Notícias e actualidades
Clima, Energia e Políticas Publicas (Maior fraude do Século XXI)
-
AlarmesdoMeco
- 14 outubro 2018
Neve em Monsanto 2 fevereiro de 1954
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvqgn4RM844-
AlarmesdoMeco
- 14 outubro 2018 editado
Quando os jornais não sabem do que falam, esta tudo dito sobre a Meteorologia
Ciclone de 1941Efeitos a nível nacional
Numa breve síntese aos danos causados, a nível nacional, destaca-se o elevado número de vítimas mortais, superior a uma centena, e o número indefini‐ do de feridos2. Muitas das vítimas mortais, em espe‐ cial, em Lisboa, Alhandra, Sesimbra, Alhos Vedros te‐ rão sido por afogamento devido a inundações que ocorreram nas áreas ribeirinha. Estas inundações te‐ rão resultado da conjugação de múltiplos fatores, destacando-se, entre eles, a sobreelevação do nível do mar ou “storm surge”. Esta sobreelevação refere- se à subida temporária do nível do mar resultante da existência de condições meteorológicas anómalas, no‐ meadamente de variações no campo da pressão at‐ mosférica e/ou da ação de ventos fortes e prolongados (taBorada e dias, 1992)..Além das vítimas mortais, foram avultados os danos nas telecomunicações e em outras infra-estru‐ turas. As comunicações telegráficas e telefónicas com a Capital ficaram interrompidas durante vários dias, tendo sido restabelecidas com algumas áreas do terri‐ tório apenas no dia 20 de Fevereiro. Também se assi‐ nalaram vários cortes nos caminhos-de-ferro, motiva‐ dos por acidentes, alguns dos quais com vítimas mortais (ex. Lamarosa/Coimbra: choque de comboios com 2 vitimas mortais; entre Travagem e Leandro/Mi‐ nho, devido à queda de uma árvore, 3 mortes). A rede viária foi, também, afetada principalmente devido à queda de árvores.
São, também, referidos cortes no fornecimento de eletricidade e graves prejuízos em fábricas, habita‐ ções e monumentos. Por exemplo em Lisboa, refere-se a destruição da muralha marginal desde Alcântara até à Torre de Belém e em Coimbra salientam-se os graves danos no Hospital da Universidade.
Centenas de embarcações ter-se-ão afundado ou ficado com graves danos, destacando-se o caso de Se‐ simbra em cujos jornais referem o afundamento de mais de 3 centenas enquanto as danificadas ascendem às 6 centenas. No estuário do Tejo é referido o afunda‐ mento de mais de 150 embarcações.
Os estragos ao nível da floresta terão sido muito avultados. Centenas de milhares de árvores foram com‐ pletamente arrancadas ou então ficaram com graves danos. No Pinhal de Leiria terão sido mais de 300 mil as árvores afetadas; em Abrantes referem-se mais de 200 000 pés, em Nisa o total de árvores danificadas ascen‐ deria a 375000, em Évora é referida a destruição de 10 mil eucaliptos e 20 mil pinheiros na Mata Nacional de Virtudes. No município de Seia, a pequena freguesia de Cabeça refere a destruição de 15500 pinheiros, mais de 500 oliveiras e cerca de 150 árvores de fruto.
Em súmula, a avaliação dos danos causados pelo ciclone de 1941 terão ascendido a 1 milhão de contos, o que representava na altura metade do orçamento na‐ cional. Fazendo a atualização para os dias de hoje e contabilizando os prejuízos causados na altura, esta tempestade orçaria em cerca de 5 mil milhões (Muir- wood, 2011).
FONTE: http://www.uc.pt/fluc/depgeo/Cadernos_Geografia/Numeros_publicados/CadGeo30_31/Eixo1_2
Tivéssemos nos o ciclone 1941 nos dias de hoje, ouviríamos o profetas da desgraça a dizer que o Malvado C02 era o culpado.-
Sergio Rodrigues
- 14 outubro 2018
Colocado por: AlarmesdoMecoouviríamos o profetas da desgraça a dizer que o Malvado C02 era o culpado.
-
Sergio Rodrigues
- 14 outubro 2018
Colocado por: Sergio Rodrigueshttps://youtu.be/fh-cLKPRJgo
-
AlarmesdoMeco
- 14 outubro 2018 editado
Colocado por: Sergio Rodrigues
Ninguém aqui (incluindo eu ) está a negar ciência, bem pelo contrário, desde o principio do topico que teem sido colocado centenas de PDF técnicos.
Quanto ao comediante a pagina fala por si..faz comedia com verdades e com mentiras, ou seja, o que lhe mete pão na mesa.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jimmy_DoreColocado por: Sergio Rodrigues
Vejamos, fazes o quote incompleto da minha frase e removes estrategicamente " Tivéssemos nos o ciclone 1941 nos dias de hoje" sabendo que em 1941 não havia níveis altos de C02 e no entanto houve um fenómenos ou catástrofes naturais.
Para mim isto é uma tentativa clara de deturpação da palavra, ao removeres o contexto da frase, não fazes argumento contraditório ou uma qualquer tentativa de o fazer...
Porque a realidade é que sempre existiu fenómenos naturais durante milhares de anos independente dos niveis do C02 serem altos ou baixos, agora que o tentem colar no século XXI é algo que nenhum cientista do IPCC ou NOAA o consegui provar fora dos modelos de computador que utilizam.
pergunta para queijinho: Já leste o PDF no inicio deste topico ? não tem contraditórios científicos feito a relatórios científicos ?Depois de milhares de pdf continuo sem perceber o objectivo deste tópico...
Falar da maior fraude do século?
Então e como podemos combater isso, perguntou um utilizador.
Com reciclagem, felicidade, amor... respondeu o alarmes ( não foram estas as palavras)...
Cheguei à conclusão que o alarmes sabe isso, mas se não há objectivo para combater essa fraude, rapidamente chego à conclusão que este tópico é uma fraude...
Quanto a opiniões sobre a questão... já nem vale a pena.-
AlarmesdoMeco
- 14 outubro 2018 editado
Colocado por: cabocheDepois de milhares de pdf continuo sem perceber o objectivo deste tópico...
Falar da maior fraude do século?
Então e como podemos combater isso, perguntou um utilizador.
Com reciclagem, felicidade, amor... respondeu o alarmes ( não foram estas as palavras)...
Cheguei à conclusão que o alarmes sabe isso, mas se não há objectivo para combater essa fraude, rapidamente chego à conclusão que este tópico é uma fraude...
Quanto a opiniões sobre a questão... já nem vale a pena.
(Baseado nos comentários que fez)
Quer combater uma fraude se não acredita nela ? Parece-me contraditório a sua própria observação..
A) Caso acredite na fraude, pode fazer o seguinte
Politicas energéticas - guerra inglória e Sem solução, as metas europeias da descarbonizaçao são para ser atingidas
Use o minimo electricidade da rede, off the grid, baterias e paineis ate 25kW..daqui a 10 anos ao preço que vai estar electricidade, venha-me agradecer o conselho
B) Se chegou á conclusão que não existe qualquer fraude ou objectivos e está perfeitamente ciente que vai haver um aumento monstruoso da temperatura e que as politicas governamentais sao as correctas aconselho a que :
- para de perder tempo neste topico e começe a construção da sua "arca do Noe"
-vá imediatamente ao banco e esvazie a sua conta e faça doações para ajudar no aquecimento global....a espera não é necessário, a taxa do carbono já o faz.Ok obrigadoEste tópico já parece o do josexy. Pelo menos tem o mesmo grau de surrealidade e incorrecções.-
AlarmesdoMeco
- 14 outubro 2018 editado
Não ultima segunda feira 08 outubro de 2018, um grupo de cientistas do IPCC mostrou ao mundo um novo relatório que diz basicamente isto:We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN
A group of scientists convened by the United Nations to guide world leaders, describes a world of worsening food shortages and wildfires, and a mass die-off of coral reefs as soon as 2040
IPCC panel of scientists brought together by the United Nations, warned in a report Monday that droughts, wildfires, coral reef destruction and other climate and environmental disasters could grow worse as soon as 2040, even with a smaller increase in temperatures than used to set the Paris targets.
We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN
IPCC makes clear that climate change is already happening, upgraded its risk warning from previous reports, and warned that every fraction of additional warming would worsen the impact.
But the greatest difference would be to nature. Insects, which are vital for pollination of crops, and plants are almost twice as likely to lose half their habitat at 2C compared with 1.5C. Corals would be 99% lost at the higher of the two temperatures, but more than 10% have a chance of surviving if the lower target is reached.
Time and carbon budgets are running out. By mid-century, a shift to the lower goal would require a supercharged roll-back of emissions sources that have built up over the past 250 years.
Carbon pollution would have to be cut by 45% by 2030
This would require carbon prices that are three to four times higher than for a 2C target.
We have presented governments with pretty hard choices. We have pointed out the enormous benefits of keeping to 1.5C, and also the unprecedented shift in energy systems and transport that would be needed to achieve that
He said the main finding of his group of scientists was the need for urgency.
The report will be presented to governments at the UN climate conference in Poland at the end of this year.
At the current level of commitments, the world is on course for a disastrous 3C of warming.
“I hope this can change the world,” said Jiang Kejun of China’s semi-governmental Energy Research Institute, who is one of the authors.
Climate change is occurring earlier and more rapidly than expected. Even at the current level of 1C warming, it is painful,” he told the Guardian. “This report is really important. It has a scientific robustness that shows 1.5C is not just a political concession. There is a growing recognition that 2C is dangerous.”
A group of scientists convened by the United Nations to guide world leaders, describes a world of worsening food shortages and wildfires, and a mass die-off of coral reefs as soon as 2040
The report “is quite a shock, and quite concerning,” said Bill Hare, an author of previous I.P.C.C. reports and a physicist with Climate Analytics, a nonprofit organization.
the report says that heavy taxes or prices on carbon dioxide emissions — perhaps as high as $27,000 per ton by 2100 — would be required.
The report was written and edited by 91 scientists from 40 countries who analyzed more than 6,000 scientific studies.
This report makes it clear: There is no way to mitigate climate change without getting rid of coal,”
The report attempts to put a price tag on the effects of climate change. The estimated $54 trillion in damage from 1.5 degrees of warming would grow to $69 trillion if the world continues to warm by 2.C degrees and beyond, the report found, although it does not specify the length of time represented by those costs.
A price on carbon is central to prompt mitigation,” the report concludes. It estimates that to be effective, such a price would have to range from $135 to $5,500 per ton of carbon dioxide pollution in 2030, and from $690 to $27,000 per ton by 2100.
By comparison, under the Obama administration, government economists estimated that an appropriate price on carbon would be in the range of $50 per ton. Under the Trump administration, that figure was lowered to about $7 per ton.
At 2.C degrees of warming, the report predicts a “disproportionately rapid evacuation” of people from the tropics. “In some parts of the world, national borders will become irrelevant,” said Aromar Revi, director of the Indian Institute for Human Settlements and an author of the report. “You can set up a wall to try to contain 10,000 and 20,000 and one million people, but not 10 million.”
FONTE: IPCC website, New York times e Guardian http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/
E as reações políticas ao relatório foram estas:Advocates of taxing fossil fuels believe their position is stronger now because of an alarming new report on climate change and a Nobel Prize awarded to by two American economists, but neither development is likely to break down political resistance to a carbon tax.
Previous alarms about global warming met with resistance from Congress and the White House. President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris agreement on climate change last year.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a panel of scientists brought together by the United Nations, warned in a report Monday that droughts, wildfires, coral reef destruction and other climate and environmental disasters could grow worse as soon as 2040, even with a smaller increase in temperatures than used to set the Paris targets.
A few hours later, the Nobel Prize in economics went to two Americans, including William Nordhaus of Yale University, who argues that carbon taxes would be the best way to address problems created by greenhouse-gas emissions.
A carbon tax is a charge imposed on the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas, which produce carbon dioxide. The tax is designed to make users of those fuels pay for the environmental damage they cause. The ultimate goal of some tax backers is to price fossil fuels out of the market and replace them with sources of energy that produce little or no heat-trapping emissions.
Coal and oil and gas companies could pass the tax cost along to consumers, which would presumably give a price advantage to energy that is not taxed. That, advocates say, would help renewables such as solar and wind grow more quickly from their current single-digit share of the U.S. electricity market.
There is, of course, stark disagreement over the economic effect of a carbon tax.
Researchers at Columbia University estimate that a tax of $50 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions would increase average U.S. consumer electricity bills 22 percent by 2030, with amounts varying by region. A Tufts University authority estimates that it would add 45 cents a gallon to the price of gasoline. Both think the impact can be mitigated by distributing the money raised through taxes to households, and that many low- and medium-income families would come out ahead.
Opponents argue that a carbon tax would kill manufacturing jobs and hurt family income.
A 2014 report by the Heritage Foundation said that a tax of $37 a ton would cut economic output more than $2.5 trillion, or $21,000 per family, by 2030. This year, two dozen conservative groups endorsed an estimate that a carbon tax would cost more than 500,000 manufacturing jobs by 2030.
Noah Kaufman, an energy-policy researcher at Columbia and a proponent of carbon taxes, said the terrifying prognosis in Monday’s report should highlight the central role of a carbon tax in addressing climate change. But, he acknowledged, such warnings are not new, and political opposition to a tax remains strong.
“There are really high political barriers that continue to stand in our way,” he said. “By far the biggest obstacle in the United States right now is the leadership of the Republican party, which is dead-set against any strong climate-change policy.”
In July, the GOP-controlled House voted for a resolution rejecting carbon taxes as detrimental to the U.S. economy. Almost all Republicans, joined by a few Democrats, voted for the symbolic measure.
Prominent opponents of the carbon tax also believe that urgency over addressing climate change is exaggerated. They point out that U.S. carbon emissions have fallen in recent years as abundant natural gas has risen to rival coal in electric generation. Meanwhile, China’s emissions grow rapidly, making it the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases.
The scientists who prepared the UN-backed report “are trying to convince us all that there is an imminent crisis when in fact there is a potential long-term problem,” said Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who worked on the Trump transition. Carbon taxes, he added, “are political poison once people figure out how much their energy bills are going to go up.”
There are signs that the political ground could shift.
- A group of former Republican officials and big corporations plan to lobby for a tax of $40 per ton of carbon dioxide produced and to give the money to U.S. taxpayers. Oil giants Exxon Mobil, BP and Royal Dutch Shell support the plan, which also would protect them from lawsuits blaming them for climate change.
- A Republican congressman, Carlos Curbelo of Florida, bucked party leadership this summer by proposing a carbon tax.
- Voters in Washington state will decide next month whether to adopt a carbon fee.
“I am optimistic that the (UN-backed) report will make a difference, but I just think we’re going to have to get a little distance from where we are right now in the politics,” said Gilbert Metcalf, an economist at Tufts University and author of an upcoming book advocating a carbon tax. “It’s going to take a longer time, a few years.”
Nordhaus, the freshly minted Nobel winner, was also looking beyond the current political leadership in Washington, D.C. He said that outside the United States there is wide acceptance of the science and economics of climate change.
“This administration won’t last forever,” Nordhaus said at a news conference. “All I can do is hope that we will get through this without too much damage.”
Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, another group that lobbied against carbon taxes, said Nordhaus ignored science and history in advocating a carbon tax.
“He should look at the history of the last 20 years and see that the United States has been reducing carbon emissions without a carbon tax,” Norquist said.-
AlarmesdoMeco
- 15 outubro 2018 editado
Se quiserem ler mais sobre mitos e verdades, teem aqui mais um mito cientificamente desmistificado em que era afirmado que os furacões com maior intensidade na america eram causa de mudanças climatéricas e aquecimento global segundo a imprensa alarmista.
A noticia do de Pânico global + furacões no USA TODAY Did global warming 'supercharge' Hurricane Michael? https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/science/2018/10/12/hurricane-michael-did-global-warming-supercharge-storm/1602722002/
Não coloquei o link do artigo do NYtimes porque cheguei ao limite gratis.
E o desmentido cientificamente neste link/artigo http://www.drroyspencer.com-
AlarmesdoMeco
- 15 outubro 2018 editado
Se puderem ver este video e ler um pouco do artigo , é bastante representativo do que se passa na America hoje em dia "The Climate change Hysteria"
Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that the number of major hurricanes making landfall in the U.S. has actually fallen since the 1930s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoG7aPdM_EsThe subject was Hurricane Florence and whether it could be blamed on President Trump (specifically) or humanity (more generally).
You really can’t say much in only a couple of minutes, and it’s difficult when you don’t know what the questions will be. I got a plug in for Anthony Watts’ revealing the deception Bill Nye’s (The Science Guy) faked global-warming-in-a-jar experiment.
How did I get on Tucker’s show? It started when the folks at the Texas Public Policy Foundation asked me to write an op-ed to counter the global warming hype around Hurricane Florence. That was published in USA Today yesterday morning. They also set up several radio talk show interviews during the day, and scored the Tucker Carlson spot several hours before showtime.
I have to drive 2 hours to Nashville for national TV interviews, since our local TV affiliates have stopped honoring requests to handle the studio work here in Huntsville. If it’s a major show, the network pays for a makeup artist to come in and take a few years off my face.
I never get to see TV interview while we are doing them remotely. I have an earpiece and stare into a TV camera. It takes a few times to get used to having a conversation with a camera lens.
The more I think about Bill Nye’s experiment, the more irritated I get with the consensus scientific establishment for not telling Bill Nye that such an experiment cannot work; you cannot demonstrate the greenhouse effect on temperature with CO2 in a glass jar. Scientists who understand atmospheric radiative transfer know that.
The fact that the “Climate 101” video is still out there means the scientific establishment (plus Al Gore, who used it in his “Climate Reality Project”), are complicit in scientific fraud in order to advance the alarmist global warming narrative.
If their evidence for human-caused climate change is so good, they shouldn’t have to fake evidence to support their claims. I realize Bill Nye isn’t part of the climate research establishment, but he has a huge influence on public perception and scientific understanding. James Hansen also has had a huge influence on the public debate, and yet broke NASA rules by speaking to the press and Congress without management approval (and also likely violated the Hatch Act by campaigning politically..yes, he did, ThinkProgress, because he was a member of the Senior Executive Service, which has special Hatch Act rules.. I know because I was one of them, and I resigned NASA rather than have my hands tied).This is the state of climate science today: if you support the alarmist narrative, you can exaggerate threats and connections with human activities, fake experiments, break government rules, intimidate scientific journal editors (and make them resign),and even violate the law.
As long as you can say you are doing it for the children.
Fonte: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/-
AlarmesdoMeco
- 15 outubro 2018 editado
Para que tenham uma ideia do que é feito no relatório do IPCC, vou mostrar uma evidencia que passa despercebida a quem le o relatório e que eu tenho afirmado aqui bastantes vezes
Estava a dar uma vista de olhos no relatório com a palavra portugal e reparei nisto:
RELATORIO DO IPCC 8 OUTUBRO 2018Comparing the impacts on hydropower production at 1.5°C and 2°C, it is found that mean gross potential increases in northern, eastern and western Europe, and decreases in southern Europe (Tobin et al., 2018; Jacob et al., 2018). The Baltic and Scandinavian countries will have the most positive impacts on production. The most negatively impacted are Greece, Spain, and Portugal, although the impacts can be reduced by limiting warming at 1.5°C (Tobin et al., 2018). It is found that, in Greece, Spain and Portugal, a warming of 2°C will decrease hydropower potential below 10%, while limiting to 1.5°C warming will keep the reduction to 5% or less. There is however, substantial uncertainty associated with these results due to a large spread between the climate models (Tobin et al., 2018).
Due to a combination of higher water temperatures and reduced summer river flows, the usable capacity of thermoelectric power plants using river water for cooling is expected to reduce in all European countries (Tobin et al., 2018; Jacob et al., 2018), with the magnitude of decreases being about 5% for 1.5°C and 10% for 2°C for most European countries (Tobin et al., 2018). Greece, Spain, and Bulgaria will have the largest reduction at 2°C (Tobin et al., 2018).
A referência acima é dito que a fonte é o sr Tobin et al., 2018,......fui procurar o tal relatorio no google e encontrei isto:Tobin et al. [11] analyze the impact of climate change leading to temperature increases of 1.5, 2, or 3 ◦C on mean, gross hydropower potential—sum of annual runoff by country—in Europe using five regional climate model simulations from the EUROCORDEX initiative [25]. They confirm the regional stratification of the impact of climate change on hydropower potential shown by global studies with increases in Northern, Eastern, and Western Europe, and decreases in Southern Europe. Out of the 25 countries taken into account, 18 are expected to see increases, whilst Portugal, Spain, and Greece are expected to see decreases, in hydropower potential. For four countries, including Switzerland, the direction of change depends on the level of warming. Tobin et al. find changes in hydropower potential ranging up to 10% (1.5 ◦C temperature increase) or even 20% (3 ◦C), but also note a high uncertainty in their results due to a large spread between the model simulations [11].
Based on their global simulation, Turner et al. [24] expect a decrease in Swiss hydro generation of −7.1% on average in 2050, ranging from −9.1 to −1.3% depending on the underlying emission scenario and GCM. Austria (−13.7%) is even more severely affected by projected climate change. For Germany (−4.3%), the trend is a little less certain, with both negative and positive projections ranging from −15.6 to +10%.
Conseguem perceber que esses numero são feitos num Simulador ? são estimativas feitas em modelos de computador ?
Conseguem perceber que no relatorio do IPCC é removida a palavra SIMULADOR e apresentam como sendo um dado Infalível e correcto ?
Podem encontrar a fonte do IPCC na pagina 3-65 do Chapter 3 (mirror) do link ou usando a palavra portugal
No google pesquisem por (Tobin et al., 2018) para ceder ao PDF
Fonte : http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwjCrau4gofeAhWCy4UKHULFBGIQFjABegQICBAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mdpi.com%2F2071-1050%2F10%2F7%2F2541%2Fpdf&usg=AOvVaw3NOvoD81FI-Rajja2i0Ffp-
AlarmesdoMeco
- 15 outubro 2018
Se aprofundarmos mais o que é o simulador EURO-CORDEX chegamos aqui
Jacob, D.; Petersen, J.; Eggert, B.; Alias, A.; Christensen, O.B.; Bouwer, L.M.; Braun, A.; Colette, A.; Déqué, M.;
Georgievski, G.; et al. EURO-CORDEX: New high-resolution climate change projections for European impact
research. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2014, 14, 563–578. [CrossRef]
EURO-CORDEX: new high-resolution climate change projections for European impact research
EURO-CORDEX scenario simulations use the new Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) defined for the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC
Fonte: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10113-013-0499-2
Na Imagem temos uma acusação de bias-adjusted EURO-CORDEX regional climate scenarios
Portanto, se já é mau os estudos e o relatórios do IPCC serem feitos em simulações, agora se o simulador é adulterado para o pior, começa Logo por induzir em erro o cientista do estudo (pois este não tem maneira de saber) não é o cientista Tobin et al., 2018 que criou o simulador, ele apenas o usa.
No link abaixo é uma evidencia (não prova ) que o EURO-CORDEX poder correr o risco de estar a simular dados errados...leiam o artigo
fonte: http://figures-of-speech.com/2017/07/mr-climate.htmAs alterações climáticas até provocam remodelações no governo. Ministros a andar de bicicleta já.
https://www.dn.pt/poder/interior/governo-costa-afirma-que-alteracoes-reforcam-politica-economica-e-transicao-energetica-9999628.html-
AlarmesdoMeco
- 15 outubro 2018 editado
Uma Tentativa de criar energia Renovável usando o vento do carros (na Turquia)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnj91r9tZtI
A conclusão a que alguns cientistas chegaram é que quando as turbinas giram para gerar electricidade, estão a abrandar o vento gerado pelo trafico, criando resistencia adicional, e criam uma barreira aerodinâmica com consequência para o consumo dos carros.
O efeito é que roubam energia dos carros para produzirem electricidade.A YouTube video making the rounds on social media (with over 27 million views!) describes a system of small wind turbines placed in the median between two lanes of traffic. The wind generated by the traffic spins the turbine blades and generates (a very small amount of) electricity:
The question is, does such a system recapture energy that would have been lost anyway?
The answer is NO.
When the blades turn to generate electricity, they are slowing the wind generated by the moving traffic. That creates additional wind resistance, which increases aerodynamic drag on the cars, and reduces their gas mileage. In effect, the turbines are stealing energy from the cars and converting it to electricity.
No, it’s not like regenerative breaking in hybrid cars, nor is it like turbochargers. It’s forcing the car to do more work than it would have otherwise done… and inefficiently converting that extra work into another form of energy. Wouldn’t the cars have lost energy through aerodynamic drag anyway? Yes! But this system INCREASES the drag on the cars. It would be like putting a little wind turbine on the roof of the car and generating electricity that way. The electrical energy created would not be worth the gas you wasted to do it (unless you really needed the electricity…but that’s what car alternators are for, and they don’t run all the time anyway).
I’m pretty sure the system would waste energy, not save energy
fonte: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/8s6n8e/would_roadside_wind_turbines_reduce_vehicle/-
AlarmesdoMeco
- 15 outubro 2018 editado
Raramente vejo noticias, mas hoje liguei a TV e vejo emergência publica na zona centro e milhares de habitações sem energia electrica, EDP recorre a ajuda externa para repor electricidade.
Uma questão pertinente e actual.
Qual é o plano de evacuação do governo e da união europeia em caso de catástrofes para cidadãos/zonas com grande percentagem de veículos eléctricos ?
Caso no futuro exista uma grande percentagem de veículos eléctricos a circularem nas estradas, e seja fosse necessário e recomendado uma evacuação de massas devido a um qualquer furacão ou um grande incendio, como seria ? O que fazem e o que não fazem os outros países ? que medidas são necessárias ?
Bem, o plano actual de emergencia dos estados unidos é....deixar os veículos eléctricos de fora do plano (não contam para o totobola)When Florida Gov. Rick Scott told residents “you need to go right now,” as Hurricane Irma barreled toward the state, many were able to jump in their cars and leave. An estimated 3 million people took to the highways, creating hours-long bottlenecks that stretched six-hour drives into 17-hour odysseys.
If all those Floridians drove Teslas, though, it would have been even more difficult. While electric cars can present some grid service opportunities when the power is out, an electrified future will add serious logistical challenges to the already complicated dance of mass evacuation.
In a recent report, researchers at the Universities of Oxford, Michigan and Vermont looked at how EVs would fare in a storm in the Florida Keys. The results are concerning, but not entirely surprising. According to the researchers, government at every level leaves electric cars out of disaster planning.
Problems surrounding emergency management and EVs largely relate to infrastructure. With more residents relying on cars fueled by electricity, the issue of inadequate charging stations will become even more pronounced. The report cites an estimate of 1 million electric cars on U.S. roads by 2020. This year America logs only 15,943 public charging stations with 42,550 outlets -- and not all cars accept the same chargers.
California lays claim to the country’s most developed EV market and the most chargers of any state. But already drivers there report altercations over access to charging stations. With a hurricane (or, more likely, a wildfire) on the way, expect an escalation of what the director of a San Francisco EV-nonprofit called the “electric vehicle etiquette problem.”
Prior to Hurricane Irma arriving in Florida, some gas stations in Tallahassee and even in Georgia ran out of fuel, 40 percent of Miami and West Palm Beach stations ran dry, and 58 percent of Gainesville’s stations ran out.
fonte: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/a-new-challenge-for-disaster-zones-driving-an-electric-evacuation#gs.Wp_fc28Para quem não tem nem pretende ter tão próximo um VE, tens demasiadas preocupações :-)
Mas, se a condição para comprares um VE seja essa, compra um Tesla :-)
https://insideevs.com/tesla-hurricane-florence-free-supercharging-battery/
https://electrek.co/2018/09/12/tesla-releasing-more-battery-capacity-free-supercharging-hurricane-florence/
Carregamento extra e gratuito mesm opara quem não tenha essa modalidade...
Mas, se não houver eletricidade numa grande região, também não vale a pena ter carro :-)
Sem eletricidade, nada funciona.... nem para abastecer os ICE :-)
E em caso de calamidade, as autoridades recomendam ficar em casa... e não a andar de um lado para o outro de carro ou a pé.
Não te stesses, compra um VE ;-)- Bricoleiro
- 15 outubro 2018 editado
A seguir ao Leslie veio o furacão Costa, vai desde a costa ao interior de norte a sul. Cuidado o tipo é perigoso!Colocado por: AlarmesdoMecoConseguem perceber que esses numero são feitos num Simulador ? são estimativas feitas em modelos de computador ?
Conseguem perceber que no relatorio do IPCC é removida a palavra SIMULADOR e apresentam como sendo um dado Infalível e correcto ?
É óbvio que as estimativas para o que vai acontecer caso a temperatura suba 'x' graus são obtidas por simulação. Daí os modelos matemáticos do clima. Como querias que fossem feitas estas estimativas?
Mas não te preocupes... 2040 chega num instante e só espero, e isto é muito sincero, só espero que tu tenhas razão e os cientistas do clima estejam errados.0.0796 seg. NEW-
