myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Nutty California
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 182, 183, 184 ... 186, 187, 188  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
coachg



Joined: 10 Sep 2000
Posts: 3327

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2022 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
These clowns have called me a liar literally thousands of times over the decades.


isobars wrote:
Influenza is a much more deadly disease. Get your priorities straight, fearmonger.


Simple fix. Undue the lie.

Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

Coachg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4188

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2022 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe brought up some very important issues when we evaluate the move to EVs.

The initial investment, both in dollars and carbon, is a compelling enough reason to not jump into the EV solution with both feet. Driving a very high mileage petroleum vehicle and limiting the amount of driving we do is a better choice for many of us.

In my case, a smaller EV vehicle makes sense. I can drive from home to office and charge at both ends using primarily solar electric. So, I can keep the carbon part of the production of the electricity out of my use. I have no idea how many folks can do this.

What I am finding is that autos that get the range that many of us want utilize more battery than most of us need...at least in our second, or third, vehicle. What makes sense, to me, is that we promote smaller commuting vehicles that can be more easily charged with home charging stations that we use for our local driving. In my case, I could cut my vehicle carbon footprint by 35 to 40% if I use my petro vehicle for long trips and an EV for my commute and skiing. And, the smaller battery has WAY less of an environmental cost.

Like everything, there is no easy solution and sound bites don't begin to address the issues. We hide the true cost of oil and coal and we hide the costs of weaning ourselves from those sources.

In doing the math on the true costs for me to go to electric, I am finding little information and assistance. It seems no one wants me to know the answer. They just want me to buy a $70,000 Tesla and feel good.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SAS



Joined: 18 Feb 1997
Posts: 148
Location: planet earth

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2022 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
These clowns have called me a liar literally thousands of times over the decades. Back when I mistook them for adults, I challenged them scores of times to back it up. Not ONCE, in all these years, has any of them been able to support such a claim.



isobars wrote:
the Jan 6 Capitol "invasion"
it's been legitimately described as gawking tourists including grannies shooting selfies.
BTW, I assume that even you lefties know that the only person killed that day was an unarmed woman carrying a U.S. flag. Anyone who comes back with anything even resembling "they killed a cop" is outright lying.
fugging idiots


Well, there 3 lies in this:
1) Ashley Babbitt was not carrying a US flag. She had a Trump flag.
2) There was a second woman who was killed by an overdose.
3) While there may have been some grannies and tourists who entered the Capitol in a non-violent way, there were many more that were armed and violent. Some carried guns. Others used pepper spray. Nearly 900 have been charged with crimes and over 300 have already been found guilty, many of whom confessed to their crimes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17181
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2022 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sigh. Would mrgybe cherry pick data and then use that data to argue anecdotally? We all know the answer to that is yes. For about a decade he has repeated dodgy claims from chemical manufacturers and oil companies to argue that we will either have to wear hair shirts, or we are picking alternatives to oil that really don't reduce carbon dioxide. Well, here is a study that refutes his latest claim:

Quote:
Article
Cumulative Emissions of CO2 for Electric and Combustion Cars:
A Case Study on Specific Models
Maciej Neugebauer 1,* , Adam Zebrowski ˙ 1 and Ogulcan Esmer 2
1 Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland;
maczek1977@gmail.com
2 Department of Agricultural Engineering & Technology, Faculty of Agriculture, Ege University, Bornova,
Izmir 35100, Turkey; ogulcanesmer@gmail.com
* Correspondence: mak@uwm.edu.pl; Tel.: +49-89-524-5561
Abstract: This work includes calculations of the cumulative CO2 emissions of two comparable cars—
the VW Golf VII—one with a combustion engine and the other with an electric motor. Calculation of
CO2 emissions was performed, taking into account the stages of production, utilization and use of
the above-mentioned vehicles. For the use phase, it was assumed that the total mileage of the car will
be 150,000 km over 10 years. For the electric vehicle, calculations were made assuming five different
sources of electricity (from coal only, from natural gas only, from PV and wind turbines, an average
mix of European power sources and an average mix of Polish power sources; W1–W5 designations,
respectively). For individual sources of electricity, cumulative CO2 emissions were taken into account,
that is, resulting both from the production of electricity and the use of the resources
(for example,
technical service per 1 kWh of electricity produced). The obtained results of the analysis show that for
the adopted assumptions regarding operation, for variants W2–W5, the use of an electric car results
in lower cumulative CO2 emission than a the use of a combustion car
. For a combustion car, the value
was 37,000 kg-CO2
, and for an electric car, depending on the variant, the value was 43, 31, 16, 23 and
34 thousand kg-CO2
for variants W1 to W5, respectively. Based on the emissions results obtained
for individual stages of the use of selected vehicles, a comparative analysis of cumulative CO2
emissions was performed. The purpose of this analysis was to determine whether the replacement of
an existing combustion car (that has already been manufactured; therefore, this part of the analysis
does not include CO2 emissions in the production stage) with a new electric car, which has to be
manufactured, therefore associated with additional CO2 emissions, would reduce cumulative CO2
emissions. Considering three adopted average annual car mileages (3000, 7500 and 15,000 km) and
the previously described power options (W1–W5), we sought an answer as to whether the use of a
new electric car would be burdened with lower cumulative CO2 emissions. In this case we assumed
an analysis time of 15 years. For the worst variant from the point of view of CO2 emissions (W1,
electricity from coal power sources only), further use of a combustion car is associated with lower
cumulative CO2 emissions than the purchase of a new electric car over the entire analyzed period of
15 years. In turn, for the most advantageous variant (W3, electricity from PV or wind power sources)
with an annual mileage of 3000 km, the purchase of a new electric car results in higher cumulative
CO2 emissions throughout the analyzed period, whereas for an annual milage of 7500 or 15,000 km,
replacing the car with an electric car “pays back” in terms of cumulative CO2 emissions after 8.5 or
4 years, respectively.


I have seen multiple different analyses which show the same thing. For most purposes, an electric vehicle has a higher carbon signature from production, but that is reversed after a period of time. One of the reasons is that electric vehicles, and electric motors, are much more efficient in turning energy into miles.

This is far from the first time that the buggy whip guy has spun yes into no. And yes, indeed, efficiency and subsidies matter. For many decades, I have favored using cost-effectiveness as a tool for making decisions, particularly government decisions. So I would ask, returning to Techno's silly troll, which subsidy gets us the best reduction in carbon emissions? I've long favored a carbon tax, because that would have the market make those decisions without regulations. While oil companies blather on about markets and efficiency, they avoid both whenever they can.

In the first stimulus bill under Obama, two carbon reduction strategies were employed. First, encouragement for improved efficiency--the most cost effective way to reduce carbon emissions. Second, an attempt was made to bend the curve on the costs for renewable energies. Buggy whip wrung his hands for years.

The fact that we will still have fossil fuels used for many purposes does not mean that we should not bend the curve where we can. The fossil fuel industry has been fighting all such efforts since the days of Jimmy Carter, using spin and lies as their tools.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4188

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2022 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree Mac that the carbon industry is spinning and hiding the true costs of their product. But, the EV industry is doing the same thing. In an effort to convince us of the green value of an electric vehicle they try to convince us that the EV can be used just like a Petrol vehicle with little change in our driving behavior. This means bigger batteries and more environmental cost…substantially more…in our quest for range.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coachg



Joined: 10 Sep 2000
Posts: 3327

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2022 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coboardhead,

There is another solution; better public transportation & development. In the U.S. we build around the automobile. You have to drive to mega malls or Big Box shopping centers in the newer developments. In Europe, & where I live the community is much more walkable & bike friendly so you only need your car in extreme weather or rare situations. I was just in Portugal & rented a car. It was a 4.5 hour drive to Cabedelo from Lisbon but once in Cabedelo I only needed the car for out of town trips. In three weeks I only filled up twice, once in Cabedelo & once in Lisbon just before I returned the car. Half a tank each time. For day to day things we walked, biked or used public transportation.

Coachg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10400

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2022 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like the idea of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in the long run. Needless to say though, the needed infrastructure will take many years and a desire to invest in the future. However, if I wanted to jump in today, I could, because Santa Barbara has a local hydrogen filling station. If the cost of gas stays on the ceiling, it even makes buying hydrogen more economical than gas.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4188

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2022 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coachg wrote:
coboardhead,

There is another solution; better public transportation & development. In the U.S. we build around the automobile. You have to drive to mega malls or Big Box shopping centers in the newer developments. In Europe, & where I live the community is much more walkable & bike friendly so you only need your car in extreme weather or rare situations. I was just in Portugal & rented a car. It was a 4.5 hour drive to Cabedelo from Lisbon but once in Cabedelo I only needed the car for out of town trips. In three weeks I only filled up twice, once in Cabedelo & once in Lisbon just before I returned the car. Half a tank each time. For day to day things we walked, biked or used public transportation.

Coachg


Coachg. In my case, there is no public transportation because the rural population just doesn't support it. Both towns, I walk or ride my bike for most errands.

When you look at much of this country, folks live in the suburbs. We're not going to change that anytime soon. Getting mass transportation close enough for many to utilize it will be a serious undertaking. Now, park and ride can make a lot of sense in a lot of places. When I did live in a large town, there was centralized public transport and I used it when I could.

I wish we had a train system to the ski areas in Colorado like they do in Europe. It would solve a lot of issues. I think it needs to build to a level of critical mass like it has in the mountains in Europe before it is embraced or feasible.

The population density of Germany is about five times that of Colorado.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17181
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CB—I expect advocates to spin and advocate. Whether they are selling EV’s or traditional cars. Sadly, too many Americans have their ego wrapped up in a car, with no consideration for impact. But that does not justify 50 years of fighting any effort to reduce oil use, involving hiring the dregs of the tobacco consultants, lies, and cheating. Mrgybe has been part of this disinformation campaign for years. He attacked the stimulus bill repeatedly—hiding his opposition to even modest measures to increase efficiency. None of the righties here have bothered to actually make a substantive case for nuclear energy. Move on to the next Fox news talking point—brought to you by big oil.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coachg



Joined: 10 Sep 2000
Posts: 3327

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coboardhead,

I didn't say it was easy, I said it was another option; and obviously a better option for the environment. Getting a mass transit system in the suburbs will be no more an undertaking than installing massive amounts of charging stations, but more importantly allowing small business in residential neighborhoods is also another solution. The biggest complaint I hear from people that live in the suburbs is no local restaurants.

I don't snow ski but here in the Sierras I think it has already hit critical mass when I see the traffic jams up 80 & 50 during ski season.

Interesting you should mention Germany, because they do have a greater population density, but they also have much less urban sprawl if you were to compare large German cities to Denver. And yes, their train system is amazing. Even staying in the small town of Schliersee I could easily catch the train to Munich.

Coachg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 182, 183, 184 ... 186, 187, 188  Next
Page 183 of 188

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group