deicer

Isn't this how you went cross country?

For now. Infrastucture needs to be built, then numbers will be available.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2021/04/28/how-green-is-wind-power-really-a-new-report-tallies-up-the-carbon-cost-of-renewables/?sh=570447ba73cd https://www.pembina.org/media-release/significant-decarbonization-albertas-electricity-grid-affordable-and-achievable-2035 https://prism.ucalgary.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/e67857a0-d009-4d5a-a85a-bf13b22b615a/content

And the oil and gas companies are quietly transitioning while trying to maximize oil and gas profits while they can. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1269798/clean-energy-investments-major-oil-gas-companies/

Those who are predicting doom and gloom need to do more research. https://www.iea.org/news/clean-energy-investment-is-extending-its-lead-over-fossil-fuels-boosted-by-energy-security-strengths Investment in clean energy technologies is significantly outpacing spending on fossil fuels as affordability and security concerns triggered by the global energy crisis strengthen the momentum behind more sustainable options, according to a new IEA report. About USD 2.8 trillion is set to be invested globally in energy in 2023, of which more than USD 1.7 trillion is expected to go to clean technologies – including renewables, electric vehicles, nuclear power, grids, storage, low-emissions fuels, efficiency improvements and heat pumps – according to the IEA’s latest World Energy Investment report. The remainder, slightly more than USD 1 trillion, is going to coal, gas and oil. Annual clean energy investment is expected to rise by 24% between 2021 and 2023, driven by renewables and electric vehicles, compared with a 15% rise in fossil fuel investment over the same period. But more than 90% of this increase comes from advanced economies and China, presenting a serious risk of new dividing lines in global energy if clean energy transitions don’t pick up elsewhere. “Clean energy is moving fast – faster than many people realise. This is clear in the investment trends, where clean technologies are pulling away from fossil fuels,” said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol. “For every dollar invested in fossil fuels, about 1.7 dollars are now going into clean energy. Five years ago, this ratio was one-to-one. One shining example is investment in solar, which is set to overtake the amount of investment going into oil production for the first time.” Led by solar, low-emissions electricity technologies are expected to account for almost 90% of investment in power generation. Consumers are also investing in more electrified end-uses. Global heat pump sales have seen double-digit annual growth since 2021. Electric vehicle sales are expected to leap by a third this year after already surging in 2022. Clean energy investments have been boosted by a variety of factors in recent years, including periods of strong economic growth and volatile fossil fuel prices that raised concerns about energy security, especially following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Enhanced policy support through major actions like the US Inflation Reduction Act and initiatives in Europe, Japan, China and elsewhere have also played a role. Spending on upstream oil and gas is expected to rise by 7% in 2023, taking it back to 2019 levels. The few oil companies that are investing more than before the Covid-19 pandemic are mostly large national oil companies in the Middle East. Many fossil fuel producers made record profits last year because of higher fuel prices, but the majority of this cash flow has gone to dividends, share buybacks and debt repayment – rather than back into traditional supply. Nonetheless, the expected rebound in fossil fuel investment means it is set to rise in 2023 to more than double the levels needed in 2030 in the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario. Global coal demand reached an all-time high in 2022, and coal investment this year is on course to reach nearly six times the levels envisaged in 2030 in the Net Zero Scenario. The oil and gas industry’s capital spending on low-emissions alternatives such as clean electricity, clean fuels and carbon capture technologies was less than 5% of its upstream spending in 2022. That level was little changed from last year – though the share is higher for some of the larger European companies. The biggest shortfalls in clean energy investment are in emerging and developing economies. There are some bright spots, such as dynamic investments in solar in India and in renewables in Brazil and parts of the Middle East. However, investment in many countries is being held back by factors including higher interest rates, unclear policy frameworks and market designs, weak grid infrastructure, financially strained utilities, and a high cost of capital. Much more needs to be done by the international community, especially to drive investment in lower-income economies, where the private sector has been reluctant to venture. To help address this, the IEA and the IFC will on 22 June release a new special report on Scaling Up Private Finance for Clean Energy in Emerging and Developing Economies.

I have been glancing at this site on occasion for years. I wonder if these records will show up. https://groundspeedrecords.com/

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/spacex-appears-to-be-flying-this-slick-looking-737 SpaceX Appears To Be Flying This Slick Looking 737 The gray-and-black airliner is turning heads and drawing outward comparisons to some of the most secretive 737s in the world.

https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/13masgb/aircanadas_65year_anniversary_320_2002/?rdt=53823 Air Canada's 65th Anniversary To celebrate the carrier's 65th Anniversary in 2002, they designed a 'Symphony of Voices' livery for one of their Airbus A320s (C-FFWN). It depicted the Canadian flag and flew on a tour across Canada and the US for all to see. As such, the nose and tail were painted entirely red, with the white middle section of the aircraft fuselage featuring a large maple leaf. But there's a reason that the leaf looks slightly washed compared to the red on either end. Backtracking to the livery's name, instead of simply painting on a big red maple leaf on the center of the plane, a close look will reveal the names of approximately 22,000 AC employees alphabetically. "All of the signatures on this anniversary aircraft are testament to a company which represents the best of Canada's airline industry," said Robert Milton, then-President and Chief Executive Officer. The aircraft is now retired, but the livery was a great way to celebrate Air Canada and its many employees.

Wasn't the only one, this one had every employees name on it.

And their profits put the aviation industry to shame. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-20-most-profitable-pharmaceutical-105215517.html

It is very unfortunate that corporations abuse the trust put in them and then end up in a situation such as this. All in the name of profits. https://www.pogo.org/analysis/how-the-faa-ceded-aviation-safety-oversight-to-boeing

https://avgeekery.com/fighter-instructor-crazy-love/ This Fighter Instructor Is Crazy (And We Love It!) There is no doubt that our world has become much more politically correct over the past few years. There are admittedly some good things that have come of it. No one is a fan of blatant discrimination or sexism. But many will say that the PC culture has gone too far. Many lament the loss of fighter pilot culture as the squadron bar is renamed ‘the heritage room’. Posting a picture of a pretty girl on your desk could get you red dotted these days. Many in the Air Force forget that the goal is to be a lethal force–ready to make the enemy die for his country. That’s why we love this video. It’s good, ole’ school fighter pilot instruction right there. You have an IP who is sceaming at his student to kill the other guy during a mock dog fight. The student probably isn’t sure if the IP is joking or serious. Odds are he’s stressed and anxious and having the time of his life too! You know that the instructor has made a lasting impression though. If he is ever in that situation in real combat, the ghost of the IP’s voice will surely be reverberating in his head as he lines up for the kill. IFF is a required program for newly graduated pilots from Air Force Undergraduate Pilot Training. During the IFF program, pilots will learn about BFM (Basic Fighter Maneuvers) and build situational awareness for flying in a tactical environment (where the bad guy wants to kill you). They’ll fly it in an AT-38C. Passing this program is a requirement to continue onto a fighter training program in an actual fighter jet. Today, we salute you Mr. Old-school IP. You make the Air Force a slightly more fun place.

The whistleblower thread is on this page: https://leehamnews.com/2024/01/15/unplanned-removal-installation-inspection-procedure-at-boeing/#comment-509962 Scroll down to: throwawayboeingN704AL January 16, 2024 Read from there down.

https://viewfromthewing.com/boeing-whistleblower-production-line-has-enormous-volume-of-defects-bolts-on-max-9-werent-installed/ Boeing Whistleblower: Production Line Has “Enormous Volume Of Defects” Bolts On MAX 9 Weren’t Installed A reader at respected airline industry site Leeham News offered a comment that suggests they have access to Boeing’s internal quality control systems, and shares details of what they saw regarding the Boeing 737 MAX 9 flown by Alaska Airlines that had a door plug detach inflight, causing rapid decompression of the aircraft. The takeaway appears to be that outsourced plane components have so many problems when they show up at the production line that Boeing’s quality control staff can’t keep up with them all. One of the major suppliers is Spirit AeroSystems, which used to be part of Boeing and was spun out and sold to private equity in 2005. That’s whose work is at issue here. This story suggests a one-off mistake with this particular part on this particular aircraft, though also that production issues are common. That doesn’t square with a theory that bolts could have come loose from flying a poorly-designed aircraft, or that Boeing 737-900ERs are being inspected too. Those have the same door plug because the MAX 9 is built on the same airframe. It may or may not square with finding loose door plugs on other Boeing 737 MAX 9s. So this story is far from ‘official’ but it seems knowledgeable from someone who suggests they’re a whistleblower inside of Boeing. A story in Politico this morning suggests that Boeing’s new team of lobbyists has their work cut out for them. It certainly appears so, but perhaps work needs to start at the board and C-suite level.

It appears United is thinking hard about the 737... https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/23/united-ceo-casts-doubt-on-boeing-737-max-10-order.html United CEO casts doubt on 737 Max 10 order after Boeing’s recent problems KEY POINTS United is considering fleet plans without the Boeing 737 Max 10. CEO Scott Kirby expressed frustration with delays and manufacturing issues at Boeing. Kirby said the Max 9 grounding after a door plug blew on an Alaska Airlines flight is the “straw that broke the camel’s back.”

This would be the equivalent of Japanese and European ICE automobile manufacturers having to install and operate gasoline stations. That just means that more profits would be leaving the country. Where we are is equivalent to the late 40's and 50's where there was a boom in automobile sales in North America. Like back then, infrastructure will catch up eventually. Don't count on private enterprise to do it either. Aren't corporations in the U.S. reaping the benefits of the Eisenhower Interstate system? https://highways.dot.gov/highway-history/interstate-system/50th-anniversary/interstate-highway-system-myths https://www.convenience.org/Topics/Fuels/The-History-of-Fuels-Retailing

Very interesting how progress had taken all the breakers, switches and dials and turned it into a more simplified interface on just the front screens.

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths Electric Vehicle Myths Sign up for E-Updates On this page: Myth #1: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of power plant emissions. Myth #2: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of battery manufacturing. Myth #3: The increase in electric vehicles entering the market will collapse the U.S. power grid. Myth #4: There is nowhere to charge. Myth #5: Electric vehicles don’t have enough range to handle daily travel demands. Myth #6: Electric vehicles only come as sedans. Myth #7: Electric vehicles are not as safe as comparable gasoline vehicles. Myth #1: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of power plant emissions. FACT: Electric vehicles typically have a smaller carbon footprint than gasoline cars, even when accounting for the electricity used for charging. Electric vehicles (EVs) have no tailpipe emissions. Generating the electricity used to charge EVs, however, may create carbon pollution. The amount varies widely based on how local power is generated, e.g., using coal or natural gas, which emit carbon pollution, versus renewable resources like wind or solar, which do not. Even accounting for these electricity emissions, research shows that an EV is typically responsible for lower levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) than an average new gasoline car. To the extent that more renewable energy sources like wind and solar are used to generate electricity, the total GHGs associated with EVs could be even lower. (In 2020, renewables became the second-most prevalent U.S. electricity source.1 ) Learn more about electricity production in your area by visiting EPA’s Power Profiler interactive web page. By simply inputting your zip code, you can find the energy mix in your region. EPA and Department of Energy's (DOE’s) Beyond Tailpipe Emissions Calculator can help you estimate the greenhouse gas emissions associated with charging and driving an EV or a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) where you live. You can select an EV or PHEV model and type in your zip code to see the CO2 emissions and how they stack up against those associated with a gasoline car. Myth #2: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of battery manufacturing. FACT: The greenhouse gas emissions associated with an electric vehicle over its lifetime are typically lower than those from an average gasoline-powered vehicle, even when accounting for manufacturing. Some studies have shown that making a typical EV can create more carbon pollution than making a gasoline car. This is because of the additional energy required to manufacture an EV’s battery. Still, over the lifetime of the vehicle, total GHG emissions associated with manufacturing, charging, and driving an EV are typically lower than the total GHGs associated with a gasoline car. That’s because EVs have zero tailpipe emissions and are typically responsible for significantly fewer GHGs during operation (see Myth 1 above). For example, researchers at Argonne National Laboratory estimated emissions for both a gasoline car and an EV with a 300-mile electric range. In their estimates, while GHG emissions from EV manufacturing and end-of-life are higher (shown in orange below), total GHGs for the EV are still lower than those for the gasoline car. Estimates shown2 from GREET 2 2021 are intended to be illustrative only. Estimates represent model year 2020. Emissions will vary based on assumptions about the specific vehicles being compared, EV battery size and chemistry, vehicle lifetimes, and the electricity grid used to recharge the EV, among other factors. Above, the blue bar represents emissions associated with the battery. The orange bars encompass the rest of the vehicle manufacturing (e.g., extracting materials, manufacturing and assembling other parts, and vehicle assembly) and end-of-life (recycling or disposal). The gray bars represent upstream emissions associated with producing gasoline or electricity (U.S. mix), and the yellow bar shows tailpipe emissions during vehicle operations. Recycling EV batteries can reduce the emissions associated with making an EV by reducing the need for new materials. While some challenges exist today, research is ongoing to improve the process and rate of EV battery recycling. For more information on EV battery development and recycling, visit: U.S. Department of Energy’s ReCell Center National Blueprint for Lithium Batteries, 2021-2030 (pdf) (June 2021, report published by the Federal Consortium for Advanced Batteries) Myth #3: The increase in electric vehicles entering the market will collapse the U.S. power grid. FACT: Electric vehicles have charging strategies that can prevent overloading the grid, and, in some cases, support grid reliability. It is true that the increasing number of electric vehicles (EVs) on the road will lead to increased electricity demand. Yet, how that impacts the grid will depend on several factors, such as the power level and time of day when vehicles are charged, and the potential for vehicle-to-grid (V2G) charging 3 among others. EVs can be charged at off-peak times, such as overnight, when rates are often cheaper. Even with a mix of charging times (so not all nighttime charging), research indicates that sufficient capacity will exist to cover EVs entering the market in the coming years.4 And further down the road, when renewables make up a larger part of our energy mix in many regions, switching to more daytime charging (when some renewables like solar generate energy) with some energy storage capability should allow the grid to handle increases in EV charging.5 California leads the country with more than 1 million electric vehicles and EV charging currently makes up less than 1% of the state’s grid total load, even during peak hours.6 Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) charging allows EVs to act as a power source that may help with grid reliability by pushing energy back to the grid from an EV battery. This is done by allowing EVs to charge when electricity demand is low and drawing on them when that demand is high. Long term, higher electricity demand from EV growth may drive the need for upgrades to transmission and distribution infrastructure. Planning for this possibility is underway. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) Build a Better Grid Initiative, launched as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, will provide over $13 billion towards improving the reliability and efficiency of the grid over the next decade. Visit DOE’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Programs and search “grid infrastructure” to see where the initial investments will be made. Myth #4: There is nowhere to charge. FACT: Electric vehicles can be plugged into the same type of outlet as your toaster! When you need to charge while on the road, you’ll find over 51,000 stations in the U.S. available to the public. Many people can meet their driving needs by plugging in only at home. Most EVs can be charged with a standard 120 Volt (Level 1) outlet. To charge the vehicle more quickly, you can install a dedicated 240 Volt (Level 2) outlet or charging system. And for those who live in apartments or condominiums, EV charging stations are becoming a more common building amenity. Access to EV charging will increase significantly in the coming years as a result of government initiatives put in place as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, including an investment of up to $7.5 billion to build out a national network of electric vehicle chargers along highways, and in communities and neighborhoods. In February 2023, the White House announced major progress toward a made-in-America national network of EV chargers. Interested in seeing how many chargers may be needed in your area? Use DOE’s EV Pro Lite Tool to get an estimate on charging needs in your state or metropolitan area as EV adoption grows. For up-to-date information on EV charging locations, visit DOE’s Alternative Fuel Data Center. Myth #5: Electric vehicles don’t have enough range to handle daily travel demands. FACT: Electric vehicle range is more than enough for typical daily use in the U.S. EVs have sufficient range to cover a typical household’s daily travel, which is approximately 50 miles on average per day.7 The majority of households (roughly 85%) travel under 100 miles on a typical day. Most EV models go above 200 miles on a fully-charged battery, with nearly all new models traveling more than 100 miles on a single charge. And automakers have announced plans to release even more long-range models in the coming years. Range estimates for specific EVs are available from the Find A Car tool on www.fueleconomy.gov—click on the car you are interested in, and check out the “EPA Fuel Economy” line in the table. How you drive your vehicle and the driving conditions, including hot and cold weather, also affect the range of an EV; for instance, researchers found on average range could decrease about 40% due to cold temperatures and the use of heat.8 Myth #6: Electric vehicles only come as sedans. FACT: Electric vehicles now come in a variety of shapes and sizes. EVs and PHEVs are now available in many vehicle classes, extending beyond small sedan/compact models. There are currently more than 50 PHEV and EV models on the market. More models are being released in the coming years, so vehicle class options are likely to expand. Myth #7: Electric vehicles are not as safe as comparable gasoline vehicles. FACT: Electric vehicles must meet the same safety standards as conventional vehicles. All light duty cars and trucks sold in the United States must meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. To meet these standards, vehicles must undergo an extensive, long-established testing process, regardless of whether the vehicle operates on gasoline or electricity. Separately, EV battery packs must meet their own testing standards. Moreover, EVs are designed with additional safety features that shut down the electrical system when they detect a collision or short circuit.

Watched it last night, it is good, but rambles a bit.