Stephen Gloor

Our Pampered Puppy

Here is a picture of our Shitzu Poodle cross puppy who rules our house.

      LUCY

I So Want One of These Cars

I really really want one of these cars - it is called the Aptera and it is classed as a motorcycle.

It is an all electric car with a plug in hybrid to be produced soon.

For me it is the ideal car as I will only have a requirement for 2 people soon and with it's range I can easily drive it to work and it is a lot safer than the Vectrix scooter.

You can see more on its Aptera Website and listen to an interview with the designer on EVWorld.

As you can see from the previous post, the first in a long time, I am going to try to get some of the Green Car Initiative Fund to be spent on this or the Think! City

Letter to my Local Member of Parliament

Right Honourable Judy Molan MLA,

I am writing to you today as a member of your electorate to bring to your attention some issues with the Green Car Innovation Fund of the Government and request some information on how to proceed.

As you probably know 35 million dollars of taxpayers money was recently pledged to a large multinational, Toyota, to encourage them to build their hybrid car, the Toyota Camry, in Australia under the Green Car Innovation Fund program.  While this is a laudable feat the Toyota Camry Hybrid only reduces petrol consumption and CO2 emissions and does not eliminate them, at least for the car.

There exists in production and pre-production many battery electric cars, that have no emissions or petrol consumption themselves, that could easily be made in Australia and sold to Australians.  Currently there are no battery electric cars available to be bought in Australia which is a disgraceful state of affairs.  Recently an importer tried to bring the Gee-Whiz electric car, that is in everyday use in London, into Australia only to be rejected because, unlike the UK, we do not have quadracycle classification for these restricted performance cars operate under.

In Norway a battery electric car, developed in part by Ford, is entering mass production for the US and European market.  It is called the Think! City and is a practical and safe commuter vehicle that meets all international safety standards and could be sold unchanged in Australia.  Currently there are no plans to sell this car here.

One of the standout electric cars and soon to be a plug in hybrid is the Aptera.  It is a low drag commuter car that could be registered under exisiting motorcycle laws here.  With the rising deaths from motorcycles as commuters turn to them in the face of high petrol prices this could be a safer and emission free alternative.  To a small company like Aptera the money given to Toyota, which to them is a drop in a billion dollar bucket, could mean the difference between the car being produced and not being produced.  Money from the Australian goverment would not only ensure that the company produces cars but also makes them in Australia.

I am asking you to raise in Parliament why the Green Car Innovation Fund cannot be spent better on emission free cars like these.  Failing this can you please send me some contacts so that I can lobby the government with a view to getting some of the Green Car Innovation Fund spent on allowing one or both of these cars to be constructed and sold in Australia.  I also declare that I have no financial interests in either of the companies and I hold no stock shares in either nor am I a member of either organisation.

I have enclosed internet links for the cars and also a presentation I have prepared on the different types of low emission vehicles that you may find imformative as it details all the different types of electric and plug in cars.

Regards

Stephen Gloor

Aptera - http://www.aptera.com/

Think City - http://www.think.no/

More Hissink Crap Disposed Of

More of Hissinks rantings punctured.

theoldhogger - "Ender....Your complete bafflement with science is obvious. You have been listening to false priests and priestesses."

Really so lets have a look at Louis's ludicrous claims about his knowledge with the kilo of feathers and kilo of lead example which he failed to point out where I was wrong despite claiming so.

So we have established that a kilo of lead does have the same mass as a kilo of feathers. That is what an intensive property is - independent of the physical properties of the mass.

Now a completely different problem is this. Which weighs more a cubic meter of feathers or a cubic meter of lead? The obvious answer is of course a cubic meter of lead. Why - because lead is denser than feathers. Density is therefore an extensive property. That is that the property depends on the material. Despite the fact that volume is intensive, density is not. However there is a further problem as the density of a material will be different in different conditions. Molten lead has a different density than lead a 0 degC so extensive properties are always qualified. So the density of lead is quoted at a specific temperature and pressure, usually STP, which is 0degC and 1atm pressure.

With feathers there is a different problem - not all feathers are the same. To solve this problem you would need to exactly specify the type of feather that comprised the cubic meter. The other way is to take many samples of different feathers, measure the density of them at STP and then take the average of a large number of samples. This way then you could have the average density of feathers and could then calculate the mass of feathers in a cubic meter at STP.

For both measurement, a M^3 of lead and a M^3 of feathers you would get an answer that is valid at STP and within a few percent of reality.

So contrary to Louis's ravings it is possible to work with extensive properties as long as you are careful about the conditions that you specify so that you get the correct answer. The idea that average temperature somehow contravenes thermodynamics is only a pathetic attempt to baffle with bullshit. If you throw enough long words around then people turn off and think you must know what you are talking about.

If someone mentions measuring temperatures just relate it to measuring the density of a mass of feathers and cut through the bullshit.

In physics simple questions often have very very complex answers and the greatest insights come from the simplest questions. The question of what is heavier a kilo of lead or a kilo of feathers is actually quite a profound one. One that Louis failed to see the implications of because he really does not understand it.

Definitely be wary of false priests and priestesses spouting pseudo science however at least show up the pseudo scientists by asking them to explain their ravings. Most of them at this point will retreat muttering about the second law of thermodynamics which they probably don't understand either. Or they will resort to stupid sock puppets.

Mr Hissink is on the list of 400

This is an exchange we had with Louis Hissink on Jennifer Morohasy's blog.  I am posting it here because in the brave new world of this blog it could get deleted because it is potentially embarrasing.

Anyway Louis claims that he is not on the list of the 400 scientists against Global Warming.  When I point out that the he is he denies that he knew he was on it.

________________________________________ start of extract ________________________________

Louis - "SJT has not read the list because if he/she had, he/she would realise I am not on it. So that makes his/her comment above not something one would expect from someone in full command of all the facts."

Is this you or the evil robot Louis that is impersonating you????????

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

"Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa; Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay; Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden;

Louis Hissink M.Sc. M.A.I.G., Editor AIG News and Consulting Geologist, Perth, Western Australia;

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, U.S.; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis, Russia; Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, Sydney, NSW, Australia; "

Posted by: Ender  at January  4, 2008 08:55 PM

Why Ender,

Thank you, I hadn't realised I was so notorious. I have erred! I am on the list, not only as one of the 100 but now one of the 400!

Mind you, you have shot yourself in the foot as I have never initiated a law suit (Your post previous to the one above), so I can only assume that the hysterical ranting from you and SJT here means than you (collectively) consider me as a serious threat to your dogma.

Still waiting for the empirical (read experimental) support for your Oil theory, by the way.

Posted by: Louis Hissink  at January  4, 2008 09:56 PM

Given the denseness here, I opted to sign the list of 100, but I had no idea I was included on the list of 400, and would not until Ender corrected me.

Nonetheless, it's an honour.

And keep an eye on Henry Thornton folks, because the editor there has asked I amplify some points. Pure science of course, physics included, which should amuse SJT who thinks I don't have any credibility in that area.

Physics that is.

Posted by: Louis Hissink  at January  4, 2008 10:05 PM

More wiggles!

http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/01/2007-warmest-year-on-record-coldest-in.html

Posted by: Mark  at January  4, 2008 11:16 PM

Louis - "Thank you, I hadn't realised I was so notorious. I have erred! I am on the list, not only as one of the 100 but now one of the 400!"

Thats alright Louis always a pleasure. Now this question rears it's ugly head. If Louis really did not know that he was not on the list then how many of the others also do not know they are on the list?? OR were all the people on the list informed that they were there and Louis is just fibbing when he said he did not know.

Either way it is pretty bad. So what is it Louis? Were some the 400 put there without their knowledge or were you telling a bit of a fib????? I am sure we really need an answer here as most people don't like fibbers that are caught out.

"Still waiting for the empirical (read experimental) support for your Oil theory, by the way."

Do I really have to? I am still waiting for the oil wells that replenish, Oil without biomarkers and where oil has been found where abiotic oil theory predicted it would be. So far your petroleum geologist peers have found a couple of trillion barrels of oil where the biotic theory would predict it would be. So the current score is:

Biotic theory of oil formation ~2 trillion barrels
Abiotic theory of oil formation 0 barrels

Not convincing to a person of your beliefs however to anyone else, including your peers, it would be pretty conclusive.

Posted by: Ender  at January  5, 2008 12:03 AM

___________________________________ end of extract ____________________________________

I will be interested in his response.

The Rodent is Gone.

Finally the coal mining government is gone.  Guess I will have to starting whinging about Kevin 07 now.

Not sorry to see Howard gone at all.  I think that he firmly set Australia on the path to the 1950s in the year 1996.

Dilbert That Neatly Sums Up Climate Change Skeptics

This Dilbert so neatly sums up the attitude of fossil fuel vested interests it is breathtaking.

My Political Compass

After reading a post on Peak Energy I thought I would take the Political Compass Test again to see if I had changed over the years.  Here is mine - which has not changed:

The Political Compass

Economic Left/Right: -8.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.23

Authoritarian
Left		Right
Libertarian

This is the international chart - I don't mind being with those people.

"A diverse professional team has assessed the words and actions of internationally known contemporary leaders to give you an idea of how they relate to each other on the political compass.

 

 

 

Intermittant Nuclear Power

Wind and Solar critics constantly point to the intermittent nature of renewables as one of the reasons that renewables are not a viable 24 X 7 power source.  While this is not absolutely true it is also not true that fossil fuels and nuclear are always available.  All generating systems have capacity factors.  Wind varies from 20% for turbines placed in unsuitable locations to 40% for offshore wind.

Nuclear power also has a capacity factor and in the US they have achieved remarkable reliability:
Download u.s._capacity_factors_by_fuel_type.ppt

If you have a look at the attached table nuclear is at 89.8% however the effect on the grid when a nuclear plant drops out is quite dramatic.  The problem is that nuclear reactors need cooling water and as global warming really starts to kick in this commodity is going to be in short supply as evidenced by this news report.

ATHENS, ALA. — The Tennessee Valley Authority shut down one of three units at the Browns Ferry nuclear plant Thursday because water drawn from a river to cool the reactor was too hot, a spokesman said.

The nation's largest public utility shut down Unit 2 about 5:42 p.m. CDT because water drawn from the Tennessee River was exceeding a 90-degree average over 24 hours, amid a blistering heat wave across the Southeast.

"We don't believe we've ever shut down a nuclear unit because of river temperature," said John Moulton, spokesman for the Knoxville, Tenn.-based utility.

He said TVA would compensate for the loss of power by buying power elsewhere. The utility announced earlier Thursday that it was imposing a fuel surcharge on customers because of lower hydroelectric power production caused by drought conditions."

There are two problems here.  One the nuclear plant had to shut down because the river was too warm AND secondly there is not enough hydro to make up the difference.  In this situation a Solar CSP plant would be at it's best performance.

Perhaps we need to figure into nuclear power the cost of the solar CSP plant to back up the intermittent nuclear power.

Pure Howard Hypocricy

So India has a good non-proliferation record does is Mr Howard?

Mr Howard will be speaking to his Indian counterpart today about the possible supply of uranium.

He has told Parliament that he does not believe Australia should refuse to sell uranium to India when it sells to China.

But Mr Howard says there would be conditions including that India agreed to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

"India does have a very good non-proliferation track record [and] it has indicated that it does not intend to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," he said.

So apart from BUILDING ILLEGAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS is has a great non proliferation record.  What does a country have to do to get a bad non proliferation record.  This is what it takes to NOT sell uranium to a country:

THERE'S no prospect in the near future of Australia exporting uranium to Pakistan, says Foreign Minister Alexander Downer.

The Federal Government yesterday confirmed it was considering selling uranium to Pakistan nuclear rival India.

Apparently Pakistan illegally constructed nuclear weapons so of course we will not sell uranium to them.

I wonder if Iran needs uranium?