chubbs
-
Posts
4,026 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
American Weather
Media Demo
Store
Gallery
Posts posted by chubbs
-
-
14 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:
Picking some nits:
- Comparing averages across drivetrains isn't apples-to-apples, because it doesn't account for the mix; instead the comparison needs to be between like-vehicles - e.g. comparison for compact sedans, for mid-size sedans, etc. Also comparison needs to account for quality levels.
- "Lower price" doesn't equate to "out competing". In this case specifically - EV sales in China are only 37% of current sales (per your previous link). So non-EV are still out-competing EV.
- Re-iterating my point about subsidies; "out-competing" also implies level playing field. China, like pretty much every other country, heavily subsidizes their EV's, so it's not a level playing field.
Plug-in hybrids, EVs with a back-up gas engine, are an additional roughly 20% in China. So conventional combustion cars have fallen below 50%. EV subsidies are being eliminated in China as they aren't needed anymore (see link). Agree China wouldn't have cheap EVs without subsidies. However, now that cheap EVS are here there is no going back. EVs are only going to get cheaper and better going forward as commercial scale increases and battery technology improves. China's big EV bet is paying off. Their EV exports are ramping, reaching a record $7 billion in August. (2nd link).
https://ember-energy.org/data/china-cleantech-exports-data-explorer/
-
2 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:
So basically two where EV sales are "out-competing":
- Norway (super-cheap and easy electric via their natural setting for almost 100% hydro; sales boosted by subsidies)
- Singapore (very wealthy and tiny; less than half the car sales of Iowa; sales boosted by subsidies)
EV sales are certainly making progress (though now stalled in many areas), but I think you're overselling it a bit; especially given the subsidies that have been boosting them (thus my quotes around "out-competing").
As a point of US comparison - here's a chart showing the recent sales slump, and stalling of progress towards the CARB-mandated growth in 13 states, with the two key states of CA and NY shown:
Agree that EV's are not out competing oil in the US. They are outcompeting in China though, and those cars will spread as volume production increases both in China and in plants being built by Chinese companies around the world.
-
12 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:
What markets?
In the US - California has by far the highest percentage of EV sales of any state - and even there ICE vehicles are outselling EVs by over 3 to 1. And that was before the $7k tax incentive got removed recently.
A number of countries have increasing EV market share with the global share over 20% this year. Link below has EV and plug-in EV market penetration for 61 countries. There's a range between countries with the US and North America a relative low penetration area. Another growing EV market is Heavy-Duty trucks, which are ramping quickly in China (2nd link), reaching a 28% market share there in Aug 25.
https://robbieandrew.github.io/carsales/
https://apnews.com/article/china-truck-lng-ev-diesel-transport-70f3d612de4b45b6f954a7f557f7f741
-
4 hours ago, tacoman25 said:
He says a lot more than that in that scene...not that I buy all of it, just thought there was some interesting points brought up.
Yea he brought up some good points: our economy and life-style is currently dependent on oil, and oil is running out. However. he's wrong that there is no alternative. Electric vehicles are out competing combustion vehicles in an increasing number of markets and getting cheaper all the time. Meanwhile the best oil reserves are increasingly depleted. Its not going to get better for oil.
-
3 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:
I'm sorry, but those numbers don't even come close to passing the sniff test.
E.g.:
----------------------------
Alternatively, energy payback may be measured by ‘number of times payback’ – meaning, the amount of energy paid back to society versus the energy needed in the lifetime of that turbine. Over the life cycle of a V117-4.2 MW wind power plant, it will return 50 times more energy back to society than it consumed.
That means that when 1 kWh is invested in a wind energy solution, you get 50 kWh in return. For coal, however, if you invest 1kWh you typically get below 0.4 kWh in return.
------------------------
They're honestly asserting that the trillions of $ invested in the coal and oil industries have provided *negative* energy returns? That makes no sense.
Given the source though - a windmill manufacturer - it doesn't surprise me. Much like the oil industry shills - they have a vested interest (no pun intended) in making competing technologies look bad.
Believe the table is calculating electric energy out vs fossil energy in over the powerplant lifetime; i.e., coal (or gas, oil) used to generate power is included. Fossil fuel use during operation of the wind turbine is also included. Agree that society gets an energy payback from use of coal or oil. The problem is that once burned the coal it is gone forever.
In-any-case wind has a good energy payback. Here's an extensive study from Europe covering 33 different kinds of turbines. The median payback period is 6 months. Note that the energy payback for wind has to be good. Its the cheapest source of electricity in windy areas like the great plains. If it didn't pay back it wouldn't be cheap.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0196890421005100
-
7 hours ago, tacoman25 said:
An oil industry myth. The bigger the wind turbine the faster it pays out the energy needed to make it. Only 64 days for a 3.4 MW turbine
https://www.vestas.com/en/sustainability/environment/energy-payback
-
22 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:
When I say "cheap labor" I'm not just talking about menial things. Even though a lot is automated - it still takes a lot of people to run those factories, the mines, do the installation, maintain the installation, etc. The average wage in China is still 1/3 what it is in the US. Throw in the government overriding any NIMBYism and your average large solar installation for instance is probably 1/4 or even 1/10 the cost of what it is in the US. (it's hard to get a true comparison because China doesn't typically publish their costs.)
If the US were to do what it takes to implement the policies that China has - the outcry from the left could be heard from Mars. Environmental destruction, wages below minimum (or even below "living wage"), etc. etc.
Are they eating our lunch with regards to the volume of renewable energy implementation? Yes. Is that a good thing? Not so much, for the above reasons, and because they are still emitting tons more carbon, with way less respect for human rights.
We really, really need to focus on nuclear. That is the best solution. Unfortunately it probably won't happen due to willingness of policymakers to bend to the demands of those who don't properly understand risks.
I'm open to any non-fossil energy source, let the market decide. In the case of nuclear, the US will need to lower cost to deploy significant volume.
-
17 hours ago, tacoman25 said:
Stereotype or not, it's just fact that China has way more cheap labor than any other country in the world. The fact that many factories have become more automated doesn't negate that.
Cheap labor is only one part of the story.
"China has close to 50 graduate programs that focus on either battery chemistry or the closely related subject of battery metallurgy. By contrast, only a handful of professors in the United States are working on batteries."
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20251110-how-china-won-the-worlds-battery-race
-
1
-
-
50 minutes ago, WolfStock1 said:
You don't seem to understand that *the* key ingredient for China's growth - including the growth of their energy industry (both renewables and fossil) is an abundant supply of cheap labor. That is something we simply do not have.
It's not an issue of attitude, priorities, or policy - it's an issue of resources.
"cheap labor" is an outdated stereotype. The factories producing solar/battery/ev are highly automated. China is kicking our butt in a wide range of advanced technologies.
-
2
-
-
19 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:
Looking at the bigger picture though - China still has a *long* ways go to catch up with the US in terms of their general energy mix. E.g. the biggest source by far (unlike the US) is still coal, and fossil is still 1, 2, and 3 (coal, oil, and gas) in their energy sources.
People tend to highlight China's growth in renewables - but the fact is that all their energy sources - including fossil - are growing rapidly.
Yes, China is a good news, bad news story. China has gone from undeveloped under Chairman Mao to the dominant manufacturing country in the world. That takes energy and the main local fossil-fuel energy source is coal. In part, the developed world has outsourced their emissions to China through the import of manufactured goods.
On the flip side, China has rapidly scaled non-fossil clean-energy technology. Driving costs below fossil fuels in many applications and thereby providing a clear path forward to a non-fossil future. It was a gamble on their part and it paid off big time. Now China exports of clean energy equipment provide a large boost to their economy and are reducing emissions around the world. For better or worse we have largely ceded our climate future to China.
https://x.com/JessePeltan/status/1989006026520080519
https://bsky.app/profile/laurimyllyvirta.bsky.social/post/3m2jgeqa4es2z
-
3 hours ago, bluewave said:
Chinas development of renewable energy is built on coal. A true energy revolution there would replace coal and not just use renewables as an addition. The reason that fossil fuels are lingering is that the current renewables don’t have to capacity to lead to a true revolution away from fossil fuels yet.
For now, the world isn’t performing an energy transition but an energy addition, where renewables top up oil, gas and coal. Regardless of well-intended green aspirations, that will remain the case for years, if not decades, unless governments impose significant changes.My point was about technology and solar, not China. Let me rephrase. The problem isn't a lack of technology, its a lack of focus or desire (agreeing with Tip). Climate change isn't high enough on humanity's priority list, China included. I think the phase-out of fossil fuels is only a matter of time though. Unfortunately it won't come fast enough to avoid significant climate impacts.
https://bsky.app/profile/laurimyllyvirta.bsky.social/post/3m5djg6evmc2l
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, bluewave said:
We need to develop a clean technology that can scale up quickly enough and at a low enough cost to actually lead to declining emissions over time. So far solar and wind are just able to supplement fossil fuels and not replace them. The renewables are being used for energy addition rather than transition.
The one piece of good news in this new IEA report is that oil demand would probably increase much more than only 13% without the deployment of renewables between now and 2050. it’s quite possible that the specific energy source and method which will completely replace fossil fuels still hasn’t been developed yet in a scalable form.
I don't think the problem is technology. Solar has outperformed expectations for decades. Same for batteries. China has shown that solar can be deployed much faster than any competing energy technology. We could easily match as our solar resource is better than China's. No its the power of the incumbent, misinformation/denial, lack of vision, and geopolitics and others, that are allowing fossil-fuels to linger.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, tacoman25 said:
China has a major nuclear initiative in action. They have dozens of new nuclear power plants currently being built while the U.S. has none.
That being said, there is a big push from the current administration to build more (primarily to meet rapidly growing datacenter demand due to the AI frenzy), but previous projects have been very slow to get underway.
Yes, China's nuclear generation is increasing rapidly. They are also adding large amounts of hydro and wind. However their biggest source of their new non-fossil power is solar. The solar they are installing this year is roughly equivalent to the entire US nuclear fleet.
-
1
-
-
Preliminary data for this year, shows global CO2 emissions continue to plateau as clean energy technologies take most of the growth in global energy demand. However to solve climate change, need to see a drop in CO2 emissions, the faster the better. In other words progress on clean energy isn't fast enough as fossil incumbents resist change. This years data also shows a reversal in the CO2 growth trajectories of the two biggest emitters, US and China. China is embracing clean energy technologies while the US doubles down on fossil fuels.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:
Is there land under the bottom-left tip there? Interesting that that area remains stationary while the rest of the shelf continues moving.
Based on the movement there it does look like it could break free at any time; the connection with that non-moving section looks very weak now.
Yes, there are a couple of underwater hills that pin the tip of the ice shelf in place (see chart) Per the article, the pinning points have transitioned from a stabilizing to a de-stabilizing force over the past 20 years.
-
New paper on the de-stabilization of the Thwaites ice shelf over the past 20 years. Video, linked below, provides a good overview of the changes to the ice shelf over the past 10 years. Other papers have projected the ice shelf's complete collapse by 2030.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025JF008352
https://phys.org/news/2025-11-antarctic-doomsday-glacier-ice-shelf.html
10-year video-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:
It was suspicious ... These two struck me as big oil moles - they may not be linked as such, but they plied the same sort of tactic that big oil used to attempt. Buyout intellectuals pay them to be lobbyists, sending them into public forums and/or legislative debates. et al, where raise points that are ultimately false, but brilliantly articulated, thus too difficult to adjudicate and/or be objectively critical of by the target audience - who by not fault of their own, are just not educated or experiences or capable.
This is particularly effective when the audiences are bias to begin with, such as Rogen and his reach. He's a CC skeptic, based upon his general history, one that is more than likely influenced by a political base - a latter aspect that is evinced via his media portrait and expose' over recent years. So Lendzen wastes no time in smirkly nose laughing comments that discredit climate science, 'how can there be a huge consensus when there are so few climate scientists around' - or words to that affect. It's so patently absurd when you think that climate scientists are but a fraction of the voices. What about all the alarms from oceanographers and biologist and general environment/natural scientists, et al... what about all them? No one in his audience - for example - even knows to ask that. It's obvious these guys are specious. Or stupid. ... and then he goes on to make statements to the affect of, 'you should be suspicious of any consensus'
This board has taught me never to underestimate the power of confirmation bias.
-
5
-
-
The recent flip to NAO- in modeling is positive for this winters snowfall in the northeast. Below is the correlation of November NAO with total winter snow for the La Ninas since 1950. During La Nina, there's a negative correlation of November NAO with total winter snow in the northeast; i.e, negative Nov NAO tends to produce more snow. Also included a plot for Philly to illustrate.
-
4
-
-
The Chester County COOP stations have had numerous moves and station changes over the years. Fortunately, the changes are easy to spot by comparing against other COOP stations. The 1970 West Chester move is a good example. The top plot shows the monthly temperature difference between West Chester and Coatesville. Before the move, West Chester was roughly 1.5F warmer than Coatesville. When the station re-opened in May 1970 after the move, West Chester was roughly the same temperature as Coatesville.
The difference between West Chester and Phoenixville changed in exactly the same way as a result of the move (second plot). Before the move, West Chester and Phoenixville had similar temperatures. After the move West Chester was cooler than Phoenixville. The cooling nature of the move is easily spotted by inter-comparing the three stations. West Chester experienced a permanent change in temperature that wasn't weather related.
The NOAA bias adjustment captures the West Chester move perfectly. Before 1970, the West Chester data is biased warm because the data was collected at a warmer site. This simple example shows how NOAA uses science to get the correct information from the raw data, what the raw data really saw about our climate. Bias adjustment is critical in Chester County because all the Chesco stations operating in 1945 experienced cooling moves between 1946 and 1970: Coatesville in 1946 and 1948, Phoenixville in 1949 and West Chester in 1970. You won't get the right answer in Chester County without bias adjustment.
-
Article on disaster recovery industry in the US, not the growth industry that we want. No paywall.
-
1 hour ago, tacoman25 said:
This is one of those graphs where the trend line is heavily affected by the starting point. Start in 1987 or 1989 instead of 1982 (which fell during a period of suppressed activity, but there were definitely busier periods prior), and it's quite different.
Here's a 1987 start.
-
1
-
1
-
-
China, India and Indonesia are shifting increasingly to solar and other renewables which should peak their CO2 emissions by 2030. These countries are the largest growth market for coal since the Paris Agreement.
https://bsky.app/profile/creacleanair.bsky.social/post/3m46yyz2dor2a
-
Global Cat 5 in satellite era of good detection. ( Jeff Master's blog article on Melissa)
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, roardog said:
It just seems crazy to me that a volcano can throw as much water vapor into the atmosphere as this one did and it’s pretty much shrugged off as nothing to see here.
Here are a couple of blog articles with links to scientific assessments on the volcano and an explanation for why the impact is small.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-climate-impact-of-the-hunga-tonga
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-real-lesson-of-the-hunga-tonga
-
1
-
Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change
in Climate Change
Posted
Slowing down the introduction of renewables is going to increase US electricity prices.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianpalmer/2025/11/23/electricity-prices-will-shoot-up-due-to-us-federal-mandates/?ctpv=xlrecirc