header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

 (Read 531108 times)

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17712
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #3570 on: September 24, 2020, 08:02:52 PM »
"Mostly" means 51% I think.  Trucks may be later, but the torque from electric is a plus.

Fifteen years is a decent period of time.  More EVs were sold in the US last year than cars with manual transmissions.  Norway is over 50% now.
I guess it's a personal thing.  I don't equate "mostly" to "a simple majority."  To me, mostly implies something like 75% or more.

And I completely agree the torque will be a plus, but the battery capacity-- the power storage-- is going to be an incredibly huge detriment, and it's one that despite all of our technological advances in recent decades, we don't have a line of sight to a realistic, affordable solution.  Pure EVs aren't going to be good for long haul towing applications for a very, very long time-- barring some massive and astronomically expensive upgrade to the road system that could somehow include in-road electromagnetic charging for EVs, I suppose.  Which is also a pie in the sky kind of unicorn to chase.

Which is why I've commented many times, I have no idea why we don't already see a decent selection of viable hybrid options in the fleet/long haul sector.  I guess it, too, doesn't make financial sense, but I'm not sure why.

CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6051
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #3571 on: September 24, 2020, 09:58:15 PM »
The unfortunate 'climate anomaly' of the First World War revealed
Craig Simpson
The TelegraphWed, September 23, 2020, 10:25 AM CDT


The desolation of places like Passchendaele has become part of the imagery of the First World War - News Scan/Getty/News Scan/Getty
The desolation of places like Passchendaele has become part of the imagery of the First World War - News Scan/Getty/News Scan/Getty
The First World War was made more bloody by a "once-in-a-century" climate crisis which rained death on Europe, a study has found.
Many of the 700,000 British lives lost in the conflict ended in the “liquid grave” of mud-choked battlefields, and the desolation of places like Passchendaele have become part of the imagery of the First World War.
Even on the Turkish coast at Gallipoli troops were immobilised and killed by appalling weather, drowning in their trenches and succumbing to exposure and pneumonia, as well as enemy bullets.
Using laser technology to examine glacial ice, Harvard and Climate Change Institute (CCI) analysts have discovered that Tommies fighting the world’s first global conflict also endured a freakish “climate anomaly” which "substantially" increased casualties.
The relentless rain which flooded battlefields like the Somme and inflicted famine on civilians was swept over from the Atlantic in rare periods of extreme precipitation caused by changes in the circulation of atmospheric air.
With peaks in rain, the Harvard-led study found, came peaks in deaths in bloody campaigns and the Spanish Flu pandemic which followed.
A new research paper states this anomalous weather coincided with battles where: “The mud and water‐filled trenches and bomb craters swallowed everything, from tanks, to horses and troops, becoming what eyewitnesses described as the ‘liquid grave’ of the armies.”
Prof Alexander F More, who led the research for Harvard, explained: “Atmospheric circulation changed and there was much more rain, much colder weather all over Europe for six years.”

Passers-by look at the 'Mud Soldier' statue, which is sculpted from sand and mud from Passchendaele, during the unveiling ceremony on the North Terrace of Trafalgar Square in central London on July 25, 2017, the centenary of the Battle of Passchendaele. 'The Mud Soldier' will slowly dissolve over the course of four days, a representation of the rain and mud so closely associated with the battle 100 years ago. - DANIEL LEAL-OLIVAS/AFP/Getty Images
Passers-by look at the 'Mud Soldier' statue, which is sculpted from sand and mud from Passchendaele, during the unveiling ceremony on the North Terrace of Trafalgar Square in central London on July 25, 2017, the centenary of the Battle of Passchendaele. 'The Mud Soldier' will slowly dissolve over the course of four days, a representation of the rain and mud so closely associated with the battle 100 years ago. - DANIEL LEAL-OLIVAS/AFP/Getty Images
More
“It was a once in a 100-year anomaly.”
This anomaly wreaked havoc on battlefields beginning with the First Battle of Champagne in 1914 , where British, French, and German troops suffered flooded trenches and frostbite while mud “slowed down the movement of troops and artillery”.
The Somme and Verdun in 1916, and the Third Battle of Ypres-Passchendaele in 1917, were slogged out in quagmires caused by the freak downpours which increased casualties.
Royal Artillery signaller John Palmer described his trauma at seeing men “sinking into the slime, dying in the slime” on the Western Front.
Even the Anzac troops in the usually Mediterranean climate of Gallipoli suffered floods, snowfall and frostbite as the “significant climate anomaly”, which brought cold and wet marine air from the North Atlantic in the “highest concentrations in a century”.
These high concentrations brought by an Icelandic low pressure system were pinpointed by analysis of glacial ice cores taken from the Alps which present a frozen record of climatic conditions during the conflict.
As well as causing problems for warring armies, researchers have argued  this unusual six-year weather pattern caused famine and the 1916-17 “Turnip Winter”, in which the German population depended on root vegetables amid a failed harvest.

A team of stretcher bearers struggle through deep mud to carry a wounded man to safety near Boesinghe on 1 August 1917 during the Third Battle of Ypres / Battle of Pilckem Ridge, 1 August 1917 (First World War / WWI) Photo: John Warwick Brooke Source: http://media.iwm.org.uk/iwm/mediaLib//358/media-358346/large.jpg This is photograph Q 5935 from the collections of the Imperial War Museums. - John Warwick Brooke/John Warwick Brooke
A team of stretcher bearers struggle through deep mud to carry a wounded man to safety near Boesinghe on 1 August 1917 during the Third Battle of Ypres / Battle of Pilckem Ridge, 1 August 1917 (First World War / WWI) Photo: John Warwick Brooke Source: http://media.iwm.org.uk/iwm/mediaLib//358/media-358346/large.jpg This is photograph Q 5935 from the collections of the Imperial War Museums. - John Warwick Brooke/John Warwick Brooke
More
Research by the universities of Harvard, Maine, and Nottingham has also found that the once-in-a-century weather may have impacted the migration of mallards, keeping ducks infected with Spanish Flu concentrated in Europe.
“It is likely that they stayed put for much of that period,” said Prof More.
This lingering infected bird population was added to:  “Abnormally high precipitation and cold temperatures in the years preceding the onset of the pandemic, in 1917, and during its deadliest wave in 1918.”
Researchers have argued that the climate events that made the war more deadly also increased mortality in the Spanish Flu pandemic, which killed up to 100 million people worldwide.



Play Like a Champion Today

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71612
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #3572 on: September 25, 2020, 08:37:32 AM »

Which is why I've commented many times, I have no idea why we don't already see a decent selection of viable hybrid options in the fleet/long haul sector.  I guess it, too, doesn't make financial sense, but I'm not sure why.
My kid in Texas is in the trucking business and tells me it's coming, but the industry is not receptive to newness.  Reliability and simplicity are valued.

And of course weight of batteries means less weight of freight.  I don't know where the optimum would be there.  A Diesel hybrid would seem to make sense, but does that mean batteries only enough for one mile to recoup regen braking or 10 miles or 50?  Dunno.

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17712
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #3573 on: September 25, 2020, 10:14:14 AM »
My kid in Texas is in the trucking business and tells me it's coming, but the industry is not receptive to newness.  Reliability and simplicity are valued.

And of course weight of batteries means less weight of freight.  I don't know where the optimum would be there.  A Diesel hybrid would seem to make sense, but does that mean batteries only enough for one mile to recoup regen braking or 10 miles or 50?  Dunno.

Yeah, that totally makes sense.  I suspect the same is true for the private sector, the majority of people that buy trucks for towing, don't trust the newness and reliability of the hybrid solution.

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71612
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #3574 on: September 25, 2020, 12:28:16 PM »
The nice thing about a hybrid is that it can recoup much of the losses you otherwise have during braking.  I have wondered why cars still have alternators.  You could put regen braking on the fronts only and provide plenty of current for systems.  That would be akin to a "mild hybrid".

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12214
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #3575 on: September 25, 2020, 12:47:49 PM »
The nice thing about a hybrid is that it can recoup much of the losses you otherwise have during braking.  I have wondered why cars still have alternators.  You could put regen braking on the fronts only and provide plenty of current for systems.  That would be akin to a "mild hybrid".
Interesting idea. My immediate first thought is "maybe regen braking is more expensive than an alternator?"

But I did a little googling, and it looks like one reason they still have alternators is that there are still times when regen braking can't generate enough power. Say, for example, a long freeway drive on a deserted road where you're just sitting there on cruise for an extended time. So perhaps you simply can't remove it and still have enough power generation for all use cases. 

But it looks like automakers are doing a lot of things to make the alternator passive for as much time as they can. An older article about BMW suggests that they try to put the alternator into passive mode during acceleration when it would rob power from the engine, and have it go active during overrun or braking when the engine is still running but not being used to drive the wheels. By doing that they maintain power while improving fuel efficiency. 

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71612
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #3576 on: September 25, 2020, 12:54:00 PM »
If you cruise for a while, the car can simply apply the regen brakes slightly for a period to recharge the battery suitably, just as an alternator would do.

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12214
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #3577 on: September 25, 2020, 01:00:46 PM »
If you cruise for a while, the car can simply apply the regen brakes slightly for a period to recharge the battery suitably, just as an alternator would do.
True. What if you're idling and listening to some tunes while running the AC hard in the summer while you wait to pick someone up? A car that tells you that you have to drive or shut off isn't a good user experience either.

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71612
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #3578 on: September 25, 2020, 01:06:39 PM »
That would be a problem.  I think this vehicle would have at least two batteries for this to work.

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71612
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #3579 on: September 25, 2020, 03:41:19 PM »
I am musing a bit about automobile technology over 20 year periods.  Obviously today we have some EVs which did not exist in 2000 (save the abortive GM attempt).  But if we take a "regular car", say a Honda Accord, today it is more efficient than in 2000, but the car is more or less similar.  They went away from the V6 to a set of Turbo fours.

In 1980, cars were pretty bad overall, many still had carburetors.  They were underpowered in general and got poor fuel economy.

In 1960, most cars were behemoths in size, we didn't have compacts generally speaking.  A standard car would be a Chevy Impala with a 283 cid V-8 and 2 bbl carb and two speed transmission.  It would get maybe 13 mpg highway.  Nobody cared.  No seat belts.  Bias ply tires and drum brakes.

In 1940, things were changing, but cars had standard transmissions, mostly 4 and 6 cylinder engines, manual chokes, foot mounted starter, no AC of course, no radio, no power anything.  Some may have had magnetos, not sure.

And cars pre-1985 or so needed pretty routine maintenance.  I think a big change was fuel injection, better fuel delivery, oil lasts longer, less buildup on sparkers and cylinders, etc.  I think electronic ignition came along 1972-1975 for most.  I used to spend a fair bit of time under the hood of a car.


betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12214
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #3580 on: September 25, 2020, 04:04:34 PM »
We just got our electric bill and the wife was chafing a bit... Living in a ~45 year old poorly insulated house with drafty single-pane windows doesn't make the A/C very wallet-friendly during these summer months. 

I pointed out that both Castle Rock CO and Austin TX have electricity per-kwh rates less than half what we're paying...

Still working it so I can be utee's neighbor. 

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17712
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #3581 on: September 25, 2020, 04:10:40 PM »
We just got our electric bill and the wife was chafing a bit... Living in a ~45 year old poorly insulated house with drafty single-pane windows doesn't make the A/C very wallet-friendly during these summer months.

I pointed out that both Castle Rock CO and Austin TX have electricity per-kwh rates less than half what we're paying...

Still working it so I can be utee's neighbor.

You, I'd welcome.  These other schlubs, though... :)


Have you figured up anything general on how much more electricity you'd be using in the summer months?  If we're half your KWH rate then you'd probably still come out ahead, but it'd be worth calculating first.

CO on the other hand... yeah.  Probably not much need for A/C in the summer.

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71612
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #3582 on: September 25, 2020, 04:19:30 PM »
I toted up my electrics bills since we've moved here.  They averaged $120 a month in 2019 and $110 in 2020.  I had to replace a heat pump in April (bummer).  If I'm saving $10 a month, well, payback is a B.

We have a lot of glass but only two sides are exposed and I think these water heat pumps are pretty efficient.  We had gas heat in Cincy and it got pricey.

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12214
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #3583 on: September 25, 2020, 04:20:23 PM »
You, I'd welcome.  These other schlubs, though... :)


Have you figured up anything general on how much more electricity you'd be using in the summer months?  If we're half your KWH rate then you'd probably still come out ahead, but it'd be worth calculating first.

CO on the other hand... yeah.  Probably not much need for A/C in the summer.
I would assume that I'd be buying a house that is a lot more energy-efficient than what I live in now. 

That would be balanced by the fact that the square footage would go WAY up, and with the weather I'd be running the A/C more than I do now. 

Here I used to try to suffer through the summer without running it much at all. But that's gone up this year due to the puppy (who I don't want to suffer through 90 degree temps in the house) and due to WFH... I can't just escape to the office for free A/C during the hottest portion of the day. 

But I think I'd come out ahead. 

What's your typical monthly bill in the summer? The last two for me were $258 and now $217? 

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.