine-debris-fouls-beaches/?subscriber=true&goal=0_f50174ef03-aff2323a46-170052525&mc_cid=aff2323a46

JohnInCarolina

lousubcap said:

US Offshore Wind Farm Shut Down After Turbine Debris Fouls Beaches

Linked here:
https://gcaptain.com/us-offshore-wind-farm-shut-down-after-turbine-debris-fouls-beaches/?subscriber=true&goal=0_f50174ef03-aff2323a46-170052525&mc_cid=aff2323a46

If it’s just a single turbine blade that failed then this isn’t all that big of a deal.  Based on what I know of these systems, that’s probably something of a black swan more than a harbinger of failures to come.