Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100years

On 19/09/2019 14.35, Mayayana wrote:
"DMP" wrote

| And then, ethanol gets added to gasoline to save on fuel consumption.
| the result is more carb emissions in the air..makes sense just like
| electric cars with their "disposable" batteries.
|

It is not to save fuel consumption, it has several advantages. One of
them is that it is antidetonant (ie, increases the octane figure), and
the engine works better in several cycle conditions. And CO emissions
(not CO2) get lower.

(My sources:
https://www.eleconomista.es/ecomotor/motor/noticias/6225494/11/14/Anadir-etanol-a-un-coche-de-gasolina-aumenta-su-rendimiento-y-eficiencia.html
https://combustiblesaragon.es/que-es-el-etanol-y-por-que-esta-en-la-gasolina/)


Another good point that gets overlooked. Not only
disposable batteries. I saw a claim recently that electric
could be even more dirty due to getting the power from
coal-fired power plants. I didn't read the details, so I'm
not clear on whether that's a credible claim. But it's a
worthwhile point, either way. Electric is assumed in
popular thinking to be inherently better.

There is an study about Britain disproving this. Taking in consideration
the entire cycle, from manufacture, power plants, etc, electric cars are
better all in all.

https://www.drax.com/energy-policy/how-clean-is-my-electric-car/

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:13:30 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 19/09/2019 14.35, Mayayana wrote:
"DMP" wrote

| And then, ethanol gets added to gasoline to save on fuel consumption.
| the result is more carb emissions in the air..makes sense just like
| electric cars with their "disposable" batteries.
|

It is not to save fuel consumption, it has several advantages. One of
them is that it is antidetonant (ie, increases the octane figure), and
the engine works better in several cycle conditions. And CO emissions
(not CO2) get lower.

(My sources:
https://www.eleconomista.es/ecomotor/motor/noticias/6225494/11/14/Anadir-etanol-a-un-coche-de-gasolina-aumenta-su-rendimiento-y-eficiencia.html
https://combustiblesaragon.es/que-es-el-etanol-y-por-que-esta-en-la-gasolina/)


Another good point that gets overlooked. Not only
disposable batteries. I saw a claim recently that electric
could be even more dirty due to getting the power from
coal-fired power plants. I didn't read the details, so I'm
not clear on whether that's a credible claim. But it's a
worthwhile point, either way. Electric is assumed in
popular thinking to be inherently better.

There is an study about Britain disproving this. Taking in consideration
the entire cycle, from manufacture, power plants, etc, electric cars are
better all in all.

https://www.drax.com/energy-policy/how-clean-is-my-electric-car/

Then there is
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/...co2-emissions/

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:13:30 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 19/09/2019 14.35, Mayayana wrote:
"DMP" wrote

| And then, ethanol gets added to gasoline to save on fuel consumption.
| the result is more carb emissions in the air..makes sense just like
| electric cars with their "disposable" batteries.
|
It is not to save fuel consumption, it has several advantages. One of
them is that it is antidetonant (ie, increases the octane figure), and
the engine works better in several cycle conditions. And CO emissions
(not CO2) get lower.

(My sources:
https://www.eleconomista.es/ecomotor/motor/noticias/6225494/11/14/Anadir-etanol-a-un-coche-de-gasolina-aumenta-su-rendimiento-y-eficiencia.html
https://combustiblesaragon.es/que-es-el-etanol-y-por-que-esta-en-la-gasolina/)

Another good point that gets overlooked. Not only
disposable batteries. I saw a claim recently that electric
could be even more dirty due to getting the power from
coal-fired power plants. I didn't read the details, so I'm
not clear on whether that's a credible claim. But it's a
worthwhile point, either way. Electric is assumed in
popular thinking to be inherently better.
There is an study about Britain disproving this. Taking in consideration
the entire cycle, from manufacture, power plants, etc, electric cars are
better all in all.

https://www.drax.com/energy-policy/how-clean-is-my-electric-car/

Then there is
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/...co2-emissions/


Being politicians, they excel at being disingenuous.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/...co2-emissions/

"CO2 emissions from electric vehicles in Victoria are particularly high,
similar to the average diesel CO2 emissions”.

The politician in that case, seemingly having the electric vehicle
produce the CO2 directly in Victoria streets. You know, clouds
of brown gas following the electric cars around.

Then we see in the article:

"Australia’s continued reliance on coal-fired power stations"

Ding! Ding! Ding!

So the dirty air is a cloud over the stack, not coming out the car tailpipe.
And since we know precisely where that dirty air rises from,
we can deal with it.

Now, if you had a coal fired station with CO2 capture, the
cost of running it would go up, but the CO2 would come down.
(You know, like assuming the coal was free or something.)

This is not a flaw in the cars themselves, but a flaw in
the "basket mix" of sources powering the electric grid.
And *any* consumption of electricity, is then dirtier
than it needs to be.

When I was a kid, we were doing stupid stuff here too, but
I guess the incentives were different, to stop doing those
things. For example, we used to burn our garbage in an
incinerator! The incinerator was *in the middle of the city*,
showering the city in soot. Oh, oh, so clever. When someone
proposed such a facility in the city I'm in now, the process
proposed was entirely different (no open burning, a closed
system). However the prototype was never finished, which
implies there were still problems sustaining the process.
(They might well have run out of money.) While we were worried
about the soot at the time (in rare instances it damaged
car paint finishes), it's possible it was spewing dioxin
all over the place too.

So today if you need a reason to stop burning garbage, this is it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioxin...like_compounds

"mostly exist as by-products of industrial processes such as
bleaching paper pulp, pesticide manufacture, and
combustion processes such as waste incineration.

use of dioxins was banned by the Stockholm Convention in 2001
"

Paul

On 21/09/2019 04.25, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:13:30 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 19/09/2019 14.35, Mayayana wrote:
"DMP" wrote

| And then, ethanol gets added to gasoline to save on fuel consumption.
| the result is more carb emissions in the air..makes sense just like
| electric cars with their "disposable" batteries.
|

It is not to save fuel consumption, it has several advantages. One of
them is that it is antidetonant (ie, increases the octane figure), and
the engine works better in several cycle conditions. And CO emissions
(not CO2) get lower.

(My sources:
https://www.eleconomista.es/ecomotor/motor/noticias/6225494/11/14/Anadir-etanol-a-un-coche-de-gasolina-aumenta-su-rendimiento-y-eficiencia.html
https://combustiblesaragon.es/que-es-el-etanol-y-por-que-esta-en-la-gasolina/)


Another good point that gets overlooked. Not only
disposable batteries. I saw a claim recently that electric
could be even more dirty due to getting the power from
coal-fired power plants. I didn't read the details, so I'm
not clear on whether that's a credible claim. But it's a
worthwhile point, either way. Electric is assumed in
popular thinking to be inherently better.

There is an study about Britain disproving this. Taking in consideration
the entire cycle, from manufacture, power plants, etc, electric cars are
better all in all.

https://www.drax.com/energy-policy/how-clean-is-my-electric-car/

Then there is
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/...co2-emissions/


Yea, a reliable source :-P

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 00:57:00 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:13:30 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 19/09/2019 14.35, Mayayana wrote:
"DMP" wrote

| And then, ethanol gets added to gasoline to save on fuel consumption.
| the result is more carb emissions in the air..makes sense just like
| electric cars with their "disposable" batteries.
|
It is not to save fuel consumption, it has several advantages. One of
them is that it is antidetonant (ie, increases the octane figure), and
the engine works better in several cycle conditions. And CO emissions
(not CO2) get lower.

(My sources:
https://www.eleconomista.es/ecomotor/motor/noticias/6225494/11/14/Anadir-etanol-a-un-coche-de-gasolina-aumenta-su-rendimiento-y-eficiencia.html
https://combustiblesaragon.es/que-es-el-etanol-y-por-que-esta-en-la-gasolina/)

Another good point that gets overlooked. Not only
disposable batteries. I saw a claim recently that electric
could be even more dirty due to getting the power from
coal-fired power plants. I didn't read the details, so I'm
not clear on whether that's a credible claim. But it's a
worthwhile point, either way. Electric is assumed in
popular thinking to be inherently better.
There is an study about Britain disproving this. Taking in consideration
the entire cycle, from manufacture, power plants, etc, electric cars are
better all in all.

https://www.drax.com/energy-policy/how-clean-is-my-electric-car/

Then there is
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/...co2-emissions/


Being politicians, they excel at being disingenuous.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/...co2-emissions/

"CO2 emissions from electric vehicles in Victoria are particularly high,
similar to the average diesel CO2 emissions”.

The politician in that case, seemingly having the electric vehicle
produce the CO2 directly in Victoria streets. You know, clouds
of brown gas following the electric cars around.

Then we see in the article:

"Australia’s continued reliance on coal-fired power stations"

Ding! Ding! Ding!

So the dirty air is a cloud over the stack, not coming out the car tailpipe.
And since we know precisely where that dirty air rises from,
we can deal with it.

Now, if you had a coal fired station with CO2 capture, the
cost of running it would go up, but the CO2 would come down.
(You know, like assuming the coal was free or something.)

May I refer you to the thermodynamic equivalent of TANSTAFL?

This is not a flaw in the cars themselves, but a flaw in
the "basket mix" of sources powering the electric grid.
And *any* consumption of electricity, is then dirtier
than it needs to be.

Even when it is as clean s it can be.

When I was a kid, we were doing stupid stuff here too, but
I guess the incentives were different, to stop doing those
things. For example, we used to burn our garbage in an
incinerator! The incinerator was *in the middle of the city*,
showering the city in soot. Oh, oh, so clever. When someone
proposed such a facility in the city I'm in now, the process
proposed was entirely different (no open burning, a closed
system). However the prototype was never finished, which
implies there were still problems sustaining the process.
(They might well have run out of money.) While we were worried
about the soot at the time (in rare instances it damaged
car paint finishes), it's possible it was spewing dioxin
all over the place too.

So today if you need a reason to stop burning garbage, this is it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioxin...like_compounds

"mostly exist as by-products of industrial processes such as
bleaching paper pulp, pesticide manufacture, and
combustion processes such as waste incineration.

use of dioxins was banned by the Stockholm Convention in 2001
"

Paul

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

"Paul" wrote

| When I was a kid, we were doing stupid stuff here too, but
| I guess the incentives were different, to stop doing those
| things. For example, we used to burn our garbage in an
| incinerator! The incinerator was *in the middle of the city*,
| showering the city in soot.

That was stupid. We burned it in the middle of the back
yard, thus avoiding the pollution and costs of transport.
We had a rubbish barrel-type of container but it was made
of metal rods. It was sort of a screen barrel. It was my job
to burn the household rubbish in that. What was left was
put out into steel barrels for pickup and from there was thrown
"away" -- at the open-air dump in the next town. Except for
asbestos waste. That was later classified hazardous and
sent to Vermont. I'm not sure why. I guess they were just
dumb enough to allow it in open-air dumps.

I'm not sure it's much better now. There are incinerators
with scrubbers, but I don't know how much still goes to
landfill, or where. And recycling has become a joke. Turns
out most things never were recycled. And now paper,
which was shipped to China, isn't even being recycled.
So we wash out our mayo jars, stressing the sewage treatment,
only to have that nice clean jar put into landfill or ground up
to use as road fill.

The US is only recycling where it can be done at a profit!
All this time we've been carefully separating recyclables and
it was never a serious effort. But the kids are out protesting
climate change this week. And no one is pushing for funding
to recycle.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:13:30 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 19/09/2019 14.35, Mayayana wrote:
"DMP" wrote

| And then, ethanol gets added to gasoline to save on fuel consumption.
| the result is more carb emissions in the air..makes sense just like
| electric cars with their "disposable" batteries.
|

It is not to save fuel consumption, it has several advantages. One of
them is that it is antidetonant (ie, increases the octane figure), and
the engine works better in several cycle conditions. And CO emissions
(not CO2) get lower.

(My sources:
https://www.eleconomista.es/ecomotor/motor/noticias/6225494/11/14/Anadir-etanol-a-un-coche-de-gasolina-aumenta-su-rendimiento-y-eficiencia.html
https://combustiblesaragon.es/que-es-el-etanol-y-por-que-esta-en-la-gasolina/)


Another good point that gets overlooked. Not only
disposable batteries. I saw a claim recently that electric
could be even more dirty due to getting the power from
coal-fired power plants. I didn't read the details, so I'm
not clear on whether that's a credible claim. But it's a
worthwhile point, either way. Electric is assumed in
popular thinking to be inherently better.

There is an study about Britain disproving this. Taking in consideration
the entire cycle, from manufacture, power plants, etc, electric cars are
better all in all.

https://www.drax.com/energy-policy/how-clean-is-my-electric-car/

Then there is
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/...co2-emissions/

And your problem with that data is *what*?

Hint: Different states have different ways of generating their
electric power. Tasmania is mainly hydro, so low CO2. South Australia
has lots of windfarms. Victoria is mainly coal, so quite bad.

So what this data shows is that CO2 emitted to run an all-electric car
is dependent on how the electric power is generated. The scientific term
for this phenomenon is called "Duh!".

N.B. The original story at The Australian is probably less biased than
your ... ummm ... 'source'.

N.B. The RAA, the South Australian automobile association, had a
similar report in one of their newsletters, but I can't (re)find it on
their website.

On 21/09/2019 14.36, Mayayana wrote:
"Paul" wrote

| When I was a kid, we were doing stupid stuff here too, but
| I guess the incentives were different, to stop doing those
| things. For example, we used to burn our garbage in an
| incinerator! The incinerator was *in the middle of the city*,
| showering the city in soot.

That was stupid. We burned it in the middle of the back
yard, thus avoiding the pollution and costs of transport.
We had a rubbish barrel-type of container but it was made
of metal rods. It was sort of a screen barrel. It was my job
to burn the household rubbish in that. What was left was
put out into steel barrels for pickup and from there was thrown
"away" -- at the open-air dump in the next town. Except for
asbestos waste. That was later classified hazardous and
sent to Vermont. I'm not sure why. I guess they were just
dumb enough to allow it in open-air dumps.

I'm not sure it's much better now. There are incinerators
with scrubbers, but I don't know how much still goes to
landfill, or where. And recycling has become a joke. Turns
out most things never were recycled. And now paper,
which was shipped to China, isn't even being recycled.
So we wash out our mayo jars, stressing the sewage treatment,
only to have that nice clean jar put into landfill or ground up
to use as road fill.

The US is only recycling where it can be done at a profit!

:-o

All this time we've been carefully separating recyclables and
it was never a serious effort. But the kids are out protesting
climate change this week. And no one is pushing for funding
to recycle.




--
Cheers, Carlos.

Earlier, I wrote:
[...]

N.B. The original story at The Australian is probably less biased than
your ... ummm ... 'source'.

Oops! Forgot to add that The Australian is a paid subscription, so
I can't check what it says.

[...]

On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 12:13:05 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 21/09/2019 04.25, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:13:30 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 19/09/2019 14.35, Mayayana wrote:
"DMP" wrote

| And then, ethanol gets added to gasoline to save on fuel consumption.
| the result is more carb emissions in the air..makes sense just like
| electric cars with their "disposable" batteries.
|

It is not to save fuel consumption, it has several advantages. One of
them is that it is antidetonant (ie, increases the octane figure), and
the engine works better in several cycle conditions. And CO emissions
(not CO2) get lower.

(My sources:
https://www.eleconomista.es/ecomotor/motor/noticias/6225494/11/14/Anadir-etanol-a-un-coche-de-gasolina-aumenta-su-rendimiento-y-eficiencia.html
https://combustiblesaragon.es/que-es-el-etanol-y-por-que-esta-en-la-gasolina/)


Another good point that gets overlooked. Not only
disposable batteries. I saw a claim recently that electric
could be even more dirty due to getting the power from
coal-fired power plants. I didn't read the details, so I'm
not clear on whether that's a credible claim. But it's a
worthwhile point, either way. Electric is assumed in
popular thinking to be inherently better.

There is an study about Britain disproving this. Taking in consideration
the entire cycle, from manufacture, power plants, etc, electric cars are
better all in all.

https://www.drax.com/energy-policy/how-clean-is-my-electric-car/

Then there is
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/...co2-emissions/


Yea, a reliable source :-P

Actually it is. If you had more than glanced at this page you would
have seen that Watts gave a link to the GWPF and also "Original story
at The Australian". Unfortunately The Australian requires a
subscription. In any case, you don't have to take the messengers word
for it: you can follow up the story and check it.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

On 21 Sep 2019 15:15:40 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:13:30 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 19/09/2019 14.35, Mayayana wrote:
"DMP" wrote

| And then, ethanol gets added to gasoline to save on fuel consumption.
| the result is more carb emissions in the air..makes sense just like
| electric cars with their "disposable" batteries.
|

It is not to save fuel consumption, it has several advantages. One of
them is that it is antidetonant (ie, increases the octane figure), and
the engine works better in several cycle conditions. And CO emissions
(not CO2) get lower.

(My sources:
https://www.eleconomista.es/ecomotor/motor/noticias/6225494/11/14/Anadir-etanol-a-un-coche-de-gasolina-aumenta-su-rendimiento-y-eficiencia.html
https://combustiblesaragon.es/que-es-el-etanol-y-por-que-esta-en-la-gasolina/)


Another good point that gets overlooked. Not only
disposable batteries. I saw a claim recently that electric
could be even more dirty due to getting the power from
coal-fired power plants. I didn't read the details, so I'm
not clear on whether that's a credible claim. But it's a
worthwhile point, either way. Electric is assumed in
popular thinking to be inherently better.

There is an study about Britain disproving this. Taking in consideration
the entire cycle, from manufacture, power plants, etc, electric cars are
better all in all.

https://www.drax.com/energy-policy/how-clean-is-my-electric-car/

Then there is
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/...co2-emissions/

And your problem with that data is *what*?

Hint: Different states have different ways of generating their
electric power. Tasmania is mainly hydro, so low CO2. South Australia
has lots of windfarms. Victoria is mainly coal, so quite bad.

So what this data shows is that CO2 emitted to run an all-electric car
is dependent on how the electric power is generated. The scientific term
for this phenomenon is called "Duh!".

N.B. The original story at The Australian is probably less biased than
your ... ummm ... 'source'.

N.B. The RAA, the South Australian automobile association, had a
similar report in one of their newsletters, but I can't (re)find it on
their website.

I don't know why you are getting your knickers in a knot. Your
deductions are exactly why I posted the link in the first place and I
have no problems with that data. I don't know why you should think I
have any.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On 21 Sep 2019 15:15:40 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:13:30 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 19/09/2019 14.35, Mayayana wrote:
"DMP" wrote

| And then, ethanol gets added to gasoline to save on fuel consumption.
| the result is more carb emissions in the air..makes sense just like
| electric cars with their "disposable" batteries.
|

It is not to save fuel consumption, it has several advantages. One of
them is that it is antidetonant (ie, increases the octane figure), and
the engine works better in several cycle conditions. And CO emissions
(not CO2) get lower.

(My sources:
https://www.eleconomista.es/ecomotor/motor/noticias/6225494/11/14/Anadir-etanol-a-un-coche-de-gasolina-aumenta-su-rendimiento-y-eficiencia.html
https://combustiblesaragon.es/que-es-el-etanol-y-por-que-esta-en-la-gasolina/)
Another good point that gets overlooked. Not only
disposable batteries. I saw a claim recently that electric
could be even more dirty due to getting the power from
coal-fired power plants. I didn't read the details, so I'm
not clear on whether that's a credible claim. But it's a
worthwhile point, either way. Electric is assumed in
popular thinking to be inherently better.

There is an study about Britain disproving this. Taking in consideration
the entire cycle, from manufacture, power plants, etc, electric cars are
better all in all.

https://www.drax.com/energy-policy/how-clean-is-my-electric-car/

Then there is
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/...co2-emissions/

And your problem with that data is *what*?

Hint: Different states have different ways of generating their
electric power. Tasmania is mainly hydro, so low CO2. South Australia
has lots of windfarms. Victoria is mainly coal, so quite bad.

So what this data shows is that CO2 emitted to run an all-electric car
is dependent on how the electric power is generated. The scientific term
for this phenomenon is called "Duh!".

N.B. The original story at The Australian is probably less biased than
your ... ummm ... 'source'.

N.B. The RAA, the South Australian automobile association, had a
similar report in one of their newsletters, but I can't (re)find it on
their website.

I don't know why you are getting your knickers in a knot. Your
deductions are exactly why I posted the link in the first place and I
have no problems with that data. I don't know why you should think I
have any.

Your link seemed to be intended to counter Carlos' link. If that was
not your intention, then I - and probably most/many of 'us' - don't
understand what *was/is* your point.