Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 489 posts

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#291

Post by pm90 »

shantly wrote: post #84
cartoonworld wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There another angle to this--USA provides vast sums of other monetary aid to oil production. Since it has been a (or perhaps the ) strategic commodity, nationally, since WWI our foreign policy is in part directed at those supplies. We expend much military might in the effort to acquire and maintain the alliances and security of the transportation and production of the stuff. A lot of the geopolitical game in the midd…

Hm. That actually raises a good point—how long until militaries can operate without gasoline and diesel? Or even significantly reduce their use? Hard to imagine anything competing with petroleum there in the mid-term future, which mean subsidized production will continue to be necessary to any state that wants to be able to self-sufficiently field an army worth having at all. I mean I guess there's ethanol from plant…

Military consumption pales in comparison to civilian consumption though. I can see most large armed forces being OK with using whatever Oil and Gas is produced domestically. Smaller nations without access to oil have a problem, but they probably have smaller armed forces too.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#292

Post by fspeech »

OnlineGladiator wrote: post #251
jdietrich wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The electric vehicle also reduces efficiency by adding weight to the vehicle - being electric doesn't change physics. The battery adds weight, but that's more than outweighed by the tremendous efficiency of an electric drivetrain. The EV equivalent of a gas-guzzler (e.g. a Tesla Model X P90D) still achieves the equivalent of 90mpg.

I am not arguing that an ICE vehicle is more efficient than an electric vehicle - I am saying that adding weight reduces efficiency for both. I was not making a general comparison between the pros and cons of electric vehicles, I was pointing out that one person's comment about better traction for electric vehicles was incredibly disingenuous because ICE vehicles can get the same benefit by simply adding weight - and…

Your argument is incorrect as pointed out by dropin685 earlier. Additional weight by itself does not waste energy. It does require more power to accelerate. The extra power is turned into higher kinetic energy for the same cruising speed. However kinetic energy is not waste. It can be recovered during deacceleration. It's the lack of regeneration that causes ICE powered vehicles to waste energy, which doesn't apply to EVs with regeneration capabilities.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#293

Post by robocat »

aaronblohowiak wrote: post #229
robocat wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount of CO₂ we produce is correlated with our spending (embedded energy), and our spending is usually related to our income. If you have a good income, you likely produce a lot of CO₂, but you can also afford to spend some time and money on offsetting activities. For example, buy a plot of uneconomical farmland and plant good CO₂ absorbers, maybe good nursery trees so you can return land to a more native state.…

Do you have a source for tesla being a net producer of CO2? Your assertion goes against my understanding that even when powered by coal plants, it is less CO2 per mile and over lifetime of vehicle as well.

Sorry, I probably shouldn't have mentioned Tesla since it tends to provoke needless reaction.

However:

1. A geeky acquantance bought a Tesla X in New Zealand. I think it cost $200000. To me, that price implies a large amount of embedded energy. He felt he was helping the world, but by my calculations it wasn't.

2. In New Zealand a large amount of our power comes from hydroelectricity, so electric car owners are often smug. But every marginal extra kWh consumed comes from gas, so electric cars here indirectly use hydrocarbons (that's because virtually 100% of our hydro is already allocated). There are arguments about efficiency, but those arguments are hollow for expensive cars, or for low kilometres.

3. The electric car industry would have happened even without Tesla. They rightly claim some speedup of the market, which implies some gains (if we are careful to ensure electric cars don't cause more CO₂ than other transport options through other side effects). I don't see buyers being careful about finding real facts, and sellers don't really care to give them, so it is hard to know where the truth lies.

4. We import a lot of used cars from Japan, something like a second-hand Prius will usually be far better for the environment for most people than a Tesla IMHO. Obviously non-car choices, or to offset the CO₂ might be better still.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#294

Post by McWobbleston »

aaronblohowiak wrote: post #229
robocat wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount of CO₂ we produce is correlated with our spending (embedded energy), and our spending is usually related to our income. If you have a good income, you likely produce a lot of CO₂, but you can also afford to spend some time and money on offsetting activities. For example, buy a plot of uneconomical farmland and plant good CO₂ absorbers, maybe good nursery trees so you can return land to a more native state.…

Do you have a source for tesla being a net producer of CO2? Your assertion goes against my understanding that even when powered by coal plants, it is less CO2 per mile and over lifetime of vehicle as well.

It typically is unless you're comparing it to an efficient hybrid vehicle in certain areas. I did some napkin math based on a claim that a 75kWh battery takes 13 kg tons* C02 to produce, and found in my area a Tesla Model 3 getting ~58mpg equivalent to charge has a similar CO2 output as a 44mpg vehicle over 200k miles

I'd say the Tesla still wins since you can likely recycle that 75kWh pack for energy storage afterwards, but it was interesting to see

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#295

Post by ChuckMcM »

irrational wrote: post #273
mxschumacher wrote: post #100

Demand for oil&gas will continue to grow for a long time due to: - SUV/pick-up boom (America's best-selling car in 2018 is the F150 series!) and more cars + trucks in countries like Brazil, India, China, Indonesia - crazy growth in air travel (look at order numbers of Airbus, see how many airports are under construction, see miles traveled via plane) - simultaneous shift away from coal+ nuclear, giving a huge boost t…

Why are pick-ups so popular? I can understand if you are a construction worker, farmer, etc. that actually needs a pickup truck; but why are they so popular for other people? The vast majority of pickup trucks I see have beds that are so clean that it is obvious that has never been used to haul even one bag of cement or load of dirt.

I expect part of the reason is utility vs cost of ownership. You can commute in a pickup but you can't move an apartment in a Prius (well not in one trip :-).

If you look at the marginal cost of a second vehicle[1] it is quite high. Thus you may be limited to owning exactly one vehicle, and that vehicle is going to consume a chunk of your income (insurance/gas/maintenance). In that scenario the most financially prudent choice can seem to be a truck over another choice. Towing things is another aspect, if you vacation a lot by camping rather than staying in hotels it costs less per day to camp/hike then to spend it at a resort somewhere. Or boating/fishing, same calculus.

[1] Things like parking, insurance, inspection/license fees, maintenance all add up. And the opportunity cost of that capital tied up in a car loan vs doing something else.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#296

Post by milkytron »

outworlder wrote: post #286
purple-again wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For everyone outside of the biggest cities there are truly rough roads you may need to traverse to see a friend or take your family to the strawberry festival. Remember that a very large part of America looks nothing like the New York (or even Raleigh’s) of the world.

Sure. But you still see them in cities and parked at very nice driveways. Many trucks have never seen a bad pavement since they were manufactured.

Some people just want a truck because they like them.

Whether or not the need them or make full use of them is another story, but that's not criteria for making the purchase.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#297

Post by greglindahl »

nickik wrote: post #260
greglindahl wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now, unfortunately this should really have started in the 70s, Today's solar and wind boom was started in the 70s. It's kind of amazing how many people prefer the "bird in the bush" over the "bird in the hand".

That depends on definition. Yes, people were playing around with those things. But the idea that from the 70s to 2000s you could have systematically used wind and solar to replace fossil fuels is nonsense. Even today no industrial country is even close to having even all its energy from solar and wind. And were not even talking about transportation. For an alternative level you can look at France. France basically re…

> But the idea that from the 70s to 2000s you could have systematically used wind and solar to replace fossil fuels is nonsense.

I didn't say anything like that! What I meant is that the sustained technology development effort you called for actually happened for other energy-generating technologies, starting on the date you suggested. The result is that costs fell by several orders of magnitude, and also that it makes sense to widely deploy them now.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#298

Post by potta_coffee »

donkeyd wrote: post #199
OnlineGladiator wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Empty pickups have poor weight distribution; not enough weight in back. With a giant battery pack under the pickup bed, traction is better. The problem you're mentioning being solved by a battery pack could just as easily be solved by putting any random ballast in the back of the regular truck. I think electric will have other advantages (and disadvantages), but I doubt this is a big one for most people.

That ballast would then make the truck use even more fuel, which wouldn't make much sense.

The minimum required ballast probably wouldn't make any difference at all. We're talking about a V8 with tons of torque and horsepower.

Re: Flood of Oil Is Coming, Complicating Efforts to Fight Global Warming

#300

Post by jfrankamp »

indue wrote: post #221
mxschumacher wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's important to note that even with electric cars, it will still take a long time until most electricity is produced without the use fossil fuels. Getting all of the required cobalt out of the Congo to make millions of large batteries isn't exactly ideal either. Storage and long distance transport abilities make natural gas extremely attractive.

Based upon the makeup of the grid in the United States, using an EV would be the equivalent of a 68 MPG car[1]. It will be a lot better than that if you live in a state that is 99% renewable like Vermont but even in the states with the least renewables like West Virgina it still won't be any worse than the average ICE[2]. [1] https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cl... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org…

I find that people like to think of this as a theoretical problem, when it is tractable to solve the bulk of it for a lot of folks. Thinking of the average price of a US vehicle $37k, here is what we did with that same amount:

Installed 9.4 kw of solar panels (32 panels) on our roof which generates the same amount as all of our electricity usage on an annualized basis for $24k. Bought a used Nissan leaf for $10k. Refuel at home, from the sky. No oil changes. Prepaid power for life.

I know a lot of people don't live in such a sunny state as Arizona but given that I live in Oregon they can take heart.

Then I got 11k back from state and federal subsidies.

I wish electricity and gas prices would go up, that's the only way to drive additional investment into a non stupid energy future.

Post reply on HN