Reality check on electric cars

[Nordberg]

Nordy, you are the king.

Lying fish, you are the queen.

 

[Lionfish]

 

[Lionfish]

 

[Nordberg]

The energy used in EVs is a fraction of what ICes use and the ICE bonus of pollution and devastating health consequences is another big green light for green energy. Why you guys are so stubbornly stupid is a mystery. The country that adopts green energy will be the winner of the future in health, pollution and future businesses and inventions.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The energy used in EVs is a fraction of what ICes use and the ICE bonus of pollution and devastating health consequences is another big green light for green energy. Why you guys are so stubbornly stupid is a mystery. The country that adopts green energy will be the winner of the future in health, pollution and future businesses and inventions.

Because the proof is pretty thin that the levels of pollution today in first world countries is significant to anything. Eliminating next to nothing to a bit less of next to nothing is costly and idiotic.

 

[Nordberg]

Because the proof is pretty thin that the levels of pollution today in first world countries is significant to anything. Eliminating next to nothing to a bit less of next to nothing is costly and idiotic.

??? that made sense to you? Rewrite, please. Only 99 percent of scientists say global warming is real and impacted by people. Among the worst are autos and fossil fuels. EVs will reduce that substantially helping clean the air, land and water while cutting down on health problems. It is good no matter how you look at it. The auto companies are not waiting for Repubs to learn. They are going electric quickly.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

??? that made sense to you? Rewrite, please. Only 99 percent of scientists say global warming is real and impacted by people. Among the worst are autos and fossil fuels. EVs will reduce that substantially helping clean the air, land and water while cutting down on health problems. It is good no matter how you look at it. The auto companies are not waiting for Repubs to learn. They are going electric quickly.

None of what you wrote is true.

While scientists agree that the climate is changing a near plurality of scientists--not just climate scientists--are skeptical about settling on a single reason for it like CO2.

Autos and other fossil fuel uses today are far, far cleaner than they were in the 1960's before any pollution controls were in place. EV's won't do shit for pollution. Auto companies are grudgingly adding EV's only because of government mandates and subsidies. They know buyers mostly don't want them, but are being forced to make them by government regulation and mandates.

If government turns out to be wrong here--as they often are--the public are the ones that get hurt by this.

 

[Into the Night]

The energy used in EVs is a fraction of what ICes use and the ICE bonus of pollution and devastating health consequences is another big green light for green energy. Why you guys are so stubbornly stupid is a mystery. The country that adopts green energy will be the winner of the future in health, pollution and future businesses and inventions.

A Tesla Model 3 battery will require 10 hours of charging from dead battery to full at a Tesla charging station providing 380v @ 200A.
These are typically ganged into groups of 5 or ten charging stations supplied with a dedicated 500KVA transformer feeding associated charging assemblies, typically one for every two charging stations.

This will give that car approximately a 300 mile range.
It has a limited payload capacity and is not able to tow anything and weighs approx 4250 lbs empty weight and costs $54,490 new. Others are forced to pay for your charge, tax credits, and even for part of the car.

A Subaru Imprezza (a gasoline car), when filled with gasoline, has a 300 mile range. It can tow a light utility trailer and a modest load in the trailer. It requires only a few minutes to refuel for another 300 miles. It weights 3100 lbs empty weight and costs $18,750 new. You buy your own gas.

Empty weight means no payload, driver, or passenger, empty tank, and factory recommended oil, grease, and other lubricants.

Sources: Tesla, Subaru, Puget Power.

Energy has no color. It is not green or any other color. Carbon dioxide and water are not pollutants, and are necessary materials for life on Earth. Since the adoption of mandatory use of electric cars in the SDTC, the population, businesses, and economy moving OUT of the SDTC has increased dramatically. This of course means fewer inventions and innovation will take place in the SDTC.

 

[Into the Night]

??? that made sense to you? Rewrite, please. Only 99 percent of scientists say global warming is real and impacted by people.

You are making up numbers again. You don't get to speak for all scientists. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. See the 1st law of thermodynamics, which you are ignoring.

Among the worst are autos and fossil fuels.

Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.

EVs will reduce that substantially helping clean the air, land and water while cutting down on health problems.

CO2 is clean. It's also a necessary gas for life on Earth.
Water is clean. It's also a necessary material for life on Earth.
Burning a hydrocarbon produces CO2 and water.

Why you think CO2 and water are 'unhealthy' is beyond me.

It is good no matter how you look at it.

Two motors goooood...one engine baaaaaad...

The auto companies are not waiting for Repubs to learn. They are going electric quickly.

No, they aren't. The gasoline engine is far from dead. You really should look at the cars on the road. Not very many of them are electric cars. Most are gas.

 

[Into the Night]

None of what you wrote is true.

While scientists agree that the climate is changing a near plurality of scientists--not just climate scientists--are skeptical about settling on a single reason for it like CO2.

Autos and other fossil fuel uses today are far, far cleaner than they were in the 1960's before any pollution controls were in place. EV's won't do shit for pollution. Auto companies are grudgingly adding EV's only because of government mandates and subsidies. They know buyers mostly don't want them, but are being forced to make them by government regulation and mandates.

If government turns out to be wrong here--as they often are--the public are the ones that get hurt by this.

It is not possible for climate to change. There is no value associated with climate, and nothing that can change. Climate is a subjective description only.
CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.
Fossils aren't used for fuel. Gasoline is made from oil.
You are right that auto companies are adding EV lines due to government mandates. This is called 'fascism'.

 

[Nordberg]

None of what you wrote is true.

While scientists agree that the climate is changing a near plurality of scientists--not just climate scientists--are skeptical about settling on a single reason for it like CO2.

Autos and other fossil fuel uses today are far, far cleaner than they were in the 1960's before any pollution controls were in place. EV's won't do shit for pollution. Auto companies are grudgingly adding EV's only because of government mandates and subsidies. They know buyers mostly don't want them, but are being forced to make them by government regulation and mandates.

If government turns out to be wrong here--as they often are--the public are the ones that get hurt by this.

I can understand why you believe that crap . Your info is super selective.https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change How is 99.9

 

[Nordberg]

It is not possible for climate to change. There is no value associated with climate, and nothing that can change. Climate is a subjective description only.
CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.
Fossils aren't used for fuel. Gasoline is made from oil.
You are right that auto companies are adding EV lines due to government mandates. This is called 'fascism'.

Perhaps it is time to see if you have the ability to learn.
Fascism? Read up on it and come back. That was as stupid as your other homemade definitions and beliefs.https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I can understand why you believe that crap . Your info is super selective.https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change How is 99.9

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/mich...-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/

Here's the original paper arguing that point that there's a '97% Consensus on climate change.'

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

And rebuttal

For starters, though, Reuters and the president are wrong about what Cook’s study claims. It does not claim that 97 percent of scientists believe that climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous. What it claims is that 97.1 percent of the relevant scientific literature agrees with the much more conservative claim that humans are contributing to global warming in an unspecified amount.

But even in making that considerably more anodyne assertion, the “consensus” is on shaky footing. According to the abstract for Cook’s paper, 66.4 percent of the abstracts Cook and his team looked at neither supported nor opposed the position that man causes global warming. Which gives you not a 97.1 percent consensus, but 97.1 percent of the remainder, which is 32.6 percent. That is, 32.6 percent of peer-reviewed global-warming literature agrees that global warming is man-made. That’s not overwhelming.

And even that number is highly suspect; many scientists have objected to their papers having been categorized as supporting Cook’s position. A number of avowed man-made-warming skeptics were evidently surprised to find their papers included in Cook’s 97 percent monolith. According to a paper written by University of Delaware professor David Legates, et al., for the journal Science & Education, just 0.3 percent — not 97 — of the papers Cook examined explicitly endorsed his position.

https://climatechangedispatch.com/closer-look-at-the-97-consensus/

A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421514002821

In the strict sense, the 97% consensus is false, even when limited to climate scientists.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhener...anthropogenic-climate-change/?sh=37fe0fa41157

The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nations’ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming “95% confidence” in the imagined – and, as the new paper shows, imaginary – consensus.

Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: a Rejoinder to ‘Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change’ decisively rejects suggestions by Cook and others that those who say few scientists explicitly support the supposedly near-unanimous climate consensus are misinforming and misleading the public.

Dr Legates said: “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.

“It is still more astonishing that the IPCC should claim 95% certainty about the climate consensus when so small a fraction of published papers explicitly endorse the consensus as the IPCC defines it.”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09...ven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

So, that 97% bullshit comes from sloppy, shitty, "science" that sets out to prove a consensus rather than dispassionately look at the data.

 

[Lightbringer]

So true. I know plenty of degreed people who are complete fucking idiots.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I recently heard the claim that the Regimes plan of having American rare-Earth mining and production is almost certainly going to fail. We are going all in on switching to intermittent energy but we produce almost none of the stuff we need to do it. Tucker said that 80% of the global solar panels are now made in China...is that right? I know that we Americans failed spectacularly at the project.

 

[Lightbringer]

I recently heard the claim that the Regimes plan of having American rare-Earth mining and production is almost certainly going to fail. We are going all in on switching to intermittent energy but we produce almost none of the stuff we need to do it. Tucker said that 80% of the global solar panels are now made in China...is that right? I know that we Americans failed spectacularly at the project.

That's your problem.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I got it wrong....Tucker was talking about solar cells not panels.....and he is right.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Where we are:

China is currently dominating all steps of the photovoltaic solar panel production process, a report released by Bloomberg NEF shows. China’s investment in renewable energy industries has been massive and global market shares tell the tale. For any country looking to up its solar capacity, there is simply no way around the Chinese. This is the dilemma faced by U.S. President Joe Biden, who has announced he will be tough on China, while at the same time trying to steer U.S. energy politics into a sustainable future. The remarks of Chinese president Xi Jinping at the U.S.-led climate summit tomorrow are therefore hotly awaited.

As the Bloomberg data shows, all steps from polysilicon production to cell and finally module manufacturing are firmly in Chinese hands. The U.S. and Canada as well as South Korea remain minor players in photovoltaic solar panel manufacturing that carry out all production steps. While Germany remains a Polysilicon producer, Taiwan is a small-scale cell and module manufacturer.

The data also shows that Chinese production capacity at all steps of the solar panel production process is growing at a much faster rate than in other countries and has been doing so for the best part of the last two decades. Bloomberg estimates that because of the strong Chinese market penetration, around 60 percent of the value of a U.S.-assembled solar panel is generated in China. That number is 70 percent for modules assembled in Southeast Asia, which is the type the U.S. most typically imports.

https://www.statista.com/chart/24687/solar-panel-global-market-shares-by-production-steps/

 

[Lightbringer]

I got it wrong....Tucker was talking about solar cells not panels.....and he is right.

He's never right.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The best solar panel on the market right now is LG and it's made in Korea not China...