Voici la question qui me guide dans mes recherches...

L’appât du gain manifesté par les entreprises supranationales et certains groupes oligarchiques, de même que le contrôle des ressources naturelles par ceux-ci, dirigent l’humanité vers un nouvel ordre mondial de type féodal, voir même sa perte. Confronté à cette situation, l’être humain est invité à refuser d’accepter d’emblée une pseudo-vérité véhiculée par des médias peut-être à la solde de ces entreprises et groupes. Au contraire, il est invité à s’engager dans un processus de discernement et conscientisation afin de créer sa propre vérité par la confrontation de sa réalité nécessairement subjective à des données objectives, telles que révélées par la science, par exemple.

The penalty that good men pay for not being interested in politics is to be governed by men worse than themselves. - Plato

samedi 25 septembre 2010

Nissan Leaf electric car compared to a Golf TDI clean diesel

I saw an interesting video that is making some wave on the internet and I wondered if I would buy this type of car?  Would it be practical, what would be the pros and cons?

First the video. I hate those kind of video that manipulate your sense of responsibility.


So, does it really help saving the planet to buy those cars?

Let see the numbers side by side between a TDI and LEAF. Disclosure: I own a Jetta TDI and love it.



So in the end, will it save the planet?
You have to consider that the total cost is more for a Leaf for 160,000 km. Since the impact on the environment is proportional to the total cost of a system it make sense to say that the impact of the Leaf will be greater.  You also need to consider the impact of building those batteries and disposing them after at the end of their life.

Personally I would still buy TDI today.  I hope that this will change with the following improvements:

  • Better batteries, based on carbon nano-tubes and ultra-capacitor
  • Faster charging time
  • Longer autonomy on a charge

UPDATES:



  • While commuting the other day with a friend to work, it came to mind that the best way to save gas, money, the environment and many other things is to car pool. In my case, I have cut in half my travel expense by car pooling.  On top of that, I have a friend to talk about the challenges we face as a race.




  • I stumble upon this article that list all the "rare" elements that goes in the construction of a hybrid car.  We love our gadgets, but all those elements need to be mined, extracted, refined, used and after the live of the car, recycled of disposed of.  All this mean cost and an impact on nature if not done properly.  We have to understand that while technologies are good, the more complexity you put in a system, most of the time it means more energy expense attached to it.

samedi 18 septembre 2010

WHN: WorldWide Hysteria Network

Quite funny...

samedi 11 septembre 2010

Climate Change, global warming and the environmental movement

Two quick video on the long term climate change that the planet experienced ... Always good to put things in perspective.




According to this video, the environmental movement has be usurped by the financial interested and as nothing to do with saving the planet...

vendredi 10 septembre 2010

Still many unanswered questions on 9/11

Here's some video on those questions.





Have you ever wonder how jet fuel could have melted the iron enough to destroy the towers?


What do you think?

Sea level rise: Don't panic, a perspective

You know that the sea level is rising because of us, right?  We put CO2 in the air, the temperature goes up, glaciers melt and sea level rises, right?

Well, like everything in life, there is nothing simple, surely not climate change and sea level rise.

An image is worth a thousand word, you heard that before... Then look at this picture (source).  What is that telling you?

What it tells me is that in the last 24 thousands years, the sea level changed dramatically.  We see on the Y axis a change of around 130 meters over time.  Other things it tells you is that sea level change in the past 6 thousands years, almost did not move.

What do we hear today, that sea level change will be catastrophic, it will kill millions of people, displace population, create wars and on and on... Very scary indeed... So what to make of all this, is there a problem or not?

DON'T PANIC, the changes that we see now are so slow to happen, that even a world record snail (2.8mm/s), could outrun see level rise that we have now (2 mm/year) by a factor of 44 millions. So the snail would travel 88km while the sea level would have risen by 2mm in the same year!

Would we have time to adapt?  Let see, we would have a whole year to move up by 2mm, I think we could manage that, right?

Bjørn Lomborg wrote an interesting article on the subject in the globe and mail:
For some years now, the debate over global warming has been dominated by fear. Understandably frustrated that their message might not be getting through, climate activists have been ratcheting up the rhetoric to the point where one could be excused for wondering whether they are quoting from scientific journals or the Book of Revelations. If nothing is done, we’ve been told, global warming would soon destroy “up to 40 per cent of the Amazonian forests,” cut African crop yields in half by 2020, turn the American Southwest into a new dust bowl within a few decades and melt the Himalayan glaciers, causing them to disappear completely “by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner.”

All very frightening, but none of it was based on solid science.

The chief Cassandra in this chorus of doom has been Al Gore, whose 2006 Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth was unabashedly (and rather accurately) marketed as “the most terrifying film you will ever see.” Mr. Gore rightly was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for putting climate change on the global agenda, but his penchant for hyperbole – as in “we have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe” or we must take “large-scale, preventative measures to protect human civilization as we know it” – isn’t likely to win him any prizes for accuracy or good science.

Here’s a case in point. Mr. Gore and his acolytes speak darkly of the likelihood that, because of global warming, sea levels that may rise 15 or 20 feet over the next century. Let’s put aside for the moment the fact that, according to the best research we have (from the UN’s climate panel, which shared the Nobel Prize with Mr. Gore), global sea levels are not likely to rise more than about 20 inches by 2100 – a level that history shows we can deal with quite easily. Rather, let’s imagine that, over the next 80 or 90 years, a giant port city – say, Tokyo –found itself engulfed by a sea-level rise of the magnitude Mr. Gore suggests. It’s a truly awful prospect, isn’t it? Millions of inhabitants would be imperilled, along with trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure. Without a vast global effort, how could we possibly cope with such a terrifying catastrophe?

Well, we already have. In fact, we’re doing it right now. Since 1930, excessive groundwater withdrawal has caused Tokyo to subside by as much as 15 feet. Similar subsidence has occurred over the past century in a vast range of cities, including Tianjin, Shanghai, Osaka, Bangkok and Jakarta. And in each case, the city has managed to protect itself from such large relative sea-level rises without much difficulty.

The point isn’t that we can or should ignore global warming. The point is that we should be wary of fear-mongering. More often than not, what sounds like horrific changes in climate and geography actually turns out to be quite manageable. In research funded by the European Union, climate scientists Robert J. Nicholls, Richard S.J. Tol and Athanasios T. Vafeidis recently studied what would happen in the unlikely event that the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapsed. The result, they found, would be a sea-level rise of 20 feet over the next hundred years – exactly Mr. Gore’s nightmare. But how calamitous would this really be?

Not very. According to these scientists, a 20-foot rise in sea levels would inundate about 16,000 square miles of coastline and affect more than 400 million people. That’s a lot of people, to be sure, but it’s hardly all of mankind. In fact, it amounts to less than 6 per cent of the world’s population –which is to say that 94 per cent of the population would be unaffected. And most of those who do live in the flood areas wouldn’t even get their feet wet. That’s because the vast majority of those 400 million people reside within cities and other areas that could – and would – be protected relatively easily. (Remember Tokyo?) As a result, only about 15 million people would have to be relocated. And that’s over the course of a century.

The fact is, trying to scare the socks off people with end-of-the-world rhetoric doesn’t make the world a better or safer place. Yes, a startling statistic combined with some hyperbolic prose will make us sit up and pay attention. But we quickly become desensitized, requiring ever more outrageous scenarios to move us. And as the scare stories grow more exaggerated, so, too, does the likelihood that they will be exposed for the exaggerations they are – and the public will end up tuning the whole thing out.

This may explain recent polling data showing that public concern about global warming has declined precipitously in recent years. For instance, a Gallup Poll found that the number of Americans who regard global warming as a serious problem has declined from 40 per cent in 2008 to just 32 per cent this year; the same poll also showed that the number of those who believe the seriousness of the problem has been greatly exaggerated has shot up from 30 per cent to 48 per cent over the past four years. Similarly, an Ipsos MORI poll published in the U.K. last June found that just 28 per cent of Britons are “very concerned” about climate change, down from 44 per cent five years ago. And in Germany, Der Spiegel magazine reported survey results showing that only 42 per cent feared global warming, compared with 62 per cent in 2006.

As these numbers imply, fear may be a great motivator, but it’s a terrible basis for making smart decisions about a complicated problem that demands our full intelligence.

Bjørn Lomborg is the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and the subject of the documentary Cool It, being launched at the Toronto International Film Festival.

lundi 6 septembre 2010

Diesel "greener" than battery cars!

This is not new to me, when I bought my TDI, I calculated the overall cost and came to the conclusion that my TDI would cost less than those hybrid model. This is now confirmed by a study: source

From what I see of the following study, they did not take into account the battery cost, replacement every few years and environmental impact of those complex batteries and technologies. Yet, TDi cost less!

Diesels greener than battery cars, says Swiss gov report
Get a TDi estate not an EV, and save the planet!
By Lewis Page
Swiss boffins have mounted an investigation into the largely unknown environmental burdens of electric cars using lithium-ion batteries, and say that the manufacturing and disposal of batteries presents no insurmountable barriers to electric motoring. However, their analysis reveals that modern diesel cars are actually better for the environment than battery ones.
The revelations come in a new report issued by Swiss government research lab EMPA, titled Contribution of Li-Ion Batteries to the Environmental Impact of Electric Vehicles. The Swiss boffins, having done some major research into the environmental burdens of making and disposing of li-ion batteries - to add to the established bodies of work on existing cars - say that battery manufacture and disposal aren't that big a deal. However, in today's world, with electricity often made by burning coal or gas, a battery car is still a noticeable eco burden:
The main finding of this study is that the impact of a Li-ion battery used in [a battery-powered car] for transport service is relatively small. In contrast, it is the operation phase that remains the dominant contributor to the environmental burden caused by transport service as long as the electricity for the [battery car] is not produced by renewable hydropower ...
A break even analysis shows that an [internal combustion engined vehicle] would need to consume less than 3.9 L/100km to cause lower [environmental impacts] than a [battery car] ... Consumptions in this range are achieved by some small and very efficient diesel [cars], for example, from Ford and Volkswagen.
Actually quite a lot of the new diesels are in the better-than-battery ballpark, according to UK government figures. The notional battery car considered by the EMPA analysts was a Volkswagen Golf with its normal drivetrain replaced by a battery one: but it seems that you would be doing slightly better for the environment to buy an ordinary new Golf with a 1.6 litre "BlueMotion" injected turbodiesel - which would be a lot cheaper. That would consume 3.8 l/100km, not 3.9.
So would a new Mini Cooper D hatchback or a new Ford Focus, actually. And if you could bear to go for something a little smaller - VW Polo rather than Golf - you'd be streets ahead on the environmental front, down as low as 3.4 l/100km with more than 15 per cent of the car's in-service emissions clipped off compared to the 3.9 l/100km battery-car baseline. As the Swiss boffins tell us, it's the in-service energy use and emissions which count most.
You could even treat yourself to a small estate car - the Skoda Fabia - and beat a battery Golf by a large margin in terms of eco-credentials, according to the EMPA analysis.
Of course, battery car lovers will argue that's not the point. Swiss electricity is already largely generated by carbon-free nuclear and hydropower plants (carbon-free provided you don't count all the concrete used to build them, that is). These and other technologies not yet much used (solar, wind, tidal etc) may one day put the battery car far ahead of internal-combustion ones in terms of carbon emissions.
And if nobody buys battery cars now, they'll stay expensive and scarce forever, so it's still possible to view the act of buying one as green even today when they actually do more damage to the environment than the right internal-combustion model.
But if you just want to emit less carbon right away, it seems you should buy a modern eco-diesel rather than an electric vehicle.