[damnitBobby]

The biggest thing holding me back from buying an EV is the fact that nearly all available right now are first generation EV's and I feel like by the next generation the battery performance and durability will be significantly better.

In the future, the resale of current generation EV's will be dismal.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

They are actively clearing massive tracts of rain forest in the Philippines to mine Nickel for EV batteries. How green is that? I'm all for making EV's the next mode of transportation, but we need to slow down and not be stupid about it.

Lets not forget the child slave labor involved too, Sharon driving her kid to school in a Tesla ought to think about that too.

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

Lets not forget the child slave labor involved too, Sharon driving her kid to school in a Tesla ought to think about that too.

It's true that issues such as child labor should be addressed, but we can't fail to address climate change because of it. Such issues are not uncommon and not exclusive to mining.

[G MONEY]

Originally Posted by H2O_Doc

It's true that issues such as child labor should be addressed, but we can't fail to address climate change because of it. Such issues are not uncommon and not exclusive to mining.

Do you Own any Nike products? The child labor stuff is overlooked by Many people!! It's crazy out there

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by G MONEY

Do you Own any Nike products? The child labor stuff is overlooked by Many people!! It's crazy out there

Yes. It's tough. And we have to be careful about our responses. In one incident, pressure to address child labor resulted in a foreign manufacturer having to lay off a bunch of kids and it led to some very unsavory and sad results. Worse than making sneakers.

[TupperBMW]

1. The future is EVs

2. EVs are crap

Thus,

3. The future is crap

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by kyriian

But that suburban mom/dad driving little Timmy and little Tammy to private kindergarten in her/his Tesla won't be polluting their evergreen suburban neighborhood. Win!
/scarcasm

Accounting for the carbon that is in our power grid, a recent study has shown that a new Hummer EV produces more co2 per mile than a gasoline Malibu.

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2022/07...-study-claims/


Before we claim false figures or fuzzy math, consider this :

GM’s statement did not refute the study’s findings, which alleged the GMC Hummer EV technically emits 341 grams of C02 per mile driven.
https://gmauthority.com/blog/2022/07...llution-study/

Originally Posted by TupperBMW

1. The future is EVs

2. EVs are crap

Thus,

3. The future is crap

From same GM article :
Instead, it points out the Hummer EV’s ability to attract customers who may not typically buy a battery-powered vehicle, ideally helping drive EV adoption in North America.

Yes indeed, the future is crap...

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by H2O_Doc

It's true that issues such as child labor should be addressed, but we can't fail to address climate change because of it. Such issues are not uncommon and not exclusive to mining.

going green by doing something very un-green isn't the kind of change I want to see.

Like buying shoes for unfortunate kids that have no shoes, when those shoes where made by even less fortunate "shoeless slave children" elsewhere. What are you really accomplishing?

Buying shoes because you need them or you like the style is one thing. Buying them from dubious sources because you want to help others facing dubious circumstances is not getting the kind of change you want. It's just shifting the harm to where you can't see it, and feeling good about it.

For some it's virtue signaling, others "just want to do their part", others still are simply following a herd. Ignorance probably accounts for the balance. I only hope to address ignorance.

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Accounting for the carbon that is in our power grid, a recent study has shown that a new Hummer EV produces more co2 per mile than a gasoline Malibu.

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2022/07...-study-claims/


Before we claim false figures or fuzzy math, consider this :

GM’s statement did not refute the study’s findings, which alleged the GMC Hummer EV technically emits 341 grams of C02 per mile driven.
https://gmauthority.com/blog/2022/07...llution-study/

From same GM article :
Instead, it points out the Hummer EV’s ability to attract customers who may not typically buy a battery-powered vehicle, ideally helping drive EV adoption in North America.

Yes indeed, the future is crap...

Not exactly shocking right now as we have limited renewables powering the grid. A grid with greater renewable or nuclear energy changes the CO2e. EVs can be an important part of decreasing GHG emissions particularly as more renewables come online.

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Accounting for the carbon that is in our power grid, a recent study has shown that a new Hummer EV produces more co2 per mile than a gasoline Malibu.

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2022/07...-study-claims/


Before we claim false figures or fuzzy math, consider this :

GM’s statement did not refute the study’s findings, which alleged the GMC Hummer EV technically emits 341 grams of C02 per mile driven.
https://gmauthority.com/blog/2022/07...llution-study/

From same GM article :
Instead, it points out the Hummer EV’s ability to attract customers who may not typically buy a battery-powered vehicle, ideally helping drive EV adoption in North America.

Yes indeed, the future is crap...

I can't get over the battery pack in the Hummer weighs 2,900 lbs alone. That is insane.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by H2O_Doc

Not exactly shocking right now as we have limited renewables powering the grid. A grid with greater renewable or nuclear energy changes the CO2e. EVs can be an important part of decreasing GHG emissions particularly as more renewables come online.

We aren't getting carbon out of the grid for decades. Adding EV's will only delay carbon retirement because it adds load to the grid : mostly at night when there is no solar power to charge them. ALso, green power isn't stable : aka the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. Nobody will let them build nuclear in their back yard either, and hydro is being removed, not expanded. Carbon is the only stop-gap source, it will be here for a long time.

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

We aren't getting carbon out of the grid for decades. Adding EV's will only delay carbon retirement because it adds load to the grid : mostly at night when there is no solar power to charge them. ALso, green power isn't stable : aka the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. Nobody will let them build nuclear in their back yard either, and hydro is being removed, not expanded. Carbon is the only stop-gap source, it will be here for a long time.

You point to real issues that are being worked on. All fair points and all things that very smart people are tackling. Yes, it will take time. But that doesn't mean it can't happen or isn't worth the effort.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I hope people understand that a change in the climate as a result of GHG emissions gave rise to land-bearing animals and eventually us humans.

Good point.

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I hope people understand that a change in the climate as a result of GHG emissions gave rise to land-bearing animals and eventually us humans.

Well understood. And it's a fairly narrow range of change under which our species has flourished. And we will soon be in a climate not previously experienced by modern humans. And parts of the world currently populated will be underwater or prone to such frequent flooding that people will have to move. And the agricultural system that supports our global population is also sensitive to climate. And then there is the ocean.

Yep, all of that is true. In fact, a changing savannah (not Georgia) might be what gave rise to the rapid expansion to human brain evolution. And not all climate change will be bad (a fact that scientists and policy folks actually do take into account). But the benefits will be short lived.

And, getting back to the thread and glossing over pages of details, EVs we believe are part of the solution.

[ga9213]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I hope people understand that a change in the climate as a result of GHG emissions gave rise to land-bearing animals and eventually us humans.

How did you acquire this information?

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

It was way before the internet, in a place called "University". The information was printed on actual paper using ink! In an era when science was real and taught for the purposes of knowledge rather than political fever (or perhaps theater).

We've been interested in climate since the dawn of our existence. We've been studying climate patterns for ages. And the idea that the combustion of fossil fuels could release a sufficient amount of green house gases to warm the plant has been around for more than a century. And it wasn't proposed by luddites wanting to control people. I say that just to make sure that we can share some understanding of the background that got us to the whole EV thread.

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Who is "we". And when did "we" decide humans can reverse the effect of natural climate change and make the climate static so humans can live on the planet forever? Well, until Andromeda (not the shrub) pokes one of its spirals into our side of the Milky Way...

And who said anything about Luddites?

We humans.

and our actions are proposed to address the anthropogenic climate change that has resulted from (primarily) our activities that have elevated GHG concentrations in the air. This recent climate change ain't natural.

[ga9213]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

It was way before the internet, in a place called "University". The information was printed on actual paper using ink! In an era when science was real and taught for the purposes of knowledge rather than political fever (or perhaps theater).

Oh, gotcha....so scientists, back then...were teaching real science.

Betcha a lot of those same scientists that were teaching that "real science" back then are still teaching that same "real science" today and in agreement with the other 98% of scientists that are warning of the disasters of our own contribution to climate change.

But I suppose NOW we can just disregard them as political hacks and it has nothing..at all...to do with political propaganda and oil and gas industry influence on the narrative.

right?

PS: What's your degree? Did you take a course in climate science? You wouldn't possibly be bullshitting us on your "University" experience, would you?

[ga9213]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

A degree in industrial engineering with qualifying course credits for a minor in physics. My course of scientific study includes multiple courses of each, chemistry, geology, astronomy, and anthropology (and not the courses for business majors). I'd bet most of the professors I had are dead or long retired, but that's immaterial to the discussion.

Don't get frustrated when people like me push back on the topic of climate change. I've just asked questions that either of you have not answered and probably can't. Don't go into some BS about the oil and gas industry propaganda. I couldn't care less. What I'd like to know is what your plan is to keep the climate static for the next 5 billion years (just to pick a number), when all of the fossil and geological evidence show no other mammalian species has survived that long.

Right okay, so your classes were so long ago that the professors who were teaching back then probably did their own course studies decades before that so working with scientific information from what...the 40s? 50s?

Science clearly doesn't change with new information so that seems relevant!

Glad to know you're clearly qualified to share your experience. Sounds like you're a smart guy (I'm sure the smartest in the room.) Congratulations!

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

A degree in industrial engineering with qualifying course credits for a minor in physics. My course of scientific study includes multiple courses of each, chemistry, geology, astronomy, and anthropology (and not the courses for business majors). I'd bet most of the professors I had are dead or long retired, but that's immaterial to the discussion.

Don't get frustrated when people like me push back on the topic of climate change. I've just asked questions that either of you have not answered and probably can't. Don't go into some BS about the oil and gas industry propaganda. I couldn't care less. What I'd like to know is what your plan is to keep the climate static for the next 5 billion years (just to pick a number), when all of the fossil and geological evidence show no other mammalian species has survived that long.

There doesn't have to be a plan for the next 5 billion years. That's not what this is about. It's about the foreseeable climate under our current emissions trajectory versus a climate more like the one our species has flourished in. We don't have to guarantee forever to make responding to the anticipated climate over the next several decades to centuries a rational response.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

when all of the fossil and geological evidence show no other mammalian species has survived that long and the climate has never remained static.

The climate never remaining static has nothing to do with the rate of increase observed since the industrial revolution and the correlation to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Saying that "it's changed in the past" is a red herring basically admitting that one does not understand any of the theories and science behind this. If one doesn't even know what it's about...

[ga9213]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

So, no answer, just insults. As I thought.

I'm not a scientist so what answers would I have? I don't have a relevant, thorough background with years of study, real world experience, peer review, etc.

You expecting this suggests you don't understand how this process works. But that's not surprising.

This is textbook boomer smart guy in the room 101. Hear an argument that you don't fully understand but supports your bias, claim to have relevant experience, pretend you have the answers, then ask someone else who wouldn't potentially have any answers (and defers to true expert recommendations) what their answers are and then use that as an AHA gotcha moment.

Classic. Cringy.