Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

What should alarm OPEC much more are announcements of what are basically next generation electric cars by several companies and .. wait for it .. General Motors themselves.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/category/gm/
http://www.autobloggreen.com/category/detroit-auto-show/

Tesla Motors of course is already on track on bringing fully electric roadster to market in 2007

Posted by kert at January 9, 2007 09:40 AM

Oh, google has caught up with the news pretty well too :
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=chevy+volt

Posted by kert at January 9, 2007 09:42 AM

I'm immediately going outside to throw another tire on the bonfire. Pollution? Bring it on, baby!

Posted by Lincoln Weeks at January 9, 2007 10:53 AM

One reason for the decline was lackluster demand for heating oil in the US, purportedly due to the warm weather.

I checked the cost of electricity in my region (Chicago). Granted, heating is mostly by natural gas around here, but if you use time-of-day pricing, off-peak electricity for residential users is just $.0352/kWh (plus some surcharges). At that price electric resistive heating beats heating with oil by a handy margin, even at today's marginally lower heating oil prices.

I wonder if we're seeing a migration away from oil for residential heating.

Posted by Paul F.Dietz at January 9, 2007 11:11 AM

If Algore is right, then there's going to be a major shift in beach property prices as well.

Posted by K at January 9, 2007 02:20 PM

That "law of unintended consequences" sure can be fun!!

Posted by TBinSTL at January 9, 2007 04:11 PM

All of the non doomsday scenarios I've seen on the effects of global warming had fairly positive effects listed as the outcome. I remember a school teacher in the mid 80's listing them as well. So, assuming that global warming is a man made phenomena I say let's keep it up. However, since other planets are also warming I tend to blame/credit the sun. Call me silly that way.

Wow, both my name and my blog host are banned! I just added spaces between them.

Posted by Gerald Hib bs at January 9, 2007 08:22 PM

The efficiency of a furnace to heat on Oil or Gas is
significantly higher then the efficiency of an air conditioner
per BTU moved.

Posted by anonymous at January 9, 2007 09:11 PM

> The efficiency of a furnace to heat on Oil or Gas is significantly higher then the efficiency of an air conditioner per BTU moved.

Nope. Air conditioning is 2-3x as efficient.

Posted by at January 9, 2007 09:33 PM

However, since other planets are also warming I tend to blame/credit the sun.

The pattern of warming observed on Earth is not consistent with solar forcing. In particular, the warming is higher at the poles, and the stratosphere is actually cooling. Both these effects are predicted by conventional greenhouse models, but are not predicted by models in which solar forcing causes the average global temperature to increase.

Also, warming is not observed on all the other planets, just on some (and some of that was really just local warming on parts of the planets). Planets are complicated, so there's no reason to expect a universal explanation for superficial similarities.

Posted by Paul Dietz at January 9, 2007 09:39 PM

Remember, though, that the total temperature change we are talking about is _one_ degree celcius. Perhaps it is important, but no one can actually feel it. The maximum possible effect is around 10 degrees C. But the real difference happens at the pole, not the equator - so habitable land increases, not decreases. In addition, Chicago will actually be much nicer in the winter! Yah!

Posted by David Summers at January 9, 2007 10:09 PM

It seems if the polar glaciers melt sea levels will rise, so
land area may decrease. Good news, simberg lives by the
beach. I wonder how his homeowners insurance is going?

Posted by anonymous at January 10, 2007 12:07 AM

Anonymous' personal resentment toward our host is beginning to approach Frisch-esque proportions, in my opinion.

Posted by McGehee at January 10, 2007 05:45 AM

McGehee, I think he reached that level awhile back when he started making comments about Rand's wife. However, he hasn't tripped the line into physical threats, though he has been very close.

Posted by Leland at January 10, 2007 06:21 AM

Hell, I find myself agreeing with anonymous.

Sure, with a 10deg C warming at the poles, Chicago will be warmer. It will also be underwater. I'll take cold, thanks.

Of course, there is also the issue that generalised global warming may well lead to local cooling, by such effects as turning off the Gulf Stream. I live in the UK. Personally, I like the British climate the way it is - and would rather not live in a climate comparable to Labrador.

But hey, what does it matter as long as Americans can still drive cars double or triple the weight of European ones, with half to a third the fuel efficiency? Metal p***s extensions much more important than preventing global climatic catastrophe, right?

There is also the issue of excess energy causing more violent weather. There is also a little-mentioned fact that there are two very stable states for Earth in simulations; one is a snowball, the other something that looks very like Venus. We don't know how much forcing would be needed to push the climate towards the latter. We just don't know. I for one would prefer not to find out.

But hey, carry on using triple the energy of other countries with comparable per capita GNP. After all, it gives you a reason to blow stuff up, doesn't it?

(If Iraq wasn't about oil, why is Robert Mugabe still in power?)

Posted by Fletcher Christian at January 11, 2007 12:59 AM

The Gulf Stream is not what keeps northern Europe warm. The Rockies do that. And they're not going anywhere any time soon.

It was about oil, but it wasn't about our getting it so much as taking it away from Saddam.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 11, 2007 05:02 AM

Chicago will be warmer. It will also be underwater. I'll take cold, thanks.

The mean surface of Lake Michigan is 581 feet above sea level, so how do you propose global warming will accomplish this feat? If anything, I'd expect increased temperatures to lead to less water flowing into the lake, reducing its level.

Posted by Paul Dietz at January 11, 2007 06:31 AM

Paul, my bad - didn't check on that one.

However, I think that the inhabitants of Miami, New York City, New Orleans or even Washington DC would agree with me - to say nothing of pretty well the whole of the Netherlands, Bangladesh, southeastern England and several entire countries in the Southeast Pacific.

But hey, who cares if Holland has to be evacuated as long as Americans can carry on driving their SUVs, right?

Posted by Fletcher Christian at January 11, 2007 10:10 AM

But hey, who cares if Holland has to be evacuated as long as Americans can carry on driving their SUVs, right?

The parts of Holland that would be affected are already below sea level. All it means is building the dikes a little higher. For Florida, it just means putting in locks at the inlets of the Intracoastal, perhaps with dikes along the barrier islands. Much cheaper than trashing the economy with things like Kyoto.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 11, 2007 10:17 AM

Right, Rand. So the economy is in fine shape, with America only having a $300 billion per year negative balance of payments, and paying $50 billion per year to support the enemy. OK. And maybe Florida can afford to raise higher dikes for a while, and maybe even the Netherlands can too.

Try saying all that to the inhabitants of Bangladesh, or maybe even Tuvalu - which is going to disappear forever within 10 years or less, even under current trends. I hope that if you say it in the physical presence of either that you are wearing good ballistic armour.

Several countries have a standard of living at least as good as that of America, with much lower fuel use. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that Americans actually like waste.

Would it really hurt to drive a slightly smaller and more efficient car (maybe even one designed to last more than five years or so)? To actually have a decent mass-transit system in a few more American cities? To build more energy-efficient houses?

Does it actually strike you as sensible to be driving a vehicle that has 5 feet of hood and 3 feet of trunk, with no more actual usable interior space than a Ford Taunus or even a Mercedes?

Or to use a vehicle capable of pulling half a ton up a 20-degree mud slope - to haul a couple of bags of groceries back from the supermarket?

Maybe it does. I can't possibly understand why.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at January 11, 2007 04:38 PM

Try saying all that to the inhabitants of Bangladesh, or maybe even Tuvalu - which is going to disappear forever within 10 years or less, even under current trends.

That's what foreign aid is for.

Would it really hurt to drive a slightly smaller and more efficient car (maybe even one designed to last more than five years or so)?

Not me. I hate SUVs. I drive small cars.

To actually have a decent mass-transit system in a few more American cities?

Most American cities in which mass transit makes sense have them.

To build more energy-efficient houses?

People build their houses as economically efficient as the economics dictate.

Does it actually strike you as sensible to be driving a vehicle that has 5 feet of hood and 3 feet of trunk, with no more actual usable interior space than a Ford Taunus or even a Mercedes?

No. As I said, I hate SUVs, except when they're really useful. But I'm not going to dictate what other people should drive, mein fuhrer.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 11, 2007 05:15 PM

Rand, I would be the last to suggest banning certain classes of car - although something along the lines of making them last longer and be recyclable when they wear out is a different matter.

However, I would suggest that it would be fair to ensure that those who persist in driving grotesquely oversized cars, and/or living in massively energy-inefficient houses, pay the costs of such behaviour - all of them.

A greatly increased fuel tax would do quite a few good things. It would reduce the trading deficit, and with that the income of the enemy. it would also, temporarily, improve government finances. And it might also actually improve manufacturing industry - at least those parts of it that manufacture energy-saving equipment. Not to mention improving the breathability of the air in such places as LA.

As for the throwaway comment about foreign aid - would you consider foreign money sufficient compensation for your home, indeed your entire country, being obliterated? If you think that people in other countries should, then it shows one of the reasons why so many people in the rest of the world hate the US - its breathtaking arrogance.

"As efficient as the economics dictate". Sure. But please tell me why it's a bad idea to make economics work to a non-economic end.

Actually, economics is going through some changes - including the concept that non-money costs (bad weather, pollution, greater risk of war, overcrowding and general environmental degradation) ought to be included on the cost side of the equation.

But never mind, what's good for Bush's oil and construction industry buddies has to be good for America and the world, right?

Posted by Fletcher Christian at January 12, 2007 07:09 AM

For Florida, it just means putting in locks at the inlets of the Intracoastal, perhaps with dikes along the barrier islands.

Color me skeptical, Rand. For one thing, what do you do with all the rivers flowing into the ocean? Install pumps at all their mouths (sized for hurricane rain surges)? Florida also has underground rivers (there's a famous one up near Tallahassee, IIRC); what happens if one of those connects to the ocean? More generally, there will be seawater ingress through porous rocks under the dikes, and this can't be easily stopped.

I can see protecting some high-value regions, but generally diking the entire coast, no, I don't see that.

Posted by Paul Dietz at January 12, 2007 08:38 AM

For one thing, what do you do with all the rivers flowing into the ocean?

Yeah, I thought about that afterward. OK, so we only dike the high-value areas. Or just continue to dredge and raise the land (the way they built the place in the first place, given that it was mostly swampland.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 12, 2007 09:25 AM

Post a comment