Climate Change: What should we do about it?

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Climate Change is a large problem facing humanity. Most scientists and science academies accept that we're causing it. The temperatures are rising, CO2 is rising, it looks like we're going to face a major problem if we don't take measures to abate it now, or very soon. So everyone, what should we do?

I've thought of a couple of solutions. Some of these are:

• Renewable Energy (I think this is currently our best option)
• Nuclear Power
• Mandatory emission standards on cars.
• Electric Cars (maybe later...)
• Carbon offsetting (In my opinion it's not going to work)
• Clean Coal Technology (I don't think it's going to work)

These are all well and good taking care of CO2 but what about other Greenhouse gases like Methane?

And what about measures to lessen the effects of climate change?

I honestly am unsure of what we humans should do about this problem.

Anyway guys discuss!

 

[Riddle]

You might want to add some sources, they always add to legitimacy.

Am I allowed to post here?

 

[Sucumbio]

This made me laugh the other day: Dueling Chalkboards: MSNBC's Ratigan Mocks Beck After Global Warming Charge

yeah riddle we can post in here so long as we stimulate debate rather than lead it

 

[Riddle]

Climate Change is a large problem facing humanity. Most scientists and science academies accept that we're causing it. The temperatures are rising, CO2 is rising, it looks like we're going to face a major problem if we don't take measures to abate it now, or very soon. So everyone, what should we do?

Climate Change/Global Warming is, to almost all intelligent people, a very real problem. However, I believe we are going about fixing it the wrong way. A think tank that I read about (SuperFreakonomics) has actually shown that Water Vapor is the worst greenhouse gas (Clouds) and that a very possible way of stabilizing the climate is to release sulfur dioxide (one of the gasses released by volcanos) into the stratosphere. Currently sulfur dioxide is released by factories and this is one of the things causing global warming. However, in the stratosphere (Rather than the troposphere) this gas would block the sun and cool down the earth rather than heating it and neutralize global warming. It wouldn't be expensive either. (Here's a source for all of that though its not very scientific) The point though is that we need to rethink global warming and come to some more solid conclusions and the problems and their solutions. While this information may not be vaild it doesn't change the fact that we really don't know all there is to know and we need to to fix the problem.

I've thought of a couple of solutions. Some of these are:

• Renewable Energy (I think this is currently our best option)

• 
  
  The fact is that renewable energy just can't provide enough energy for our needs at this point. Therefore this can only lower some emissions.
  
  

  [*]Nuclear Power

  This would help with global warming but nuclear power has its own problems. Unless you are talking about fusion which would certainly be helpful if we could get it at temperatures lower than the sun.
  
  

  [*]Mandatory emission standards on cars.

  Just like renewable energy this will decrease our effect but it won't solve the problem. ITs only a temporary solution.
  
  

  [*]Electric Cars (maybe later...)

  If we can make enough of them and make them cheap then this is a potential solution.
  
  

  [*]Carbon offsetting (In my opinion it's not going to work)

  If my research is correct (research) then carbon offsetting is just the lowering of emissions. Which is what all of these things are meant to accomplish.
  
  

  [*]Clean Coal Technology (I don't think it's going to work)

It doesn't change the fact that it is still coal and that is still going to run out.

These are all well and good taking care of CO2 but what about other Greenhouse gases like Methane?

And what about measures to lessen the effects of climate change?

I honestly am unsure of what we humans should do about this problem.

Anyway guys discuss!

What we really need to do is research it. We can't find a solution if we don't know the extent of the problem.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Climate Change/Global Warming is, to almost all intelligent people, a very real problem. However, I believe we are going about fixing it the wrong way. A think tank that I read about (SuperFreakonomics) has actually shown that Water Vapor is the worst greenhouse gas (Clouds) and that a very possible way of stabilizing the climate is to release sulfur dioxide (one of the gasses released by volcanos) into the stratosphere. Currently sulfur dioxide is released by factories and this is one of the things causing global warming. However, in the stratosphere (Rather than the troposphere) this gas would block the sun and cool down the earth rather than heating it and neutralize global warming. It wouldn't be expensive either. (Here's a source for all of that though its not very scientific) The point though is that we need to rethink global warming and come to some more solid conclusions and the problems and their solutions. While this information may not be vaild it doesn't change the fact that we really don't know all there is to know and we need to to fix the problem.

Sure, we don't know everything about Global Warming and that's what makes this problem a large one. The problem with geo-engineering is that it tends to have serious and unintended side affects. Also, how do we know how much Sulfur dioxide to put up there? and how long will it last up there? Will it break down? Will it cause acid rain? I don't think we know. We haven't really done this before and it's very risky.

The fact is that renewable energy just can't provide enough energy for our needs at this point. Therefore this can only lower some emissions.

Well true. But with enough research and development, we could replace significant amounts of polluting non-renewables with renewables. In fact, we could even do it now. Look at New Zealand it gets a very large portion of it's electricity from renewables.

This would help with global warming but nuclear power has its own problems. Unless you are talking about fusion which would certainly be helpful if we could get it at temperatures lower than the sun.

I'm talking about Fission. I think this could play a large role in a solution, but we may end up running out of Uranium. Then what about all that radioactive waste we produce? We may be able to process it and bury it or something, but it's still a downside. However Nuclear Power on a large scale seems to work. Take a look at France it gets around 75% of its electricity from Nuclear Power, and it hasn't had any huge incidents.

Just like renewable energy this will decrease our effect but it won't solve the problem. ITs only a temporary solution.

Well, this is a short-term solution that could be easily implemented. It should be able to cut quite a bit off emissions fairly quickly. It can buy us time.

If we can make enough of them and make them cheap then this is a potential solution.

Indeed, but I don't think the technology is quite there yet, lithium batteries still have problems, and their range is terrible.

If my research is correct (research) then carbon offsetting is just the lowering of emissions. Which is what all of these things are meant to accomplish.

Oh, sorry. I meant the growing of trees and other processes to try and suck our emissions out of the air. I don't think this is a very viable solution, because the amount of CO2 we put up into the atmosphere is going to need a huge amount of forests to absorb it.

It doesn't change the fact that it is still coal and that is still going to run out.

Well, I feel that Climate Change is a much more pressing concern at the moment. However, Peak Coal could happen very soon. See this link:http://www.newcastle.edu.au/news/2009/10/peakcoalforecast.html Also, there is no evidence that this "solution" really works. It still needs huge amounts of research and development. Also to do this on a large scale would be ridiculous, the sheer amount of CO2 that needs sequestering would make this impossible.

What we really need to do is research it. We can't find a solution if we don't know the extent of the problem.

Well, I'm not sure if we have that sort of time. Already many glaciers are melting faster than predicted, temperatures are getting higher. There needs to be action soon.

 

[Riddle]

Sure, we don't know everything about Global Warming and that's what makes this problem a large one. The problem with geo-engineering is that it tends to have serious and unintended side affects. Also, how do we know how much Sulfur dioxide to put up there? and how long will it last up there? Will it break down? Will it cause acid rain? I don't think we know. We haven't really done this before and it's very risky.

If you read the book he actually has decided those things as well as an efficient way of getting them up there (expanding smoke stacks into the troposphere). I don't know if all of his research is scientifically active though.

Well true. But with enough research and development, we could replace significant amounts of polluting non-renewables with renewables. In fact, we could even do it now. Look at New Zealand it gets a very large portion of it's electricity from renewables. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/NZ_Energy_2008.svg

New Zealands's population is 4,268,600. America's is around 70 time as much at 304,059,724. Americans are suprisingly resistant to change too. Not many would change to renewable energy if they had to, and nobody would like it if they were forced. However, for the most part I agree. Renewable energy is something that we we know doesn't harm us and the more we can use it the better.

I'm talking about Fission. I think this could play a large role in a solution, but we may end up running out of Uranium. Then what about all that radioactive waste we produce? We may be able to process it and bury it or something, but it's still a downside. However Nuclear Power on a large scale seems to work. Take a look at France it gets around 75% of its electricity from Nuclear Power, and it hasn't had any huge incidents.

I have no doubt that nuclear fission produces a ton of energy, but I'm not sure I can live with the downsides. We have no way to deal with radioactive wastes and our current solution is to bury them and hope our ancestors find a solution and that just isn't a responsible way to lower climate change.

Well, this is a short-term solution that could be easily implemented. It should be able to cut quite a bit off emissions fairly quickly. It can buy us time.

I agree. My point was just that while implementing this we have to be working on more long-term solutions.

Indeed, but I don't think the technology is quite there yet, lithium batteries still have problems, and their range is terrible.

Electric cars really aren't ready yet. Hopefully soon though.

Oh, sorry. I meant the growing of trees and other processes to try and suck our emissions out of the air. I don't think this is a very viable solution, because the amount of CO2 we put up into the atmosphere is going to need a huge amount of forests to absorb it.

How is this any different then any of the other quick fixes and short-term solutions. Sure it can't fix the whole problem but maybe it can help. I actually have a completely different problem with this. Things like this. We assume that trees do some good but they maybe they don't always. This is why we need more information so we don't make any avoidable mistakes.

Well, I feel that Climate Change is a much more pressing concern at the moment. However, Peak Coal could happen very soon. See this link:http://www.newcastle.edu.au/news/2009/10/peakcoalforecast.html Also, there is no evidence that this "solution" really works. It still needs huge amounts of research and development. Also to do this on a large scale would be ridiculous, the sheer amount of CO2 that needs sequestering would make this impossible.

My point was just that clean coal isn't a great option because soon there will be no coal.

Well, I'm not sure if we have that sort of time. Already many glaciers are melting faster than predicted, temperatures are getting higher. There needs to be action soon.

I don't think we can afford not to learn everything we can. We can buy some time through renewable energy and maybes some nuclear power and things like that. And using that team we can do a lot of research making an educated plan to stop global warming.

What I really want to avoid is uninformed decision making.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

If you read the book he actually has decided those things as well as an efficient way of getting them up there (expanding smoke stacks into the troposphere). I don't know if all of his research is scientifically active though.

Indeed, however we don't know what this is going to do, and I don't think enough research has been done on the subject of geo-engineering. It's a very risky business.

New Zealands's population is 4,268,600. America's is around 70 time as much at 304,059,724. Americans are suprisingly resistant to change too. Not many would change to renewable energy if they had to, and nobody would like it if they were forced. However, for the most part I agree. Renewable energy is something that we we know doesn't harm us and the more we can use it the better.

Really? Well it would lessen their dependance on foreign oil, it'd create many jobs and I think it'd be a very good outcome. I think it can be done.

I have no doubt that nuclear fission produces a ton of energy, but I'm not sure I can live with the downsides. We have no way to deal with radioactive wastes and our current solution is to bury them and hope our ancestors find a solution and that just isn't a responsible way to lower climate change.

I think we have a number of ways to deal with radioactive waste. We can turn it into a relatively inert glass, and store it underground to minimise leakage, we can trap it in the crystal lattice of synthetic rock and store that underground and we can recycle it to produce useful products that we can use. I just think that nuclear energy's problems bark worse than they bite. That said, renewables are still better.

How is this any different then any of the other quick fixes and short-term solutions. Sure it can't fix the whole problem but maybe it can help. I actually have a completely different problem with this. Things like this. We assume that trees do some good but they maybe they don't always. This is why we need more information so we don't make any avoidable mistakes.

Another problem with growing trees is, how do we know that they're actually soaking up Carbon? They could destroyed by bush fires, or fail to grow for all we know. I think this is an overrated solution.

My point was just that clean coal isn't a great option because soon there will be no coal.

I agree entirely.

I don't think we can afford not to learn everything we can. We can buy some time through renewable energy and maybes some nuclear power and things like that. And using that team we can do a lot of research making an educated plan to stop global warming.

What I really want to avoid is uninformed decision making.

I understand, but we really need to start buying time now. We can't just sit around and wait for the free market or technology to do our work for us. That sort of attitude gets nothing done.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

I don't really approve of the way you opened the debate. The existence of Anthropogenic Global is disputed.

But this looks like an alternative/pollution-cutting energy debate, so I have this to say about the Electric Car.

Without a change in our energy production methods, they will completely fail at what they are supposed to do. Consider the source of the electricity. In the status quo, that's going to be coming mostly from fossil fuel plants.

Implementing electric cars would result in a heightened demand for electricity, which would simply result in the increased use of fossil fuels because they are what provide us with the bulk of our power, meaning the pollution produced by car emissions will just change into extra emissions from an increased use of fossil fuel plants, resulting in no benefit.


You can transform the energy into a different form, but it's not really going to achieve much. Energy is energy. What matters is where we get it. As far as our capabilities go in the present day, it would be more efficient to simply have the chemical-to-kinetic energy transformations occurring in the engines of gas-powered cars than to have a (mostly) chemical-to-electrical-to-kinetic energy transformation with electric cars. When you transform energy, you lose some of it, so we should aim to do this as little as possible to maximize efficiency. It's a principle of science.

This means that the electric car does not stand alone as an alternative energy solution. Rather, it should be a sub point of a plan to increase solar/wind/nuclear energy or it shouldn't be done at all.

 

[Aesir]

Climate Change/Global Warming is, to almost all intelligent people, a very real problem. However, I believe we are going about fixing it the wrong way. A think tank that I read about (SuperFreakonomics) has actually shown that Water Vapor is the worst greenhouse gas (Clouds) and that a very possible way of stabilizing the climate is to release sulfur dioxide (one of the gasses released by volcanos) into the stratosphere. Currently sulfur dioxide is released by factories and this is one of the things causing global warming. However, in the stratosphere (Rather than the troposphere) this gas would block the sun and cool down the earth rather than heating it and neutralize global warming. It wouldn't be expensive either. (Here's a source for all of that though its not very scientific) The point though is that we need to rethink global warming and come to some more solid conclusions and the problems and their solutions. While this information may not be vaild it doesn't change the fact that we really don't know all there is to know and we need to to fix the problem.

So you're going to use a NY times article to show it's scientific? Where's the peer review? Let's not even mention the fact that your source basically comes from a journalist and an economist who happens to think Global Warming is false. About water vapor, vapor is dependent on temperature that means the higher the temperature the more water vapor exists in the atmosphere. Guess what's been the most dominate factor in temperature increase? Co2.

The fact is that renewable energy just can't provide enough energy for our needs at this point. Therefore this can only lower some emissions.

How do you figure? In the EU renewable energy has become highly competitive, even in the US the reliability of renewable energy is growing, it's very dishonest to write off renewable energy right now when it's been growing at such a rapid rate. Wind Farms in our country have been developing at a very fast rate the past few years, some towns who are run on wind power actually produce a surplus of that. Hydro and Solar are not to far behind either.

This would help with global warming but nuclear power has its own problems. Unless you are talking about fusion which would certainly be helpful if we could get it at temperatures lower than the sun.

The benefits of Nuclear Power greatly out weigh the risks. If you think otherwise than please elaborate.

Just like renewable energy this will decrease our effect but it won't solve the problem. ITs only a temporary solution.

Renewable energies like Wind for instance produce no green house gasses.

What we really need to do is research it. We can't find a solution if we don't know the extent of the problem.

I have no idea what you're even saying here.

I don't really approve of the way you opened the debate. The existence of Anthropogenic Global is disputed.

The less you know about climatology the less likely you are to trust the overwhelming evidence. But if you're going to dispute global warming why not go all the way and dispute evolution. Am I right? Instead of using science to study the long term climate patterns we should just stick our heads out the window, that'll give us an accurate view of the climate.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

The less you know about climatology the less likely you are to trust the overwhelming evidence. But if you're going to dispute global warming why not go all the way and dispute evolution. Am I right? Instead of using science to study the long term climate patterns we should just stick our heads out the window, that'll give us an accurate view of the climate.

Please don't condescend. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with this debate at all. I didn't come to the PG to clash with the founding philosophies of each person's viewpoint in every single debate. That would get redundant fast. Perhaps I misunderstand you, but this almost sounds like a personal attack.

I was merely pointing out that the debate was started with a disputed claim, and then it led into something else. This debate, as I see it, is about various methods for curbing emissions, regardless of whether I put stock into the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. You cannot deny the existence of controversy, however unintelligent you think it may be, and so it's not good debate practice to start a debate with wording that forces me to concede that anthropogenic climate change is real before I can even participate in the debate at hand. I am not going to defend the other side of the Climate Change controversy in this thread because that is not the focus of this debate.

I was looking forward to someone having something to say about my argument concerning the electric car, not the small disclaimer I made before giving it.

 

[Aesir]

Please don't condescend. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with this debate at all. I didn't come to the PG to clash with the founding philosophies of each person's viewpoint in every single debate. That would get redundant fast. Perhaps I misunderstand you, but this almost sounds like a personal attack.

I didn't say it did, I said disputing global warming is like disputing evolution.

I was merely pointing out that the debate was started with a disputed claim, and then it led into something else. This debate, as I see it, is about various methods for curbing emissions, regardless of whether I put stock into the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. You cannot deny the existence of controversy, however unintelligent you think it may be, and so it's not good debate practice to start a debate with wording that forces me to concede that anthropogenic climate change is real before I can even participate in the debate at hand. I am not going to defend the other side of the Climate Change controversy in this thread because that is not the focus of this debate.

You dug your self a hole by contesting Global warming is a disputed topic, the science isn't disputed. There's overwhelming evidence we're playing a large role in the current climate trend. He was right in assume global warming is real because that's what the science says. It's really no different than saying Evolution is a fairy tale. I don't care how much you contest it to be not true, it still doesn't change the facts.

 

[Riddle]

So you're going to use a NY times article to show it's scientific? Where's the peer review? Let's not even mention the fact that your source basically comes from a journalist and an economist who happens to think Global Warming is false. About water vapor, vapor is dependent on temperature that means the higher the temperature the more water vapor exists in the atmosphere. Guess what's been the most dominate factor in temperature increase? Co2.

I specifically said it wasn't particularly scientific. My point wasn't that this is unarguably true, just that we don't know everything there is to know about global warming and we need to. The basis of my arguments have nothing to do with this, I'm just providing a nexample. Lrn2read.

How do you figure? In the EU renewable energy has become highly competitive, even in the US the reliability of renewable energy is growing, it's very dishonest to write off renewable energy right now when it's been growing at such a rapid rate. Wind Farms in our country have been developing at a very fast rate the past few years, some towns who are run on wind power actually produce a surplus of that. Hydro and Solar are not to far behind either.

Do you think we can support the entire (growing) population on renewable energy alone? At this rate it doesn't seem like we can. If renewable energy can completely support us then it seems to be a very good solution.

The benefits of Nuclear Power greatly out weigh the risks. If you think otherwise than please elaborate.

I do in fact agree with that statement, however, the fact remains that there are risks. If, for instance, we could completely support ourselves with renewable energy should we use nuclear energy? Of course not.

Renewable energies like Wind for instance produce no green house gasses.

Yup. But if we can't rely completely on them then they aren't a complete solution.

I have no idea what you're even saying here.

I'm saying that our best way to find out a solution to Global Warming is to know all there is to know about it.

The less you know about climatology the less likely you are to trust the overwhelming evidence. But if you're going to dispute global warming why not go all the way and dispute evolution. Am I right? Instead of using science to study the long term climate patterns we should just stick our heads out the window, that'll give us an accurate view of the climate.

I don't think anybody is really disputing global warming. Stop being a jerk and overreacting. Try not to demean people.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Evolution and climate change may both be true, but it is also true that a reasonable person can dispute certain conclusions about both, because neither evolution or climate change is a complete theory.

 

[2001]

There are 49 states with snow and Hawai'i is expected to get snow soon. There is no Global Warming.

Just like Jam said.

 

[Riddle]

There are 49 states with snow and Hawai'i is expected to get snow soon. There is no Global Warming.

Just like Jam said.

I hope this is a joke but I'm not sure it is. That does not prove anything.

 

[Aesir]

There are 49 states with snow and Hawai'i is expected to get snow soon. There is no Global Warming.

Just like Jam said.

Sweet mother of god.

Climate and Weather are two different things! Furthermore the existence of one storm doesn't disprove climate change nor does it prove it for that matter. What people seem to forget to get a snow storm you don't need a lot of things, you just need a lot of moisture and a low enough temperature. Also snow in Hawaii isn't that unheard of.

Evolution and climate change may both be true, but it is also true that a reasonable person can dispute certain conclusions about both, because neither evolution or climate change is a complete theory.

How exactly are you defining a reasonable person? because to me a reasonable person does not dabble in lunacy.

I specifically said it wasn't particularly scientific. My point wasn't that this is unarguably true, just that we don't know everything there is to know about global warming and we need to. The basis of my arguments have nothing to do with this, I'm just providing a nexample. Lrn2read.

Yeah I did misread that, but please for the love of god don't quote Levitt.

Do you think we can support the entire (growing) population on renewable energy alone? At this rate it doesn't seem like we can. If renewable energy can completely support us then it seems to be a very good solution.

There was an article in Scientific America that outlined a plan that would give 100% energy from renewable resources. They're still the best option we have at the moment, countries like Germany can be powered completely by renewable energy.

I do in fact agree with that statement, however, the fact remains that there are risks. If, for instance, we could completely support ourselves with renewable energy should we use nuclear energy? Of course not.

Well yeah it's more short term as after 60 years you can't go near the **** plants.

Yup. But if we can't rely completely on them then they aren't a complete solution.

Yes they are, they're very reliable, you're not going to find one type of renewable energy that's going to meet all your needs. What works on the coast isn't going to work in the desert. Solar/Wind/Geothermal/Hydro/bio they're all useful and can be used to meet our needs.

I'm saying that our best way to find out a solution to Global Warming is to know all there is to know about it.

I'd rather act now than be sorry 30 years down the road when it's to late to do anything.

I don't think anybody is really disputing global warming. Stop being a jerk and overreacting. Try not to demean people.

Look at who I was responding to, than read that quote again within the context.

 

[2001]

I hope this is a joke but I'm not sure it is. That does not prove anything.

It's a joke. I stopped trying to get into the debate hall a long time ago. I just spectate like I used to. Just ignore this.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

@Aesir

Having an opinion that is different from yours does not mean that I dabble in lunacy, and I refuse to further debate this subject with you in this thread. This is not the topic of the debate. This debate is about comparing methods of curbing emissions/pollution and debating their effectiveness. The question is "what should we do?", not "does it exist?".

If you have a point to make about my argument concerning the electric car, I will gladly hear it, as it is the one relevant point that I have made so far in this debate.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

It's a joke. I stopped trying to get into the debate hall a long time ago. I just spectate like I used to. Just ignore this.

You still shouldn't have the need or desire to "1+ xam" us with your nonsense though.

Think before you post.

 

[Aesir]

@Aesir

Having an opinion that is different from yours does not mean that I dabble in lunacy, and I refuse to further debate this subject with you in this thread. This is not the topic of the debate. This debate is about comparing methods of curbing emissions/pollution and debating their effectiveness. The question is "what should we do?", not "does it exist?".

Of course it's not a question of does it exist because the overwhelming evidence shows it does, along with the scientific consensus, I'm not calling you out because your views are different then mine I'm calling you out because your opinion is wrong.

If you have a point to make about my argument concerning the electric car, I will gladly hear it, as it is the one relevant point that I have made so far in this debate.

No ones going to argue against you about the electric car, because it was weak point to argue in the first place so your critique probably won't be contested because you can't really defend the electric car.

 

[GoldShadow]

I do in fact agree with that statement, however, the fact remains that there are risks. If, for instance, we could completely support ourselves with renewable energy should we use nuclear energy? Of course not.

All sources of energy carry some sort of risk or potential to harm people and/or the environment. Is that a valid reason to discount them?

Yup. But if we can't rely completely on them then they aren't a complete solution.

Does it have to be a "complete" solution, though? Wouldn't a mixed solution be much more realistic, not to mention more feasible (at least, in the short term)?

Having an opinion that is different from yours does not mean that I dabble in lunacy, and I refuse to further debate this subject with you in this thread. This is not the topic of the debate.

Sorry, but Aesir's right. There's really no dispute about whether or not humans are the major contributor to modern climate trends. Look up that global warming thread from the DH from a couple months ago.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Implementing electric cars would result in a heightened demand for electricity, which would simply result in the increased use of fossil fuels because they are what provide us with the bulk of our power, meaning the pollution produced by car emissions will just change into extra emissions from an increased use of fossil fuel plants, resulting in no benefit.


You can transform the energy into a different form, but it's not really going to achieve much. Energy is energy. What matters is where we get it. As far as our capabilities go in the present day, it would be more efficient to simply have the chemical-to-kinetic energy transformations occurring in the engines of gas-powered cars than to have a (mostly) chemical-to-electrical-to-kinetic energy transformation with electric cars. When you transform energy, you lose some of it, so we should aim to do this as little as possible to maximize efficiency. It's a principle of science.

This means that the electric car does not stand alone as an alternative energy solution. Rather, it should be a sub point of a plan to increase solar/wind/nuclear energy or it shouldn't be done at all.

Okay, the problem with your argument is that you discounted the efficiency of the electric motor. Electric Motors are far more efficient than internal combustion engines, it's just the way they are. Internal combustion engines lose a massive amount of energy as heat; at best a steel motor is 37% efficient. This means that only 37% of the chemical energy put into the engine comes out as kinetic energy. They're a big waste of energy.

However with an electric motor efficiencies range from around 70% to 90% for DC motors (the ones that are probably going to be used in your car), this means that less power is lost as heat and more goes to the wheels.

The grid loses energy as do the power stations, which makes the total efficiency of an electric car system not actually that great. It's slightly better than the average internal combustion engine; around 20% efficient. But that's not really fair, because we're discounting the epic process that goes into transporting and refining oil on that is later turned into petrol or what you guys call gasoline. I would imagine that that would use up plenty of energy as well.

Then after that, we're discounting the use of nuclear and renewable electricity that could be used to generate the electricity.

So overall the electric car system would be more efficient and would produce less CO2 than a car run on fossil fuels. In fact, The Environmental Transport Authority in the UK produced a report stating that electric cars produce on average 106g of CO2/km, whereas the average petrol car produces around 172g of CO2/km. This is a significant improvement!

If you want another source visit this link.

http://web.mit.edu/evt/summary_wtw.pdf

It claims that an electric car charged by the US grid would emit 115g of CO2/km, whereas an internal combustion engine would emit around 250g of CO/km. This halves the emissions.

Maybe electric cars are a good idea if we can get their ranges high enough...

 

[Aesir]

Does it have to be a "complete" solution, though? Wouldn't a mixed solution be much more realistic, not to mention more feasible (at least, in the short term)?

Exactly, Mark Jacobson has argued that you can use a smart mix of all renewable to decrease dependency on fossil fuels

 

[Riddle]

I'm saying that if 'renewable energy' as a whole (wind, sun, water, etc.) can not support our needs then we need to look at something else as well. I'm not saying thtat we shouldn't use it but rather that we can't fully depend on it. IF we can though thats great.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I'm saying that if 'renewable energy' as a whole (wind, sun, water, etc.) can not support our needs then we need to look at something else as well. I'm not saying thtat we shouldn't use it but rather that we can't fully depend on it. IF we can though thats great.

Or maybe we can lower our needs. We could consume less, and we could invest in energy efficiency and recycling. This would make the problem easier to solve, but even then, there's no magic bullet. We've got to do a whole myriad of things.