Global warming ...

[devbolt]

Just because you only drive the car 36K miles doesn't mean that a future owner won't drive it much further. It's the lifetime of the car, not how long a particular owner drives the car. After 15K miles, the Bolt has already made up any additional manufacturing deficit. For me, that's within the first year of ownership, and I personally tend to keep my cars for at least 150K miles.

BTW, Union of Concerned Scientists have updated their website and maps to reflect that the national grid has gotten a lot cleaner, especially in the Midwest. Things are improving.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

This article suggests a charcoal grill produces 11 pounds of CO2, obviously it depends on how much charcoal you burn but it's a good estimate
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2015/07/your-grills-smoky-truth

So we have 20 pounds and 11 pounds, pretty clearly not several or even one order of magnitude different.

The grill article suggested that a gas grill produces about 1/2 the CO2 that a charcoal grill produces.

A charcoal grill ADDS NO carbon to the air - because all the carbon in the charcoal came from the air, when the trees grew.

It is only fossil fuels that increase the quantity of carbon in the air.

I have a bag of charcoal.

If it sits in the bag how much CO2 is added to the air? 0

If I burn it how much CO2 is added to the air? 11 lbs

11 > 0

Burning charcoal adds CO2 to the air. Burning wood adds CO2 to the air. Burning ancient trees/plants/bushes in the form of coal adds CO2 to the air. Burning ancient trees/plants/bushes in the form of oil adds CO2 to the air.

That is ridiculous, and you know it.

When the tree grew, the carbon comes from the air. If it dies, and rots, the carbon returns to the air - with no net change.

Then someone made it into charcoal, and this stabilizes the carbon. Bury the charcoal, and you have REMOVED carbon from the air.

If you burn all the charcoal, then the carbon that came from the air - returns to the air. No net change.

That is how it works.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

That is an old map, using 2009 data. Here's the 2014 map:

And that is still 2+ years old data. Things are better now.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

A charcoal grill ADDS NO carbon to the air - because all the carbon in the charcoal came from the air, when the trees grew.

It is only fossil fuels that increase the quantity of carbon in the air.

So, I suppose rainforest deforestation and trees disappearing from urban centers isn't something we need to be concerned about either because really, all the carbon in those trees "came from the air" when the trees grew.

Right.

Long term, forest fires don't matter. Because, that carbon came from the air.

Fossil fuels have been out of the cycle of life for millions and millions of years.

This is just basic science, folks.

 

[oilerlord]

Just because you only drive the car 36K miles doesn't mean that a future owner won't drive it much further. It's the lifetime of the car, not how long a particular owner drives the car. After 15K miles, the Bolt has already made up any additional manufacturing deficit. For me, that's within the first year of ownership, and I personally tend to keep my cars for at least 150K miles.

BTW, Union of Concerned Scientists have updated their website and maps to reflect that the national grid has gotten a lot cleaner, especially in the Midwest. Things are improving.

It's exactly dependent on how long a particular owner drives the car. For an 84 mile BEV it's 135,000 miles....with a 265 mile BEV, it's 179,000 miles. Did you read the assumptions at the bottom of the illustration? Apparently not.

If you do indeed to keep your Bolt for at least 150K miles - kudos. You're in the minority.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

This article suggests a charcoal grill produces 11 pounds of CO2, obviously it depends on how much charcoal you burn but it's a good estimate
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2015/07/your-grills-smoky-truth

So we have 20 pounds and 11 pounds, pretty clearly not several or even one order of magnitude different.

The grill article suggested that a gas grill produces about 1/2 the CO2 that a charcoal grill produces.

A charcoal grill ADDS NO carbon to the air - because all the carbon in the charcoal came from the air, when the trees grew.

It is only fossil fuels that increase the quantity of carbon in the air.

When the tree grows, atmospheric carbon gets tied up into the tree's structure.

When the wood is burned, whether as simple firewood or as charcoal, that carbon combines with atmospheric oxygen to form carbon dioxide.

The only difference between modern wood and fossil fuels is that the plant material in the fossil fuels is from prehistoric times and the chemical structure has been changed by heat, time, and pressure. Burning either one releases carbon to the atmosphere.

You are missing the main difference: fossil fuels have carbon that came from the air MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO.

By the way, all the carbon in fossil fuels is carbon 12.
Some of the carbon from wood / charcoal is carbon 14. This is how we carbon date things, and it is how we know that the additional carbon in the air now came from fossil fuels.

Does anybody know what isotope of carbon is produced by volcanoes?

 

[oilerlord]

Long term, forest fires don't matter. Because, that carbon came from the air.

Fossil fuels have been out of the cycle of life for millions and millions of years.

This is just basic science, folks.

Look at the picture again. It isn't just a forest fire...it's the intentional deforestation of a rainforest. Long term, if we're not replacing the trees we cut down & burn, it DOES matter.

This is just basic science, Neil.

 

[michael]

A charcoal grill ADDS NO carbon to the air - because all the carbon in the charcoal came from the air, when the trees grew.

It is only fossil fuels that increase the quantity of carbon in the air.

When the tree grows, atmospheric carbon gets tied up into the tree's structure.

When the wood is burned, whether as simple firewood or as charcoal, that carbon combines with atmospheric oxygen to form carbon dioxide.

The only difference between modern wood and fossil fuels is that the plant material in the fossil fuels is from prehistoric times and the chemical structure has been changed by heat, time, and pressure. Burning either one releases carbon to the atmosphere.

You are missing the main difference: fossil fuels have carbon that came from the air MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO.

By the way, all the carbon in fossil fuels is carbon 12.
Some of the carbon from wood / charcoal is carbon 14. This is how we carbon date things, and it is how we know that the additional carbon in the air now came from fossil fuels.

Does anybody know what isotope of carbon is produced by volcanoes?

Yes that's true but what difference does it make?

If a tree grows TODAY atmospheric carbon becomes biomass. If that biomass is burned, the carbon is returned to the atmosphere.

I think your point is that if you grow a tree specifically to cut it down and burn, there is no net change in atmospheric carbon. But that's only if the tree was farmed for that purpose. If natural growth is used, there is a net increase in atmospheric carbon.

Similarly, if wood scraps are used to make paper, particle board, etc. carbon stays out of the atmosphere. If they are used to make charcoal briquets, it's returned to the atmosphere.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

Long term, forest fires don't matter. Because, that carbon came from the air.

Fossil fuels have been out of the cycle of life for millions and millions of years.

This is just basic science, folks.

Look at the picture again. It isn't just a forest fire...it's the intentional deforestation of a rainforest. Long term, if we're not replacing the trees we cut down & burn, it DOES matter.

This is just basic science, Neil.

If the trees - or other plants don't grow back again, then that does increase the carbon in the air. But, the carbon is from the air, and other plants will grow on that land. Grasslands actually contain more carbon per acre than forests, by the way - because 80% of grass is in the roots, and grass is far more dense than trees.

Fossil fuels are the main problem, and the main cause of climate change.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

When the tree grows, atmospheric carbon gets tied up into the tree's structure.

When the wood is burned, whether as simple firewood or as charcoal, that carbon combines with atmospheric oxygen to form carbon dioxide.

The only difference between modern wood and fossil fuels is that the plant material in the fossil fuels is from prehistoric times and the chemical structure has been changed by heat, time, and pressure. Burning either one releases carbon to the atmosphere.

You are missing the main difference: fossil fuels have carbon that came from the air MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO.

By the way, all the carbon in fossil fuels is carbon 12.
Some of the carbon from wood / charcoal is carbon 14. This is how we carbon date things, and it is how we know that the additional carbon in the air now came from fossil fuels.

Does anybody know what isotope of carbon is produced by volcanoes?

Yes that's true but what difference does it make?

If a tree grows TODAY atmospheric carbon becomes biomass. If that biomass is burned, the carbon is returned to the atmosphere.

I think your point is that if you grow a tree specifically to cut it down and burn, there is no net change in atmospheric carbon. But that's only if the tree was farmed for that purpose. If natural growth is used, there is a net increase in atmospheric carbon.

Similarly, if wood scraps are used to make paper, particle board, etc. carbon stays out of the atmosphere. If they are used to make charcoal briquets, it's returned to the atmosphere.

No, my point is that carbon in trees came from the air, and no matter if it rots or if we burn it - the SAME amount of carbon goes back into the air.

The cycle of life is continuous, and it is a closed system. So, the level of carbon stays the same over the long term.

Fossil fuels are bringing carbon that have not been in the air for millions of years. That is the difference.

Any answers on volcanic carbon?

 

[devbolt]

Just because you only drive the car 36K miles doesn't mean that a future owner won't drive it much further. It's the lifetime of the car, not how long a particular owner drives the car. After 15K miles, the Bolt has already made up any additional manufacturing deficit. For me, that's within the first year of ownership, and I personally tend to keep my cars for at least 150K miles.

BTW, Union of Concerned Scientists have updated their website and maps to reflect that the national grid has gotten a lot cleaner, especially in the Midwest. Things are improving.

It's exactly dependent on how long a particular owner drives the car. For an 84 mile BEV it's 135,000 miles....with a 265 mile BEV, it's 179,000 miles. Did you read the assumptions at the bottom of the illustration? Apparently not.

If you do indeed to keep your Bolt for at least 150K miles - kudos. You're in the minority.

I read the assumptions. You seem to be assuming that once a BEV is returned at lease end, the car is crushed, instead of being bought by a new owner. The new owner is doing a couple of things that are good overall: they're opting to buy a used car rather than a new one, and they're opting to buy a used BEV rather than a used ICE vehicle. They've avoided the emissions associated with producing a new car, BEV or ICE, and they've chosen the vehicle that has the lowest operational emissions. The BEV, long or short range, continues to contribute to cleaning things up beyond the use of the first owner. Of course it would be best if the original owner kept the car longer than three years, but then that's called owning the car, not leasing it and that's a whole separate issue...

 

[WetEV]

How many people buying a Bolt will ever drive it more than 36,000 miles - much less 179,000? As I mentioned, you need to drive 15,000 miles just overcoming the extra CO2 from the manufacturing process of the battery

Leaf #1 made it to about 23000 miles, before becoming a sandwich filling on the freeway. Insurance company bought it, I hope they sold it as parts... At least the parts that were not bent/broken.

Leaf #2 is at 30,969 miles as of today.

By that time, you're almost ready to lease again, and start the cycle all over again.

With the hidden assumption that the car is scrapped at lease end.

See where I'm going with this?

Yes, I think I do. Maybe this link will help.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern%20troll

 

[LeftieBiker]

No, my point is that carbon in trees came from the air, and no matter if it rots or if we burn it - the SAME amount of carbon goes back into the air.

The cycle of life is continuous, and it is a closed system. So, the level of carbon stays the same over the long term.

The assumption behind the 'burning trees is ok' argument is that there are always more trees growing to replace the burned ones, sucking all that CO2 back out of the air. In reality, the number of trees (and especially the total mass of trees) in the world is steadily decreasing because of deforestation. The only way to keep this equation from going into the red is, as noted, to farm extra trees to burn. That isn't how the world is working, though, so until this changes, burning fossil fuels is worse, but burning recently-living plants is also bad. The only real difference is that it's easier - at least in theory - to compensate for burned plants with carbon sequestration and reforesting than for burned fossil fuels, which are usually more concentrated forms of carbon being burned in vast amounts.

 

[oilerlord]

With the hidden assumption that the car is scrapped at lease end.

I made no assumption, hidden or otherwise. The original owner would drive the car for 179,000 miles. That was the assumption made in the cradle-to-grave comparison that goes to support the 53% fewer emissions over the life of the car.

Guys, it does matter how many new cars you buy or lease over your lifetime, and how long you drive them. Your personal / household CO2 footprint matters. Buying / leasing a new car every three years / 36,000 miles doesn't help lower it.

 

[LeftieBiker]

Guys, it does matter how many new cars you buy or lease over your lifetime, and how long you drive them. Your personal / household CO2 footprint matters. Buying / leasing a new car every three years / 36,000 miles doesn't help lower it.

This is almost universally true, but there may be an exception in the case of new EVs. If someone leases an EV every three years, and the car then gets resold and replaces an ICE vehicle - especially one that burns lot of fuel - then the total impact on global warming, at least as it relates to carbon, may be lowered by the practice, depending on what happens to the old cars at the bottom of the used car market. It's a little like the "Cash For Clunkers" program, which was surprisingly successful in getting a LOT of polluting older cars off the roads. In this case the "cash" is the Federal tax credit, which gets partially passed on even to used buyers, in the form of lower market prices for used EVs. What we could really use is an EV version of that program, where the old ICE car gets scrapped, and the buyer gets an instant point of sale rebate on a new OR used EV.

 

[devbolt]

With the hidden assumption that the car is scrapped at lease end.

I made no assumption, hidden or otherwise. The original owner would drive the car for 179,000 miles. That was the assumption made in the cradle-to-grave comparison that goes to support the 53% fewer emissions over the life of the car.

Guys, it does matter how many new cars you buy or lease over your lifetime, and how long you drive them. Your personal / household CO2 footprint matters. Buying / leasing a new car every three years / 36,000 miles doesn't help lower it.

The graph given by the Union of Concerned Scientists doesn't state that the vehicles are driven by the same owner during their lifetime. They do, however, state that a potential BEV owner would drive their vehicle the same number of miles as a corresponding vehicle. So if they are into leasing all of their vehicles, they still will see an appreciable decrease in emissions, just not as much as someone who keeps their BEV for the 135K to 179K miles of the lifetime of the car. Or they could be the type of owner who only buys used cars that have recently come off of a lease. By the time a secondary owner starts driving the BEV, the emissions impact from it's manufacturing has already been negated, and then some.

The bigger and more important issue seems to be with buying/leasing a new car every 3 years or 36K miles, regardless of drivetrain. And that's a whole separate issue. But not everyone can afford to purchase a new car. Leasing may be the only way to afford to have a car.

 

[wwhitney]

Guys, it does matter how many new cars you buy or lease over your lifetime, and how long you drive them. Your personal / household CO2 footprint matters. Buying / leasing a new car every three years / 36,000 miles doesn't help lower it.

I'm not sure why you say that, I don't think it makes any difference to the CO2 footprint.

Consider a group of 20 people, each of whom has one car, and for simplicity suppose they each drive 10,000 miles/year, and their cars each last 20 years. Let's further suppose that at the start of a 20 year period, they each start with a car of a different age, i.e. one is new, one is 1 year old, one is 2 years old, etc.

Now take two cases: In the first case, everybody keeps their car until it is 20 years old; then they replace it with a new car and hold that for 20 years. Over the course of a 20 year period, 20 cars get bought, and 20 cars get junked. Each person buys one car, and each person junks one car.

In the second case, everybody trades cars (and dollars) every year, passing their car on the person with the next oldest car. So one person is always driving a new car, one person is always driving a 1 year old car, one person is always driving a 2 year old car, etc. Over the course of a 20 year period, 20 cars get bought, and 20 cars get junked. But one person buys all 20 cars, and one person junks all 20 cars.

What carbon footprint accounting method do you propose to use that would result in different accounting for the two cases? It seems to me that in both cases, all 20 people have the same automotive carbon footprint. The only difference I see is that in the second case, some people are (presumably) paying more to drive newer cars, and some people are saving money by driving older cars.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[devbolt]

Guys, it does matter how many new cars you buy or lease over your lifetime, and how long you drive them. Your personal / household CO2 footprint matters. Buying / leasing a new car every three years / 36,000 miles doesn't help lower it.

This is almost universally true, but there may be an exception in the case of new EVs. If someone leases an EV every three years, and the car then gets resold and replaces an ICE vehicle - especially one that burns lot of fuel - then the total impact on global warming, at least as it relates to carbon, may be lowered by the practice, depending on what happens to the old cars at the bottom of the used car market. It's a little like the "Cash For Clunkers" program, which was surprisingly successful in getting a LOT of polluting older cars off the roads. In this case the "cash" is the Federal tax credit, which gets partially passed on even to used buyers, in the form of lower market prices for used EVs. What we could really use is an EV version of that program, where the old ICE car gets scrapped, and the buyer gets an instant point of sale rebate on a new OR used EV.

Well said!

 

[LeftieBiker]

Thanks. I'm always amazed at how infrequently I read that. ;-)

 

[devbolt]

Thanks. I'm always amazed at how infrequently I read that. ;-)

I believe in giving credit where credit is due.