Should all new vehicles have white roofs? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15068835
Should white roofs, which reflect heat, be required on all new vehicles? There is already a move to encourage white roofs in housing and commercial buildings, which can reduce summer energy use by 10 to 40 percent.

Every 1,000 square feet of white roofing would offset 10 metric tons of CO2 emissions. Presumably, millions of square feet of white car roofing would offer similar results. Adding the extra white surface might also help offset the loss of reflective white polar ice due to global warming.

Of course, having an all-white car would serve the same purpose but American consumers would rebel against the conformity of one color. Some vehicle makers already offer a white roof option.

The white roof issue does raise an interesting question: Do black solar panels increase urban heat and, if so, how much does that offset the benefits of solar energy?

http://www.whiteroofproject.org/faq
#15068837
Robert Urbanek wrote:
Should white roofs, which reflect heat, be required on all new vehicles? There is already a move to encourage white roofs in housing and commercial buildings, which can reduce summer energy use by 10 to 40 percent.

Every 1,000 square feet of white roofing would offset 10 metric tons of CO2 emissions. Presumably, millions of square feet of white car roofing would offer similar results. Adding the extra white surface might also help offset the loss of reflective white polar ice due to global warming.

Of course, having an all-white car would serve the same purpose but American consumers would rebel against the conformity of one color. Some vehicle makers already offer a white roof option.

The white roof issue does raise an interesting question: Do black solar panels increase urban heat and, if so, how much does that offset the benefits of solar energy?

http://www.whiteroofproject.org/faq



You see a lot of white cars in Arizona. Not so much here in Maine, what with our mud season.

I doubt solar panels have much of an effect, at least not until the country has millions of the things in cities. Which I don't think we will see.
#15068843
late wrote:I doubt solar panels have much of an effect, at least not until the country has millions of the things in cities. Which I don't think we will see.


Solar is now cheaper than fossil fuels. Massive companies like Amazon and Microsoft are moving to generate all the electricity they use from solar. It's coming sooner than you think.
#15068845
Solar works best in space, no planetary occlusion or atmospheric absorption. Space based solar power stations could be use to cool the planet too if that was wanted. Even if the climate doom fundamentalists are right about CO2 we could have an unrestricted carbon economy if we compensate for any warming with solar shades. Cake and eating.
#15068846
Rancid wrote:
Solar is now cheaper than fossil fuels. Massive companies like Amazon and Microsoft are moving to generate all the electricity they use from solar. It's coming sooner than you think.



He was talking about the heat island effect in cities. Massive banks of solar you'd expect to be outside the city where land is cheaper.
#15068847
SolarCross wrote:
Solar works best in space, no planetary occlusion or atmospheric absorption. Space based solar power stations could be use to cool the planet too if that was wanted. Even if the climate doom fundamentalists are right about CO2 we could have an unrestricted carbon economy if we compensate for any warming with solar shades. Cake and eating.



First, I am a scifi fanatic. So I love the idea.

The problem is what you do with the power. So let's say you generate microwaves and aim them at a receiver on Earth. Now let's say your guidance goes bad, or gets attacked by a foreign power. Suddenly you're spraying lethal doses of microwaves across the country.

I love the idea of a Space umbrella even more. But I wonder about the cost. You'd prob want to throw shade at the North Pole, and that's gonna take a crap load of plastic.
#15068849
Rancid wrote:Sure, but it still works well on earth too.

In the day, when the weather is clear and not too far from the poles. The energy density is low too, a solar powered car that was anything more substantial than an upjumped bicycle will simply never be a thing. Even 100% efficiency only gets you so much in one spot.
#15068868
SolarCross wrote:
a solar powered car that was anything more substantial than an upjumped bicycle will simply never be a thing.



Here in New England, hydro is the future. Let's just assume we have some sort of alternative powering the grid.

Velo cars are already a niche product in Europe. They'll take off when the pieces come together. As you pointed out, they are using a lot of stuff from the bicycle world. What they need is integrated purpose built design. At that point you should see mass production, and they become a 'thing'.
#15068889
late wrote:Here in New England, hydro is the future. Let's just assume we have some sort of alternative powering the grid.

Velo cars are already a niche product in Europe. They'll take off when the pieces come together. As you pointed out, they are using a lot of stuff from the bicycle world. What they need is integrated purpose built design. At that point you should see mass production, and they become a 'thing'.

Hydro is pretty horrible for environment actually, it smashes river ecosystems to fuck. Same as wind power basically blenderises bird life. The irony of climate environmentalists is how massively clueless they are about the actual environment. The energy source they superstitiously loathe the most is actually the best for the environment because fossil fuels result in a net increase in the earth's biological carrying capacity. But the dumb shits do not science, so they will never understand. It is sad really.
#15068895
SolarCross wrote:
Hydro is pretty horrible for environment actually, it smashes river ecosystems to fuck. Same as wind power basically blenderises bird life. The irony of climate environmentalists is how massively clueless they are about the actual environment. The energy source they superstitiously loathe the most is actually the best for the environment because fossil fuels result in a net increase in the earth's biological carrying capacity. But the dumb shits do not science, so they will never understand. It is sad really.



Good grief, you were actually serious.

I knew about the effect of dams in the 1970s. I was a member of the Saco River Salmon Club and one of the things we did was get dams torn down.

The situation is painfully simple. We need energy, so what makes sense is to do as little damage as possible generating it. I'd like to see us use less energy, but Americans have their heads up their butt.

In any case, the energy will be coming from Hydro Quebec, which was built some time ago. The damage is done, and compared to anything else, it's a hell of a lot cleaner and doesn't emit enough carbon to be worth mentioning.


What the US needs is a power plan that will lower GHG emissions while doing minimal damage. Intellectually, that's easy. Add tough efficiency standards, develop a Smart Grid, and build power supplies that don't emit carbon. If we are doing a clean sheet design exercise, that means some nuclear plants near some of our large cities. We would want to work up some new plant designs. A nuclear plant is always a balancing act between power and safety, but it wouldn't be hard to improve safety a lot over the old designs and still get reasonable output.

In case you didn't know, nuclear waste disposal is a solved problem. The politics are a nightmare, but we know how to do it.

By know you should have guessed what I am going to say next. We have serious problems that are entirely solvable. Somehow we need to get past the politics so we can work on climate change, as well as the ancillary issues.

You simply can't generate power without generating some problems along with it. The trick is to manage those problems, to keep the level of damage as low as possible.
#15068898
Rancid wrote:Solar is now cheaper than fossil fuels.


:knife: no it isn't.
#15068900
Sivad wrote:
:knife: no it isn't.


According to the world economic forum. Solar has reach parity with coal in parts of the world (Chile, Mexico, Australia, Brazil). In some places it actually cheaper, and parity is expected to happen in 80% of countries in the next few years.

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Renewable_Infrastructure_Investment_Handbook.pdf

The inflection point of solar becoming adopted on a massive/global scale is not very far away.

Now shut the fuck up
So how deadly is it?

He is suggesting that you don’t know what the dat[…]

Presumed Coronavirus Cases?

Please don't randomly tag me to make weird commen[…]

Sanders should be remembered as a wimp and a jerk[…]

I heard the Dems were crying because we now have […]