Hybrids Consume More Energy Than SUVs

As Americans become increasingly interested in fuel economy and global warming, they are beginning to make choices about the vehicles they drive based on fuel economy and to a lesser degree emissions. But many of those choices aren't actually the best in terms of vehicle lifetime energy usage and the cost to society over the full lifetime of a car or truck.

CNW Marketing Research Inc. spent two years collecting data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage. This includes such minutia as plant to dealer fuel costs, employee driving distances, electricity usage per pound of material used in each vehicle and literally hundreds of other variables.

To put the data into understandable terms for consumers, it was translated into a "dollars per lifetime mile" figure. That is, the Energy Cost per mile driven. The most Energy Expensive vehicle sold in the U.S. in calendar year 2005: Maybach at $11.58 per mile. The least expensive: Scion xB at $0.48 cents. While neither of those figures is surprising, it is interesting that driving a hybrid vehicle costs more in terms of overall energy consumed than comparable non-hybrid vehicles. For example, the Honda Accord Hybrid has an Energy Cost per Mile of $3.29 while the conventional Honda Accord is $2.18. Put simply, over the "Dust to Dust" lifetime of the Accord Hybrid, it will require about 50 percent more energy than the non-hybrid version.

One of the reasons hybrids cost more than non-hybrids is the manufacture, replacement and disposal of such items as batteries, electric motors (in addition to the conventional engine), lighter weight materials and complexity of the power package.

And while many consumers and environmentalists have targeted sport utility vehicles because of their lower fuel economy and/or perceived inefficiency as a means of transportation, the energy cost per mile shows at least some of that disdain is misplaced. For example, while the industry average of all vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2005 was $2.28 cents per mile, the Hummer H3 (among most SUVs) was only $1.949 cents per mile. That figure is also lower than all currently offered hybrids and Honda Civic at $2.42 per mile.

"If a consumer is concerned about fuel economy because of family budgets or depleting oil supplies, it is perfectly logical to consider buying high- fuel-economy vehicles," says Art Spinella, president of CNW Marketing Research, Inc. "But if the concern is the broader issues such as environmental impact of energy usage, some high-mileage vehicles actually cost society more than conventional or even larger models over their lifetime. "We believe this kind of data is important in a consumer's selection of transportation," says Spinella. "Basing purchase decisions solely on fuel economy or vehicle size does not get to the heart of the energy usage issue." The goal of overall worldwide energy conservation and the cost to society in general -- not just the auto buyer -- can often be better addressed by being aware of a car or truck's "dust to dust" energy requirements, he said. This study is not the end of the energy-usage discussion. "We hope to see a dialog begin that puts educated and aware consumers into energy policy decisions," Spinella said. "We undertook this research to see if perceptions (about energy efficiency) were true in the real world."

Source





'Clear' human impact on climate?

Rather surprisingly, the BBC report below provides a reasonably balanced commentary on the recent semi-official report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. Most of the media have boomed the report uncritically. Documentation of the biases of the authors of the report can be found here (Scroll down)



A scientific report commissioned by the US government has concluded there is "clear evidence" of climate change caused by human activities. The report, from the federal Climate Change Science Program, said trends seen over the last 50 years "cannot be explained by natural processes alone". It found that temperatures have increased in the lower atmosphere as well as at the Earth's surface. However, scientists involved in the report say better data is badly needed.

Observations down the years have suggested that the troposphere, the lower atmosphere, is not warming up, despite evidence that temperatures at the Earth's surface are rising. This goes against generally accepted tenets of atmospheric physics, and has been used by "climate sceptics" as proof that there is no real warming. The new report, Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere, re-analyses the atmospheric data and concludes that tropospheric temperatures are rising.

This means, it says, that the impact of human activities upon the global climate is clear. "The observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, nor by the effect of short-lived atmospheric constituents (such as aerosols and tropospheric ozone) alone," it says.

Holes in the data

But there are some big uncertainties which still need resolving. Globally, the report concludes, tropospheric temperatures have risen by 0.10 and 0.20C per decade since 1979, when satellite data became generally available. The wide gap between the two figures means, says the report, that "...it is not clear whether the troposphere has warmed more or less than the surface".

Peter Thorne, of the UK Meteorological Office, who contributed to the report, ascribes this uncertainty to poor data. "Basically, we've not been observing the atmosphere with climate in mind," he told the BBC News website. "We're looking for very small signals in data that are very noisy. From one day to the next, the temperature can change by 10C, but we're looking for a signal in the order of 0.1C per decade."

The report shows up a particular discrepancy concerning the tropics, where it concludes that temperatures are rising by between 0.02 and 0.19C per decade, a big margin of error. Additionally, the majority of the available datasets show more warming at the surface than in the troposphere, whereas most models predict the opposite.

For Fred Singer, of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, a prominent climate sceptic, this suggests that the report's support for the concept of human-induced climate change is spin rather than substance. "The basic data in the report is quite OK," he said, "but the interpretation that's been given is different from what the data says. "In particular, [the authors] suppress the major result of the report; that data do not agree with models."

'No inconsistency'

Measuring tropospheric temperatures is far from a simple business. Satellites sense the "average" temperature of the air between themselves and the Earth, largely blind to what is happening at different altitudes. To compound matters, instruments on board satellites degrade over time, orbits subtly drift, and calibration between different satellites may be poor.

Weather balloons (or radiosondes) take real-time measurements as they ascend, but scientists can never assess instruments afterwards; they are "fire-and-forget" equipment. Correcting for all these potential sources of error is a sensitive and time-consuming process. The report makes clear recommendations for the kind of infrastructure needed to produce higher-quality data and resolve remaining uncertainties.

Key recommendations include:

• establishing reference sites for radiosonde measurements which would increase consistency between datasets
• making sure the operating periods of satellites overlap so instruments can be cross-calibrated
• observing factors such as wind, clouds, and humidity in the troposphere to make sure they are consistent with temperature data

Such observations could produce an unambiguous picture of tropospheric warming, removing discrepancies over the scientific picture and providing better data which can be used to improve computer models.

"I would be reticent to say the report provides a clear answer," said Peter Thorne, "but I would say it provides a clear road-map. "But we do now have overlap between what is happening and what we believe ought to be happening." [But not much and not with any certainty]






THE GLOBAL WARMING DILEMMA: TO SCARE, OR NOT TO SCARE

(Article from Grist Magazine, 24 April 2006, recognizing the fraudulent nature of climate scares)

I've read three separate things in the past couple days that issue similar warnings: First, a much-discussed BBC Radio 4 show on "overselling climate change" (here). Before your hackles rise: there were no "skeptics" interviewed for the piece, only experienced climate scientists.

Second, an also-much-discussed piece by Andy Revkin in the NYT Week in Review, called "Yelling 'Fire' on a Hot Planet" (here).

Third, a conference call with climate scientist James Hansen, along with some Democratic staffers, environmental groups, and journalists, hosted by the National Environmental Trust. The only place I can find it covered is this execrable piece on the execrable CNS News, but it's got the quote I want (here). Hansen was asked about the recent upsurge in media coverage of climate change:

I am a little concerned about this, in the sense that we are still at a point where the natural fluctuations of climate are still large -- at least, the natural fluctuations of weather compared to long-term climate change ... So we don't want the public to hang their hat on a recent storm, recent hurricanes for example, because those will fluctuate from year to year.

Here's Revkin:

Projections of how patterns of drought, deluges, heat and cold might change are among the most difficult, and will remain laden with huge uncertainties for a long time to come ... While scientists say they lack firm evidence to connect recent weather to the human influence on climate, environmental campaigners still push the notion.

Here's the BBC:

Dr Hans Von Storch, a leading German climate scientist and fervent believer in global warming, is convinced the effect of climate change is being exaggerated.

"The alarmists think that climate change is something extremely dangerous, extremely bad and that overselling a little bit, if it serves a good purpose, is not that bad."

Enviros (and, hell, anyone who's concerned about global warming) are in a bind. Pushing quasi-apocalyptic talk about the current effects of climate change -- for instance, citing Hurricane Katrina -- goes well beyond the available science. If enviros tie public concern about global warming to current weather events, and there are a few years of calm weather, they will look like tools. It could backfire.

There's no getting around it: It's a bitch of a problem. It's slow, long-term, uncertain, global ... everything we are evolutionarily designed to screen out. What to do? On his blog (yes, literally everybody has one), Revkin frames it this way (See here):

[Advocates] can try to frame global warming in a way that makes it seem like the kind of "here and now" crisis we are familiar with, or they can do the much harder work of reframing value systems so that we do something rare for our species: act now to limit risks facing our children and their children.

Fudge the science or change human nature. What an unappealing choice! It's late, so I won't try to cut the Gordian knot here. I'd only suggest one thing: I wish enviros would do a lot more to sell their ideas -- renewable energy, local food systems, bright green cities, etc. -- on their own merits, rather than as a way to dodge an oncoming train. Enacting those ideas would produce a better, safer, cleaner, more equitable, more enjoyable world. That's worth doing totally irrespective of climate change. Don't you think?






Another prominent Australian Greenie learns to love nukes

Apparently anything is better than burning coal!

Prominent scientist Tim Flannery has called for an end to the uranium debate, saying all alternative energy sources to fossil fuels must be considered in the fight against climate change. The author of The Weather Makers and director of the South Australian Museum said yesterday he had softened his view on nuclear power.

Dr Flannery said the nation could not afford to get "bogged down in a debate about the three mines policy" or nuclear power and instead should develop a cohesive response to global warming. "People say we can't have uranium mining because there's a danger of proliferation and that's true," Dr Flannery said. "But we have to weigh all of this stuff and deal with this in the context of threat to climate change and that's why people are getting away with rubbish about wind and uranium. "Having travelled around the world looking at energy options, I am more favourably disposed towards nuclear power than I was previously, particularly when you look at the scale of the problem in China and the use of coal."

Dr Flannery's comments come a day after the chief executive of the nation's second-largest environment group, WWF Australia, accepted the Government's planned expansion of uranium mining and exports to China. WWF chief executive Greg Bourne told The Australian the nation was "destined" to mine and export uranium and said the key was to ensure it was used only for peaceful purposes and the waste was stored safely.

His comments provoked a furious response from green groups yesterday and a prediction from both sides of the debate that WWF's position could influence Labor Party policy. Opposition environment spokesman Anthony Albanese denied the claims, but federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane welcomed Mr Bourne's comments as the third "notable backflip on the expansion of uranium mining in recent weeks - Kim Beazley, Peter Beattie and now the WWF".

Source

***************************************

Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

*****************************************