[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by Murf the Surf

The point is the folks pushing the green agenda would have you believe that EV is going to save the planet when it is clear that zero tail pipe emissions is far different than zero carbon footprint. It's pretty clear to anyone paying attention and applying a little bit of common sense that EV's have significant challenges and aren't being bought because of those challenges and the realization that they aren't actually making things better, just swapping one problem for many others. The devil you know.....

Of course not forgetting you too Murf the Surf, Efthreeoh and all you others who are contributing.

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by SoCal_NSX

this is not reality though...it has been proven in study after study already that even after battery production is taken into account and all the other aspects that over time EV's are far better than ICE when it comes to CO2 levels. Any one that tells you otherwise is being paid by Exxon.




most nonbiased independent studies suggest EV's are much better for the environment

I don't really care, I have both types of cars and love them all and none of us will live long enough to see the last ICE vehicles on the road, but....

Climate change is real and if we can help slow it down we should...it is common sense, not a conspiracy

"Operation - Power Supply"? I guess that means where the electricity comes from for the EV, great if it's nuclear or renewables (I'll come back to this) but how much electricity is being generated by coal? We know for example in China and India most of the electricity is coming from coal so how green is the EV then? With respect to renewables, my wife is reading Apocalypse Never. It seems that for the USA to convert to purely Wind and Solar would cost an estimate of $120Trillion and would require the use of up to 50% of the US landmass. A solar or wind farm requires 450 times more land than LNG or nuclear powered electricity plant and still wouldn't produce as much electricity.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Quartz is owned by G/O Media Inc., a media company that runs Gizmodo, Deadspin, Jezebel, The Onion, The Root, and other sister websites. G/O was formed in early 2019 when Great Hill Partners, a private equity firm, purchased the websites from Univision. Advertising and subscription fees generate revenue.
When it comes to sourcing, they typically utilize credible sources such as c-span.org, New York Times, Huffington Post, and USA Today.

SoCal_NSX, better run quick the clown car is leaving the station.

The Root?
Oh my. Talk about bottom dwellers.
Shirley they aren't still operating.


7.5 billion for new charge stations. Not ONE done.
Flipping mobsters I tell ya.

[kyriian]

Originally Posted by Murf the Surf

"Operation - Power Supply"? I guess that means where the electricity comes from for the EV, great if it's nuclear or renewables (I'll come back to this) but how much electricity is being generated by coal? We know for example in China and India most of the electricity is coming from coal so how green is the EV then? With respect to renewables, my wife is reading Apocalypse Never. It seems that for the USA to convert to purely Wind and Solar would cost an estimate of $120Trillion and would require the use of up to 50% of the US landmass. A solar or wind farm requires 450 times more land than LNG or nuclear powered electricity plant and still wouldn't produce as much electricity.

Fairly certain all that 450 times land is going to involve even a little clearcutting some old growth forests and probably destroying any natural habitats for thousands and thousands of wild life

But hey there is no emission for your EV I guess.

[Car-Addicted]

A couple thoughts on the latest barrage of posts:
First the planet has endured climate change since the big bang. Facts are that earth has had environments so toxic that it wouldn't support life, and yet the Eco system manages to evolve? It is the greatest hubris of man to think they can significantly effect the planet.
Second, life has a carbon footprint and carbon neutral ignores physics.
Third I can't remember anyone on this thread suggesting that EV's should be out outlawed. I think if you want a EV should be able to buy one. I also think if I want to buy a ICE I should be able to buy one.
Forth, EV folks need to take responsibility for their adoption. It IS NOT a environment friendly choice. There are a lot of problems with this technology being forced on the market before it's time. With out globalist and government pressure the EV market would likely be under 5%.
Fifth, we need to acknowledge that fossil fuels and capitalism has improved the lives of millions of people all over the world and elimination of either fossil fuels and capitalism will cause the deaths of millions of humans.

[dfox]

quite the circle jerk going on in here. Keep it up.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by dfox

quite the circle jerk going on in here. Keep it up.

That's what we're doing.

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by Murf the Surf

"Operation - Power Supply"? I guess that means where the electricity comes from for the EV, great if it's nuclear or renewables (I'll come back to this) but how much electricity is being generated by coal? We know for example in China and India most of the electricity is coming from coal so how green is the EV then? With respect to renewables, my wife is reading Apocalypse Never. It seems that for the USA to convert to purely Wind and Solar would cost an estimate of $120Trillion and would require the use of up to 50% of the US landmass. A solar or wind farm requires 450 times more land than LNG or nuclear powered electricity plant and still wouldn't produce as much electricity.

50% of the us land mass? WTF? Whoever wrote that book is an idiot then. Solar is by no means the end all be all for renewables but that stat is 100$ made up to fearmonger you and your wife and anyone who reads it.



If you reference the 2013 report by NREL (National Renewable Energy Labs)
that used a 350w modules states that you need 3.4 acres of panels to produce one Gigawatt hour for a year.

The US needs four petawatt hours annually, meaning 13,600,000 acres/ 21,250 square miles or panels (Nussey, 2018). It may seem excessive initially, but not when you consider it.

For instance, this is only 145 miles aside from the country’s 3,797,000 square miles, translating to half a percent of the country’s size.

That is based of of using a 350w module. The average module used now in utility scale solar installations is 500W. This means the energy density is even higher.

Ong, S., Campbell, C., Denholm, P., Margolis, R., & Heath, G. (2013, June). Land-Use Requirements for Solar Power Plants in the United States. NREL. Retrieved March 23, 2023, from <https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56290.pdf>




If solar modules were all 25% efficient we could reduce the land use to only ~10,000 square miles, almost Lake Erie’s size. Solar module efficiency increases every year.

[XutvJet]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

A couple thoughts on the latest barrage of posts:
First the planet has endured climate change since the big bang. Facts are that earth has had environments so toxic that it wouldn't support life, and yet the Eco system manages to evolve? It is the greatest hubris of man to think they can significantly effect the planet.
Second, life has a carbon footprint and carbon neutral ignores physics.
Third I can't remember anyone on this thread suggesting that EV's should be out outlawed. I think if you want a EV should be able to buy one. I also think if I want to buy a ICE I should be able to buy one.
Forth, EV folks need to take responsibility for their adoption. It IS NOT a environment friendly choice. There are a lot of problems with this technology being forced on the market before it's time. With out globalist and government pressure the EV market would likely be under 5%.
Fifth, we need to acknowledge that fossil fuels and capitalism has improved the lives of millions of people all over the world and elimination of either fossil fuels and capitalism will cause the deaths of millions of humans.

Everything you noted above is not black or white, right or wrong, etc. It's the same damn issue with politics, religion, capitalism, socialism, etc. If you feel very strong about one side of the argument, then you're going to be heavily biased to one side of the issue. The reality and factual history is that politics, religion, capitalism, and socialism have resulted in billions of deaths throughout written history. Every side is guilty and shares in the blame.

The best answer I have to the EV vs ICE debate is it's complicated, we need to have open minds, be open to compromise, and humans can and should do better when it comes to the environment through reduced emissions, reduce/reuse/recycle, etc.

Humans are not completely responsible for climate change, but we have certainly contributed to it. How much? That can never be determined but we should definitely do better which we are for the most part. The biggest environmental hurdles will be China and other developing countries and weaning US buyers from inefficient, heavily polluting trucks and SUVs or at getting those buyers to pay more of their share with gas guzzler taxes by removing the CAFE loopholes regarding light trucks/SUVs.

[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Where does the magic solar power come from at night?

Oh come on man. That's not a serious question is it?

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Where does the magic solar power come from at night?

Really buddy? That is the best you could come up with? Did you read my response? 2nd sentence: "Solar is by no means the end all be all for renewables" We all know solar does not produce power at night. The good news is humanity consumes MUCH less power at night generally vs during the daylight hours.

At night wind blows more than during the day. You can use wind power at night to offset the lack of solar generation, in theory.

Solar + Wind + other renewables are nice. DERs have their place on our national grid.

What we should really embrace is NUCLEAR. We have to have a nuclear backbone, we should have GWs more of production. Nuke plants can take 20 years to build. We need to start now. Use SHVDC cables to connect the grids. Problem with Nukes is NIMBY. The reality is our National Grid is EXTREMLY weak. We should redo it with multiple nukes per ISO/RTO region. Then fill out the rest with DERs.

We need to save the OIL! Leave it in the ground. Let everyone else use it all up. The faster we transition to 75% nuke 25% DERs the better. Or whatever the ratio ends up being. We still need oil to produce certain items.

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by Torgus

Really buddy? That is the best you could come up with? Did you read my response? 2nd sentence: "Solar is by no means the end all be all for renewables" We all know solar does not produce power at night. The good news is humanity consumes MUCH less power at night generally vs during the daylight hours.

At night wind blows more than during the day. You can use wind power at night to offset the lack of solar generation, in theory.

Solar + Wind + other renewables are nice. DERs have their place on our national grid.

What we should really embrace is NUCLEAR. We have to have a nuclear backbone, we should have GWs more of production. Nuke plants can take 20 years to build. We need to start now. Use SHVDC cables to connect the grids. Problem with Nukes is NIMBY. The reality is our National Grid is EXTREMLY weak. We should redo it with multiple nukes per ISO/RTO region. Then fill out the rest with DERs.

We need to save the OIL! Leave it in the ground. Let everyone else use it all up. The faster we transition to 75% nuke 25% DERs the better. Or whatever the ratio ends up being.

In order for the renewables that are being proposed there will also need to be a staggering amount of batteries to store the hydro for when there is no production. Does anyone actually believe this is a viable solution?

[tturedraider]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

A couple thoughts on the latest barrage of posts:
First, the planet has endured climate change since the big bang. Facts are that earth has had environments so toxic that it wouldn't support life, and yet the Eco system manages to evolve? It is the greatest hubris of man to think they can significantly effect the planet.
Second, life has a carbon footprint and carbon neutral ignores physics.
Third, I can't remember anyone on this thread suggesting that EV's should be out outlawed. I think if you want a EV should be able to buy one. I also think if I want to buy a ICE I should be able to buy one.
Fourth, EV folks need to take responsibility for their adoption. It IS NOT an environment friendly choice. There are a lot of problems with this technology being forced on the market before it's time. With out globalist and government pressure the EV market would likely be under 5%.
Fifth, we need to acknowledge that fossil fuels and capitalism has improved the lives of millions of people all over the world and elimination of either fossil fuels and capitalism will cause the deaths of millions of humans.

Originally Posted by dfox

quite the circle jerk going on in here. Keep it up.

This is your response to the above post?? Can’t manage a single counterpoint to support your views?

Originally Posted by XutvJet

Everything you noted above is not black or white, right or wrong, etc. It's the same damn issue with politics, religion, capitalism, socialism, etc. If you feel very strong about one side of the argument, then you're going to be heavily biased to one side of the issue. The reality and factual history is that politics, religion, capitalism, and socialism have resulted in billions of deaths throughout written history. Every side is guilty and shares in the blame.

The best answer I have to the EV vs ICE debate is it's complicated, we need to have open minds, be open to compromise, and humans can and should do better when it comes to the environment through reduced emissions, reduce/reuse/recycle, etc.

Humans are not completely responsible for climate change, but we have certainly contributed to it. How much? That can never be determined but we should definitely do better which we are for the most part. The biggest environmental hurdles will be China and other developing countries and weaning US buyers from inefficient, heavily polluting trucks and SUVs or at getting those buyers to pay more of their share with gas guzzler taxes by removing the CAFE loopholes regarding light trucks/SUVs.

At least this guy has some reasonable responses.

(with the exception of including capitalism in the same category of things that have caused “billions” of deaths throughout history. First of all, capitalism has only been on the scene for about 250 years and second of all, the advances capitalism has brought to the world have saved the lives of millions and improved the living conditions of millions and millions and lifted untold numbers out of poverty.)

[M5Rick]

Think it's time I stated my stand on the EV vs ICE situation and although I may come over as slightly anti EV I am all for EV's being offered for sale but only when all gub ment interference with restrictive time limit for sale of new ICE cars, with unfair money penalties in place for manufacturers if they don't sell a percentage of EV's is curtailed. As soon as this nonsense is downgraded then I would be happy to consider a small runabout ev for shopping and short journeys. There, got it off my back.

[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by Murf the Surf

In order for the renewables that are being proposed there will also need to be staggering batteries to store the hydro for when there is no production. Does anyone actually believe this is a viable solution?

YOu really need to see how well this is working in the UK. Smaller scale but the beauty with solar is it can all be localised. 100% of the solution, no, but to write it off is foolish. UK weather couldn't be worse for solar either BTW.

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by Murf the Surf

In order for the renewables that are being proposed there will also need to be staggering batteries to store the hydro for when there is no production. Does anyone actually believe this is a viable solution?

Not me. DERs are part of our future grid regardless of what anyone wants. They make sense and can help out in certain situations etc.

If you look at degradation curves of stationary Lipo batteries having to replace them at year 25 is a non starter for me. I know they still have some juice left but not much at year 25. Especially if you don't keep the SOC high and limit DoD.

[tturedraider]

Originally Posted by dfox

independently owned dealerships just need to go away altogether. stupid middleman that makes the car buying experience terrible for all involved.

This isn’t going to happen. I’m pretty sure every single state has dealer franchise laws that would take way more effort to change than anyone has the motivation for. AND, manufacturers don’t want to sell cars at retail. They want to do what they were created for, which is to design and build cars/vehicles. They want someone else to handle the retail operations. Just as McDonald’s, Taco Bell, Chick Fil A, and all the others don’t want to sell their food at retail, but want their franchisees to handle the retail part of the business.

As much complaining as retail customers do they don’t really want it either. It turns out when it comes to spending tens of thousands of dollars on complicated machines that also evoke a lot of emotional responses for many people, they want to have a hands-on experience and they want to try to save as much money as they can. This is the exact reason Saturn failed. It was almost impossible for GM to keep their Saturn dealers in line with the no haggle pricing policy. Saturn customers may have been drawn into the dealership by the policy, but when it came to actually buying the car they wanted to negotiate.

I worked for a no haggle Nissan dealer for a short time in Fort Worth, Texas. Everyone who bought a car from them got a pretty good deal. But, there weren’t enough buyers who bought into the concept. The ones who wanted to haggle went ten miles down the highway to the next Nissan dealership and, since the no haggle prices were published for everyone to see, they would beat the price by $100 or $200 and get the sale. The Fort Worth dealer made it for about three years with the no haggle pricing structure and they had to capitulate to the market forces.

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by dfox

quite the circle jerk going on in here. Keep it up.

You should try not to the the pivot man.

[dfox]

Originally Posted by tturedraider

This is your response to the above post?? Can’t manage a single counterpoint to support your views?

My views are pretty much right down the middle, so no, I'm not going to spend my time trying to rebut an extreme viewpoint. I just laugh at it because of how ridiculous it sounds, on both sides. I also know that I'm not changing anyone's mind here, so again, not wasting my time.

Want to discuss the merits of each system and how we can better utilize our natural resources to minimize human's impact on the world? Sure, I'll be in for a discussion there. But if it's just, lithium bad, oil bad... nah. I'll let the rest of you hash that out.

I drive both EV and ICE. I don't see a time when I won't have both in my life. It's about picking the right tool for the situation.

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by Torgus

50% of the us land mass? WTF? Whoever wrote that book is an idiot then. Solar is by no means the end all be all for renewables but that stat is 100$ made up to fearmonger you and your wife and anyone who reads it.

Personally I had hoped that Solar Panels would be a better solution than it is by now. 21,250 square miles of solar panels or roughly the size of West Virginia.

If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste?
The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) in 2016 estimated there were about 250,000 metric tonnes of solar panel waste in the world at the end of that year. IRENA projected that this amount could reach 78 million metric tonnes by 2050.

Solar panels often contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. For this reason, the whole solar panel is considered hazardous by many experts and governments, including the state of California, which is trying to prevent the flow of old solar panels to landfills.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/if...h-toxic-waste/

This is the problem in a nut shell. Government pushing technologies with out seeing the big picture. One would think that if people were really interested in the environment they would be concerned about the big picture?

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Personally I had hoped that Solar Panels would be a better solution than it is by now. 21,250 square miles of solar panels or roughly the size of West Virginia.

If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste?
The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) in 2016 estimated there were about 250,000 metric tonnes of solar panel waste in the world at the end of that year. IRENA projected that this amount could reach 78 million metric tonnes by 2050.

Solar panels often contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. For this reason, the whole solar panel is considered hazardous by many experts and governments, including the state of California, which is trying to prevent the flow of old solar panels to landfills.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/if...h-toxic-waste/

This is the problem in a nut shell. Government pushing technologies with out seeing the big picture. One would think that if people were really interested in the environment they would be concerned about the big picture?

Are you spreading FUD on purpose?

https://www.freeingenergy.com/are-so...mium-and-lead/ <--Most solar modules are NOT thin flim.

You can recycle thin film solar modules just fine: https://www.epa.gov/hw/solar-panel-r...20and%20copper

https://www.greentechrenewables.com/...s%20quantities. <-- Solar panels are recycled in mass quantities and most of them are recyclable.






Do you guys not read? I said DERs are not the solution alone. They are PART of the solution. EVs work well in CERTAIN situations, not all, not most. EVs are also not a solution for all cars just like solar and wind is not a solution for all electrical generation. This is a simple concept. DERs and EVs are part of the solution. Just like Nuclear is, just like SHVDC is, Just like Hydro is, etc. They can all work together just fine. EVs don't work for me. I think they rate they are being pushed for adoption is stupid. The market will correct itself like we are already seeing.



I don't care if you hate solar, want to make some money? Want to invest in an industry that is growing extremely fast? Solar in the U.S. is forecast to triple in five years:




Is Oil going to triple? Gas? Nuke? Make some money while you can because the FED is spending your tax money regardless on renewables. Take advantage of a growing industry. You guys did invest and make money on Tesla I hope, right? I am still amazed they acquired SolarShitty years ago.

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

The best answer I have to the EV vs ICE debate is it's complicated, we need to have open minds, be open to compromise, and humans can and should do better when it comes to the environment through reduced emissions, reduce/reuse/recycle, etc.

Agreed I have always found it is easier to save energy than to make it. We suck at energy efficiency. The fact that this is not the main thrust of globalists and governments speaks volumes.

Originally Posted by XutvJet

Humans are not completely responsible for climate change, but we have certainly contributed to it. How much? That can never be determined but we should definitely do better which we are for the most part. The biggest environmental hurdles will be China and other developing countries

Agreed but there is no political interest in telling China and India that they need to go green. They have people to feed and at the end of the day they can sign all the agreements in the world and go right on burning coal with out the improve emissions and efficiency available today.

Originally Posted by XutvJet

weaning US buyers from inefficient, heavily polluting trucks and SUVs or at getting those buyers to pay more of their share with gas guzzler taxes by removing the CAFE loopholes regarding light trucks/SUVs.

Here we disagree. These vehicles pay more in gas tax so they are paying their fair share and the share of EV's that don't pay ther fair share. If you think they should pay more, raise the gas tax? Best not to do that in an election year. The CAFE standards and the "loop holes" are a out growth of absurd CAFE standards imposed by government. Last week I posted the 2024-2026 CAFE standards and they are unobtainable unless we all switch to mopeds. 66mpg for cars is only there to force EV compliance. I hope you have a issue with Tesla’s record carbon credit sales? These are as far away from the free market as you can get and the losers are the folks who need transportation and don't have a trust fund.

I absolutely love your Signature.