naturalgasbad @ naturalgasbad @lemmy.ca

Posts

276

Comments

745

Joined

2 yr. ago

Heat is actually surprisingly easy to moderate with green spaces, water, shade, and wind.

Unfortunately, roads, roofs, and buildings fuck that all up.

Plant trees along every road. Line every building roof with greenery. Water that greenery, and centrally control how it's watered to create temperature/humidity differentials and thus wind throughout the entire city.

Can you ban people for spurious reports too thx

The real answer is that most roads are a transient solution as transit gets built out. They should form an auxiliary network, not the backbone of a country's transportation.

In this case Russia shot down everything and there were casualties.

Yay I love little explosive pellets

It's not. Americans just can't live without AC.

Building, or built? Either way, maybe these companies will come out with a better design than Tokamak, but until then they're literally just research ventures because the vast majority of investment at actually scaling fusion is happening for Tokamak tractors.

That's from a lack of vision rather than anything else. Google is IIRC

I don't think you understand thermodynamics.

ACs are heat pumps that use temperature differentials to move heat from one side to another. There are inherent losses there (e.g., moving 1000kJ of heat out of a room might take 500kJ, for 200% efficiency). That excess 500kJ is dumped outside into the world along with the 1000kJvof heat, creating a local heat island effect. That's why ACs consume electricity, and that's where the energy goes.

The radiator behind the freezer isn't mega hot because of advances in insulation that limit the amount of heat that needs to be moved and advances in efficiency when operating in specific temperature regimes. A modern fridge consumes 400kWh a year, which averages out to 1.1kWh/day, or 45W continuous draw. That's about the same as a laptop charger. But, well, obviously your house is much larger than your fridge. A fridge might average 400L in volume, but your house averages more like 600000L (1500x more).

If you could move heat around without incurring losses, you could use that to construct a perpetual motion machine. Conservation of energy is a thing and entropy always increases.

If we really cared about the warming component of climate change, we would stop funding natural gas and dump all the money we would have spent on natural gas infrastructure on renewables. We would roll back the ship fuel sulfur ban (which has a cooling effect) and rely on corrective measures for pollution problems in exchange for preventative measures for warming problems.

Because of methane leakage and other factors, natural gas is only a net-positive effect over coal in terms of greenhouse effect somewhere between 20 to 100 years down the line (imo reasonable estimates put this at around 40-50 years). Until then, natural gas has a more significant warming effect than coal because of obscenely high rates of methane leakage during transmission and distribution (which are underreported by relevant agencies to the order of 2-5x).

There is no one solution to climate change, but the question now is whether we care about it as the only problem or just one of a myriad of problems caused by human activity.

Question: is everyone dumping US bonds? How are yields still dropping? How much has the Federal Reserve taken on to compensate?

This is a shit take that completely ignores the laws of thermodynamics. Where do you think all that heat goes?

France's energy supply is almost entirely nuclear, which isn't the easiest to ramp up and down on a minute-by-minute basis.

All electricity has some GHG footprint, and not using that electricity by definition has a lower GHG footprint. Plus, AC creates a heat island effect that forces other city occupants to also install AC, making the outside increasingly miserable over time.

AP again has a shit take: Olympic Village is real estate and will likely be sold off as real estate when the Olympics end. Installing AC, even if it makes sense in the short term, makes zero sense for the long term utility of the building.

https://www.ycombinator.com/deal

Considering China can barely control their domestic EV industry from initiating a price war so aggressive they've effectively commoditized EVs... Yes?

sigh

Do you also think Nvidia is a government-funded company? Google? Pfizer? Your standard for government-funding makes literally zero sense.

Your claim is that MiHoYo, a gaming company responsible for Genshin Impact, is a government funded company?

Okay then.

Rebate estimates are based on published rates for qualifying vehicles and assume that 25% of EVs sold were not eligible.

This eligibility rate seems high based on what we know of the EV market in China.

These were the rebates for 2022:

• All-electric plug-in cars with a range over 400 km are eligible for subsidies of RMB 12,600 (approximately $2000).
• All-electric plug-in cars with a range of 300–400 km are eligible for subsidies of RMB 9100 (approximately $1400).
• Plug-in hybrid cars are now eligible for subsidies of RMB 4800 (approximately $750).
• All-electric plug-in cars with a range of less than 250 km are no longer eligible for subsidies.

For example, the 118k RMB BYD Dolphin has a range of 301km, the 32k RMB Wuling Hongguang Mini EV has a range of 120km, and... Wait, hold up, the what now? The Mini EV is the best-selling car in China, has shipped 1.2 million units as of February 2023, and costs WHAT? The Mini EV market in China is huge, and assuming only 25% of sales aren't captured by rebates seems... low?

Rebate estimates prior to 2023 assume local government support amounted to 15% of central government support.

This might be high, might be low, whatever. It's a marginal error.

The sales tax exemption is calculated using the stated 10% tax exemption for qualifying NEVs.

This ignores the tax exemption caps, but since most EVs are under the cap price it's fine I guess.

Infrastructure subsidy estimates are based on funding amounts provided by the Ministry of Science and Technology.

Can't be bothered to check this.

R&D estimates use government-funded R&D statistics and assume that 90% of auto R&D expenditure went towards NEVs.

Wait, WHAT? Are they ignoring that China has many massive SOEs that have been building ICE cars for forever?

Government procurement estimates assume that 50% of government procurement of autos went towards NEVs.

Again, see above.

Estimates assume that the average prices of commercial and passenger vehicles are RMB 1.2 million and RMB 250,000, respectively.

Again, see the Mini EV.

Annual currency conversions were done using exchange rate data from the OECD.

Fine.

It's clear then where the issues come from: a gross misunderstanding of the Chinese EV market, the average EV cost, and the maximum eligible tax exemption.

China claims $28 billion USD up to 2022 and another $72 billion up to 2027 (almost entirely vehicle tax exemptions)... Of course, those vehicle tax exemptions were inherently because of the pollution of ICE vehicles and only applied to the domestic market.

Is it time to disprove CSIS claims again?

Here's what CSIS claims for the 2009-2023 period:

$65.7B buyer rebates

$117.6B tax exemptions

$4.5B infrastructure subsidies

$25B research and development

$18B government procurement

Rebate estimates are based on published rates for qualifying vehicles and assume that 25% of EVs sold were not eligible. Rebate estimates prior to 2023 assume local government support amounted to 15% of central government support. The sales tax exemption is calculated using the stated 10% tax exemption for qualifying NEVs. Infrastructure subsidy estimates are based on funding amounts provided by the Ministry of Science and Technology. R&D estimates use government-funded R&D statistics and assume that 90% of auto R&D expenditure went towards NEVs. Government procurement estimates assume that 50% of government procurement of autos went towards NEVs. Estimates assume that the average prices of commercial and passenger vehicles are RMB 1.2 million and RMB 250,000, respectively. Annual currency conversions were done using exchange rate data from the OECD.

According to the 2020 policy, only passenger EVs costing less than RMB 300,000 (US$42,376) per unit are eligible for the fiscal incentives.

Up until 2022, the government of China claims 200 billion RMB of subsidies, with the tax exemption making up 115 billion RMB.

Let's backtrack these numbers:

200 billion RMB in total subsidies. 14.1 million in total PEV stock as of 2022, giving ~14.2k RMB/car in subsidies. The top selling EV in China in 2022, the BYD Song, sells for about 180k RMB.

CSIS claims that subsidies are on the order of $230 billion, or 1.67 trillion RMB, but includes 2023 sales (total PEV stock of ~22 million). That's a subsidy of ~76k RMB/car.

We know that the maximum buyer rebates were cut from 18k RMB in 2020 to 14.4k RMB in 2021 and 12.6k RMB in 2022 (but only for very high range EVs). Let's assume for a second that China claims 200 billion RMB solely from buyer rebates, and that of the remaining 1.47 trillion RMB, 853 billion RMB came from the purchase tax... At a 10% tax rate, that suggests an average car value of 390k RMB or ~54k USD. That exceeds the average car value of US car sales (47k USD).

Clearly, CSIS has some wonky numbers, but where do they come from?

Well, if you were paying attention, CSIS claims are alarmingly close to China's claims... If you convert to RMB. China claimed that the purchase tax exemption was responsible for a 115 billion RMB subsidy, while CSIS claimed a $117.6 billion subsidy. Due to differences in annual accounting standards, this is entirely possible.

To check, let's work back based on China's claims, assuming that the only subsidies China considers are buyer rebates and purchase tax exemptions (because funding research, funding infrastructure, and government procurement are hardly subsidies in China's accounting). That leaves $85 billion RMB in buyer rebates and $115 billion RMB in tax exemptions. Working back from the known buyer rebates rate (assuming ~14k RMB/car average over all sales), this gives 6 million subsidy-eligible EV sales or an average sale price of 190k RMB.

However, we know that China's total PEV stock by 2022 was 14.1 million, so what gives? Well, turns out hybrids are still considered PEVs in that accounting (despite receiving far lower subsidies), and the number of BEVs has only really ramped up recently. Moreover, for a variety of reasons not all EVs are eligible for subsidies.

In my next comment I'll dive into where I think CSIS went wrong.