Why electric cars are not green machines?

[EatenByLimestone]

Don’t get stuck on weather (wrong spelling intended) somebody believes in man made climate change. Ask a different question. Would you like cleaner air and water? Ok, how can we get that?

An example: In the oil fields in the North Dakota, they are just burning all of the natural gas that comes up because they have no way to move it to a spot that can use it. What could we move there that needs a ton of energy that could probably be had for nearly free? Server farms and mineral processing use huge amounts of energy.

You don’t have to agree on the cause in order to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome.

 

[EbS-P]

6 pages…. And still going. I’ll offer another point. The giver is offering cold hard cash (if you qualify and most will) to buy an EV. Enough that that now you can get back 18% of the purchase price on a new RWD model 3.

Carbon life cycle aside for the moment. When in history have you been able get a vehicle at that kind of discount? (I believe this will be a point of sale rebate next year. )

All assessments point to the EV as a carbon emission reducing vehicle ( maybe aside from the hummer but they only delivered 42 last quarter https://electrek.co/2023/07/18/gm-v...dillac Lyriq, GMs second,year and 1,348 in Q2.).

 

[StoveInNH]

Hot damn this thread got away from the original article I posted!

There are folks on this board accusing one side of acting a certain way (deniers, etc.). Hmm.

I ask this . . . If you believe that man is causing "existential" (as a previous post mentioned) climate change, are you doing EVERYTHING you can in your personal life to avoid contributing to the issue?

My contention is that man is likely contributing (not causing) to climate change, but the majority of that is heat creation . . . we create heat. In our homes, in our cars, in our blenders, in our outdoor fire pits, in our Canadian wildfires, in our [fill in the blank].

Could you not do more? Could you not keep your house heated to 52? Could you not find work closer to home so you could ride your bike? Could you never turn on your AC? Could you stop doing all of the things you do that create excess heat?

Or are some of those things conveniences that you deem acceptable?

Do EVERYTHING you can, then preach. Fix your life, before you tell me how to fix mine. Who knows, maybe you'll start a trend to keep houses heated to 52 degrees F!

My $0.02. Let the barrage begin.

 

[woodgeek]

Hot damn this thread got away from the original article I posted!

There are folks on this board accusing one side of acting a certain way (deniers, etc.). Hmm.

I ask this . . . If you believe that man is causing "existential" (as a previous post mentioned) climate change, are you doing EVERYTHING you can in your personal life to avoid contributing to the issue?

My contention is that man is likely contributing (not causing) to climate change, but the majority of that is heat creation . . . we create heat. In our homes, in our cars, in our blenders, in our outdoor fire pits, in our Canadian wildfires, in our [fill in the blank].

Could you not do more? Could you not keep your house heated to 52? Could you not find work closer to home so you could ride your bike? Could you never turn on your AC? Could you stop doing all of the things you do that create excess heat?

Or are some of those things conveniences that you deem acceptable?

Do EVERYTHING you can, then preach. Fix your life, before you tell me how to fix mine. Who knows, maybe you'll start a trend to keep houses heated to 52 degrees F!

My $0.02. Let the barrage begin.

So sorry. I forgot (again!) that folks that deny accepted scientific facts consider the term denier to be 'hate speech', What is your preferred euphemism these days, I've lost track? Right wing enlightened skeptic?

I'll let someone else cover the 'existential' thing re climate change, I don't think CC is an existential threat to humanity or civilization, and think I've been clear on that. It might be an existential threat to some species in isolated habitats (like the large animals in our national parks)... but humans will (sadly) carry on if those become extinct.

I think I used the term existential threat to describe the effect EVs (the subject of this thread) have on legacy car makers... and to explain quite simply while they are all getting into the business. You demurred to explain why trillions of dollars are being spent on EV tech that is not green.

Re your 'theory' about heat generation. While intuitive, the numbers work out a little different. Let's say you burn a pound of carbon, to make 3 pounds of CO2. That releases a paltry 8000 BTUs of heat or so, once. But that warm sun outside, shining down, delivers about a third that much heat per square foot, per day, 2500 BTUs to the earths surface. Every day. That square foot of atmosphere (1ft x 1ft x 20 miles high) weighs about 2200 pounds, and used to contain half a pound of CO2 in 1800, and now contains a pound in 2023. Adding your CO2, means that it now contains 4 pounds. That change increases the trapped solar heat in that square foot of atmosphere by about 1%, more or less, adding about 25 BTUs of heat, per day to the earths surface.

25 BTU/day seems a lot less than the 8000 BTU you got burning the carbon. But it adds up. After a year, that is 8000 BTU in added solar heat. After a decade it is 80,000 BTUs. Remember that it will last in the atmosphere for 500 years. In a century it will be 800k BTUs added to the earth. A hundred times more heat (that will mostly end up in the ocean) than you got from burning the carbon in the first place.

Overall, this estimate implies that human emitted CO2 adds as much heat to the Earth, every year, as all the fossil fuel BTUs that humans have used in the last 500 years.

If you want to learn about how to reduce your emissions @StoveInNH you came to the right place... I'll spare you my flexing on the subject. We talk about reducing emissions a lot here, you might learn a thing or two.

If you don't want to learn how to reduce your emissions... that's OK too. Free country, after all.

 

[StoveInNH]

So sorry. I forgot (again!) that folks that deny accepted scientific facts consider the term denier to be 'hate speech', What is your preferred euphemism these days, I've lost track? Right wing enlightened skeptic?

I'll let someone else cover the 'existential' thing re climate change, I don't think CC is an existential threat to humanity or civilization, and think I've been clear on that. It might be an existential threat to some species in isolated habitats (like the large animals in our national parks)... but humans will (sadly) carry on if those become extinct.

I think I used the term existential threat to describe the effect EVs (the subject of this thread) have on legacy car makers... and to explain quite simply while they are all getting into the business. You demurred to explain why trillions of dollars are being spent on EV tech that is not green.

Re your 'theory' about heat generation. While intuitive, the numbers work out a little different. Let's say you burn a pound of carbon, to make 3 pounds of CO2. That releases a paltry 8000 BTUs of heat or so, once. But that warm sun outside, shining down, delivers about a third that much heat per square foot, per day, 2500 BTUs to the earths surface. Every day. That square foot of atmosphere (1ft x 1ft x 20 miles high) weighs about 2200 pounds, and used to contain half a pound of CO2 in 1800, and now contains a pound in 2023. Adding your CO2, means that it now contains 4 pounds. That change increases the trapped solar heat in that square foot of atmosphere by about 1%, more or less, adding about 25 BTUs of heat, per day to the earths surface.

25 BTU/day seems a lot less than the 8000 BTU you got burning the carbon. But it adds up. After a year, that is 8000 BTU in added solar heat. After a decade it is 80,000 BTUs. Remember that it will last in the atmosphere for 500 years. In a century it will be 800k BTUs added to the earth. A hundred times more heat (that will mostly end up in the ocean) than you got from burning the carbon in the first place.

Overall, this estimate implies that human emitted CO2 adds as much heat to the Earth, every year, as all the fossil fuel BTUs that humans have used in the last 500 years.

If you want to learn about how to reduce your emissions @StoveInNH you came to the right place... I'll spare you my flexing on the subject. We talk about reducing emissions a lot here, you might learn a thing or two.

If you don't want to learn how to reduce your emissions... that's OK too. Free country, after all.

@woodgeek, thanks for the reply.

I never said "denier" was hate speech. You made that up.

But I stand by my opinion . . . We (including you and I) make heat. Much more heat than necessary. It affects the climate in a big way.

It's obvious. It's that simple.

Others can hang their hat on research that may be biased or may be proven false at a later time. I'm not denying anyone their research.

But people like me see things a lot simpler.

When you've done everything you can do to be "green" we'll talk more about what I do.

In the meantime, peace. I appreciate your engagement in the debate.

 

[woodgeek]

I"m still missing where we told you what to do or what to buy. Or 'preached' to you?

I thought your OP article was kinda trashy for not having any references.

As an aside, I've been seeing a bunch of vegan fora/echo chambers and propaganda lately.... those guys can really be preachy. Whoa.

They talk about the amount of scorn they get from non-vegans (that they like to call 'carnists'). They explain this (almost universally) as the result of vegans making carnists feel guilty regarding the consequences of their actions (eating meat products, animal suffering, etc), and them projecting their discomfort at their own guilt on the 'messenger', i.e. the vegan. Challenging the carnists' psychological denial of an unpleasant reality, as it were.

I'm not ready to buy that, but I think it is an interesting hypothesis.

 

[StoveInNH]

I"m still missing where we told you what to do or what to buy. Or 'preached' to you?

I thought your OP article was kinda trashy for not having any references.

As an aside, I've been seeing a bunch of vegan fora/echo chambers and propaganda lately.... those guys can really be preachy. Whoa.

They talk about the amount of scorn they get from non-vegans (that they like to call 'carnists'). They explain this (almost universally) as the result of vegans making carnists feel guilty regarding the consequences of their actions (eating meat products, animal suffering, etc), and them projecting their discomfort at their own guilt on the 'messenger', i.e. the vegan. Challenging the carnists' psychological denial of an unpleasant reality, as it were.

I'm not ready to buy that, but I think it is an interesting hypothesis.

I liked my original article.

Reread your last post for examples of preaching. I like the part about calling me a "right wing enlightened skeptic."

Is name calling ok with you? Should we do more of it?

 

[woodgeek]

I liked my original article.

Reread your last post for examples of preaching. I like the part about calling me a "right wing enlightened skeptic."

Is name calling ok with you? Should we do more of it?

Preaching is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think 'denier' is name calling, others can disagree, I thought you were calling me out for that, my mistake.

IIRC you self-identified as 'right wing', correct me if that is wrong. And then 'enlightened skeptic' hardly seems like an epithet.

 

[StoveInNH]

Preaching is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think 'denier' is name calling, others can disagree, I thought you were calling me out for that, my mistake.

IIRC you self-identified as 'right wing', correct me if that is wrong. And then 'enlightened skeptic' hardly seems like an epithet.

Apology accepted.

 

[SpaceBus]

I do try to reduce my carbon footprint, because I do love trees and animals. There are certain financial restrictions on my ability to do so. I'm not a hypocrite because I'm forced to use FF to get to work.

 

[StoveInNH]

I do try to reduce my carbon footprint, because I do love trees and animals. There are certain financial restrictions on my ability to do so. I'm not a hypocrite because I'm forced to use FF to get to work.

FF?

 

[SpaceBus]

FF?

Fossil fuels. Even Thomas Edison used gas lights, oil lamps, and candles before perfecting the light bulb. That didn't make him a hypocrite.

 

[StoveInNH]

Fossil fuels. Even Thomas Edison used gas lights, oil lamps, and candles before perfecting the light bulb. That didn't make him a hypocrite.

Understood.

In my opinion, where the green movement at large DOES, in fact, try and tell me what to do, then my opinion is, unless supporters of that movement do ALL THEY CAN to be green, then I find the movement and it's supporters to be hypocritical.

 

[woodgeek]

Understood.

In my opinion, where the green movement at large DOES, in fact, try and tell me what to do, then my opinion is, unless supporters of that movement do ALL THEY CAN to be green, then I find the movement and it's supporters to be hypocritical.

Sorry. I'm having a really hard time following.

Has someone here told you what you have to do?

Are we 'the green movement', or is it some hypocritical thing out there you are interacting with?

Have you decided that we here are 'supporters' of 'the green movement' and thus by extension must be telling you what to do, and hypocritical?

 

[joop]

i'm buying a horse,biodegradable

 

[SpaceBus]

I considered a horse for carbon neutral transportation, as a hypothetical. They are potentially carbon neutral, but the economic burden is immense.

 

[Ashful]

It’s tough showing up everywhere smelling like a horse, these days. I’d imagine some employers might even send you home, tell you to take a shower and come back the next day, if your job involved direct customer interface.

 

[SpaceBus]

It’s tough showing up everywhere smelling like a horse, these days. I’d imagine some employers might even send you home, tell you to take a shower and come back the next day, if your job involved direct customer interface.

Plus it would take me at least three times longer to get anywhere 😂

 

[begreen]

A while back Noah Smith wrote on this topic. Smith has a doctorate in economics and summarizes some of the research done about EVs in detail. It's an opinion piece, but an educated one and a worthwhile read.

All the arguments against EVs are wrong

EVs are just going to win.

www.noahpinion.blog

 

[DBoon]

Toxic tyre particles: Experts warned last month that electric cars release more toxic tyre particles into the air than their petrol equivalents.

Haven't read to the end of the thread yet, but let me know if these same "experts" were sounding the alarm when we all traded in our 3-4,000 lb. sedans for 6-7,000 pound SUVs and pickup trucks. I'm guessing "no".

 

[brenndatomu]

Haven't read to the end of the thread yet, but let me know if these same "experts" were sounding the alarm when we all traded in our 3-4,000 lb. sedans for 6-7,000 pound SUVs and pickup trucks. I'm guessing "no".

I'd agree...no proper greasing of the palms for John Kerry n friends to jet around the world lecturing everyone on evil car VS SUV carbon...meanwhile, he (they) use more fossil fuel in one trip to do so than a whole black Friday at Walmart worth of cars!
Let the roasting commence

 

[woodgeek]

I'd agree...no proper greasing of the palms for John Kerry n friends to jet around the world lecturing everyone on evil car VS SUV carbon...meanwhile, he (they) use more fossil fuel in one trip to do so than a whole black Friday at Walmart worth of cars!
Let the roasting commence

A young just married couple want to go on their honeymoon 2000 miles away, and are trying to decide wether they should fly on the big bad jet plane, getting there in 5 hours, or drive their state of the art Prius for 4 long days each way. Which is lower carbon?

So they look it up, and find out its the same amount of emitted carbon.

One passenger works out to be about 100 miles/gallon of fuel.

A family of four in a large 25 mpg SUV could just as well fly.

 

[brenndatomu]

A young just married couple want to go on their honeymoon 2000 miles away, and are trying to decide wether they should fly on the big bad jet plane, getting there in 5 hours, or drive their state of the art Prius for 4 long days each way. Which is lower carbon?

So they look it up, and find out its the same amount of emitted carbon.

One passenger works out to be about 100 miles/gallon of fuel.

A family of four in a large 25 mpg SUV could just as well fly.

I bet that doesn't pen out the same way when its a private jet and flying abroad...obviously you can't drive, but you know what I mean

 

[woodgeek]

Those darned elites running things... and effectively reducing our CO2 emissions while boosting the US economy!

Really grinds my gears.

Crucially, most politicians in both parties are in favor of tackling climate change (and boosting the economy), one party does this while currently pretending they don't. In a few more years, I predict those same pols will take credit for having done so.

 

[bholler]

I bet that doesn't pen out the same way when its a private jet and flying abroad...obviously you can't drive, but you know what I mean

And how many of the people you are referring to fly on private jets vs commercial?