Reality check on electric cars

T. A. Gardner said:
In the UK, a lawsuit was filed against the government for using this film in public schools. The government lost the case.

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...even-inaccuracies-al-gores-inconvenient-truth

Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/oct/11/climatechange
Click to expand...

Thanks. I've gone to the links for both articles. Unfortunately, neither of the articles provide live links to their sources, but the second linked article is from a large media publication, so I'm definitely giving it the benefit of the doubt. I decided to do a little searching of my own and I think that the following article published in 2021 may strike a balance between the mistakes the documentary apparently has and its strengths:

What 'An Inconvenient Truth' Got Right (And Wrong) About Climate Change | howstuffworks
 
Phoenyx said:
Thanks. I've gone to the links for both articles. Unfortunately, neither of the articles provide live links to their sources, but the second linked article is from a large media publication, so I'm definitely giving it the benefit of the doubt. I decided to do a little searching of my own and I think that the following article published in 2021 may strike a balance between the mistakes the documentary apparently has and its strengths:

What 'An Inconvenient Truth' Got Right (And Wrong) About Climate Change | howstuffworks
Click to expand...

Here's some of my positions on this (without posting up lots of links which would clutter it up badly):

1. CO2 is not the primary or only potential cause of climate change.
2. Aircraft contrails, as now proven by multiple studies contributes as much as 10 to 20% of all anthropogenic warming. Easy and cheap to fix, it has no political support.
3. Methane is another cause.
4. The same climate scientists who told us that CFC's were causing the hole in the ozone layer are the ones telling us it's all CO2. Well, we listened and did what they wanted, got rid of CFC's and today, when they said the hole would close, it didn't. It's still there, and even often bigger now than back when this was the climate issue. Fool me once...
5. Climate scientists and the IPCC in particular, have made a lot of predictions and stated a lot of causes only to have virtually all of them proven wrong. If they can't get the science right and make reasonable predictions, why should we listen? How many times can they be wrong before we say, "Enough!" and tell them to STFU?
6. This same science doesn't know if there's an upper limit to the heating of the planet or not.


Think of it this way: 100 years ago we had zero idea what the bottom of our planet's oceans looked like. Plate tectonics was unknown. We've been doing climate science for something like 50 years, give or take. Should be accept that those in that field really have an understanding of planetary climate and all the variables that go into it? I see this as a combination of:

We're one natural disaster--like a super volcano event--away from a complete shift in planetary climate for decades, at a minimum. At the same time, the so-called climate scientists have proven themselves extremely poor predictors of even the near future in climate. If their data and results are not in line with actual events, there's little reason to trust their data and results. Maybe they'll get better at it in time, but right now, there's no reason to accept their predictions of global disaster and upend our economies and societies to try and fix what could easily, and probably, be a mistaken idea--like CFC's...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
In the UK, a lawsuit was filed against the government for using this film in public schools. The government lost the case.

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...even-inaccuracies-al-gores-inconvenient-truth

Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/oct/11/climatechange

The movie, if shown, as a result has to be presented as a one-sided argument for climate change and the inaccuracies found by the court must be pointed out by teachers.

If anything, the Nobel prize committee, years on now, got another slapdown because of giving this schlock film an award.

The real inconvenient truth here is that nearly 20 years down the road, all of AlGore's predictions in the movie have failed to come true. The average psychic could have done better.
Click to expand...

A blind blackjack player could've done better.
 
Phoenyx said:
Thanks. I've gone to the links for both articles. Unfortunately, neither of the articles provide live links to their sources, but the second linked article is from a large media publication, so I'm definitely giving it the benefit of the doubt. I decided to do a little searching of my own and I think that the following article published in 2021 may strike a balance between the mistakes the documentary apparently has and its strengths:

What 'An Inconvenient Truth' Got Right (And Wrong) About Climate Change | howstuffworks
Click to expand...

It has no strengths.

It is not possible for any gas or vapor to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You cannot just discard the 1st law of thermodynamics.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, the temperature of the oceans, the pH of the oceans, or the global atmospheric content of CO2. Anyone quoting any of these numbers is just ignoring statistical mathematics.

Climate cannot change. There is no value associated with climate to 'change'. There is no such thing as a global climate.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Here's some of my positions on this (without posting up lots of links which would clutter it up badly):

1. CO2 is not the primary or only potential cause of climate change.
2. Aircraft contrails, as now proven by multiple studies contributes as much as 10 to 20% of all anthropogenic warming. Easy and cheap to fix, it has no political support.
3. Methane is another cause.
4. The same climate scientists who told us that CFC's were causing the hole in the ozone layer are the ones telling us it's all CO2. Well, we listened and did what they wanted, got rid of CFC's and today, when they said the hole would close, it didn't. It's still there, and even often bigger now than back when this was the climate issue. Fool me once...
5. Climate scientists and the IPCC in particular, have made a lot of predictions and stated a lot of causes only to have virtually all of them proven wrong. If they can't get the science right and make reasonable predictions, why should we listen? How many times can they be wrong before we say, "Enough!" and tell them to STFU?
6. This same science doesn't know if there's an upper limit to the heating of the planet or not.


Think of it this way: 100 years ago we had zero idea what the bottom of our planet's oceans looked like. Plate tectonics was unknown. We've been doing climate science for something like 50 years, give or take. Should be accept that those in that field really have an understanding of planetary climate and all the variables that go into it? I see this as a combination of:

We're one natural disaster--like a super volcano event--away from a complete shift in planetary climate for decades, at a minimum. At the same time, the so-called climate scientists have proven themselves extremely poor predictors of even the near future in climate. If their data and results are not in line with actual events, there's little reason to trust their data and results. Maybe they'll get better at it in time, but right now, there's no reason to accept their predictions of global disaster and upend our economies and societies to try and fix what could easily, and probably, be a mistaken idea--like CFC's...
Click to expand...

* No gas or vapor has no capability to warm the Earth. That includes CO2, methane, and contrails from aircraft. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
* A study is not a proof.
* There is no "science of global warming" or "science of climate change". Science has no theories based on meaningless buzzwords or religious artifacts.
* The theory of science you are ignoring is the 1st law of thermodynamics. No gas or vapor can heat the planet by it's mere presence. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
* Climate 'scientists' (actually high priests in the Church of Global Warming) have no data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, the temperature of the ocean, the pH of the ocean, or the global atmospheric content of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Both the Church of the Ozone Hole and the Church of Global Warming are religions, stemming from the Church of Green.
The Church of the EV stems from the Church of Global Warming.
 
Nordberg said:
Actually EVs work very well in cold weather. I live in Michigan and use mine throughout the winter. They provide heat and defrosting much more quickly too.
Click to expand...

Even the mainstream media admits otherwise:
Why electric cars don't do well in cold weather – and what you can do about it | USA Today

I think the last point it makes is particularly important:

**
7. Don’t let your battery get below 20%

It will need power just to warm up enough to charge, so if it gets too low you might not be able to charge even if you’re plugged in, depending on how cold it is.
**
 
This just in ...

14 Reasons To Stick With Your Gas Car and Wait on Electric

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/14-reasons-to-stick-with-your-gas-car-and-wait-on-electric/ss-AA1n4J9a?ocid=winp2fptaskbar&cvid=94535a17c07a46f3bed5a82d6c06dd06&ei=16

BB1ioRFh.img
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Good for you. Don't force them on the rest of us, nor expect everyone to pay for charging stations everywhere for your convenience.
Click to expand...

I do not care what you drive. It is possible that you can drive an ICE your whole life. You do not care about the environment and global warming. You are a righty and have convinced yourself they are not real. Charging stations are profit-making businesses. I still have never used a charging station. I plug in at home. That is what almost all EV owners do.
 
Nordberg said:
I do not care what you drive. It is possible that you can drive an ICE your whole life. You do not care about the environment and global warming. You are a righty and have convinced yourself they are not real. Charging stations are profit-making businesses. I still have never used a charging station. I plug in at home. That is what almost all EV owners do.
Click to expand...

Charging stations are not economically viable...

Assuming 15 percent utilization—equivalent to about seven 30-minute charging sessions per day—our hypothetical station would generate $265,000 to $285,000 in annual revenue, given a price of $0.45 per kWh dispensed. (Pricing may vary by time of day). On the cost side, we assumed annual expenses of $220,000 to $250,000 for electricity, demand charge rates, fixed operational expenditures, R&D, and SGA.5 Capital expenditure depreciation would total about $85,000 to $95,000 yearly. With these metrics, the station would lose about $40,000 to $50,000 per year in EBIT
https://www.mckinsey.com/features/m...g-stations-be-profitable-in-the-united-states

Can Electric Car Charging Be A Business?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradte...c-car-charging-be-a-business/?sh=162daff471e9

Between broken and vandalized charging stations, the fact that they cost a lot to install and don't make a lot of money usually since they are only intermittently used, and to top that off the utilization rate is extremely low--one customer per half hour to hour even if in continuous use possibly less--makes them unprofitable.

I care about the environment, but I want what works as well as reasonable limits on pollution. I don't believe in Gorebal Warming, and I think those that do aren't serious about the science or outcome. What I don't want is a one-size-fits-all solution thought up by retard environmentalists on the Left and then forced down our throats by morons in government.
 
Nordberg said:
Phoenyx said:
I challenged him on his assertion in my last post, let's see what he says.
Click to expand...

I and my son's family have been driving Evs for years and are very happy with them. They live in Michigan too.
Click to expand...

Fine, but I notice you didn't respond to the post I'd linked to above. Since you either missed it or ignored it, I'll quote the most relevant part:

Why electric cars don't do well in cold weather – and what you can do about it | USA Today

Now, I can certainly humor you and suppose that perhaps you and your son's family have magical EV cars that aren't affected by the cold, but unless you're saying that USA Today is lying here, the writing is on the wall here as to regular EV cars and the cold.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Charging stations are not economically viable...

Assuming 15 percent utilization—equivalent to about seven 30-minute charging sessions per day—our hypothetical station would generate $265,000 to $285,000 in annual revenue, given a price of $0.45 per kWh dispensed. (Pricing may vary by time of day). On the cost side, we assumed annual expenses of $220,000 to $250,000 for electricity, demand charge rates, fixed operational expenditures, R&D, and SGA.5 Capital expenditure depreciation would total about $85,000 to $95,000 yearly. With these metrics, the station would lose about $40,000 to $50,000 per year in EBIT
https://www.mckinsey.com/features/m...g-stations-be-profitable-in-the-united-states

Can Electric Car Charging Be A Business?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradte...c-car-charging-be-a-business/?sh=162daff471e9

Between broken and vandalized charging stations, the fact that they cost a lot to install and don't make a lot of money usually since they are only intermittently used, and to top that off the utilization rate is extremely low--one customer per half hour to hour even if in continuous use possibly less--makes them unprofitable.

I care about the environment, but I want what works as well as reasonable limits on pollution. I don't believe in Gorebal Warming, and I think those that do aren't serious about the science or outcome. What I don't want is a one-size-fits-all solution thought up by retard environmentalists on the Left and then forced down our throats by morons in government.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, few people look back to these alternatives to both regular gas powered cars and EVs:

The Mysterious Death of Stanley Meyer and His Water-Powered Car | gaia.com

The link above has information on Stanley Meyer and his patented water powered car, but also that the U.S. Navy made a model plane that ran off of sea water and an inventor who made regular gas super efficient. Why does no one talk of these things?

Some more links on those last 2:
Navy powers model plane using fuel made from sea water | newatlas.com

Tom Ogle Engine Explained And The Story Behind It | Mechanic Base
 
Phoenyx said:
Even the mainstream media admits otherwise:
Why electric cars don't do well in cold weather – and what you can do about it | USA Today

I think the last point it makes is particularly important:

**
7. Don’t let your battery get below 20%

It will need power just to warm up enough to charge, so if it gets too low you might not be able to charge even if you’re plugged in, depending on how cold it is.
**
Click to expand...
Good point! I should also be factoring this into my "gas tank size" reasoning.

Reasoning is now amended as follows:

Range of a Chevy Bolt (EV):
EPA suggested range = ~250 miles
"Don't charge your battery above 80%" = ~200 miles of range
"Don't deplete your battery below 20%" = ~150 miles of range

So, the "advertised range" of 250 miles is actually only 150 miles if following the aforementioned battery maintenance guidelines, and that's only under various ideal conditions. For instance, if you wish to turn on your heating or cooling system, that means less range. If you wish to drive in hot or cold conditions (such as 90 degrees or 0 degrees Fahrenheit), that means less range. Same if it's raining outside, if it's dark outside, if it's foggy outside, etc. etc. etc. Thus, it doesn't take very much to reduce that EV's "250 mile" advertised range down to 100 miles (or less) of actually experienced range.

Joey Marxist wets panties.
 
Last edited:
gfm7175 said:
Good point! I should also be factoring this into my "gas tank size" reasoning.

Reasoning is now amended as follows:

Range of a Chevy Bolt (EV):
Manufacturer suggested range = ~250 miles of range
"Don't charge your battery above 80%" = ~200 miles of range
"Don't deplete your battery below 20%" = ~150 miles of range

So, the "advertised range" of 250 miles is actually only 150 miles if following the aforementioned battery maintenance guidelines, and that's only under various ideal conditions. For instance, if you wish to turn on your heating or cooling system, that means less range. If you wish to drive in hot or cold conditions (such as 90 degrees or 0 degrees Fahrenheit), that means less range. Same if it's raining outside, if it's dark outside, if it's foggy outside, etc. etc. etc. Thus, it doesn't take very much to reduce that EV's "250 mile" advertised range down to 100 miles or less.

Joey Marxist wets panties.
Click to expand...

And ofcourse if your battery charge gets too low, you won't be able to charge your battery at all if it's sufficiently cold -.-
 
Nordberg said:
I and my son's family have been driving Evs for years and are very happy with them. They live in Michigan too.
Click to expand...
Liar. YOU, by your own admission, drive an ICE vehicle (a Chevy Volt).

Your son drives an EV (a Chevy Bolt), but you proudly proclaim that he doesn't maintain it so it's not going to last him near as long as it should.
 
gfm7175 said:
Liar. YOU, by your own admission, drive an ICE vehicle (a Chevy Volt).

Your son drives an EV (a Chevy Bolt), but you proudly proclaim that he doesn't maintain it so it's not going to last him near as long as it should.
Click to expand...

A Chevy Volt is a hybrid, so a cross between and ICE and an EV. Good point though, I strongly suspect that it wouldn't have the same issues as a full EV. The Bolt is indeed a full EV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top