Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (69813)	5/2/2016 9:08:48 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By Thomas A Watson Respond to of 86355

Why electric car owners are switching back to SUVs By Sanjay Salomon @SanjaySalomon Boston.com Staff \| 04.26.16 \| 1:13 PM A new report from Edmunds.com has troubling news for the alternative-fuel car market. The car research firm found a mere 27.5 percent of all hybrid and electric vehicle trade-ins in the first quarter of 2016 were applied to the purchase of a new hybrid or electric car. Instead, the rest of customers were found to be switching back to gas vehicles, especially SUVs. The results indicate loyalty for these alternative fuel vehicles is declining. In 2015, Edmunds.com found 38.5 percent of hybrid and electric trade-ins were used for the purchase of a new hybrid or electric car. The Edmunds.com report found an electric or hybrid trade-in in 2016 was more likely to be applied to the purchase of an SUV (33.8 percent) than another alternative fuel car. Looking at just fully electric cars, Edmunds.com found 25.7 percent of trade-ins went toward the purchase of an SUV. Just 4.8 percent of electric car trade-ins were applied to a new fully electric car. Fighting against the current Jessica Caldwell, Edmund.com’s director of industry analysis, points out that alternative vehicles are still strong choices for consumers and that the trend back to traditional vehicles does not reflect a backlash against green vehicles. “This trend is not an indictment of the quality of these cars – hybrid and electric vehicles tend to be equipped with some of the most sought-after technology on the market today,” said Caldwell in a statement. She says the lower cost of gas just make owning a traditional vehicle more appealing. Last year, the U.S. auto industry saw 17.47 million sales, with a large share driven by SUV sales. Caldwell points out that demand for SUVs has grown because they offer consumers more of what they are looking for. “The overwhelming popularity of SUVs trumps just about any other trend in today’s market,” said Caldwell. “SUV sales are up 22 percent in the last five years, and almost every other segment has suffered as a result. It’s especially true for hybrids and EVs, which generally don’t offer the size that today’s shoppers crave.” ........... http://www.boston.com/cars/news-and-reviews/2016/04/26/why-electric-car-owners-are-switching-back-suvs/vrZHAfJucI5bis6dFrnCtJ/story.html

To: Brumar89 who wrote (69813)	5/3/2016 8:58:46 AM
From: Eric	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

Looks like you need to send your deniers back to the classroom for more education. Their case was sadly lacking merit in "Real Sclience". Climate change scepticism Climate Consensus - the 97% Peabody coal's contrarian scientist witnesses lose their court case Peabody Energy brought contrarians Spencer, Happer, and Lindzen to testify on their behalf, but the judge wasn’t convinced by their case This Jan. 27, 2009 file photo shows the Peabody Energy headquarters building in St. Louis. The bankruptcy filing of Peabody Energy raises yet more questions about the ability of financially troubled coal companies to cover the potential cost of filling in mines that close. Photograph: Jeff Roberson/AP John Abraham Monday 2 May 2016 11.00 BST Last modified on Monday 2 May 2016 11.01 BST In Minnesota, an administrative hearing resulted in a judicial recommendation that will have impacts across the country. It was a case argued mainly between environmental groups (such as Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, and their clients Fresh Energy and the Sierra Club) and energy producers (such as the now-bankrupt coal company Peabody Energy) regarding what a reasonable social cost of carbon should be. I was called as an expert witness in the case along with respected climate scientist Dr. Andrew Dessler. We were opposed by the well-known contrarians Drs. Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, and William Happer ( who has recently received attention related to his charged fees in the case). In full disclosure, Dr. Dessler and I were not paid for our work in the case. I recently wrote about the testimony and provided links to the testimonies submitted for the case. The judge’s recommendations and how they will impact energy decisions in the USA were the keys to this trial. On April 15th, the Administrative Law Judge decided that the estimated cost of carbon pollution currently used in Minnesota is too low. New knowledge about how fast the climate is changing, how much it will change, and how it will affect societies and economies would be reflected in a larger carbon cost. This leads to a large increase in the estimated cost, from $0.44-4.53 per ton to $11-57 per ton. A summary of the ruling can be found here and the full report is available here. How was this case won? Well certainly it helps to have science on your side. Without that, even the most expensive expert witnesses struggle. But Peabody’s scientists made errors that were easy to identify and point out to the Judge. Furthermore, the Judge was smart, quickly able to see through nonsense non-science. For those of you that read the report, you’ll notice that the Peabody side made claims about the natural variability of Earth’s climate, about Earth temperature changes, and about extreme weather events. The environmental group’s side rebutted these viewpoints (see pages 15-19). We also showed that the experts for Peabody relied extensively on non-peer-reviewed reports, blog sites, and think tanks to support their conclusions (paragraph 359 in the report). The peer-reviewed scientific literature is the best source for accurate climate science information. In other areas, the Peabody experts used scientific papers that we showed were incorrect (paragraph 360 in the report, for example). Perhaps the key findings are best articulated in the judicial conclusions, which begin on page 114. Among the conclusions are: 22. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Peabody failed to demonstrate that an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1 or 1.5°C is correct. 23. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the climate sensitivity is reasonably considered to be in the 2-4.5°C range. 47. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Peabody failed to demonstrate that the relied upon process is neither peer-reviewed nor transparent. I hope that this case will serve as a standard for other utility commissions as they work through the complex issues of the cost of carbon pollution. I also hope that the high standards of science used in Minnesota will be reflected in other areas where similar cases arise. You can’t just bring in some contrarian scientists to make unsupported statements that minimize the costs of climate change. You have to bring in the best scientists and base your conclusions on high-quality peer reviewed studies. theguardian.com