Subsidizing electric vehicles inefficient way to reduce CO2 emissions: study

June 22, 2017
Subsidizing electric and hybrid cars would not only cost Canadian citizens a fortune, but would also utlimately provide little environmental improvement, according to a recent study by the Montreal Economic Institute

Subsidizing the purchase of electric cars in Canada is an inefficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that is not cost effective, according to a Montreal Economic Institute study released Thursday.

"It's just a waste," said Germain Belzile, one of the authors of the study, which examined electric vehicle subsidies offered by Canada's two biggest provinces Ontario and Quebec, which can rise to as much as a third of a vehicle's purchase price, depending on the model.

"Not only do these programs cost taxpayers a fortune, but they also have little effect on GHG emissions," he said.

The government of Quebec has set a goal of having one million electric and hybrid vehicles on its roads by 2030, up from 6,000 currently. Ontario has the same objective.

On this basis, said Belzile, would fall by about 3.6 percent in Quebec and 2.4 percent in Ontario.

The two provinces have said they aim to reduce CO2 emissions by about 37 percent by 2030, from 1990 levels.

Quebec is offering rebates of up to Can$8,000 for the purchase of new electric or rechargeable hybrid cars—which are significantly more expensive than their gas-guzzling counterparts—while Ontario is offering to refund Can$14,000 of the price.

The study estimates that these subsidies cost taxpayers Can$523 per tonne of GHG not emitted in Ontario and Can$288 in Quebec.

By comparison, a cap and trade system for big polluters in Quebec and the US state of California, which Ontario is due to join soon, costs a mere Can$18 per tonne.

In subsidizing electric vehicle purchases, Ontario and Quebec end up spending up to 29 times and 16 times, respectively, the carbon market price for each tonne of GHGs eliminated.

"Common sense, both economically and ecologically speaking, argues in favor of reducing these subsidies, and even eliminating them," the study concludes.

Explore further: Study reveals that green incentives could actually be increasing CO2 emissions

More information: The Economic Note entitled "Are Electric Vehicle Subsidies Efficient?" was prepared by Germain Belzile, Senior Associate Researcher at the MEI, and Mark Milke, independent policy analyst. www.iedm.org/71215-are-electri … -subsidies-efficient

Related Stories

Norway says half of new cars now electric or hybrid

March 6, 2017

Norway, which already boasts the world's highest number of electric cars per capita, said Monday that electric or hybrid cars represented half of new registrations in the country so far this year.

Recommended for you

A not-quite-random walk demystifies the algorithm

December 15, 2017

The algorithm is having a cultural moment. Originally a math and computer science term, algorithms are now used to account for everything from military drone strikes and financial market forecasts to Google search results.

US faces moment of truth on 'net neutrality'

December 14, 2017

The acrimonious battle over "net neutrality" in America comes to a head Thursday with a US agency set to vote to roll back rules enacted two years earlier aimed at preventing a "two-speed" internet.

FCC votes along party lines to end 'net neutrality' (Update)

December 14, 2017

The Federal Communications Commission repealed the Obama-era "net neutrality" rules Thursday, giving internet service providers like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T a free hand to slow or block websites and apps as they see fit ...

The wet road to fast and stable batteries

December 14, 2017

An international team of scientists—including several researchers from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory—has discovered an anode battery material with superfast charging and stable operation ...

124 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 22, 2017
Electric vehicles inefficient way to reduce CO2


Don't tell George K, that is his whole plan to save the world...
Chris_Reeve
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 22, 2017
It's funny to watch the predictable train of press releases which cite every aspect of human activity as detrimental to the health of the planet. The critics have been consistent that the larger agenda here is to depopulate the Earth -- a message which they claim was apparently more obvious in the earlier days of this "movement". And honestly, that critique becomes harder to reject the deeper we get into this already lengthy list of things we cannot do because they generate CO2.

It seems we're supposed to pretend to not notice the obvious implications of vilifying a common byproduct of human existence.
eric96
3 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2017
What kind of stupidity is this:

"He government of Quebec has set a goal of having one million electric and hybrid vehicles on its roads by 2030, up from 6,000 currently. Ontario has the same objective.
On this basis, said Belzile, carbon emissions would fall by about 3.6 percent in Quebec and 2.4 percent in Ontario." Stop playing word games, 3.6% of total emission instead of 3.6% of automotive emissions; monstrous difference there. Secondly, the numbers infer that there is roughly 1 car per person in Canada so there is absolutely no reliability in this information whatsoever. Trolls paid by trolls, and journalists too stupid to see otherwise. So which automotive company gave these guys a sweet paycheck visibly or not. The century of misinformation.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Jun 22, 2017
I don't know where they get their confidence in cap and trade. We've had this for over a decade in Europe and it doesn't work. At all. There's just too many ways to subvert it, and polluting industries will spare no expense to find the loopholes.

You have to put the power to reduce emissions in the hands of those who care: The people.
Eikka
5 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2017
Secondly, the numbers infer that there is roughly 1 car per person in Canada so there is absolutely no reliability in this information whatsoever.


There are. 33 million registered vehicles for 35 million people. Google it.

The transportation sector is responsible for roughly 24% of the GHG emissions in Canada, of which 2 million electric vehicles would be 6% - but they would not reduce their full amount because parts of the electric supply is fossil fuels, so the figure of 3.6% is about right.

You have to put the power to reduce emissions in the hands of those who care: The people.


Doesn't matter when the power is too feeble to matter.

There are ways to reduce CO2 emissions dramatically and fast, but they're "wrong solutions" according to all the nirvana-fallacists who see the climate change issue as a tool to drive their own sociopolitical agendas. These people believe a fix is not a fix unless it changes society itself.
Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2017
Correction: transportation sector in Canada is responsible for 24% of the GHG emissions, but passenger cars only 21% of that, which makes the potential for emission reductions from regular cars a mere 5% of the total emissions - if ALL small cars were EVs and the grid was totally CO2 free.

http://www.statca...-eng.htm
https://www.ec.gc...0DB708-1

The main emitters are trucks, rail, aviation and marine transports - all areas where the EV subsidies have absolutely no effect.
dnatwork
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2017
...And honestly, that critique becomes harder to reject the deeper we get into this already lengthy list of things we cannot do because they generate CO2.

It seems we're supposed to pretend to not notice the obvious implications of vilifying a common byproduct of human existence.


You seem to be very opposed to reducing CO2, as well as against the people who argue it is necessary. It is reminiscent of the line that Bush spouted after he was selected as president, that "our standard of living will fall."

That's all lies. There is no necessary connection between standard of living and CO2. The only connection is that the standard of living of the oil executives would fall if we stopped paying them, so they have put on a multi-decade PR campaign to brainwash people into fear of reducing carbon emissions.

Humans are unbalanced. We have no predators, we don't starve as soon as the herbivores die. We have to regulate ourselves to preserve an environment we can live in.
MR166
3.6 / 5 (8) Jun 22, 2017
"That's all lies. There is no necessary connection between standard of living and CO2."

Do you really believe that fossil fuels do not increase the worlds standard of living?
Do you really believe that their use could be ended tomorrow and not cause mass unemployment and starvation?
PTTG
4 / 5 (4) Jun 22, 2017
Do you really believe that dnatwork was suggesting we stop using fossil fuels tomorrow, with no alternative or backup?
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2017
Do you really believe that dnatwork was suggesting we stop using fossil fuels tomorrow, with no alternative or backup?
You really highlight a revolving debate that goes on here. People like MR and Willie constantly seem to argue that if the transition does not happen overnight - then we should not try making the progress that we can. I have no beef with today's study - and think that based on their data - subsidizing electric cars is probably a bad option - and that what they are saying is that we should carefully weigh the facts. The beef I do have is with people like MR - who will howl about the subsidies paid to renewables - but nairy a peep about this kind of tax payer spending on "clean coal" - https://www.desmo...ing-vote
EmceeSquared
3 / 5 (4) Jun 22, 2017
The study cites an Ontario total subsidy of CAD$14,750 = USD$11,150 . At the low consensus price of USD$40:tonne CO2e, that could buy 279 tonnes CO2e, which is emitted from burning under 85 tonnes of gasoline, which is under 28,978 gallons. At an average 25MPG for 10 years at the typical 15Kmi, a gasoline car's 150Kmi would consume 6K gallons of gas. So these subsidies to avoid carbon pollution might cost about 4.8x the low consensus price of the carbon.

There are probably other factors that bring that multiple down even more. But the subsidies don't just directly avert carbon pollution. They stimulate a market for lower polluting cars, competing with all the existing (and a century of historical) subsidies to gasoline cars that are fa larger. To get lower polluting car prices down. While being part of an investment in converting Canada's economy, energy system, industries and sensibilities to lower pollution.

This study doesn't recognize all the benefits for the cost.
EmceeSquared
3 / 5 (4) Jun 22, 2017
The Montreal Economic Institute that produced this report is an ideological troll tank:
https://translate...-minimum

It's a propaganda mill for its predetermined conclusions, which are the talking points of Canadian industry. It's also mainly a publisher of annual Canadian high school rankings, and runs on a $1.5M annual budget provided by anonymous private donors.

The study says the subsidies cost 29x the price of carbon, but that's a lie. The cap and trade pricing isn't the real cost, because those markets aren't real, and the math is wrong too.

No wonder its study overstates the inefficiency of the averted pollution cost, while ignoring all the benefits bought. It's just another pack of lies from the pollution establishment.

You can tell by how the climate denier trolls eat it up.
MR166
2.7 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2017
I just love examples like this Onions. Put onerous regulations and road blocks to construction on everything but renewables and watch the costs soar. Then claim that renewables are competitive. Governments and their lobbies can make anything unfeasible at will.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) Jun 22, 2017
Put onerous regulations and road blocks to construction on everything but renewables
Do you have any support for saying that there are onerous regulations and road blocks to construction on everything but renewables? My understanding is that there are onerous regulations on installing solar panels - and that is the major reason it costs far more in the U.S. to install panels compared to Germany. https://www.scien...r-today/
Of course - comparing the regs for a wind turbine with those for a huge nuke, or coal plant - is the typical nonsense you put out. Are you suggesting we should not have regs on nukes? One of the biggest arguments when we raise the Chernobyl disaster - is how much better the U.S. safety regs are. Do you want to do away with that?
zbark123
3 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2017
This is not a good study. Its looking at the trees and not the forest. The whole point of electric vehicles is that they can and will if left unabated reduce a major source of greenhouse gases through consumer choice. These models to not factor in either the now cheaper renewable energy sources, which economcially will overrun fossil fuels eventually. Studies like this are bad because they confuse the voter so that rich oil interest can place the choice away from the consumer (which oil interest cannot easily control) and into the hands of the rich who can then further manipulate the system to make more billions and trash the planet by fracking and corruption of a few politicians. I remember similar BS put out by oil and gas industries that solar would never be economically viable, electric cars impossible, etc etc. Their not to be trusted.
Parsec
4 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2017
Simply using back of the envelope calculations do not reflect reality. It was never the intention to subsidize every ton of Co2 emissions using electric car subsidies. The idea is absurd on the face of it.

The idea behind electric car subsidies is to provide a head start to the industry, allowing manufacturing benefits of scale to introduce new technologies and accelerate the transformation of society to use a much greater percentage of electric vehicles. This same strategy has worked wonders for the solar power industry, with the cost of electricity generated by solar dropping by more than an order of magnitude over the last few decades.
rderkis
2 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2017
"That's all lies. There is no necessary connection between standard of living and CO2."


Says the man that drives his gas burning oil slurping vehicle everywhere, including Sunday drives for fun and pleasure. Just like the majority of us.
Macrocompassion
3 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2017
What is most significant here is how the electricity is generated and not how it is used. If fossil fuel must be burnt to produce electrical power first, then the electric car is not much better than one driven by gasoline. But when the electrical power comes from geothermal, wind, tidal or solar heating sources all of which are there without having to burn anything, the our climate will not suffer nor our green-house layers grow.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jun 23, 2017
Didn't we already have an article on this clickbait a couple weeks back?

Just askin'.
declercqd
5 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2017
It seems as if they are forgetting that by subsidizing electric cars, they promote the technology, so it gets cheaper, more electric charging stations get installed and more people will buy it without subsidies. It is the same for every technology that is in principle too expensive to enter the market. The government subsidizes the technology for the greater good, and this way the technology gets cheaper and more popular and the government doesn't have to subsidize it anymore. We need the government to subsidize these green technologies, because the market is not perfect and is not taking into account externalities.
Eikka
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2017
It seems as if they are forgetting that by subsidizing electric cars, they promote the technology, so it gets cheaper


Subsidies don't make stuff cheaper. It's just free handouts to companies that would otherwise be unprofitable. The real progress happens when the subsidies stop, when the companies are forced to make ends meet or get out.

While the subsidies are going on, especially if they act as price-fixing mechanisms like renewable energy subsidies, there's little incentive to develop the technology - those who spend their money and time in R&D get lower return of interest. Here's the problem: there are companies that develop for the future, and there are investors who are looking at short term profits. The investors don't invest in those companies that develop for the future, but on the companies that give higher return of investment NOW by simply exploiting the subsidies.

So the subsidies are largely just lining the pockets of rich people.
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2017
and this way the technology gets cheaper and more popular and the government doesn't have to subsidize it anymore


In a perfect world.

In the real world, things like renewable energy subsidies are a 15 billion dollar revenue stream, and you don't just stop that kind of money flow and say "You're on your own now". You got powerful lobbies and millions of people working double time to grab that money, so you can bet your ass it won't stop anytime soon even as it becomes unnecessary or counterproductive.

For example, whenever the ITC/PTC is supposed to expire, the wind/solar power industries start to wring hands and wail about how the investments in renewable energy will stop to get the government to reinstate it - which is true but besides the point: they're deliberately dragging their feet about the issue to never stop the subsidies. It's been over 20 years - now it's time to take the training wheels off.

greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2017
so you can bet your ass it won't stop anytime soon even as it becomes unnecessary or counterproductive.


Except that the ptc, and and the itc (main federal subsidies on wind and solar), are being phased out. I think we are seeing the day when wind and solar should stand alone. Of course - they will be doing so - up against the massive legacy industries - that still receive government supports. The price has fallen far enough that I think they will win this competition. Australia is now seeing solar costs at around 75 cents (U.S.) per watt. http://renewecono...t-65190/ And the costs will continue down. I do agree with your comments that subsidies tend to benefit corporations. Electric cars are still over priced - and the numbers suggest they are gouging. Will be interesting when things like this hit the street -http://gas2.org/2...ric-car/
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2017
Speaking of legacy industries - and manipulation of markets - Tesla is still being blocked from actually selling its cars directly - https://electrek....t-sales/ Don't you love the FREE market MR?
EmceeSquared
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 23, 2017
Chrise_Reeve:
It's funny to watch the predictable train of press releases which cite every aspect of human activity as detrimental to the health of the planet.


Here we see the troll buried so deeply in their denial they're practically a parody of themself. Starting with the hyberbolic strawman fallacy of "every aspect of human activity" when we're talking about CO2 emissions. There's more to humanity than CO2 emissions. But not to the climate denier troll.

Of course, humans do emit a lot of CO2. Not so much the actual *necessary* byproduct of human existence, exhalation, but the *voluntary* byproduct of our current culture. The troll won't recognize that we are eliminating human CO2 emissions while improving human life quality - and quantity. The troll cannot imagine change for the better, because they're incompetent to make change themself or in their denier circles. And since they live entirely in their own imagination, they fear the consequences of their own fallacies.
EmceeSquared
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2017
Eikka:
Correction: transportation sector in Canada


False. From your link, transportation is 24% of total CO2e. Passenger cars 21% of that. But light trucks (SUVs and pickups) another 27%, total 48% of the 24%, that you didn't count, even though they're just as replaceable by EVs. So just under 12% total CO2e.

Freight trucks are the largest single category (though smaller than "all passenger vehicles") at just over 36%. EVs can replace those, though that's taking longer: a better target for subsidies to kickstart. That's over 20% of total Canadian CO2e zero emissions EVs and grid eliminate.

20% of CO2e is over 54% of the total "ambitious" target of eliminating 37% Ontario and Quebec have set. In just transportation (just half of that sector) which is only 24% of the total emissions.

All sectors at that rate would cut 2.25x the goal, a huge margin for remaining emissions in generation and consumption.

Showing the characteristic wisdom of Canadian good government.
EmceeSquared
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2017
MR166:
Do you have any support for saying that there are onerous regulations and road blocks to construction on everything but renewables?


Of course they have no support. That doesn't stop fact-proof trolls. Especially not the ones religious about Conservative talking points like "onerous regulations". These people live on the handouts from people who built this civilization, because they're always wrong about everything. They have no respect for reason. They just want to stick together to squeeze more handouts, threatened by any change that could take them away.
dnatwork
4 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2017
But the subsidies don't just directly avert carbon pollution. They stimulate a market for lower polluting cars, competing with all the existing (and a century of historical) subsidies to gasoline cars that are fa larger. To get lower polluting car prices down. While being part of an investment in converting Canada's economy, energy system, industries and sensibilities to lower pollution.

This study doesn't recognize all the benefits for the cost.


Exactly. The subsidies are addressing the chicken-or-egg problem: If there are no electric cars, no one will build infrastructure for them. If there's no infrastructure, no one will buy electric cars.

The study is typical climate-change-denier reductionism. I have no doubt it was funded by the oil industry.
dnatwork
4 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2017
and this way the technology gets cheaper and more popular and the government doesn't have to subsidize it anymore


In a perfect world.

In the real world, things like renewable energy subsidies are a 15 billion dollar revenue stream, and you don't just stop that kind of money flow and say "You're on your own now". You got powerful lobbies and millions of people working double time to grab that money, so you can bet your ass it won't stop anytime soon even as it becomes unnecessary or counterproductive.


Exactly. There was a study last year that showed the government subsidies to the oil industry are at least $1 trillion per year worldwide. They pay next to $0 in royalties, they get free infrastructure, etc. That does not include the fact they get to destroy local environments and pollute the globe for free. Why should they be allowed to externalize those costs to us?

When did that stop being necessary, over 100 years ago? Who's sucking at the welfare teat?
rderkis
1 / 5 (1) Jun 23, 2017
Why should they be allowed to externalize those costs to us?


Because your the one using the fossil fuel.
dnatwork
4 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2017
Why should they be allowed to externalize those costs to us?


Because your the one using the fossil fuel.


Then they should pay up front for the cost of cleaning up after their product is used, and they should pass that cost along in the price of the product. I pay electronics disposal fees when I purchase a phone or a TV or a computer. Why not oil? Because they pay lobbyists and PR firms and government officials to keep their trillions in subsidies and tax breaks.

Also, I'm doing everything I can not to use fossil fuels, but the system is stacked against that. It is literally impossible in this society to go oil-free at this time. We can only work toward a future where it is possible, one that is sustainable, and live with the fact that we can't avoid some harm in the meantime.

But that is the opposite of the attitudes expressed above, that it's not perfect or there's still some CO2 so we should just burn more oil because it's cheaper.
rderkis
4 / 5 (1) Jun 23, 2017
I am 70 and do nothing to try to halt global warming.
There are at least 2 technologies that are right on the brink of success.
Either one of the two will change everything including eliminating Global warming.
1. Fusion (This one speaks for itself)
2. Quantum Computers (They will bring simulations to a whole new ballpark, solving many problems including fusion)

Since prototypes of both of them have actually been built they are not truly science fiction anymore.
If everyone that was combating global warming put their time and monetary resources into the research for these two technologies they would happen faster.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2017
Subsidies don't make stuff cheaper.
Wrong. Mass production makes stuff cheaper, and subsidies make mass production cheaper.

As usual @Eikka takes two pieces of the supply chain out of context and tries to show they aren't compatible. A real supply chain includes many pieces that are incompatible and makes them work together. @Eikka being a lousy systems engineer does not equal real systems not working.
EmceeSquared
3 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2017
rderkis:
I am 70 and do nothing to try to halt global warming.
[...]
1. Fusion (This one speaks for itself)
2. Quantum Computers (They will bring simulations to a whole new ballpark, solving many problems including fusion)


You left out "Jesus saves".

You're not doing a damn thing to make either fusion or quantum computers, your two basic cop out totems. So you spent 70 years making the catastrophe already beginning to destroy our civilization even before you fully cop out by dying.

You're just another "Me Generation" Baby Boomer. You have no moral standing to tell anyone anything. At least you could exhaling.
rderkis
1 / 5 (1) Jun 23, 2017
I am 70 and do nothing to try to halt global warming.


Wow, that sure brought the TROLLS out. :-)
Don't know what they said nor do I care what they said since I muted/ignored them quite a while ago. :-)
The smarter ones know that and don't bother trying to harass me anymore but there are one or two that are really dumb.
EmceeSquared
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2017
rderkis:
I am 70 and do nothing to try to halt global warming.


Wow, that sure brought the TROLLS out. :-)


Hasn't everyone noticed the denier trolls never have anything better than "I know you are but what am I", especially when they're factually called out on their sleazy troll status. It's "denial projection", even onto people who aren't trolls because we're interested in discussion. But not with trolls.

And hasn't anyone noticed that if you mute/ignore someone you can't reply to their posts, because you can't see them? Trolls' native language is lying.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2017
http://www.foxnew...ces.html

How can we tell that Co2 is really warming the planet when the satellite data is showing a pause and the land data is worse than useless?
dnatwork
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2017
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/02/26/climate-data-compromised-by-heat-sources.html

How can we tell that Co2 is really warming the planet when the satellite data is showing a pause and the land data is worse than useless?


You quote fox news and expect to be taken seriously? Analyses published last year showed that the pause was just an artifact of messy data from different collection methods combined with different analytical methods. Combining the data and analyzying it consistently showed there was no pause.
dnatwork
3 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2017
rderkis:
I am 70 and do nothing to try to halt global warming.


Wow, that sure brought the TROLLS out. :-)


Hasn't everyone noticed the denier trolls never have anything better than "I know you are but what am I",


I didn't read @rderkis' comment as denial of global warming. He was saying those new technologies would help eliminate it, and we should put our resources behind them to combat global warming. That is an implied acknowledgement that it is happening and we should do something about it.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2017
"Analyses published last year showed that the pause was just an artifact of messy data from different collection methods combined with different analytical methods. Combining the data and analyzying it consistently showed there was no pause."

I just love it, an 18 year artifact. The quote should read our team of respected climate scientists was able to massage the data and "hide the decline".
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2017
MR is grasping at straws again. From MR's own Fox News article
The ultimate conclusion, the bottom line is that there really isn't evidence that the trends have a bias based on the current siting,
Changes in air temperature, water temperature, glacier melt, plant flowering, tree growth and species migration, among many others, show the same worldwide trend -- a 0.7 degree Celsius jump (1.2 degrees Fahrenheit) in the past century.
We find no evidence that the [contiguous U.S.] temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting,
I could go on. Just read the article yourselves - and see how wrong MR is - yet again.
rderkis
1 / 5 (1) Jun 23, 2017
I didn't read @rderkis' comment as denial of global warming. He was saying those new technologies would help eliminate it, and we should put our resources behind them to combat global warming. That is an implied acknowledgement that it is happening and we should do something about it.


Ah, a smart commenter he might not agree with me but he is not a troll and can understand logic. :-)

we should do something about it.

We have no choice but to do somthing about it! But it's like "giving a man a fish versus teaching him to fish"
Fighting global warming with the resources and our CURRENT technology is a poor bandaid.
We must move on in our technology and fusion will do/fix global warming.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jun 23, 2017
I love it. NOAA has analyzed the data and finds nothing wrong. It kind of like Hillary investigating her own email server and finding no classified documents.
EmceeSquared
4 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2017
rderkis:
We have no choice but to do somthing about it! But it's like "giving a man a fish versus teaching him to fish"


You are not giving him a fish OR teaching him to fish. You are not doing anything to develop fusion or quantum computing. You are just polluting the Greenhouse until you die before it gets so bad that you couldn't avoid doing something, like die from it.

But you are doing something. You are denying that eliminating the pollution is helping to cope with the climate change that you created. You are a colossally selfish person. And because you are not interested in discussing the facts of eg. EVs vs CO2, you are a troll. You are interested only in disrupting the conversations about doing something about the catastrophe you're so cavalierly creating.
EmceeSquared
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2017
MR166:
It kind of like Hillary investigating her own email server and finding no classified documents.


You rightwingers just cannot get enough of your fake news lies, even after you've helped Russia throw our democracy to the crookedest loser ever to head a US political party, even crookeder than the last 4 of you Republicans.

You're not just an ordinary troll, you're a Russian agent.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2017
EMC you must have taken a lot of college courses and perhaps even earned your Masters. You could not become that indoctrinated without help.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2017


You rightwingers just cannot get enough of your fake news lies, even after you've helped Russia throw our democracy to the crookedest loser ever to head a US political party, even crookeder than the last 4 of you Republicans.

You're not just an ordinary troll, you're a Russian agent.


Squareguy, still wandering out in the weeds.
rderkis
5 / 5 (1) Jun 23, 2017
Benni quoted Squareguy
You right wingers just cannot get enough of your fake news lies, even after you've helped Russia throw our democracy to the crookedest loser ever to head a US political party, even crookeder than the last 4 of you Republicans.You're not just an ordinary troll, you're a Russian agent.


Russia did not hoodwink our politicians, Russia hoodwinked us all as citizens. They wanted to divide us and look at what your saying. You fell right into their plans didn't you?
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2017
I wonder how many of these azzholes really are Russian hackers disrupting discussion of climate change for their government which fears losing the revenue stream from oil. It would account for them completely ignoring all evidence of climate change at all times, wouldn't it? Not to mention accepting any insult, and repeating any lie, in order to try to disrupt the conversation.
Dingbone
Jun 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2017
Dingbone
86+% of energy comes from fossil fuel sources,..it has no meaning to use electricity in cars
Well - the 86% number is the one we are trying to change. Rome was not built in a day. And the facts that renewable energy is the number one source of new electrical generation in many countries - and accounts for 23% of global electricity production - makes your second statement false. It does make meaning to use electricity in cars. Just one minor point for you - electric motors are far more efficient that gas ones - so if you shift your electrical generation over to renewables - and drive electric cars - you make a big difference in terms of system cost/efficiency, particulate pollution, and green house gas emissions.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2017
Sorry - here is the link for the 23% figure. https://cleantech...apacity/
Dingbone
Jun 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jun 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jun 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2017
Dingbone - for every link you go look up - proving that a transition to renewables is impossible - I can go find one that says that it is possible - https://www.ecowa...049.html
http://knowledge....-energy/
I could show you countries like Denmark, Norway etc. that are well on their way to converting over. So we disagree - and can provide plenty of support for our positions. Why not wait and see? If you are correct - and it is impossible - due to resource constraints - that will become very clear as we move up the slope. The price of raw materials will increase - and we will have to rethink. Or we will develop new sources - recycle what we already have - and innovation will take over. Why not at least let us try? It is better than continuing to burn fossil fuels, and destroying our environment. And yes - we know that wind and solar are intermittent!
greenonions1
5 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2017
Just a point on the resource constraints issue. Conservatives are so good at emphasizing the creative abilities of the capitalist system to innovate, and solve resource availability issues. Normally - any suggestion of the need to constrain our expansion - due to suggesting the world is finite - are met with derision from the conservatives. "The capitalist system will solve all problems through the great innovation and creativity of the human potential." Except when it comes to a topic the conservatives hate - such as renewable energy. Then - "omg - that is impossible - because there is not enough steel and concrete in the world!" Did any one calculate how much steel would be required to give everyone a car? Or for all the sky scrapers in the world? No - we just started building. It amazes me how conservatives attack 'liberals' for doing xyz. And don't see themselves doing xyz times 10..
Dingbone
Jun 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2017
I wonder how many of these azzholes really are Russian hackers ........... Not to mention accepting any insult, and repeating any lie, in order to try to disrupt the conversation.


So, the "azzholes" comment IS an "insult" by any standard of linguistics. Because you are using the language of "insult" this makes you one of those vaunted "Russian hackers" because that is what only Russian hackers do, use insulting language like "azzholes".

Tell us Schneibo, why are you identifying yourself as a Russian hacker? You should be turned into the proper authorities. I mean, this foul mouthed name calling retirement career you have in the Comments section here at PhysOrg is not promoting science, peace & prosperity, only raising hate & discontent. Try a different insult, all those z's are putting us to sleep.
Dingbone
Jun 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2017
Without backup they're just an complementary solution and they will remain so for ever.
Wrong. They are intermittent - so we have to find ways of adjusting the grid. Denmark, Norway, Germany etc. are showing us the way. It will not happen overnight. You and Willie think that if you say a lie enough times it becomes the truth. You are immune to facts. It is no wonder that serious people who are interested in watching the world improve - get frustrated with your lies. No one is saying that wind and solar will be the only energy sources. They may be - when we get storage costs down far enough - but we are also working on wave, tidal, geothermal, otec etc. etc. No one knows the future - but I think it is clear that it does not belong to luddites.
EmceeSquared
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2017
rderkis:
Russia did not hoodwink our politicians, Russia hoodwinked us all as citizens. They wanted to divide us and look at what your saying.


Russia didn't hoodwink *me*, or the 63 million other voters in the majority. Russia hoodwinked Republican voters so their treasonous Republican Party vassals could steal the election (again).

The country was already divided, primarily by rightwing fake news sites like Fox News, Breitbart, Drudge Report that were the outlets for Russian troll news. Trump wasn't created overnight, he was sponsored by Fox News and other US media outlets without Russian orchestration.

Russia just exploited that deep division, orchestrating the fifth column that already hated vast sectors of their "fellow" Americans. And today Russia isn't the only puppetmaster of this treasonous Republican Party, the longstanding patrons of its bigotry, division and attacks on America's cultural values are very busy.

The problem is 60 million Republican suckers.
EmceeSquared
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2017
rderkis:
You fell right into their plans didn't you?


The Russian plans are well known, except among the Republican suckers the Russians use as their troops:
"The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia" by Aleksandr Dugin 1997
https://en.wikipe...politics

What should conscious Americans, actual patriots, do with the vile American traitors who are indistinguishable from actual Russian trolls? Be nice to the traitors/trolls? Isn't that part of the Republican/Russian troll rhetoric, that "liberals" (anyone they're against) are coward losers who think being nice to their enemies ("Muslims": anyone they're against) will work?

The US failed after the Civil War to properly extinguish the Confederate fifth column, and it has bloomed into Russia's Republican Party now controlling DC. No more coddling traitors, not on my watch.

Russian trolls and Republican traitors get the sharp end of the stick.
EmceeSquared
3 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2017
Benni:
Because you are using the language of "insult" this makes you one of those vaunted "Russian hackers" because that is what only Russian hackers do, use insulting language like "azzholes".


No. "Only Russian hackers" is your strawman fallacy. There are other azzholes than just Russian hackers - including the Russian trolls who Da Schneib posted about, not your "hackers" additional strawman. You can't even keep that straight.

Your relentless fallacies in defense of destroying the world in which the USA is dominant is what makes you a Russian troll agent. It doesn't matter whether you actually realize that, because "useful idiots" are even more effective than Russians, bringing more authenticity and costing nothing.

But it's clear from your stack of major malfunctions that your are inarguably an "azzhole".
EmceeSquared
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2017
Da Schneib:
[Russia] fears losing the revenue stream from oil.


Russia's attack on US climate leadership is strategically multidimensional. Yes it lets Russia drill and export more, including a half $TRILLION deal with US Secretary of State Rex "Exxon" Tillerson. Lifting the US sanctions to allow that deal to finally be executed comes with other sanctions relief. And it leaves Russia among those filling the vacuum of 21st Century "cleantech" industry, while the US clings to the 20th Century version of whale oil and steamboats - and literally coal.

But it also deletes the US from world leadership, especially among its European allies highly committed to Greenhouse mitigation. Dividing the US from its allies, destroying US global leadership are the biggest benefits.

"The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia" by Aleksandr Dugin 1997
https://en.wikipe...politics
EmceeSquared
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2017
Dingbne:
Whole the electric vehicles are increasing CO2 emissions. Most of this energy comes from fossil fuels again and it just increases depletion of raw sources in addition to depletion of fossil fuels.


1. Your link is to a 2012 study, several generations of EVs in the past. Try to keep up.

2. Fossil fuels to EVs is much more efficient than fossil fuels to ICEs. That cuts CO2.

3. Direct solar charging of EVs is the most efficient use of either tech, and increasing rapidly.

4. There is little to no exhaustion of raw resources for EVs, and where they are EV makers are innovating to eliminate that.

All this is well known. Especially the EV efficiency cutting CO2. You either know all that and are lying (like a 2012 efficiency study - ha), or you cannot learn simple facts you're arguing under. Either way you're fact-proof.
EmceeSquared
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2017
Dingbone:
But it also means, that the wind and solar parasite on the grid and more reliable resources (coal and gas in particular, the nuclear plants aren't even such flexible).


More fallacy. The existing grid and beginning of renewables deployment means that renewables still require the legacy petrofuel generation. No problem: we have it, while we phase out renewables. The net of renewables and the legacy generation needed to keep the grid reliable is that most grid growth is renewable. Petrofuel consumption is dropping while renewables increase. That is the simple truth, not some innumerate fallacy.

The rest of your complaints are fallacy too, conveniently ignoring the benefits of retiring polluting legacy industry. As the grid gets more renewables, even just the geographic distribution increases the reliability without burning fuel to do so.

So the phaseout of Greenhouse pollution naturally proceeds. Despite fallacious attacks on them that perpetuate the Greenhouse.
Dingbone
Jun 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
EmceeSquared
3 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2017
Dingbone:
Yes, the introduction of renewables is expensive, but the rich countries can adopt it in advance and utilize the cheap raw sources of another countries (neodymium, indium from China, copper and lithium from Chile, etc) into their account. Once these poorer countries would attempt to follow their example, then the price of raw sources would skyrocket.


China, despite its size and tiny fraction of billionaires, is still a poor country because of its huge population and expenses. Yet it leads the world in renewables deployment and exporting renewable products, driving the rest of the world's renewables deployments.

Cutting waste is more economical not just in the longterm vs Greenhouse catastrophe expenses, but in the midterm vs petrofuel expenses. It does take a short term investment, but those are readily available (and increasingly so) because of the extremely low risk to large ROI over long return periods.
rderkis
1 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2017
No one knows the future

I do! :-)
I know the near future and it will be almost 100% fusion. With a few hobbyists playing with other sources of energy.
Dingbone
Jun 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rderkis
1 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2017
Except I'm skeptical about "near". At least at the case of hot fusion


These are the studies the world's top scientists have done. The first study was done by Kurzweil, which no body could believe. So they did their own studies and came up with the same thing.

http://theemergin...ment.pdf

Plus did the study you quoted take into account the development of quantum computers and their ability to do crazy fast and detailed simulations, which will significantly speed up all technology development?

When I say neat future I mean NEAR!

Dingbone
Jun 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2017
I know the near future and it will be almost 100% fusion. With a few hobbyists playing with other sources of energy.
Give us a time frame. I disagree with you, but happy to be proved wrong. The basis for my disagreement is articles like this - https://phys.org/...rts.html That say things like this
Obviously we have had to make assumptions, but what we can say is that our predictions suggest that fusion won't be vastly more expensive than fission
Implying that it will be at least as expensive as fission. Wind and solar are already way cheaper than fission. 20 years from now (a conservative estimate) when the first fusion plants are built - wind and solar prices will have fallen more. Let's wait and see who is right.
rderkis
5 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2017
I'm also skeptical about quantum computers

I am 70 and started programing on a commodore vic 20. Eventually I could program in 6 languages, with assembly mixed language being the hardest one. I know classical computers. And I understand the binary bases of them very well. Quantum computers don't use binary they use trinary(:-)?)
I tend to believe what our vary smartest researchers and scientists say when they are pretty much in agreement.
A math problem that would take our fastest classical computer to solve, in the time left for our universe to die, can be solved in a few minutes with a quantum computer.

At present Google is claiming that its D-Wave quantum computer can solve certain problems 100 million times faster than an ordinary computer, a result that it says could lead to huge improvements in artificial intelligence.

Myself I feel that is overblown but we are still in the first generation of quantum computers.
Dingbone
Jun 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rderkis
1 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2017
our predictions suggest that fusion won't be vastly more expensive than fission


Ok, these are the facts(?). If there is such a thing.
ITER is predicted to work as designed by the world's head scientists. It is very big and very expensive. That is what the predictions you talk about here are based on.

The new technology uses REBCO superconductors. They can create almost twice the magnetic force of the ones used in the ITER. That means the fusion reactor can be built at one tenth the scale of ITER. And significantly reduce the cost and more importantly the turn around time.
Now a fusion reactor could be made even smaller as superconductors get better but the trouble now becomes one of enginerring a reactor that could take that kind of stress. But that problem to will be overcome. Just how small can a fusion reactor become is anyone's guess, my guess is pretty small though. :-)
BTW This information comes from MIT and their work on ARC and SPARC
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Jun 24, 2017
The rest of your complaints are fallacy too.........


..........hey, squareguy...........I have a trick question for you: Have you ever seen a partial Differential Equation you could solve?
rderkis
not rated yet Jun 24, 2017
hey, squareguy.

You have to be kidding he is a troll. If you say up he will say down and tell you how stupid you are.
EmceeSquared
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2017
rderkis:
he is a troll. If you say up he will say down and tell you how stupid you are.


No, you're lying. You're just whining because I have called out *your* trolling, where you ignore facts and logic, you assert fallacies, you lie, and no facts or logic posted at you affects you whatsoever.

Everything I post I back up with facts or logic. With perhaps the rare exception where some troll posts some stupid assertion with no backup and I merely dismiss them, because the trolling is so stupid.

You can post BS like that, but it's just more of your fact-proof trolling.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 24, 2017
"Don't tell George K, that is his whole plan to save the world..."

More bean-counter myopia!

The incentives are only for the first few cars in the US from any manufacturer, and are responsible priming the pump for this news and beneficial technology.

Once you have one, you will not go back.
EmceeSquared
4 / 5 (4) Jun 24, 2017
Benni:
Have you ever seen a partial Differential Equation you could solve?


My calculus skill is totally irrelevant to your fallacies. There you just posted yet another fallacy. You're just a troll: nothing but a fallacy downward spiral.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Jun 24, 2017
Is @Lenni bragging it can solve DEs again?

Here's some DEs for you, @Lenni, now solve them:

-m'' + m'n' - m'² - 2m'/r = 0
m'' + m'² - m'n' - 2m'/r = 0
e⁻²ⁿ (1 + m'r - n'r) - 1 = 0
R₂₂ sin² ϕ = 0
Source: http://www.etsu.e...esis.pdf

Meanwhile, @Lenni can't even do algebra, much less solve DEs:

E² = (pc)² + (mc²)²
https://phys.org/...rgy.html
https://phys.org/...ole.html

Why do you pull out the same stupid lies you've been caught at a million times every time you argue with someone, @Lenni?
mrfixitrick
2 / 5 (4) Jun 24, 2017
6000 people die in Canada each year because of emissions.
Millions are sickened.
Yet we focus on harmless CO2, which we breathe out.
Hey folks wake up to the bait and switch!
In reality, CO2 was originally declared to be the marker gas for the approximately 200 other toxic gases found in all emissions.
CO2 is the only non-toxic gas of the lot !!

If electric cars can prevent 5% of the deaths, then they save 300 people a year, and avoid thousands of hospital visits.
Is it "worth" it?
That depends; how much do you value your child, or your parent, or your spouse?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2017
@mr, CO₂ at low levels may be "harmless" to humans, but it's a) toxic at high concentrations, and b) not at all "harmless" to the environment, as has been repeatedly pointed out and is widely accepted by 97% of the scientific community competent to comment on it, as demonstrated by their peer-reviewed papers.

Not only is this a strawman, it's also a direct lie, viz.,
bait and switch
If you were really interested in human welfare you'd be interested in what AGW is going to do to a couple billion people living on coastlines and to crop production. And if you were really interested in the environment you'd have mentioned something other than humans. So stop lying.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2017
@Emcee, I'm aware of the full range of Russian geopolitical action, and while I have not read that particular book I did expect somewhat more rational action from them despite their history (see "The Great Game"; we've all done this before and I'm sure you know that misquote of Santayana that's so prevalent). One of the things about democracy is that it's eventually self-correcting; it uses much the same paradigm as science.

As the Internet opens new information channels, there is a delay in how quickly they become assimilated into cultures; but if I were going to bet on the quickest form of government to assimilate it, I would bet on democracy. And there are technological solutions to technological problems, and I'd also bet on democracy to find those faster because there isn't one fallible person directing everything from a throne.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2017
[contd]
Given that, I'd say that Russian hacking is a passing fad, and I also note that the Chinese got caught doing this and have pulled their horns in. Putin is sly, but he isn't that smart. If he were he'd note how the Great Game ended, and how Britain rebounded from the spy scandals of the '70s and '80s and how the USSR fell. Gangsters always think no one can take them down, and they're always wrong. Antisocial activity always winds up causing social problems, and the antisocial actors always wind up paying the price.

Now I think that's enough politics, geopolitics, and political opinionating on the science site; that's why I avoided it in the first place. No criticism intended; but consider my intentions in the original post. I'm not here to talk politics.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2017
hey, squareguy...........I have a trick question for you: Have you ever seen a partial Differential Equation you could solve?


My calculus skill is totally irrelevant to your fallacies. There you just posted yet another fallacy.


Here's some DEs for you, @Lenni, now solve them:


Squareguy, I warned you that it was a "trick question" & you fell for it, the bonus is that Pope Schneibo fell for it as well. I just proved by both your answers that neither one of you have any calculus skills, WOW, what a day I'm having !!!!!

Pope Paul V Schneibo & Cardinal Bellarmine Squareguy, you two forgot to read every word in my trick math challenge to Squareguy. You completely overlooked just ONE WORD in my math challenge. If Schneibo especially had recognized that ONE WORD he wouldn't have posted his brand name pile of silliness whenever I question his Differential Equation skills.

It'll be fun to see if either of you EVER figure it out, the trick.

EmceeSquared
3 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2017
Benni:
I just proved by both your answers that neither one of you have any calculus skills


There's no trick to it. Whatever word games you think you're playing, you're playing alone. You proved nothing but that even when someone trivially rejects your fallacious trolling, you will still gloat as if you've successfully trolled.

What a deluded fool you are, in your own little fallacious world.
rderkis
not rated yet Jun 24, 2017
Squareguy It'll be fun to see if either of you EVER figure it out, the trick.

I told you, your talking to trolls.
So you can't be right. Say "Up" and see what happens. :-)
EmceeSquared
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2017
rderkis:
So you can't be right.


Of course they can't be right when they're not even wrong. And you're just the meta level of that blather. You trolls are so easily amused by your own flatulence.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2017
@Lenni finally figured out that I've been taunting it for quite some time by asking it to solve DEs. That must have burned pretty good. Heh.

Amazing, I guess even a troll eventually can learn English.

Teh stupid it burnz.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2017
Little known facts: matrices are systems of simultaneous equations; there is no special term for a system of simultaneous DEs, it's still called a matrix, though each DE defines a set of equations rather than a single one.

A system of simultaneous matrices is called a "tensor." Einstein had to invent these in order to write down GRT, plus (re)discover a whole bunch of geometry by Riemann and followers, and that's what the big delay was between SRT and GRT. Just as when Newton and Leibnitz invented calculus in the first place, it was the invention of a new way to think. Einstein is justly famed for this.
Semmster
4 / 5 (4) Jun 25, 2017
Get the electric cars which are without doubt more efficient and less polluting than IC cars, can use renewable sources now and when the technologies mature and stop playing around with numbers and extending the life of technology and practices which are going to cost future generations the enjoyment, not to mention the use of our planet.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Jun 25, 2017
@Lenni finally figured out that I've been taunting it for quite some time by asking it to solve DEs. That must have burned pretty good.


Hey, Schneibo.......all you did was prove you don't even know what a Differential Equation looks like, much less be able to solve one, and to top it off I snagged you on the trick question I put to the Squareguy & you still haven't figured that out, but how could you when DEs are already beyond your orbit of math skills just as the Squareguy admitted they're beyond his when he refused to respond to the trick question. The entertaining part of it is that you still don't see how the two of you got tricked !!!!

gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jun 25, 2017
Benni, I had a dog who did tricks, too.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jun 25, 2017
Gosh, benni, I can't do differential equations, and have no need to do so.

But I will be happy as hell to match accomplishments of what we did with what we can do.
EmceeSquared
4 / 5 (4) Jun 25, 2017
Da Schneib:
matrices are systems of simultaneous equations [...] called a "tensor."


Google's machine learning system is called "TensorFlow" because it automates distributed computation of tensors:
https://en.wikipe...nsorFlow
https://www.tenso...ms_types

The Google Cloud offers specialized "Tensor Processing Unit" coprocessors to its cheap cloud Virtual Machine instances. Each TPU offers 180 TFLOPS, clustered into 64 TPUs that's 11.5 PFLOPS. Each TPU cluster would be #7 in the "Top 500" list of the world's fastest supercomputers:
https://www.top50...2017/06/

And I expect it consumes far less than the 2.7 MW that Japan's #7 does.

With a public API for Python, C++, Java, etc open sourced platform, and nearly free for small (ie. pre-profit) applications.

All of which is irrelevant to whether grid EVs are good, or to any of the rest of Benni's fallacies. But actually interesting to discuss.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Jun 26, 2017
You're pretty involved in the Cloud, @Emcee. I wasn't aware of this facility. Seems like I have a lot of catching up to do! Thanks for telling me about this.
EmceeSquared
3 / 5 (2) Jun 26, 2017
Da Schneib:
You're pretty involved in the Cloud, @Emcee. I wasn't aware of this facility. Seems like I have a lot of catching up to do! Thanks for telling me about this.


I'm just trying to keep up like everyone else :).
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 27, 2017
Who's that, @Lenni giving @Emcee a 1 for posting, get this, a Google Cloud facility for using tensors?

What kind of ignorant fool do you have to be to give someone a 1 for posting about a Cloud computing facility? It's there, idiot, get over it. Time to stop arguing against Einstein.
dnatwork
4 / 5 (4) Jun 27, 2017
Whole the electric vehicles are increasing CO2 emissions, not just their subsidization. At the moment, when 86+% of energy comes from fossil fuel sources, it has no meaning to use electricity in cars - this electricity has also fossil fuel origin.


In California, over 30% of electricity comes from non-fossil fuel sources.

(stuff about cost of building cars) Most of this energy comes from fossil fuels again and it just increases depletion of raw sources in addition to depletion of fossil fuels.


Oh, so we're supposed to buy a fossil-fuel car, which has intensive use of energy and materials in its production, because an alternative-fuel car has intensive use of energy and materials in its production? Doesn't make any sense. Just as much energy goes into the one as the other, so that is not any kind of deciding factor. The equation has to pull in the uses and sources of energy and materials over the entire life of the product.
dnatwork
3 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2017
But it also means, that the wind and solar parasite on the grid and more reliable resources (coal and gas in particular, the nuclear plants aren't even such flexible). Without backup they're just an complementary solution and they will remain so for ever.


All these absolutist "forever" statements. It can never work, the system can't handle it, it costs too much, there aren't enough resources in the world. We are already living here, using the resources, so obviously there are enough resources. The only one that is lacking is imagination on the part of these naysayers. As others have pointed out, in servitude to their Republican, faux-capitalist, robber-baron overlords.

It is exceedingly simple to design a solar power system that generates power 24/7: make a globally distributed grid. The current grid can't handle it? That's because it was designed for fossil fuel plants. Put on your engineer's hat and your big boy pants. Sheesh.
dnatwork
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2017
Except I'm skeptical about "near". At least at the case of hot fusion


When I say neat future I mean NEAR!



I like fusion, too, but it has been just 10 years away for about 70 years now. May you see it in your lifetime; you have waited all of it so far.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jun 27, 2017
We will not need it when it finally gets here.

The days of centralized and brute-force power are over.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jun 27, 2017
Time to stop arguing against Einstein.
........you should follow your own advice:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939
On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses Author(s): Albert Einstein Reviewed work(s): Source: The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939)

The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that most general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

dnatwork
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2017
Time to stop arguing against Einstein.
........you should follow your own advice:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939
On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses

The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf



What does that have to do with anything?

I'll argue with that article. Particles reach the speed of light during nuclear reactions because they are converted to energy, so he cited a non-fact. Besides, everyone ignores the time dimension when they talk about black holes. Things that fall in take longer and longer to get where they're going. We haven't waited long enough for the experiment to finish. They could fart out all their information in 10^infinty-1 years.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2017
Gosh, benni, I can't do differential equations, and have no need to do so.

But I will be happy as hell to match accomplishments of what we did with what we can do
You crapped out of 3 undergrad colleges and have had 15-16 jobs, most of which didnt last longer than 6 months, And youre a stolen valor liar.

That should be easy to beat.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2017
Who's that, @Lenni giving @Emcee a 1 for posting, get this, a Google Cloud facility for using tensors?

What kind of ignorant fool do you have to be to give someone a 1


.........he wouldn't cease it with the name calling rants. Go on name calling rants you'll get a 1 from me every time, I won't care how factual the remainder of the Comment is. This is a science site, not a sandbox where five year olds act like five year olds often do, picking fights with their name calling propensities. You're another one of those about whom I speak.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jun 27, 2017
@Lenni, after the crap you just wrote about me, it's obvious you have absolutely no sense of irony.

If you don't want to be called a liar then don't lie about being able to "solve differential equations" every time you see a new potential victim to troll.

Meanwhile, there are no singularities; they're unphysical. This would be about the hundredth time I've told you that, and the thousandth time you've been told. So what you're doing there is lying about what I said (also known as a "strawman").

You lie, @Lenni. You can be proven to lie, you lie in almost every post you make, and you claim repeatedly that noting you lied and proving it is some sort of name calling. It's not name calling, @Lenni. It's provable and proven fact.

If you claim differently then provide the "solution" to these DEs:
-m'' + m'n' - m'² - 2m'/r = 0
m'' + m'² - m'n' - 2m'/r = 0
e⁻²ⁿ (1 + m'r - n'r) - 1 = 0
R₂₂ sin² ϕ = 0
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2017
What does that have to do with anything?

I'll argue with that article. Particles reach the speed of light during nuclear reactions


OK, argue with the article all you want & it will be in vain simply because you & Schneibo do not understand "particles" can never reach the speed of light.

Within the Laws of Physics, "particles" function within the functions of KINETIC ENERGY, that is KE=1/2mv². Do the calculation on accelerating a particle to light speed & you will discover that it requires INFINITE ENERGY to accomplish the feat. There isn't that much energy in existence that anyone knows about, assuming we're leaving God out of this.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2017
If you claim differently then provide the "solution" to these DEs:
-m'' + m'n' - m'² - 2m'/r = 0
m'' + m'² - m'n' - 2m'/r = 0
e⁻²ⁿ (1 + m'r - n'r) - 1 = 0
R₂₂ sin² Ď� = 0


.......poor guy, still entangled in Black Hole Math.

Hey, Black Hole Math expert, download a copy of General Relativity & go to work on a couple of Einstein's partial Differential Equations & let us know how you make out. Oh, wait, you already have enough of a challenge coming up with the Laws of Physics to make Schwarzschild's Black Hole Math workable in accordance with the Inverse Square Law for Gravitating Bodies.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2017
@Lenni, you lied again. There is no conflict with the inverse square law. You've been told this, too, a thousand times. The only way you get an infinite result is if you try to pretend that what's inside the event horizon collapses to a point. There is no reason to believe that's true, and every reason to believe it's not.

Now stop lying.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2017
The only way you get an infinite result is if you try to pretend that what's inside the event horizon collapses to a point. There is no reason to believe that's true, and every reason to believe it's not.
Oh, well you need to read what the cutting edge pop-sci crowd has to say about this:

"Singularity

Main article: Gravitational singularity

At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite.[62] For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation.[63] In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.[64] The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density." https://en.wikipe...ack_hole

Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2017
At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity
Stop right there. We know for a fact that general relativity doesn't describe a quantum theory of gravity, so there's no point in going further. It doesn't matter what GRT says is inside a black hole; what matters is what quantum gravity says is inside a black hole, and since we don't have a theory of quantum gravity we simply don't know. But it's extremely unlikely that there will be any singularities, anywhere, ever. We've never seen them in any other branch of physics, and every time they've shown up in a theory it's turned out that the theory was incomplete or incorrect.

Again, as you have been told a thousand times.

You're still lying, @Lenni, and now you're doubling down on the lie.

Now stop lying.
EmceeSquared
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2017
Benni:
he wouldn't cease it with the name calling rants. Go on name calling rants you'll get a 1 from me every time


So you gave my comment a 1 because it said
"[Tensorflow description]
All of which is irrelevant to whether grid EVs are good, or to any of the rest of Benni's fallacies. But actually interesting to discuss."

Where did I call you a name? Nowhere. I referred to your fallacies, which I pointed out directly when you made them, namely your "Only Russian hackers" strawman fallacy.

Look, you're a standard issue troll who dishes out fallacies but can't take it when easily confronted with them. Your excuse for downrating is a lie. You start fights with irrelevant fallacies that when ignored provoke you to accusations of starting fights. What's wrong with you that you need to act so badly in public?
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2017
It doesn't matter what GRT says is inside a black hole


And you ........stop right there, GRT discusses nothing about BHs, be it about anything inside them or outside them. Einstein is the Author of "General Relativity" & also the Author of "On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses", but I guess you'd like to have us believe that Einstein has a penchant for contradicting himself? Not a chance for that Schneibo, he was smarter than you are.

Maybe you can give us the answer for the quantity of kinetic energy required for accelerating a particle to light speed. The known Laws of Physics state it is INFINITE, but I guess you still claim to have different "particle" math subjecting photons to ESCAPE VELOCITY MATH as if photons are governed by the physics of Kinetic Energy, yeah, even more Black Hole Math.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2017
Where did I call you a name? Nowhere


..........and here you go:
Look, you're a standard issue troll
........you're problem is that you just don't know how to stop yourself.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jun 27, 2017
Sorry, @Lenni, GRT is a set of equations and a bunch of scholarly papers, not a bunch of words in a book or article, and those equations have several solutions that describe black holes of various sorts. The first was discovered by Schwarzchild and further solutions have been found by Kerr, Newman, Reissner, and Nordstrom.

Now, I'm sorry you can't do the math, or understand the scholarly articles, but that doesn't make it wrong.

That's the thing about science, you see: what someone says is one thing, what they can prove mathematically is another, and what they see in the laboratory or in observations yet another. The last two are science.

Besides, after you get caught lying all the time, who's gonna believe anything you say anyway?
EmceeSquared
3 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2017
Benni:
Where did I call you a name? Nowhere


..........and here you go:
Look, you're a standard issue troll
........you're problem is that you just don't know how to stop yourself.


Haha, I didn't call you a name in the comment you scored a 1 supposedly because I called you a name in it. I did just call you a troll because I just proved you're a troll in that comment. And in return you just proved yourself a troll in response to it.

That's worth far more than whatever your 1s are supposed to mean.

You're a desperate troll. Look up "QED". Then try answering the only question about you that really matters:

What's wrong with you that you need to act so badly in public?
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2017
You're not just an ordinary troll, you're a Russian agent.


You're just another "Me Generation" Baby Boomer. You have no moral standing to tell anyone anything. At least you could exhaling


And you're just the meta level of that blather. You trolls are so easily amused by your own flatulence.


..........and on and on you go with the persistent name calling routines. I really think you imagine your predilection of your foul mouthed name calling routine does something to raise your IQ?

I have 6 years of Engineering School Education in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering, in addition I have continuing education credits in the relevant areas.......how are you doing in the education department that makes you feel so qualified to come to a science site & name call everybody a troll & cast innuendo around about their bodily functions?

You don't like your math skills being challenged? Then get off the name calling routines.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Jun 27, 2017
Here we go with the "Nuclear Engineering" routine again. Sigh. @Lenni, Lenni, Lenni.

You don't have enough math to be a nuke, @Lenni. You can't even do simple algebra and get it right, remember?

E² = (pc)² + (mc²)²
https://phys.org/...rgy.html
https://phys.org/...ole.html
EmceeSquared
3 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2017
Benni:
You don't like your math skills being challenged? Then get off the name calling routines.


My math skills, advanced or otherwise, are irrelevant to the discussions in which you fail basic logic. I didn't just whip out those sterling condemnations of your bad quality, they were the summary of the facts and logic I brought to bear on your terrible posts. You can't actually refute any of that, so you choose the cowardly and fallacious route of whining about name calling. But the names aren't my argument, they're just what we call the kind of person you demonstrate yourself to be.

Your argument to (asserted educational) authority likewise fails the fallacy test.

I know that's hard for a troll to grasp, because you're not interested in grasping anything. You're interested in asserting your fallacies, and ignoring anything that calls them out.

BTW, "flatulence" is "foul mouthed"? You'll really say anything to avoid the facts of your irrelevance.
dnatwork
3 / 5 (2) Jun 28, 2017
What does that have to do with anything?

I'll argue with that article. Particles reach the speed of light during nuclear reactions


...
Within the Laws of Physics, "particles" function within the functions of KINETIC ENERGY, that is KE=1/2mv².


You did not answer the question, What did your post about that article have to do with anything in this discussion?

As for particles, my phrasing was poor but my meaning was obvious to anyone who is not trying to misunderstand for the sake of having a fight. You cut off the second half of my sentence that made it obvious. I said "because they get converted to energy," so the thing that started out as a particle ends up at the speed of light after fusion. If everything in a black hole is compressed to the point of fusion, no need for arbitrary concentration of matter because all you'd have left is energy. Einstein's point hinged on the necessity of doing a prohibited thing, but that thing is not necessary.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.