Only 34% of USA Voters Now Blame Humans for Global Warming

rasmussen_table

Note the reversal from just one year ago

On the day the EPA declares CO2 a “dangerous pollutant” we have the from Rasmussen Reports

Just one-out-of-three voters (34%) now believe global warming is caused by human activity, the lowest finding yet in Rasmussen Reports national surveying. However, a plurality (48%) of the Political Class believes humans are to blame.

Forty-eight percent (48%) of all likely voters attribute climate change to long-term planetary trends, while seven percent (7%) blame some other reason. Eleven percent (11%) aren’t sure.

These numbers reflect a reversal from a year ago when 47% blamed human activity while 34% said long-term planetary trends.

Most Democrats (51%) still say humans are to blame for global warming, the position taken by former Vice President Al Gore and other climate change activists. But 66% of Republicans and 47% of adults not affiliated with either party disagree.

Sixty-two percent (62%) of all Americans believe global warming is at least a somewhat serious problem, with 33% who say it’s Very Serious. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s a not a serious problem. The overall numbers have remained largely the same for several months, but the number who say Very Serious has gone down.

Forty-eight percent (48%) of Democrats say global warming is a Very Serious problem, compared to 19% of Republicans and 25% of unaffiliateds.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? Sign up now. If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls.) Rasmussen Reports updates also available on Twitter.

President Obama has made global warming a priority for his administration. Half (49%) of Americans think the president believes climate change is caused primarily by human activity. This is the first time that belief has fallen below 50% since the president took office. Just 19% say Obama attributes global warming to long-term planetary trends.

Forty-eight percent (48%) rate the president good or excellent on energy issues. Thirty-two percent (32%) give him poor grades in this area.

Sixty-three percent (63%) of adults now say finding new sources of energy is more important that reducing the amount of energy Americans currently consume. However, 29% say energy conservation is the priority.

A growing number of Americans (58%) say the United States needs to build more nuclear plants. This is up five points from last month and the highest finding so far this year. Twenty-five percent (25%) oppose the building of nuclear plants.

While the economy remains the top issue for most Americans, 40% believe there is a conflict between economic growth and environmental protection. Thirty-one percent 31% see no such conflict, while 29% are not sure.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free)… let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Premium Members only.

===========================

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

The Rasmussen Reports Election Edge™ Premium Service offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage available anywhere.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.

Advertisements

135 thoughts on “Only 34% of USA Voters Now Blame Humans for Global Warming

  1. Rasmussen Reports is fairly accurate. It’s polls are not done by some obscure personality, or by college students who don’t have experience. They also don’t do their polling via the internet.

    I wonder how much of a change would be seen in these numbers in America if everyone there saw “The Great Global Warming Swindle”?

  2. The most common reaction to finding out that the Sun is in a Deep Minimum is to question Global Warming immediately. You can almost hear the “Aha, I knew it” in thier voices.

  3. One can only hope that awareness of the truth will ultimately result in votes for candidates who support a rational position. But maybe that’s too much to ask.

  4. No surprises there. My guess is the next warmist argument will be somehow the cold is related to CO2 also. Probably a increased cloud albedo negetive feedback caused by a small warming, resulting in a big temp drop. I kid you not, judging by what has happened to date , anything is possible now.

  5. I was listening to a BBC call in show, Have Your Say, the day before yesterday. The question being discussed was “Is the human race committing suicide by ignoring climate change?” I was disturbed that during the 45 minutes I listened not one caller or guest even questioned that catastrophic climate change was threatening the planet with imminent doom.

    The featured guest was documentary film maker Franny Armstrong. She has apparently made a film appropriately named “The Age of Stupid”.

    She is a loon.

    Caller after caller waxed on apocalyptically about the “fact” that we, and the planet, faced certain doom if we didn’t adopt a neolithic lifestyle devoid of air travel, private automobiles and meat, among other “suicidal” carbon producing behaviors.

    Are the producers of this BBC show screening callers or is their audience predisposed towards this nonsense?

  6. speakin of the other planets, its hard to find any current info on what their climates are up to.. anyone got some good sources for that?

  7. Keep it up people… it’s working and the Truth shall always prevail… and of course Anthony’s surfacestation project has been of major help to expose the fraud behind AGW. Anthony should be named a Knight of Climate Truth Army.

  8. I think the latest presidential election caused many people to look at AGW that had ignored it for a long time. With the cooler winters and snow many of these folks can’t help but be a little skeptical.

    I think one way to win this battle is to take a page out of the alarmist handbook. For a long time they equated skepticism with big oil. Since many people were/are cynical when it comes to the oil companies they could easily be convinced that AGW was correct. Now it is time to link AGW with Wall street and big finance. By showing the link between cap and trade and the finance/investment industries you can pull many people over to the skeptical camp.

  9. They will soon forget about it in the Northern Hemisphere as summer approaches, but they will be very quick to recall the previous winter as the next winter gets underway.
    It will not be the weather which will boil over, it will be public outcry.
    The sun today is dead quiet.

  10. Thanks to WUWT the truth is coming out. We’re going to have cap and trade. We’re going to have EPA regulation. We need to be able to show that cooling began before this attempt to reduce GHG’s was implemented so 1. they can’t take credit for a natural process and 2. we can reverse and cancel these stupid idiotic economy destroying new taxes.

    Watch for alarmist polls that show the opposite and post the questions that were asked. Some of these polls ask questions like “how long has it been since you stopped beating your wife?” or “since polar bears are drowning are you in favor of regulation pollution that is killing them?” Liars figure and figures lie.

  11. When the EPA decision came out yesterday, one of the news broadcasters for the largest talk/news radio station in the United States described carbon dioxide as the gas “emitted by automobiles”.

  12. Political leaders and their scientific advisors ( if they have any) have a poor grasp of technology. A change to electric cars would increase CO2 emissions because of the lower fuel to power efficiency of power plants compared with modern internal combustion engines.

  13. It does not matter the majority, even if it is 99%, a known religion founder began with just a few followers then they got the idea of recruiting followers by force. Present day green religion´s founder is no less fanatic to do the same, perhaps by using some more efficient means, like “pay carbon tax or die”.

  14. WOW!

    That’s a stunning reversal. I’m sure mid April blizzards in the Rockies don’t hurt the momentum.

    I tried an experiment with an old friend recently. She’s trending liberal with strong political support for the Obama administration. I normally try to keep out of political discussions, but when she said she liked what he was doing, I said that I didn’t like the spending and debt obligations that were building and their implications. I then broached climate change and what I think are damaging policies being considered. I was expecting a fight. Surprisingly, she immediately deferred with the comment that she didn’t understand all that “science stuff”.

    I don’t think I necessarily convinced her, but I wasn’t trying to. What she does know is that someone she knows and respects doesn’t buy the AGW story.

    Trust me on this. If you’ve been following threads like these, you know 100x what an MSM consumer knows. Don’t be afraid to share your opinions (supported with facts you can back up) with your friends and associates. While they may not switch their opinion, at least they’ll know someone who knows more on the subject than they do has misgivings. Our biggest hurdle is the “everybody believes it” mentality.

  15. I think the problem is the word ‘believe’. ‘Know’ is a much better word. Belief is better suited to religion as knowledge is better suited to science. Therefore to say that so many people believe in global warming is probably worthless. Our understanding of the global climate is not complete and believing it to behave in one way or the other is not good enough. As far as our experience and understanding goes we live on a unique world and as there seems no sign of another one like this turning soon we should be mindful of that. Which means we do need to understand what we have and whether any of our actions will come back to bite us, as happened to the people of Easter Island, who know doubt thought that their beliefs would look after them. I do not think that the ‘AGW’ movement is helping our understanding of our global climate because some of the ‘AGW’ assertions have the flavour of someone with an axe to grind or in some cases are just plain wrong. And to suggest we should act on ‘AGW’ regardless is reckless. Imagine trying to defuse a bomb and being confronted with a blue wire and red wire. Cutting both is not a great idea.

  16. Richard M (10:06:05)
    “[…] For a long time they equated skepticism with big oil. Since many people were/are cynical when it comes to the oil companies they could easily be convinced that AGW was correct.”

    “[…] the link between cap and trade and the finance/investment industries […]”
    – – –
    …and (some would say remarkably) this has nothing to do with political affiliation.

  17. We need to get rid of democracy and fast! People are irrational and don’t know what’s best for themselves. We should leave big decisions to group of experts that can make rational decisions on the people’s behalf.

    [just-kidding!] But you can just see that some people thinking this can’t you?!

  18. R Stevenson (10:18:07) :

    “Political leaders and their scientific advisors ( if they have any) have a poor grasp of technology.”

    At the risk of being redundant, here’s the great scientific grasp of Henry Waxman, (D, California) head of the House Energy and Environment committee:

    “We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap.”

    Remember, this is the guy that’s writing the Energy and Environment policy for Congress. Does anyone else find this incredibly scary?

  19. I think Cap’n Trade will be forced to walk the plank by congress, and the EPA will be forced to either put up or shut up. They are reserving the right to arbitrarily regulate carbon, so if congress refuses to implement carbon trading, congress will be basically calling the EPA’s bluff. Lots of Democrats oppose carbon trading so I don’t think that will get through congress.

    The last thing Obama needs is for one of his regulatory agencies to arbitrarily take action that will raise energy prices. I think the whole point of this maneuver by the EPA is to force congress into acting, “or else” the EPA will impose its own restrictions.

    Write your congressman. No carbon trading. Let the EPA put this threat into action. Get the process rolling, and let’s get this whole AGW thing out to where people will have to put their children’s lunch money on the table over it.

    That will “raise awareness” in a way that the AGW crowd does NOT want to see happen.

  20. We need help in the UK. We used to be able to assess situations, keep a stiff upper lip and do what had to be done…….. Now we have a BBC that is supposed to be impartial and yet uses every available opportunity to propagandize the AGW myth as though it were The Truth. We also have a generation of mindless morons that actually think dramas they see acted on TV are Real! A soap character put her ‘soap’ house up for sale and was besieged with offers from viewers anxious to buy the fictional property!!! Doh!!!

    Then we have Bonnie Prince Charlie and his Catlin Arctic Amateurs hell bent on providing ‘evidence’ of melting North Pole ice…….

    Lovelock is a Brit, so is George Monbiot, sadly. They both need deporting.

    Also, like a rash that won’t stop itching we have Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund and as a coup de grace, Plain, sorry Plane Stupid and a plethora of mini Green nutters.

    Where is that bottle of Jura Single Malt?

  21. Richard M (10:06:05) :

    I think one way to win this battle is to take a page out of the alarmist handbook. For a long time they equated skepticism with big oil. Since many people were/are cynical when it comes to the oil companies they could easily be convinced that AGW was correct. Now it is time to link AGW with Wall street and big finance. By showing the link between cap and trade and the finance/investment industries you can pull many people over to the skeptical camp.
    ——————————————-

    Why would you advocate using the same tactics that the weak of argument use? How about putting the facts out and letting people make up their own minds, we have one great plus on our side, we are not fanatical.

    Fanatics always get unmasked when opposed, so all we have to do is calmly state our case often and publicly, their over-reactions and frantic grasping for control shows the radical agenda each and every time, unfortunately not before many people suffer, so this time I hope we can prevent that here.

    Europe, Africa and Asia have suffered quite enough for all the world under failed GHG mitigation policy, biofuel madness, artificially inflated energy costs, hostile action justification amid climate fears have cost thousands of lives.

    North America is about the replay all the failed left wing policies using the Socialist Mantra “the reason it did not work was because it was not BIG ENOUGH”, this is the door America opened, it is the driving force in DC, Bride of Stimulus lies waiting for Pelosi-stein to give it life because 787B was just not big enough.

    So when Cap and Trade does not reduce GHG, it will be expanded into your living room because … you guessed it! it was just not big enough.

  22. “We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap.”

    So, so true… and then the three mile thick ice at the south pole will naturally evaporate and what happens to the tundra down there?!? You guessed it… the tundra won’t be held down any longer. I hate it when THAT happens. There will be tundra floating all over the place.
    We have a tundra emergency. Save the tundra!!! Don’t let the ice evaporate!!!

    God bless you Henry Waxman!

  23. “Are the producers of this BBC show screening callers?”

    Does a bear sh*t in the woods?

    “We’re going to have cap and trade. We’re going to have EPA regulation.”

    We’re going to have tea parties.

  24. “40% believe there is a conflict between economic growth and environmental protection. ”

    60% of the people apparently don’t have a clue!

  25. According to the Intellicast forecast maps, we’re about to see the first spring heatwave in the western half of the US over the next week or so, for my area, how warm it’s supposed to get depends on what forecast you’re looking at, both Intellicast and Weather Underground do not forecast record highs however, and SST data remains quite a bit below the 2003 peak and getting further away.

    Northern sea-ice extent is on the verge of seeing a noticable lead over 2003 and temperatures in most of the arctic region are to not get to the point which favors rapid melting.

  26. Jim Watson (10:14:31) :

    “When the EPA decision came out yesterday, one of the news broadcasters for the largest talk/news radio station in the United States described carbon dioxide as the gas “emitted by automobiles”.”

    I wonder if the news reader knew that at that very moment he too was exhaling that gas “emitted by automobiles”. I have given up on most of these dunderheads in the MSM…

  27. If you compare dot the 97% if climate rearchers who think Global warming has an anthropic origin, this only proces lobbying works on masses…

    What is the percentage of Americans who think invisble objects really exist? Because they actually do…

  28. Don’t know that it does much good, but I started keeping track of the regional paper a while back and every time an article comes up on “Global Warming” or climate change, or whatever term it is today, I pass it and the best real life explanation for what is really going on, with links, that I can find to my Member of Parliament. Normally with a reminder that lots of us played with models when we were younger, and that now, just like with video games, some people still get to play with models as adults, except it’s for money too.

    He’s gonna get sick of me, but hey it’s slightly amusing.

    I know that Christopher Monckton’s language can be off key at times, but I found this one from IceCap that hit some pretty good notes.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/markey_and_barton_letter.pdf

  29. Quoting:
    “…And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap.”

    Remember, this is the guy that’s writing the Energy and Environment policy for Congress. Does anyone else find this incredibly scary?”

    Commenting:
    Yo! Me, over here! I find it scary. Waxman, you say? I’ll email him.

  30. I’d like to see someone doing car stickers with mail orders.

    I also find it extraordinarily hard to get skeptic material in print through Amazon.

    Also, is there a nice friendly presentation “Climate Science for Dummies” that skeptics could take around places for talk + discussion? Get the word out that the “consensus” claim is a lie (as well as non-scientific)?

  31. Ian Schumacher said “We need to get rid of democracy and fast! People are irrational and don’t know what’s best for themselves. We should leave big decisions to group of experts that can make rational decisions on the people’s behalf.
    [just-kidding!] But you can just see that some people thinking this can’t you?!”

    Unfortunately TPTB are not kidding. Why do you think they invented global warming to herd the sheeple in the direction they want them to go?
    “The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.” David Rockefeller speaking at the Bilderberger meeting in June 1991 in Baden Baden

    Brian Johnson “…Also, like a rash that won’t stop itching we have Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund and as a coup de grace, Plain, sorry Plane Stupid and a plethora of mini Green nutters…”
    Guess who is funding Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, World Wildlife Fund… Rockefeller of course!
    http://www.activistcash.com/foundation.cfm/did/166
    http://www.activistcash.com/foundation.cfm/did/167
    http://www.activistcash.com/foundation.cfm/did/168
    http://www.activistcash.com/foundation.cfm/did/154
    Maybe Anthony should apply for a grant; ….No then he would have to tell us the earth is getting warmer due to Mankind’s CO2 emissions. Or Maybe.. Maybe…the Rockefellers will give some of that money to ME!

  32. Lance (10:01:29) :
    I was listening to a BBC call in show, Have Your Say, the day before yesterday. The question being discussed was “Is the human race committing suicide by ignoring climate change?” I was disturbed that during the 45 minutes I listened not one caller or guest even questioned that catastrophic climate change was threatening the planet with imminent doom.

    The featured guest was documentary film maker Franny Armstrong. She has apparently made a film appropriately named “The Age of Stupid”.

    She is a loon.

    Caller after caller waxed on apocalyptically about the “fact” that we, and the planet, faced certain doom if we didn’t adopt a neolithic lifestyle devoid of air travel, private automobiles and meat, among other “suicidal” carbon producing behaviors.

    Are the producers of this BBC show screening callers or is their audience predisposed towards this nonsense?
    —————————————
    Here’s a great link to a review of that garbage that was posted on here a couple of weeks or so ago:

    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6359/

    I typically would not spend the time or money watching this trash, but I might actually go check out the class racism parts. This is quite disturbing.

    If the future involves telling Indian and Nigerian people (and the Chinese) that they can’t fulfill their energy needs, something is going to give on that concept (English class pomposity would be my bet). I also wonder why they picked on the Indian, when they could have just got Richard Branson to play himself ??

    Oh, I remember, he flew two planes on biodiesel so he’s one of them, right ??

  33. Lucy Skywalker (13:44:39) :

    I’d like to see someone doing car stickers with mail orders.

    I also find it extraordinarily hard to get skeptic material in print through Amazon.

    Also, is there a nice friendly presentation “Climate Science for Dummies” that skeptics could take around places for talk + discussion? Get the word out that the “consensus” claim is a lie (as well as non-scientific)?

    Lucy, that is a good idea.

    What’s about a WUWT bumper sticker?

    In the mean time there is one sticker you probably could order or print out yourself if you have the right printer: http://algorelied.com/?p=1302

    You can also order “I love my carbon dioxide stickers at the website of Hans Schreuder, http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com

    I personally use an EPSON and it even prints stickers and transfers for T-shirts.

    In Europe it is ill advised to drive big cars, especially 4×4, let alone advertise skeptic opinions like a bumper sticker.

    They simply trash your car.

    It’s think it is time to start a European edition of WUWT.

  34. Probably a increased cloud albedo negetive feedback caused by a small warming, resulting in a big temp drop.

    Probably. but that’s the point, isn’t it? Negative feedback = No emergency.

  35. If the administration’s trend toward CO2 regulation policies has gained enough inertia that they are inevitable, then I say let’s get on with it.

    The sooner the better that the CO2 scam be excoriated in a court of law.

    I want to see Hansen cross examined by an unsympathetic non-ACLU lawyer.

    I want Gore to justify his alarmism via disclosure and on the witness stand, finally forcing him into an AGW debate, of sorts…

    I want to see the IPCC models’ code subpoenaed.

    I want them all to be forced, under oath, to present the scientific justification for their demands that western civilization get set back 150 years.

  36. As you know, climate scientists massively and overwhemingly accept CO2 from humans as a driver of warming (viz the recent EOS paper) and the scientific literature from the “sceptics” is nonexistent.

    Why would you “boast” about (perhaps) the greatest disjoint between science and public opinion in history?

  37. Lucy,

    What do you think about a simple booklet that takes on the AGW subjects that dominate our media.

    It could start with the title:

    Are the Global Warming Disasters Real they tell you about real?

    The booklet simply takes on the fiction and the facts.

    Is CO2 warming the atmosphere?

    Is CO2 increasing the sea levels?

    Is CO2 causing the icecaps to melt?

    Is CO2 causing Glaciers to melt?

    Is CO2 causing polar bears to drown?

    Is CO2 causing an increase of weather disasters?
    – hurricanes
    – droughts
    etc.

    Debunking the second hoax of so called green energy alternatives is also important:

    Are windmills a viable solution?

    Are bio fuels a viable solution?

    Are electric cars a viable solution?

    Is solar a solution.

    Have we really reached the end of the carbon fuel era?

    It could end with a conclusion like:

    Why should our Governments make us believe CO2 is a threat to our planet?

    It’s a matter of power, tax income and the emergence of an elite that make money
    from the new “green” industry.

    Tax to be paid by you, additional cost for energy paid by you, possible travel restrictions forced up to you.

    The most tricky part is to get good graphic material, pictures and graphs free from copy rights.

    But it is doable.

    Do you have any ideas?

    I think I can make a dummy in a few days time, ready for print or distribution as a PDF file so you can print it yourself.

    The same goes for sticker designs.

  38. The picture of the submarine surfacing in the Arctic in 1959 is great.
    Caption: “It’s President Eisenhower, sir, he wants to know how thick the ice is”.

    2 picture of a beach, one 50 years ago and one today, with a caption : “How’s your sea level working out for you?”.

  39. Lance (10:01:29) :

    . . . Caller after caller waxed on apocalyptically about the “fact” that we, and the planet, faced certain doom if we didn’t adopt a neolithic lifestyle devoid of air travel, private automobiles and meat, among other “suicidal” carbon producing behaviors.

    Are the producers of this BBC show screening callers or is their audience predisposed towards this nonsense?

    Undoubtedly both of the above.

    Re bumper stickers, I propose:

    “CO2 is GOOD for plants, GOOD for the Earth, and GOOD for you!”

    /Mr Lynn

  40. I don’t believe that the number of people who believe or do not believe that humans are causing global warming at any given moment in time has a significant influence on the ability of the CO2 molecule to absorb and emit infrared photons.

  41. I don’t put much stock in polls like this. There is sort of an implied message that whatever most people believe must be the reality. What the poll reflects is who is winning a marketing campaign, not what the real science is.

  42. R Stevenson (10:18:07) :

    Political leaders and their scientific advisors ( if they have any) have a poor grasp of technology. A change to electric cars would increase CO2 emissions because of the lower fuel to power efficiency of power plants compared with modern internal combustion engines

    THAT’S off the reservation.

    Base load thermal (coal) plant – about 43 to 47% efficient, then about 6% for auxilary equipment on-site, resulting in more like 37 to 41%

    Compared to the overall efficiency of an automotive gas engine – about 20 percent (only about 20 percent of the thermal-energy content of the gasoline is converted into mechanical work.)

    Several fact-filled links on thermal (coal) plants:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/11966912/Super-Critical-CoalFired-Power-Plant

    http://www.brighthub.com/engineering/mechanical/articles/19182.aspx

    Here, under the heading “Gasoline and Battery Power Efficiency” the article claims “overall efficiency of 26 percent” electric vehicle and power plant combo:

    http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell4.htm

    Of course, including nuclear and hydo change the equation/the economics.
    .
    .
    .

  43. Flanagan (13:35:33) :

    That poll from 2 months ago that you keep talking about, “97% if climate rearchers”, as you put it, was discredited as soon as it came out. It was an online poll. It has no validity. It’s methods were flawed.

  44. Caroline Lucas MEP, the leader of the Green Party, last week agreed on television that flying to Spain was “as bad as knifing a person in the street”, because air travel like this is causing people to die “from climate change”.

    I don’t think I’m dying, but I am starting to feel a little sick.

  45. It’s almost starting to look like La-Nina is on its way back (still have to wait and see though)
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

    The SOI continues to go up and has started going up even faster today and perhaps yesterday as well. If it continues going up like this it may have some implications for climate sooner or later this year. I also noticed there was a time where it seemed like it hit the brakes and would go back down but it just continued going up.

  46. “crosspatch (15:46:23) : What the poll reflects is who is winning a marketing campaign,”

    I wasn’t aware of any marketing campaign by the science side of this issue. Who has been marketing the real science of global warming? I don’t wtch much tv so maybe I’ve been missing it. Maybe Mother Nature is on a campaign to show Al Gore and co. are wrong if that’s what you mean. ;)

  47. “Tom in Texas (17:10:33) : …flying to Spain was “as bad as knifing a person in the street”, ”

    I like it when they talk like this. It tips people that they are exaggerating for effect.

  48. _Jim (16:31:44) :

    You got me thinking about efficiency and what does it mean? Your probably thinking that’s a stupid question … efficiency means efficiency ;-) But here is what I mean.

    Efficiency, as you used, presumably means (energy extracted)/(energy available). I’m going to argue that is irrelevant :-) Utterly unimportant.

    Your argument:

    coal –> electricity –> vehicle motion (0.4 x 0.7 = 0.28) … 28% efficient
    gas –> vehicle motion 20% efficient

    By the way, did you forgot transmission power lines in your calculation? Whether you did or didn’t though really doesn’t matter because there is also missing the mining of the coal, the transportation, the building of the coal plants, building the transmission lines, building batteries, building electric cars, all the labour. And of course on the other side, the same thing … drilling wells, refining gas, transporting the gas, building gas cars, all the labour. And so on.

    Its all pretty involved and complicated, how could we figure it out? Well we could just look at the cost. We could assume that the market will translate efficiencies into costs and define efficiency as:
    (miles my car goes) / (cost to make it go)

    In this definition, we don’t care about energy efficiency … that’s just a useless number with meaning now when it comes to our end goal. For example consider nuclear power. The energy efficiency of nuclear power is abysmal (energy extracted)/ (energy available). Probably less than 1%?? I really don’t know. But that’s the point, energy efficiency is not what matters. Its an irrelevant number.

    So how do we know what is cheapest, or (most efficient for society as a whole)? Well … probably the one that exists in a market based society. Electricity is subsidized, gas is getting more expensive, but even then, at the moment, it is still cheaper to run a gas car than an electric car. Will this change in the future? Probably. But saying arguing what one ‘should’ or shouldn’t do by appealing to models (i.e. not using the market mechanism) is probably going to fail … probably.

    Environmentalists would point out that I’m not including externalities (pollution and so on) and rightly so. This is not completely true since there are many many regulations on externalities that add to the cost, so externalities are included, but probably not efficiently (from a market perspective). So put a market cost on externalities and let the market work. I’m all for it, and in that case nuclear (the least energy efficient from a conversion perspective) might actually be the winner. Only the market and time knows for sure.

    Anyways, using calculated energy conversion efficiencies to make any decision is probably useless. Costs (direct and external) is what is important and these will probably almost no relationship to energy conversion efficiencies.

  49. “I wasn’t aware of any marketing campaign by the science side of this issue. ”

    Didn’t say the science side was engaged in such a campaign, but there certainly is one going on. The longest infomercial in that campaign is probably “An Inconvenient Truth”. People in science and industry now speak of AGW as if it is some kind of a fact. It is just plain Orwellian.

  50. Can´t believe that the america of so many great scientists, artists and inventors who gave so much to the welfare of humanity, is now trying to sell to the world the silly “software” of global warming and/or climate change and fool´s hardware as windmill generators. It is pitifully preposterous.

  51. DJ (14:41:00) :

    “As you know, climate scientists massively and overwhemingly accept CO2 from humans as a driver of warming (viz the recent EOS paper) and the scientific literature from the “sceptics” is nonexistent.

    Why would you “boast” about (perhaps) the greatest disjoint between science and public opinion in history?”

    Because one of those groups has some common sense.

  52. I agree with crosspatch on this. “Popular” science is what got us into this mess. I fear we are in an age where even reality needs a marketing scheme.

  53. “As you know, climate scientists massively and overwhemingly accept CO2 from humans as a driver of warming.”

    And as YOU well know each and every one of those climate scientists who believe is a snip.
    Mike Bryant

  54. Forty-eight percent (48%) of all likely voters attribute climate change to long-term planetary trends

    This figure puzzles me. I’d have thought that the figure would’ve been more like 10%.

    The ‘planetary trends’ are argued by Fairbridge and Landscheidt, and to a lesser extent maybe by Svensmark with his varying cosmic ray flux. Does half of America really know about these obscure propositions, none of which ever appears in the mainstream media? If this is true, it signifies to me that half of all Americans know a bit about these ideas, when if they’d been good MSM consumers they’d never have heard a damn thing about any of them.

  55. I just hope that
    (A) nothing is done for the next year or two and cooling continues while CO2 continues to rise; if they start doing something and the cooling continues the AGW crowd will take credit
    (B) they do start to do something and energy prices escalate and the next election Obamas groupies are tossed in the garbage with the rest of the biomass

  56. Idlex,
    I think that refers to the more mundane “temperatures of this planet”. Don’t forget that 67% of Americans really really believe that Obama will spend us out of debt.
    Mike Bryant

  57. Jim commment re
    R Stevenson (10:18:07) :

    Political leaders and their scientific advisors ( if they have any) have a poor grasp of technology. A change to electric cars would increase CO2 emissions because of the lower fuel to power efficiency of power plants compared with modern internal combustion engines

    “THAT’S off the reservation.

    Base load thermal (coal) plant – about 43 to 47% efficient, then about 6% for auxilary equipment on-site, resulting in more like 37 to 41%

    Compared to the overall efficiency of an automotive gas engine – about 20 percent (only about 20 percent of the thermal-energy content of the gasoline is converted into mechanical work.)”

    Jim, as an engineer, I am disturbed that the so called energy “experts” throw around so many diffferent numbers for virtually any energy alternative they are advocating. The electric car is no exception.

    This advocacy tells me that there are too many out there that are willing to stretch the facts for any energy alternative they are pushing, and they have the “ability” to cherry pick data or distort the facts to make a point. Professionalism seems to be lacking in some of the scientific and engineering community especially in the universities. I have come to trust only the market rather than the “proponents” of a specific technology.

    Some thoughts:
    Your sources claim that the efficiency of a gasoline auto is 20 where as most sources seem to quote at least 25% or higher especially for the diesel engine. This is not my field of expertise so I can’t have a strong opinion on the various claims given the wide range of claims, except the 20% seems low.

    The comment by R Stevenson also mentions CO2 emissions. I don’t think anyone would argue that for a given BTU of energy produced coal emitts much more CO2 than gasoline, and diesel produces less CO2 than coal but more than gasoline. If you are honestly chasing CO2, the above difference needs to be taken into account.

    I checked your links and they did not mention transmission losses for electric power, was that included?

    Also we all know that battery technology is not too effective dispite the years and years of research and dollars expended by the government and private industry. Electric vehicle range is horrible and to talk about H2 fuel cells is ignoring the fact that virtually all the worldwide hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels.

    Finally most of us don’t waste all that heat energy from a gasoline engine for a good portion of the year, we use it to heat our cars, etc. so it is not wasted. Was heating an electric vehicle in winter included in your efficiencies? Was the enormous cost and carbon foot print of enlarging our electric power grid included?

    Remember California mandated a percentage electric vehicles a while back and dropped the idea when electricity supply became short and more expensive. The electric vehicle was a failure then, what is different now.

    As I mentioned above, this is not my area of engineering expertise so I do’t know whose “numbers” to believe, but I am skeptical of all the “hype” since the thermodynamic fundamentals don’t always add up . I can only believe the free market, not government mandates which distort the market. Did you debit the electric vehicle costs to cover the road tax courrently paid by the liquid fuels? Just look at the folly of the ethanol mandates if you want to see how the government does the wrong thing again and again.

  58. “The ‘planetary trends’ are argued by Fairbridge and Landscheidt”

    My first guess would be Milankovitch, but they probably mean “it’s natural” vs
    manmade.

  59. idlex: “…Forty-eight percent (48%) of all likely voters attribute climate change to long-term planetary trends

    This figure puzzles me….”

    I think it just means they think it is natural. Most (many?) know about ice ages and mammoths and Ayla, and so on, so they have an inkling that big changes happen.

  60. idlex (19:13:34) : This figure puzzles me. I’d have thought that the figure would’ve been more like 10%.

    Does half of America really know about these obscure propositions, none of which ever appears in the mainstream media?

    One needn’t know the specific mechanisms to finally realize that climate changes naturally. All we really need to do is keep “marketing” (sorry) the fact that climate has always changed, sometimes in rapid and dramatic fashion long before humans could have possibly been a factor. Eventually the AGW mantra of “unprecedented” will crumble. With a precedent firmly in view, the public will be less likely to swallow the rest of the argument.

    Ole Sol, PDO, AMO and the gang are already helping…we need to build on the momentum. And sorry, it is really about marketing…that’s what put real science behind the 8-ball in the first place (the marketing from the “other side”). It is more a PR and political battle right now than a scientific one.

  61. (The below was formatted accomodate the abscence of a fixed width font or “tt” HTML tag)

    Chart – Energy consumption relative to an Internal Combustion Energy (ICE).

    Relative to ICEs:
    ……………………………………………..1………2….
    Vehicle:…….. HEVs PHEVs EVs HFCEV HFCEV
    Total energy -29% -41% -46% -30% +33%
    CO2………… -29% -40% -45% -43% + 38%

    (1-reformed natural gas) (2-electrolysis)

    Vehicle acronyms:
    ICE = gasoline car (internal combustion engine)
    HEV = hybrid gas-electric car (uses gasoline to recharge batteries)
    PHEV = plug-in hybrid (can be plugged in or use gasoline to recharge batteries)
    EV = electric vehicle (plugs in to recharge batteries)
    HFCEV = hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle

    So, we see that ‘electrics’ and derivatives (plug-in hybrids etc) gain a benefit by using the more efficient ‘grid’ source of energy as opposed to gasoline engine only.

    Chart from this .pdf file:

    THE CLEANEST CARS: WELL-TO-WHEELS EMISSIONS COMPARISONS
    http://www.pluginamerica.org/images/EmissionsSummary.pdf

    Extract from SUMMARY:

    This is an overview of all the analyses that I could find as of September 2007 looking at emissions produced by vehicles with electric drive and by their power sources (called well-to-wheels analyses). There’s quantity, and there’s quality – both the overwhelming preponderance of the data and the conclusions of the best-designed studies show that plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) and electric vehicles (EVs) produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants than conventional cars, hybrids, or hydrogen fuel-cell
    vehicles.

    The intent of this summary is to compare vehicles with partial or complete electric drive to conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles running on gasoline. Biofuels are not included in this summary, but some of the studies listed do assess emissions from vehicles running on liquid fuels other than gasoline.
    .
    .
    .

  62. Ian Schumacher (17:58:17) :
    Efficiency, as [ _Jim (16:31:44) ] used, presumably means (energy extracted)/(energy available). I’m going to argue that is irrelevant :-)
    . . . For example consider nuclear power. The energy efficiency of nuclear power is abysmal (energy extracted)/ (energy available). Probably less than 1%?? I really don’t know.

    Whoa there, pardna! Nukes are by a country kilometer the Most fuel efficient energy source we have, way over 99% for the reaction. As I recall, thermal efficiency is 1 minus your exhaust temperature divided by your peak temperature. Splitting atoms run upwards of 100,000,000 K, so your exhaust temp (the coolant temperature running out to your steam generator) is hardly noticeable in the equation. They say a years worth of nuke waste would fit under your desk. (Your desk, not mine)

    _Jim did miss the power line loss, though. I once asked a utility exec how much that was, i.e., Mw out to the transmission grid – Mw billed to the customer, and got a lot of hemming and hawing. So I still don’t know.

    Electricity is subsidized, but by the consumer thanks to govt regulation. When the power companies had to compete in Texas, rates went down. They’re drifting back up now that the companies have figured out the system. I’m sure cap’n trade will help.

  63. Mike McMilan (21:29:04) :

    What are you defining as your energy available? I’m thinking E=MC^2 and the difference in weight between the original and final product. Pretty sure we are only getting a small fraction of that (well, not that sure actually, just a suspicion).

    But or course it doesn’t matter, and that’s my point. Imagine we had an energy source that was easy to use, high-energy density, safe, abundant, but was only 1% efficient (we could only extract 1% of the available energy). Would we say “oh we can’t use that … not efficient”? LOL, of course not.

  64. Ian Schumacher (17:58:17) : By the way, did you forgot transmission power lines in your calculation?

    Also don’t forget that the step down transformers locally have losses as does the charger (5-10%) and the charge / discharge cycle of batteries (while variable) can cost you another 10% to 20% then you have the motor losses (about 5%+) AND the motor controller losses and …

    Oh, and coal is largely C while gasoline is largely H2C so you get more CO2 per unit of coal energy… it is CO2 you care about, not thermal efficiency after all…

    Also, the ICE efficiency figure used is from about 1960 … times have changed.

    From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine

    Power and fuel economy
    The MAN S80ME-C7 low speed diesel engines use 155 gram fuel per kWh for an overall energy conversion efficiency of 54.4%, which is the highest conversion of fuel into power by any internal or external combustion engine.[9] Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline (petrol) engines of the same power, resulting in lower fuel consumption. A common margin is 40% more miles per gallon for an efficient turbodiesel.

    And now you know why I drive a Diesel as does my spouse…

    So you see, you already start out behind the Diesel at the time of turning the shaft to the generator, then you take:

    generator losses, transformer losses, high volt transmission losses, transformer losses – capacitance losses in phase adjusting capacitors, low voltage transmission losses, battery charger losses (charger makes heat), battery charging losses (battery itself does not have perfect electricity to chemical energy conversion), battery standby leakage losses, battery chemical to electric conversion losses (not all the charge get turned from chemical back to electrical…), motor controller losses, electric motor losses.

    Then and only then do you have shaft power to turn the wheels…

    The Diesel will always beat the e-car for efficiency. By a large margin.

  65. Mike McMilan (21:29:04) :

    _Jim did miss the power line loss, though.

    I wanted to see if you people were awake; I could also ask you about the full gasoline gain/loss equation: feedstock pumping, transportation, refining and then wholesale/retail transportation, with the ‘losses’ due to cracking/distillation, reformulation operations followed by pumping through a pipeline and retail truck delivery of the final ‘gasoline’ product* to consumer/retail sales points.

    (* Or diesel; also bear in mind the continued need of ‘motor oils’ for use in ICEs, hybrid engines)

    For what would seem to be the full answer in the difference between EV and gas ICE energy consumption, see the Well to Wheels ‘system budget’ chart/table above your 21:29:04 post.
    .
    .
    .

  66. “Only 34% of USA Voters Now Blame Humans for Global Warming”

    I attribute this trend to positive feedback resulting directly from WattsUpWithThat!

    Nobody beats the, ah, er, um, our esteemed host.

  67. _Jim (21:22:46) :

    So where are the electric cars? Are those stupid capitalists getting everything wrong again … If only a group of experts ran the world … just think.

    [wow, what a scary thought]

  68. _Jim (21:50:53) :

    “see the Well to Wheels ’system ”

    This is just more ‘models’. Forget the models. When it comes to the most efficient allocation of resources … that’s what capitalism is for.

  69. E. M. Smith
    generator losses, transformer losses, high volt transmission losses, transformer losses – capacitance losses in phase adjusting capacitors, low voltage transmission losses, battery charger losses (charger makes heat), battery charging losses (battery itself does not have perfect electricity to chemical energy conversion), battery standby leakage losses, battery chemical to electric conversion losses (not all the charge get turned from chemical back to electrical…), motor controller losses, electric motor losses.

    Exploration, drilling ops, crude extraction, crude transportation, crude pumping, filtering

    Refining opertions: cracking, distilling, more pumping

    Wholesale distribution: pumping, some trucking

    Retail Distribution: Pumping but mostly trucking.

    And most of that is going to require ‘feed’ from the electric grid to accomplish, or a reduction in feedstocks to self-sustain needed ‘heat’ for various operations.

    Checkmate.
    .
    .
    .

  70. _Jim (21:22:46) : Relative to ICEs:
    ……………………………………………..1………2….
    Vehicle:…….. HEVs PHEVs EVs HFCEV HFCEV
    Total energy -29% -41% -46% -30% +33%
    CO2………… -29% -40% -45% -43% + 38%

    This is what I would call propaganda. First off, there is no definition of “ICE”. Would that be 1960 carb gasoline? 1990 fuel injected lean burn? 2009 common rail multi injection Diesel? Vastly different…

    Then we have the HEV. OK, it is a gas or Diesel car with a regenerative electrical assist braking system. It’s still an ICE vehicle.

    Then we have the EV. No statement of equivalence of kWh vs ICE (a common trick, to use different kWh sizes). No statement if this is “coal mine to wheels” (commonly these are quoted as wall socket to wheels – not very useful, as we’ve seen). And if electric via batteries more efficient than a PHEV, why not just always run your PHEV via wall charging? Numbers cooked… Etc.

    The bottom line is that the present crop of lean burn fuel injected gasoline engines are barking at the heals of the Diesel, but the DIesel still beats everything else.

    IFF you want to put a nuke, or hydro, or geothermal in your tank, a PHEV is a great idea. If you want to turn carbon or hydrocarbon into motion, the most efficient way to do it is a Diesel. That is why trains and trucks and ships are Diesel.

    BTW, I’m all for nuclear powered electric trains or even solar powered PHEV, but not based on a false notion of ‘efficiency’ of batteries vs Diesel… My fantasy car would be a Diesel PHEV with multifuel capability – the current ‘new thing’ is a combined cycle engine with a spark and compression ignition that can run any combo of gasoline, Diesel, alchohol, etc. See:

    http://www.flexdi.com/flexdi-solution-multi-fuel.asp

    So forcing folks away from Diesel and toward coal powered e-cars will make much more CO2 and consume much more fuel. (And don’t kid yourself, electricity in America will come largely from coal for decades to come…) If you want to use less fuel and reduce CO2, promote Diesels.

  71. _Jim (21:50:53) :
    Mike McMilan (21:29:04) :
    …_Jim did miss the power line loss, though.
    I wanted to see if you people were awake;

    Couldn’t be too awake, since I misspelled my own name.
    .

    Ian Schumacher (21:39:57) :
    What are you defining as your energy available? I’m thinking E=MC^2 and the difference in weight between the original and final product. Pretty sure we are only getting a small fraction of that (well, not that sure actually, just a suspicion).

    E=mc² it is.
    The ‘m’ that gets ‘converted’ here is actually already energy, the binding energy that holds the heavy U235 nucleus together, kind of the deal where the whole weighs more than the parts. As to how many of the atoms actually get split, no guess, but the longer they stay in the reactor, the higher the percentage. After 18 months or so the reactions slow to a point where it’s economically better to refuel. (18 months of 100 Mw juice on one tankful, talk about good mileage) The atoms are still there and could be recovered through reprocessing, but Nobel Laureate Jimma Carter thought that other nations would follow our lead and stopped American reprocessing.

  72. _Jim (21:50:53) : I could also ask you about the full gasoline gain/loss equation: feedstock pumping, transportation, refining and then wholesale/retail transportation, […]

    Unless your generator runs on pixie dust, your fuel will have been mined, cleaned, processed, transported, etc etc. as well. Then there is all the fuel used in maintaining the electric grid et. al. We can play this game all day… but I’d rather not… tit for tat gets old rather quickly.

    (Yes, someday we’ll have solar, wind, etc. in enough capacity to matter, but right now it’s in the weeds at about 3 Quads out of 97 Quads net primary energy consumption – coal is 52% of electric generation and will be large for decades to come. You don’t think your going to scare up 20 Quadrillion BTUs of replacement generating stock in less than a decade or two do you?…)

    The bottom line is that the market has very efficiently sorted this out and liquid fuels won long ago due to their inherent strengths, one of them being superb energy density the other being high efficiency “well to wheels”.

    (* Or diesel; also bear in mind the continued need of ‘motor oils’ for use in ICEs, hybrid engines)

    And this again illustrates the silliness. As though 4 quarts of oil every 200 gallons of fuel amounted to anything (and it gets recycled anyway…). You’re just grasping at straws way too much…

    Look, e-cars are great. Their wonderful. They let you use almost any fuel via somebody else’s motor. They can be charged from the grid all over. They are quiet and smell nice. They run darned near forever (modulo battery changes every few years). They let you move the smog out to near the Grand Canyon where the coal is burned. They just are not all that efficient “mine to wheels” when comparing equal performance vehicles unless you cook the books (which advocates love to do). I’d love to have one (as long as I can keep my Diesel too ;-)

    It’s just darned hard to beat roughly 50% efficiency from fuel that requires all of modest heating to create (i.e. boil / condense with heat recovery) though I don’t even have to do that to make bio-Diesel… and for gas fuels like natural gas they can just be fumigated in the air intake of a Diesel (yes I’ve done it, and CAT makes a stationary generator so equipped).

  73. Lance (10:01:29) :

    I was listening to a BBC call in show, Have Your Say, the day before yesterday. The question being discussed was “Is the human race committing suicide by ignoring climate change?” I was disturbed that during the 45 minutes I listened not one caller or guest even questioned that catastrophic climate change was threatening the planet with imminent doom.

    The featured guest was documentary film maker Franny Armstrong. She has apparently made a film appropriately named “The Age of Stupid”.

    She is a loon.

    Caller after caller waxed on apocalyptically about the “fact” that we, and the planet, faced certain doom if we didn’t adopt a neolithic lifestyle devoid of air travel, private automobiles and meat, among other “suicidal” carbon producing behaviors.

    Are the producers of this BBC show screening callers or is their audience predisposed towards this nonsense?”

    They not only screen their callers.
    They use a database and invite people to call.
    Sometimes the questions are prepared.

    The BBC does not take any risks.

    Ask David Bellamy

  74. Just Want Truth… (17:10:53) :

    DJ (14:57:24) :

    Monckton did not lose in that court case in the UK

    Just Want Truth,

    Yes that is true, if a court case has to be represented to defend a skeptic/political view, Monckton is the man.
    He can make his opponents believe they are stupid if they don’t agree with him.
    He is sharp.

  75. “Justin Sane (19:16:41) : nothing is done for the next year or two and cooling continues while CO2 continues to rise; ”

    Co2 levels overall will go down with cooling. But that’s not any problem. The key is “manmade co2”. Al Gore talks only about manmade global warming—co2 produced by man. China and India aren’t going to slow down one iota in manmade co2 production increases. So manmade co2 levels will continue to go up. During this cooling (which some say will last 30 to 40 years) it must always be stressed that naturally occuring co2 was never pegged as the problem. It has always been manmade co2. They are even calling it a poison. This will be a trap for them—that temperatures go down continually while the manmade co2 level continually increases. They won’t have any wiggle room to change that because their whole platform is built on blaming man. Blaming man has been indelibly marked in people minds when they think of global warming, whether they are believers or doubters.

  76. _Jim (22:03:39) : .Exploration, drilling ops, crude extraction, crude transportation, crude pumping, filtering […]

    And most of that is going to require ‘feed’ from the electric grid to accomplish, or a reduction in feedstocks to self-sustain needed ‘heat’ for various operations.

    You really are not very familiar with oil processing are you? Your presentation tells me you have heard the words but have a poor grasp of sizes and scale. Keeping product hot in a refinery is the least of the concerns. BTW, product volumes typically go up in refining, not down. From:

    http://www.petrostrategies.org/Learning_Center/Refining.htm

    This process breaks or cracks long chain hydrocarbons into smaller molecules in the naphtha and distillate boiling range to increase gasoline and diesel production. This process will yield 50-60% gasoline, 20-30% distillate and 30% butanes and lighter. If you do the math you will see that the volume of products is greater than the volume of the feed. This is because the long chain hydrocarbons are broken into smaller ones.

    The bulk of all oil comes in via tanker, the most efficient transport on the planet, it’s refined with great care for efficiency and placed largely into pipelines for transport cross country (the second most efficient transport). The energy involved in transporting the fuel is trivial in the energy balance.

    Checkmate.

    Hardly. Look, this isn’t a game and I’m not interested in the petty stuff. I’m interested in truth and facts. Look at the energy density being moved in this system. That’s very hard to do in electric wires and you get lots of line and transformer losses:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Offshore_Oil_Port
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Pipeline

    The efficiency with which truly astounding quantities of energy are moved and stored is amazing. More efficient than train loads of coal (though they are efficient) and more efficient than coal slurry pipelines.

    Liquids in pipes are easier and more efficient to move than solids in trains. Electrical transmission has lots of losses and you get no storage.
    Batteries are very lossy systems in the charge / discharge cycle.
    That’s just the truth.

    For an existence proof, see Sasol the South African Synthetic Oil company.

    In South Africa, they convert coal to Diesel. Much more energy intensive than refining oil. They could just as well make that coal into electricity and run electric cars. They don’t. It works better and more efficiently to run the coal to liquids and put liquid fuels in cars. They would be using the same energy input in either case, and the same folks would make money from it.

    Look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechargeable_battery

    Notice that just about every battery type is 10% or more loss in the charge discharge cycle (and 5 to 10% / month self discharge rate). The exceptions are the alkaline (that doesn’t deep discharge well so is unsuited to cars) the li-ion (that the chart says is 98.9% but the link says is 90% efficient in the charge cycle and I think the link is the right number) and the li-poly (that is 98.9%) but is presently a relatively new and expensive technology (though it has the most promise).

    Now look at your typical Ni-Cd or NiMH. They are abysmal. Look at the lead/acid it’s not good either…

    BTW, Lithium is not very abundant and is largely mined by two companies. You will not be increasing production enough to put it in a few hundred million electric cars…

    From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission

    “Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995”

    Half the fuel goes up in smoke at the generator. About the same as in a decent Diesel. Call it a draw. So now compare the transport sides (and I’ll even ignore the coal shipping costs…). Grid losses 7.2% and add in the 5% to 10% loss in the charger itself and we’re headed for 15% or more just in the charge / discharge and transmission. Take another 10% off for the motor controller and motor. So you’re out about 1/4 of the power that was delivered to grid. Do you really think 1/4 of the oil ‘goes away’ between oil well and gas station? Due to pumping? (Remember, we got more out of the refinery than went in…)

    But wait, there’s more… Remember those self discharge losses? Unless you leave your car discharged all the time, you get to take those too. So that’s another 10% to 20% per month. Hope you drive a lot each day ’cause leaving that thing parked is gonna get expensive…

  77. E.M.Smith (23:16:32) :

    _Jim (21:50:53) : I could also ask you about the full gasoline gain/loss equation: feedstock pumping, transportation, refining and then wholesale/retail transportation, […]

    Unless your generator runs on pixie dust, your fuel will have been mined, cleaned, processed, transported, etc etc. as well. Then there is all the fuel used in maintaining the electric grid et. al. We can play this game all day… but I’d rather not… tit for tat gets old rather quickly.

    (Yes, someday we’ll have solar, wind, etc. in enough capacity to matter, but right now it’s in the weeds at about 3 Quads out of 97 Quads net primary energy consumption – coal is 52% of electric generation and will be large for decades to come. You don’t think your going to scare up 20 Quadrillion BTUs of replacement generating stock in less than a decade or two do you?…)

    The bottom line is that the market has very efficiently sorted this out and liquid fuels won long ago due to their inherent strengths, one of them being superb energy density the other being high efficiency “well to wheels”.

    (* Or diesel; also bear in mind the continued need of ‘motor oils’ for use in ICEs, hybrid engines)

    And this again illustrates the silliness. As though 4 quarts of oil every 200 gallons of fuel amounted to anything (and it gets recycled anyway…). You’re just grasping at straws way too much…

    Look, e-cars are great. Their wonderful. They let you use almost any fuel via somebody else’s motor. They can be charged from the grid all over. They are quiet and smell nice. They run darned near forever (modulo battery changes every few years). They let you move the smog out to near the Grand Canyon where the coal is burned. They just are not all that efficient “mine to wheels” when comparing equal performance vehicles unless you cook the books (which advocates love to do). I’d love to have one (as long as I can keep my Diesel too ;-)

    It’s just darned hard to beat roughly 50% efficiency from fuel that requires all of modest heating to create (i.e. boil / condense with heat recovery) though I don’t even have to do that to make bio-Diesel… and for gas fuels like natural gas they can just be fumigated in the air intake of a Diesel (yes I’ve done it, and CAT makes a stationary generator so equipped)”.

    E.M. Smith,
    I agree with your choice for diesel engines.
    They still have a great future.

    I would also consider the following alternative:
    Conversion of a gasoline car to burn LPG (Propane).
    This fuel is cheap, clean and safe.

    I have driven over 3 million kilometers with big Volvo’s with an LPG tank in the floor
    (no loss of boot space).

    I drove 500.000 km with these cars before I returned them to the car dealer for a new one. I never encountered any problems. Because LPG burns very clean you can skip every other engine oil change. I changed oil every 40.000 km.
    With a full fuel tank (gasoline and a full LPG tank) I doubled the radius.
    A gasoline engine runs very smooth on LPG, less noise and very clean exhaust emissions.

    In some countries it is allowed to put a huge 3000 liter tank in your garden so you can fuel up your car at home and use the gas for heating your house.

    I will make an LPG conversion on a Hummer H2 (they come very cheap now).

    I will put two 120 liter tanks in the floor and keep the gasoline tank so the car will be dual fuel.

    The latest technology is LPi (produced by a company named Vialle.
    This system injects the liquid LPG into the cylinder (old system injected vaporized LPG) With the new system there is no difference in engine performance driving on gasoline or LPG.

    Most US model cars are very well suited for a conversion, especially the 8 cylinder engines. I think the price of LPG/propane fuel in the US will be under 50% of the price of gasoline. For the price difference between a diesel and a gasoline car you can perform the conversion but you can also do the conversion yourself.

    http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/afvs/lpg_propane.html

  78. _Jim (22:03:39) : .Exploration, drilling ops, crude extraction, crude transportation, crude pumping, filtering […]

    And most of that is going to require ‘feed’ from the electric grid to accomplish, or a reduction in feedstocks to self-sustain needed ‘heat’ for various operations.

    You really are not very familiar with oil processing are you? Your presentation tells me you have heard the words but have a poor grasp of sizes and scale. Keeping product hot in a refinery is the least of the concerns. BTW, product volumes typically go up in refining, not down. From:

    http://www.petrostrategies.org/Learning_Center/Refining.htm

    This process breaks or cracks long chain hydrocarbons into smaller molecules in the naphtha and distillate boiling range to increase gasoline and diesel production. This process will yield 50-60% gasoline, 20-30% distillate and 30% butanes and lighter. If you do the math you will see that the volume of products is greater than the volume of the feed. This is because the long chain hydrocarbons are broken into smaller ones.

    The bulk of all oil comes in via tanker, the most efficient transport on the planet, it’s refined with great care for efficiency and placed largely into pipelines for transport cross country (the second most efficient transport). The energy involved in transporting the fuel is trivial in the energy balance.

    Checkmate.

    Hardly. Look, this isn’t a game and I’m not interested in the petty stuff. I’m interested in truth and facts. Look at the energy density being moved in this system. That’s very hard to do in electric wires and you get lots of line and transformer losses:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Offshore_Oil_Port
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Pipeline

    The efficiency with which truly astounding quantities of energy are moved and stored is amazing. More efficient than train loads of coal (though they are efficient) and more efficient than coal slurry pipelines.

    Liquids in pipes are easier and more efficient to move than solids in trains. Electrical transmission has lots of losses and you get no storage.
    Batteries are very lossy systems in the charge / discharge cycle.
    That’s just the truth.

    For an existence proof, see Sasol the South African Synthetic Oil company.

    In South Africa, they convert coal to Diesel. Much more energy intensive than refining oil. They could just as well make that coal into electricity and run electric cars. They don’t. It works better and more efficiently to run the coal to liquids and put liquid fuels in cars. They would be using the same energy input in either case, and the same folks would make money from it.

    Look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechargeable_battery

    Notice that just about every battery type is 10% or more loss in the charge discharge cycle (and 5 to 10% / month self discharge rate). The exceptions are the alkaline (that doesn’t deep discharge well so is unsuited to cars) the li-ion (that the chart says is 98.9% but the link says is 90% efficient in the charge cycle and I think the link is the right number) and the li-poly (that is 98.9%) but is presently a relatively new and expensive technology (though it has the most promise).

    Now look at your typical Ni-Cd or NiMH. They are abysmal. Look at the lead/acid it’s not good either…

    BTW, Lithium is not very abundant and is largely mined by two companies. You will not be increasing production enough to put it in a few hundred million electric cars…

    From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission

    “Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995”

    Half the fuel goes up in smoke at the generator. About the same as in a decent Diesel. Call it a draw. So now compare the transport sides (and I’ll even ignore the coal shipping costs…). Grid losses 7.2% and add in the 5% to 10% loss in the charger itself and we’re headed for 15% or more just in the charge / discharge and transmission. Take another 10% off for the motor controller and motor. So you’re out about 1/4 of the power that was delivered to grid. Do you really think 1/4 of the oil ‘goes away’ between oil well and gas station? Due to pumping? (Remember, we got more out of the refinery than went in…)

    But wait, there’s more… Remember those self discharge losses? Unless you leave your car discharged all the time, you get to take those too. So that’s another 10% to 20% per month. Hope you drive a lot each day ’cause leaving that thing parked is gonna get expensive…

  79. Adolfo Giurfa (18:24:07) :

    “Can´t believe that the america of so many great scientists, artists and inventors who gave so much to the welfare of humanity, is now trying to sell to the world the silly “software” of global warming and/or climate change and fool´s hardware as windmill generators. It is pitifully preposterous”.

    Adolfo,
    The world leaders, under the wise leadership of the UN-IPCC are dancing the dance to determine who kills it’s economy first.
    Now the world’s AGW followers have been waiting for Obama and his climate mafia for a long time now we all hope the US efforts will fail under a strong opposition.
    Every day that passes is in our advantage since the current cooling and the poles work for us. If the process in the US is derailed the world wide AGW house of cards will collapse.
    If that is the case Copenhagen 2009 will be dead and AGW will be over.

    I trust the citizens of the USA to overcome this debacle.

  80. Don Shaw (19:40:44) :

    Jim commment re
    R Stevenson (10:18:07) :

    Political leaders and their scientific advisors ( if they have any) have a poor grasp of technology. A change to electric cars would increase CO2 emissions because of the lower fuel to power efficiency of power plants compared with modern internal combustion engines

    “THAT’S off the reservation.

    Base load thermal (coal) plant – about 43 to 47% efficient, then about 6% for auxilary equipment on-site, resulting in more like 37 to 41%

    Compared to the overall efficiency of an automotive gas engine – about 20 percent (only about 20 percent of the thermal-energy content of the gasoline is converted into mechanical work.)”

    Jim, as an engineer, I am disturbed that the so called energy “experts” throw around so many diffferent numbers for virtually any energy alternative they are advocating. The electric car is no exception.

    This advocacy tells me that there are too many out there that are willing to stretch the facts for any energy alternative they are pushing, and they have the “ability” to cherry pick data or distort the facts to make a point. Professionalism seems to be lacking in some of the scientific and engineering community especially in the universities. I have come to trust only the market rather than the “proponents” of a specific technology.

    Some thoughts:
    Your sources claim that the efficiency of a gasoline auto is 20 where as most sources seem to quote at least 25% or higher especially for the diesel engine. This is not my field of expertise so I can’t have a strong opinion on the various claims given the wide range of claims, except the 20% seems low.

    The comment by R Stevenson also mentions CO2 emissions. I don’t think anyone would argue that for a given BTU of energy produced coal emitts much more CO2 than gasoline, and diesel produces less CO2 than coal but more than gasoline. If you are honestly chasing CO2, the above difference needs to be taken into account.

    I checked your links and they did not mention transmission losses for electric power, was that included?

    Also we all know that battery technology is not too effective dispite the years and years of research and dollars expended by the government and private industry. Electric vehicle range is horrible and to talk about H2 fuel cells is ignoring the fact that virtually all the worldwide hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels.

    Finally most of us don’t waste all that heat energy from a gasoline engine for a good portion of the year, we use it to heat our cars, etc. so it is not wasted. Was heating an electric vehicle in winter included in your efficiencies? Was the enormous cost and carbon foot print of enlarging our electric power grid included?

    Remember California mandated a percentage electric vehicles a while back and dropped the idea when electricity supply became short and more expensive. The electric vehicle was a failure then, what is different now.

    As I mentioned above, this is not my area of engineering expertise so I do’t know whose “numbers” to believe, but I am skeptical of all the “hype” since the thermodynamic fundamentals don’t always add up . I can only believe the free market, not government mandates which distort the market. Did you debit the electric vehicle costs to cover the road tax courrently paid by the liquid fuels? Just look at the folly of the ethanol mandates if you want to see how the government does the wrong thing again and again”.

    Yes Don, Less Government and power to the market. That would be something.

    If a technology and the related products is good and the price compatible it will be introduced. You know what they say about wine. A good wine does not need any…..

    Now we are having State Health Insurance, State mandated Electric Eco Boxes. They will come in the color Pelosi Blue and Obama Green and Clinton Red. We have Green Jobs, Green banks and a Green industry that works together with our Government to meet the challenges of our times. The president offers his hand of piece to all the countries of the world…..

    Hmmmm, Government Health Insurance, State Cars, where did I hear this before?

    The first country in the world to introduce Government Health Insurance was Germany in the year 1937 and the man in power was…. Adolf Hitler.(Volksversicherungen)
    He also came up with a car for the people. It was called a Volkswagen Käfer (Beetle).
    And wait, he also introduced the “Volksarmee” (Civil Army). All sounds familiar.
    He even developed a kind of a hybrid, a Zeppelin, lifted by hydrogen and propelled by diesel, this hybrid even crossed the Atlantic and burned at lake Hurst New York.
    (That is how the Hydrogen hybrid technology was introduced in the USA)
    He too had a close cooperation between the Government and big corporation
    and he also offered peace with all the neighboring countries like Russia and even the USA.
    But that all happened before the…….war! oeps!!!

    And do you know what? In the economy we address a close cooperation between the industry and Government as fascism or corporatism
    Read the details here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo85.html

    You don’t think this all is a coincidence do you?

    Mmmm!!! Can someone of you do me a favor?
    Next time you see Obama, please check if he is growing a mustache!

  81. That opinion poll reverse is dramatic, but it does fit in well with other opinion polls. There seems little doubt that people are becoming more sceptical. The question is, why? I doubt if many ordinary people have been looking at the science and asking awkward questions, as many people here, including myself, have. Almost without exception the media is completely biased and one-sided. In fact a year ago I had assumed that the vast majority of ordinary people believed in this nonsense. When I saw one of these opinion polls for the first time I almost fell off my chair!
    .
    About the only thing I can think of is this: that many people feel that the climate is actually getting colder, despite what the ‘scientists’ say. I live near the south coast of England and these are my impression of the last few years.
    1. The last two summers were quite cold, so that I often put on a sweater and even had the central heating on.
    2. We have had snow for the last five or six winters. I think snow was virtually unknown ten years ago.
    3. This past winter has been unusually cold. In fact I’m dreading the next winter if it’s similar. There was even snow in October, the first time for 70 years. There was snow on the ground in London on the day Parliament debated the Climate Change Bill. Despite this I believed only one MP voted against it.
    4. The last really hot weather was five or six years ago.
    Of course these observations are not scientific and they have not been ‘adjusted’ by fiendishly complex statistical methods. But, at the end of the day, if it starts to get colder, people will notice. And maybe start thinking….
    .
    In today’s UK Observer there’s a neat example of how the term ‘climate change’ has taken over from ‘global warming’. The heading is: “Climate-change threat to rare black grouse’. The amusing thing is that the report blames a cooling climate, and not warming. I quote: “Consecutive cold, wet summers, the worst conditions in almost two decades, have set back recovery, with the numbers dropping from 1,200 to 850”.
    It’s hardly surprising they’ve tended to drop the term ‘global warming’. After all, if we have much more of this global warming we’re going to freeze to death!
    Chris

  82. bill (03:33:44) :
    read this and weep at the state of US education
    http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

    Anthony has (wisely) forbidden the discussion of evolution vs. creationism on this site, but note that these polls always skew their results by virtue of the questions they ask, and how they are framed.

    Imagine if instead of using the word ‘believe’ they used the word ‘know’. I bet you’d find most Americans willing to say that they really don’t know the answers (to a wide variety of questions, including those asking about AGW, the ostensible topic of this thread), but they have ‘heard’ X, Y. or Z. That in itself may still reflect poorly on the quality of their education, but would give us a more honest picture.

    The problem with American education (well, one of them) is that no critical thinking skills are taught.

    /Mr Lynn

  83. Mike Bryant (19:00:45) :

    And as YOU well know each and every one of those climate scientists who
    believe is a snip.

    That’s a preemptive snip, I like it.

    It would be one of the greatest coup’s of human political history if the plain old facts ever out polled a politicaly manufactured scenario to the extent of defeating It’s agenda.
    The scientists on the non alarmist side are frustratingly ignorant of the art of selling snake oil and so It comes down to nature. Nature seems to be winning.

  84. Chris Wright (04:15:33) :

    In today’s UK Observer there’s a neat example of how the term ‘climate change’ has taken over from ‘global warming’. The heading is: “Climate-change threat to rare black grouse’. The amusing thing is that the report blames a cooling climate, and not warming. I quote: “Consecutive cold, wet summers, the worst conditions in almost two decades, have set back recovery, with the numbers dropping from 1,200 to 850″.
    It’s hardly surprising they’ve tended to drop the term ‘global warming’. After all, if we have much more of this global warming we’re going to freeze to death!
    Chris
    —————————–

    Taken at face value, it’s probably true. It’s when the cooling part of climate change is blamed on carbon dioxide too. Then the American public know they are being lied to (except the slower, zoned-out, or closed-minded 34%, I guess).

    Around here, the wild turkey population has exploded recently, although the microclimates around the San Francisco Bay are so odd that I think it would be difficult ascribe that to any climate change or weather patterns.

    tp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/11/27/MN237724.DTL

    We’ll see how polar bears do in a cooling climate following their little-reported increase in population during the warming phase.

  85. “Ian Schumacher (22:00:22) :
    _Jim (21:50:53) :
    “see the Well to Wheels ’system ”
    This is just more ‘models’. Forget the models. When it comes to the most efficient allocation of resources … that’s what capitalism is for.”

    That is very true. Capitalism is THE best way to get the most efficient cars, fuels or anything else for that matter. By taking capitalism apart we are guaranteed a return to much simpler, quieter, hungrier, more dangerous and more brutal times. Within one year, if this fascist/socialist trend continues, life expectancy will decline markedly here in the USA. You won’t see it in the official government numbers, but keep your head about you and look around your own community.
    We, and maybe Venezuela, are the only people stupid enough to voluntarily return to the conditions they had “back in the USSR”. It’s a fun song, but the reality of it is stark. Here’s Putin’s warning to the USA:
    http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2009/02/putin-warns-us-democrats-against.html

  86. Those anthropogenics are really anthropopithecus oligophrenicus, they are chemically pure fools who over-ultra-super-exaggerate human DIMENSION.
    Look the following picture:
    http://www.igp.gob.pe/vulcanologia/Principal/Html/VolcanLadoSur-ImagSatelital-Grande.htm
    You see nine volcanoes and three names of cities down there. Do you see any anthropoids in the picture? however we all can see the nine volcanoes and its calderas, one of them, the Huaynaputina eruption, caused the 1700´s winter, where Venice chanels became frozen and people skate on them:

    It does not matter what the GWrs nuts think or say, any of this volcanoes, as more than 10 right now, emits a by thousand of times what we anthropoids could in hundred of years of “polluting party”

  87. Mike Bryant (08:10:24) :
    We had all that from 1968 to 1975. A socialist revolution sponsored by the “Group of peruvian studies” funded by two well known liberal american NGOs.
    That “experiment” destroyed the agricultural production by distributing property among people, atomizing big agricultural units into 2 to 5 acres properties which were abandoned afterward as improductive or just served for survival.
    It succeded in disappearing all the ruling class confiscating even their banks´current accounts. Such a disastrours era had to be stopped by a coup d´etat.
    What leftists “intelligenzia” think of these experiments is that these are justifiable because they “democratize” societies.
    How can they do it in more developed societies?…By making them believe that the world will end if they not reduce pollution, then, by doing it, they will destroy the economy, by destroying the economy they destroy social structure, and, finally, when all have becomed poor (except of course they, the commisars)
    a new social structure is implemented: The long wished paradise where oligophrenic anthropopitecs, they, the thirstful for revenge loosers, will govern over the most intelligent and prepared.

  88. I think this is probably as low a number as you are going to ever get for belief in AGW. 31% of the population believe in astrology and if the lack of scientific understanding is that high in so many people we have most likely peaked out trying to educate people. Facts are not going to sway the remaining believers.

  89. Adolfo,
    “We had all that from 1968 to 1975. A socialist revolution sponsored by the “Group of peruvian studies” funded by two well known liberal american NGOs.”
    Who were these well-meaning Americans?
    God must protect us from the well-meaning people. If not I guess a coup is the alternative.

  90. All electric cars do is move the source of the pollution to a fixed site, they have very little impact on actual energy usage, and actually increase CO2 production/energy unit used.

    As far as fuel energy conversions in internal combustion engines are concerned many electric car advocates grossly low ball the numbers. It is easy to see that the true conversion is much higher in modern engines. One of the most useful measures of internal combustion efficiency is the brake specific fuel consumption. This measures the pounds of fuel required to produce one horsepower hour of energy.

    The rule of thumb for typical automotive engines is about 0.5 lbs of gasoline for each horsepower hour at the crankshaft. Most consumer engines exceed this value substantially in light throttle cruise on the highway. The very best conventional internal combustion spark ignition engines for efficiency are the light aircraft engines which can achieve bsfc numbers in the low .3x range, typically near 0.34.

    If you convert these bsfc numbers to efficiency you come up with a typical range of from almost 25% to almost 36% efficiency. In light throttle cruise modern cars will get about 30% efficiency.

    =================

    Typical energy content of gasoline — 2.2 x 10^7 Joules/pound
    (varies slightly by season and fuel blend)

    Energy content and conversion source: (proponents of electrical vehicles)
    http://www.evworld.com/library/energy_numbers.pdf

    Brake specific fuel consumption of spark ignition gasoline engines, typical assumption is .5 lbs/hp/hr
    Very best spark ignition engines in steady state cruise (light aircraft piston engines) 0.34 lbs/hp/hr

    Energy conversion —- 1 hp hr = 2.68 x10^6 joules = 0.746 kwh

    0.34 lbs bsfc gasoline per hp/hr = gasoline produces 2.68 x 10^6 joules of useful energy from (0.34×2.2 10^7 joules of fuel energy) = 7.48 x 10^6
    0.5 lbs bsfc gasoline per hp/hr = gasoline produces 2.68 x 10^6 joules of useful energy from (0.5 x2.2 10^7 joules of fuel energy) = 1.1 x 10^7

    0.34 bsfc= 2.68/7.48 = 35.83% efficiency
    0.5 bsfc = 2.68/11 = 24.36 % efficiency
    Highest recorded thermal efficiency for spark ignition direct injection ethanol powered engine = 42% (research engine by MIT) This is comparable to the best turbo diesel efficiency numbers.
    http://www.epa.gov/otaq/presentations/gni-mjb-051303.pdf

    Larry

    REPLY: But if you charge your electric car from a rooftoop solar array, then you really do get a free lunch. – Anthony

  91. REPLY: But if you charge your electric car from a rooftoop solar array, then you really do get a free lunch. – Anthony

    Yes and “almost free” lunch, you still have incremental expenses like periodic replacement of storage batteries for your array, so you can charge the car in the evening, and the batteries in the car which also have a life cycle, plus the amortized cost of the panels and controllers.

    I agree that local PV charging is one solution which does work and make sense.
    ( aside from the minor problem that PV panel producers do not have the ability to build out the necessary panels in less than multidecade time scales. The currently are selling every panel they can produce and frequently sell out a years production mid year.)

    Unfortunately for most users they are using grid connected power chargers, which in the U.S. necessarily means at least 50% of their power is coming from coal for at least the next couple decades.

    Larry

  92. REPLY: But if you charge your electric car from a rooftoop solar array, then you really do get a free lunch. – Anthony
    The best solar cells are made of Gallium Arsenide, nothing less!. Try to google Gallium price, you´ll find it very interesting. By the way those solar cells made from ARSENIC are really tasteful!

  93. This poll offer just some relief. We still need to get people to fight the EPA regulation of CO2 and the Cap-And-Trade legislation.

  94. EPA regulation of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gas) emissions will provide cover for politicians who want to enact Cap-And-Trade or some other sort of scheme upon the American public.

    To really stop this, we need Congress to explicitly not authorize the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. Unless the EPA is forbidden, the regulation can be imposed upon us at any time.

  95. “REPLY: But if you charge your electric car from a rooftoop solar array,
    then you really do get a free lunch. – Anthony”

    How much would that cost i wonder? Are we talking $1000 or $10000? I remember reading that Al Gore put something like $35,000 worth of solar panels on his house and his electricity usage actually went up the next year, so obviously their effect was minimal.

    Electric cars don’t work too well here in Canada for 8 months of the year. For
    that matter, nether do the solar cells when they are under snow :-)

    The biggest issue with electric cars is the batteries. They are expensive and they don’t last very long. Anyways, we’ll know when electric cars are worthwhile when you can actually walk into a dealership and buy one (and not just for the ‘green’ status).

  96. Adolfo Giurfa (09:13:21) :

    Mike Bryant (08:10:24) :
    We had all that from 1968 to 1975. A socialist revolution sponsored by the “Group of peruvian studies” funded by two well known liberal american NGOs.
    That “experiment” destroyed the agricultural production by distributing property among people, atomizing big agricultural units into 2 to 5 acres properties which were abandoned afterward as improductive or just served for survival.
    It succeded in disappearing all the ruling class confiscating even their banks´current accounts. Such a disastrours era had to be stopped by a coup d´etat.
    What leftists “intelligenzia” think of these experiments is that these are justifiable because they “democratize” societies.
    How can they do it in more developed societies?…By making them believe that the world will end if they not reduce pollution, then, by doing it, they will destroy the economy, by destroying the economy they destroy social structure, and, finally, when all have becomed poor (except of course they, the commisars)
    a new social structure is implemented: The long wished paradise where oligophrenic anthropopitecs, they, the thirstful for revenge losers, will govern over the most intelligent and prepared”.

    Adolfo,

    You have made your experiences and the process you describe is real.

    Nobody will benefit from shut down economies.
    Nobody will benefit from a fascist government eager to introduce a “green dream world” where human kind lives in harmony with Gaia.

    It’s a dangerous hoax and we have to get on top of this ASAP.

  97. Meanwhile, California ‘greens’ turn out against off-shore drilling (apparently only one person in the audience was in favor—where were the rational folks?), and 52% according to some poll ‘believe in’ global warming:

    Californians say “baby, baby, no more drilling”
    Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:24am BST
    By Clare Baldwin

    SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar confronted a host of sea creatures and polar bears on Thursday as costumed Californians told the new administration ‘no’ to offshore oil drilling.

    Salazar did not hint at the contents of President Barack Obama’s energy policy, but said it would address climate change and include oil and gas.

    “We’re not going to turn off the oil and gas requirements we have for this country overnight or even in a decade. We’re going to see oil and gas production,” he told a packed hearing on offshore drilling.

    The crowd booed a lonely supporter of offshore drilling and waved dollar bills to signify that they thought increased production of oil and gas was a sell-out of environmental policy.

    Californians, known for their cars as well as their love of the outdoors, on the whole have been less united.

    Last summer, when gasoline prices surged above $4 a gallon and chants of “drill, baby, drill” became a rallying cry at the Republican National Convention, a majority of Californians supported offshore drilling for the first time.

    The July poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found 51 percent of Californians favored expanding offshore drilling, up 10 points from a year earlier.

    But the poll also found that 52 percent of Californians believe global warming is a serious threat to their state.

    Last week the Board of Supervisors of California’s Santa Barbara County, the site of a 1969 oil spill that galvanized the modern environmental movement, voted to reverse a decision backing offshore energy development. . . .

    The rest of the article here:
    http://tinyurl.com/dja6jq

    When gas went over $4 a gallon, calls for more drilling began to be heard; now that gas is back to $2, the ‘greens’ once again control the public forum.

    There’s plenty of oil and gas; we just have to go get it. But we won’t, if the enviro-wackos have their way; instead we can just sit back and watch the USA commit slow suicide.

    /Mr Lynn

  98. E.M.Smith (22:26:28) :

    This is what I would call propaganda. First off, there is no definition of “ICE”. Would that be 1960 carb gasoline? 1990 fuel injected lean burn?

    Should I even bother to answer – I don’t think you even peeked at the reference I posted, wherein you would have found the following:

    The intent of this summary is to compare vehicles with partial or complete electric drive to conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles running on gasoline.

    Biofuels are not included in this summary, but some of the studies listed do assess emissions from vehicles running on liquid fuels other than gasoline.

    The analyses range from sophisticated studies to informal estimates by experts.

    The studies are listed within each category from the newest to the oldest, with two exceptions. The two best-designed, most sophisticated studies are listed first.

    The most authoritative data come from a 2001 study performed by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory and by a 2007 study conducted jointly by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Both use the sophisticated Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation (GREET) model for analysis.

    I should like to think that I do not have to post the entire contents of referenced material here, but rather just a link and a short excerpt or abstract. Meanwhile, I await something definitive from the other side of the aisle in the way of a ‘study’ or something at least beyond open-ended speculation, conjecture or filibustering; let us see some numbers, gentlemen!
    .
    .

  99. Mike Bryant (08:10:24) :
    _Jim (21:50:53) :
    “see the Well to Wheels ’system ”

    This is just more ‘models’.

    And you’re using …. models in rebuttle?

    Have you reviewed the ANL study? Is it all just ‘models’?

  100. Ian Schumacher (21:57:38) :

    So where are the electric cars? Are those stupid capitalists getting everything wrong again … If only a group of experts ran the world … just think.

    You’re asking me? The original debate point I addressed was on the efficency of base load thermal (coal) power plants vs car engines; from there it moved onto the ‘system’ analysis from Well-to-Wheels energy chain for ICE vs HEV and EVs. I am not a proponent of anything except what makes good sense, and for the majority of us in this time and place that means an ICE powered automobile.
    .
    .
    .

  101. hotrod (11:36:19) :

    All electric cars do is move the source of the pollution to a fixed site, they have very little impact on actual energy usage, and actually increase CO2 production/energy unit used.

    Really … I didn’t see a reference in your post, so, maybe I missed it. Sure would like see something, ahhhh, authoratative, based on some science, because, the numbers I’ve seen don’t bear that out.
    .
    .

  102. Does this sort of fake web site fool anyone ? Fighting a rearguard action for the money are you ? No shame ,or maybe not bright enough to understand what is being explained to you
    I hope name calling will prevent runaway greenhouse and the 6th big extinction .

  103. There should be a public debate on TV so we can hear both sides of the story and not just the liberal side that they are shoving down our throats. There are a lot of scientists that believe global warming is a hoax,but you never see them in the newspapers or on TV news because the liberal media won’t be fair .LET’S HAVE A PUBLIC DEBATE and let everybodys opinion be heard.

  104. _Jim (19:28:36) :

    You accuse others of not reading through your posts and references. From your replies I think its pretty clear this applies to you also.

  105. Tony peart (21:17:38) :

    “fake web site”

    And strangely it is the skeptics that are called conspiracy nuts. LOL.

    “Not bright enough” and “I hope name calling will prevent runaway greenhouse”

    Me confused.

  106. “As you know, climate scientists massively and overwhemingly accept CO2 from humans as a driver of warming”

    And at last report, mice unanimously assert cats are a pernicious evil and must be stopped.

  107. Ron de Haan (02:44:48) :

    Also we all know that battery technology is not too effective dispite the years and years of research and dollars expended by the government and private industry.

    Lithium-ion batteries are about the highest efficiency available coming in between 80%-90%. The most common battery used in an EV, however, is the lead-acid battery with a mere 70%-75% efficiency that also drops in lower temperatures making them less attractive in places with cold winters).

    Assuming somehow that Li-I batteries are all the rage in the future, that knocks the 37%-41% number offered by _jim down to 29.6%-36.9% before transmission line losses (I don’t know the legitimacy of _jim’s numbers though they seem reasonable). Transmission line losses are estimated in the 7.5% neighborhood, dropping the EV to 22.1%-29.4% efficient, or an average of 25.75% efficient before considering their abysmal energy density: it is a stunning 160 Wh/kg, approximately 70 times less than 87 octane gasoline.

    Using the most common L-A battery at 70%, and forgetting the reduction due to cold, the final efficiency of most EV cars on the road is only 18.4%-21.2% or an average of 19.8%, not much different than an ICE vehicle. This does not even take into consideration the fact that due to their extremely low energy density, 30-40 Wh/kg, any where from 25% to 50% of the total mass of the car is due to the batteries themselves.

    Li-I batteries suffer from extremely short life-cycles, and the other options (Nimh, sodium) suffer from even lower efficiencies than Li-I and L-A, as well as other problems. We have a ways to go before EVs are feasible.

    Mark

  108. approximately 70 times less than 87 octane gasoline

    would probably read a bit better if I had said “approximately 1/70th of 87 octane gasoline.” :) L-A batteries, at 30-40, are 20%-25% of that.

    Mark

  109. What has caused global warming? An interesting question. Only trumped by the following:

    What has caused global cooling?
    What has caused the absolute, perfect, stability and invariability of global temperatures since the beginning of time?
    What has caused the moon to be made of green cheese?
    What has caused Obama to be perfect, infallible, and, indeed, divine?
    What caused you to cheat on your last chemistry test?

  110. Thanks to your article “The Antarctic Wilkins Ice Shelf Collapse: Media recycles photos and storylines from previous years” many thoughts and questions arise aboute the way in which media can both conceive and influence people. In 2006 a movie like “An inconvenient truth” appeared and last year the majority of USA voters blamed human activity. Last year a new movie “Not evil just wrong” appeared which asserted global warming is just a scam which is creating a sort of hysteria. Now public opinioni changed… Is it a coincidence? Which is the truth? What I fear most is the evil (I should say) and not just wrong usage of media both from the side of producers and final users. Maybe this is the first problem to be worried about because this can represent the way in which problem’s relevance is gained.
    Just because of this phenomena I really appreciate the good information offered by your blog.

    http://italianopinionist.wordpress.com/2009/04/20/antarctic-peninsula-and-global-warming-which-is-the-truth/

  111. Seems that a couple of scientists at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine have cracked the AGW problem.
    A lean population, such as that seen in Vietnam, will consume almost 20% less food and produce fewer greenhouse gases than a population in which 40% of people are obese (close to that seen in the USA today) … a lean population of 1 billion people would emit between 0.4 and 1.0 gigatonnes less carbon dioxide equivalents per year compared with a fat one.

    Between 1994 and 2004 the average male BMI in England increased from 26 to 27.3, with the average female BMI rising from 25.8 to 26.9 (about 3 kg – or half a stone – heavier). Humankind – be it Australian, Argentinian, Belgian or Canadian – is getting steadily fatter.
    The article itself is written somewhat tongue in cheek but also draws on other data to argue against the case made by the scientists for the starve and solve solution. Not sure that the quote of a population of one billion implies some ideal size…

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/20/more_bmi_foolery/

  112. Would those who are skeptics look at the scientific evidence and understand it all before making sweeping statements of denial. You could do worse than start at the International Panel on Climate Change (www.ipcc.ch) for some up-to-date, real information. Please remember that scientists do not warn about climate change for some attention-seeking self-serving gratification. They are reporting what the find out there in the real world.

  113. wifeoverseas (10:16:40) :

    “Would those who are skeptics look at the scientific evidence and understand it all before making sweeping statements of denial. You could do worse than start at the International Panel on Climate Change (www.ipcc.ch) for some up-to-date, real information. Please remember that scientists do not warn about climate change for some attention-seeking self-serving gratification. They are reporting what the find out there in the real world.”

    Be careful with that last statement. It’s not really the scientists, but the non-scientist like Al Gore and other Big Enviroment groups who take the data from the scientist that may or may not indicate anything concrete, and then spin it to come to the conclusions they want.
    But you have to follow the money. If a group of scientist do a study that was funed in part by Exxon Mobile, aren’t they immediately smeared and discredited by the Alarmists despite how solid their credentials might be?
    Why would it be any different if the money behind the studies and scientists is either government grant money, or money from Big Green? Their funding runs out about the time they produce results other than what their money suppliers want.
    In the case of Big Green, their motives are as skewed as anything Big Oil might be. Money from the government is equially suspicous because no one ever got a grant saying, “I believe this is part of a natural solar and climate cycle, and there is no eminent danger to mankind”.
    If they want the money, they have to say, “OMG!! WE are ont he verge of a cataclysm! The seas will rise and the land will burn. Dogs and Cats living together…mass hysteria!”
    If you were shelling out some grant money for a study, which seems like it’s more urgent?
    Bingo! And so the scientists suspecting catestrophic peril gets all of that government money.
    That’s how the grant process works. reserachers put together synopses of studies they are applying for funding for, and then the EPA or whatever beurocratics agency is dolling out our tax dollars reveiw the proposals to see which gets the money.

    And of course, Big Green, Big Media, and Big Hollywood pump lots of money into funding studies. But somehow those researchers and scientists aren’t questioned, but good Lord, a study that Big Oil helped fund, and suddenly nothing from that study is legitimate.

    Can’t have it both ways…

Comments are closed.