Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

My wife's EV gets her around town on about 16 percent battery use before she gets home to charge it up. She uses a regular outlet trickle charger. Because the thing is parked all night so she doesn't need it to get charged fast. I strongly doubt the battery will be to the point where it can't get her around town daily after 10 years of usage. But then we typically trade in our cars before then. I don't drive cars ten years old. Call it straight white male privilege.

Once the car is traded in to a manufacture they can replace the damn battery for all I care.

But know why I got the damn EV? Because **** oil companies, that's why. That and I get to tell environment alarmists that don't do anything meaningful except preach the alarm button to go **** themselves. Win/win.

The ride for an EV is smoother, quiet, fast and feels like the future. Push a button and things light up like a space ship ready to go. There is no vibration from the engine or low rumble. You notice it's gone immediately and I think it's great. I recommend EV's. 10 years ago the max range was something like 65 miles and the cost was 4 times as much as it is now.

In a few years they are going to be dropping these new solid state batteries which are suppose to allow for full charging in 15 min. I wouldn't cling onto the tech of the now like that's where this is going to stay. I'd wager the tech is going to constantly keep improving. But even now I feel great driving by a gas station without a **** to give.

Also **** California. Garbage state can go to bicycles for all I care.

 

Batteries are expensive. However, I believe a Tesla battery costs more like $14k, not $22k

https://www.currentautomotive.com/how-much-does-a-tesla-model-3-battery-replacement-cost/

Another aspect of this is that gas engine cars require more maintenance dollars than do electric cars. So, while a new battery outside of warranty is expensive, so are all those other trips relatively new gas cars require.

On top of that, one gets cheap fuel!

 

Says the person who has not even bothered to click on the link. What is the matter - waiting for Fox to tell you what the report says??

 

Which is stupider a mindless accusation about whether I clicked the link or throwing out "you read Fox" red herrings?

Here's a hint:

 

Or we could “repurpose” them, an idea I am quite fond of. You don’t need the same charge for grid storage as you do for cars so the suggestion is we build grid storage units out of second hand car batteries and get another ten years out of them

 

Are they exempt? Or is this another Fox News talking point?

https://www.statesman.com/story/new...er-china-india-than-united-states/4276557001/

 

Well you obviously are not addressing anything within the IPCC report and instead have relied on denialist talking points

 

You're obviously dodging the issue.

 

I'm glad they make electric vehicles for people that want them and people that want them should enjoy them I have my reasons for not wanting one and fuel price and range aren't huge factors. As fuel prices even at the stage they are now is a minimal expense.

I doubt this first you would have to have a massive amount of wattage to charge a car from dead to fall in 15 minutes if you have more than about 20 miles of range and you would have to have a pretty beefy radiator to dissipate the heat.

Solid state batteries are a good piece of science fiction at the moment but they are still limited by the laws of physics.

You can't exchange that much energy that quickly without producing heat.

we'll see what happens with the technology is it develops I'm sure that's not going anywhere meaning that it will be part of automotive industry for years to come and a bigger part now than it's been since 1901

And I think that's great I want people like you to be able to drive by gasoline stations like you're better than everyone else that's great I don't have a problem with people feeling that way.

My point wasn't that California was so great. My point was fast charging is going to be a rare commodity.

In order to have fast charging to support vehicles that were maybe 20% of vehicles on the road we would probably have to increase our power production 6 to 12 times what it is now.

Fast chargers are only available to you because most people don't drive an electric car they represent about 1% of the cars on the road if they increase to five you are going to be waiting at those fast chargers.

They can build more but they're limited by the amount of electricity we produce.

So there's not a future where most people are driving electric cars and fast charging them without entire landscapes being filled with power plants burning corpses and trees and dogs and whatnot that's what it's going to have to take to produce that kind of power.

Maybe if we figure out how to generate nuclear fusion that'll be an option.

 

LOL So they make "promises" to do something 30 years in the future. How many coal fired generation plants are the building meanwhile. Typical Politifacts non-fact check.

 

OK, there is the science of the warming and there is the politics of the policy decision making.

These are two very different issues.

The fact that the policy decision making is not holding nations to their promises, requiring various nations to do more, etc. does NOT alter that facts that science presents concerning world climatology.

We do not have a world government that can force nations to take specific action on climate change.

The fact that policy has been way too weak does not change the fact that Earth is warming, primarily due to human activity.

All science can do is issue their findings.

If we want different policy, we have to insist on that from our representatives.

Today, over 150 US congressmen are climate change deniers. Policy can't change when there is that much opposition.

I do not agree that adequate climate change policies will require sacrificing our economy.

"Clean energy and energy efficiency actually put more people to work, at comparable wages, than continued fossil fuel extraction."

https://citizensclimatelobby.org/la...n energy,businesses outside the energy sector.

Clean energy is a significant emerging segment of our economy.

Also, Europe, UK, and many other countries with strong economies are charging more for fuel than do we. Those dollars can replace dollars extracted by taxes.

 

14k could still buy you a decent used car I've seen people get rid of their car because they have to do a $5,000 repair on it like changing a transmission or an engine.

That's not worth repairing I don't replacing a battery would be a worthwhile job for most people.

it really isn't I've done the math I have a vehicle a 2007 f150 I bought it 7 years old and had it for the rest of that time I paid 8500 for it I buy maybe 2200 dollars worth of gas a year for it and I've done some maintenance on it now I've added up the cost to me this vehicle has been over the 7 years I've owned it 7 years I've spent $21,000 on it total not including tires registration and that sort of thing because you have to buy that for an electric car too.

So buying an electric car which it would be new cuz I wouldn't buy a used one it could need a $13,000 repair in 3 months I don't know. Cuss more than double that so it's cheaper to go with what I'm driving now.

Spend thousands of dollars a year to save hundreds of dollars a year that's a genius economics how is it possible that everyone's not driving one.

 

What's this 3 months thing you propose?

And, I do believe you can find a low maintenance vehicle, or just luck out, or learn to do more of your own maintenance, though that's pretty darn difficult with new cars.

I don't accept your math.

 

Not really; the amount and speed of warming overlaps both areas.

Not yet. But signing on to manditory global accords is getting us closer

Good.

You're entitled to an opinion

Who are they?

 

The amount and speed of warming is provided by science. That is a result of science, not politics.

What policy/politicians do with that is NOT SCIENCE.

This is how it works for climate and everything else. When legislatures create policy, one would hope that they allow themselves to be informed by science as well as other factors.

I was responding to the issue of people whining about others not living up to their objectives - objectives that they themselves set, as countries are not subject to any objective other than those they themselves commit to.

??

 

And the laws and restricts imposed are political actions.

But it's BASED on "science".

Sorry, no. You live in a dream world.

same comment. You seem to thing our politicians and leaders are noble, selfless, committed to the public's good. A few probably are but they're far outnumbered by egotistical megalomanic power seeks who see themselves as the ultimate authority on all issues. They seek power and control and cooperative scientists prosper when they give them ways of gaining power

 

No, I don't see our politicians as being particularly great people. Some may be.

The point here is that policy is made by politicians.

And, we HOPE those politicians are doing a reasonable job of being informed by science, business, budget, the economy, etc., etc.

 

IF only. Do you understand how those scientists are funded?n Many get their money from politicians - and scientists who organize their results to best meet the politician's agenda get more funding.

 

I didn't propose anything so nothing.

The point I was making is if I bought a used electric car with a lithium ion battery there would be no way to tell if the battery would stay balanced for 3 months 3 years or 3 decades it's just impossible to know and that's a risk I'm taking so if I'm buying a used one that's going to be factored into the amount of money I offer.

You can tell how worn an engine is or how worn the transmission is based on a few inspections.

all machines need maintenance anything that has moving parts it's just a matter of how much and when.

But you've touched on one of my primary reasons for not wanting an electric car and it has nothing to do with range or fuel efficiency or reliability or anything like that. It has to do with right to repair now if I want to repair my old truck it is required by law to have an OBD2 port and I can plug in a scanner and with a little research I can find out exactly what to replace and where you can't do that with an electric car.

You can do it yourself. Take a Chevy bolt a dreadful little electric car. At 36k and divide that over 36 months that would be a 3-year loan it's close to $1,000 a month.

I purchased a used F-150 for $8,500. I've spent maybe $2,000 on maintenance, and with an average of 15,000 miles a year and a fuel economy just under 16 mi to gallon and assuming the average price I pay per gallon for fuel is $3 a gallon.

So we'll take 15000 (that's a high average of miles a year I drive) divide that by 15 even though it gets better than that miles per gallon just to make it nice and neat, that's a 1,000 gallons a year and since fuel prices fluctuate I'm going to be generous and say average $3 a gallon where I live for an average over 7 years that's high.

So that means I'm spending at most $3,000 a year on gasoline. If we take the original 8500 that I spent for the truck and divide it by 7 I'm rounding I've had a little longer than 7 years. That equals out to be about 1215 I rounded up. So I'm spending $4,215. Allied 500 bucks a year for maintenance that's high but I want to be as Fair as possible.

4712 a year I'm spending on this truck.

If I budgeted for $40,000 for an electric car and financed it for 7 years just paying the principal on the loan we're not talking about interest would be about 5,200 a year. And this is pretty much the bottom of the line if I wanted something better it would cost considerably more.

So there's the math laid out for you if you don't trust it you are denying reality.

 

???
Maybe you should buy an f-150.

There are electric trucks being manufactured today.

You should look at the f-150 Lightening. It's certainly more expensive, but it has an array of features that would be more than interesting to contractors or others who work out of their trucks.

For one example, it has something like 12 different 120V sockets, divided between the interior, sides, truck bed, etc. One could be totally self sufficient on the job at sites that don't have electric power or where sockets are two few, over used, or not readily available.

Car camping would be different with full access to 120V equipment and appliances.

Rivian also offers an EV pickup. They have an ev van, too, but Amazon has bought their full manufacturing capacity of those vans for the next few years. We're going to see a lot from Rivian, as they have multiple times more capitalization than any other US automaker.

It's all new tech. So, it's going to be more expensive until initial investments are paid and the wonders of capitalism and competition start kicking in.

Electric cars have FAR fewer moving parts, and motors are small and far more efficient to build. Plus, gas vehicles require water pumps, oil pumps, transmissions and all sorts of other stuff that EVs simply don't need. I don't believe that EVs will have a problem competing on price with gas cars that have huge amounts of stuff under the hood.

 

The things that an OBD2 checks on don't even EXIST on an EV.

Spark advance, coolant, oil volumes, etc., etc.

EVs solve that by NOT HAVING those parts.

I see way too many problems with your math - vehicles being compared, ages of vehicles, cost of gas/comparison with EV "fuel", no maintenance costs, financing issues, etc., etc.

Of course, there are other assets EVs have - clean, quiet, much better acceleration, no garage oil, gas stations not required (as home fueling is readily available for all home owners and some apartment dwellers), etc.

I agree that a new gas car is going to cost less than a comparable new EV today.

But, the EV will catch up on cost when reasonably equivalent sedan type vehicles are compared, due to maintenance and fuel cost differences.

Still, someone on a budget today can drive off the lot more cheaply with a gas car, especially if used cars are the product in question.

 

Are you sure EVs will take over? In my humble experience no automobiles ever go down in price. But honestly, why electric? If I wanted to save money I would go with natural gas.

 

They do go down in price if you accept the method as being one of coming out with less expensive models. The hope is that as the initial investment required by manufacturers gets defrayed, we'll see more models that are less expensive.

Tesla has done that. However their "lesser" versions are still expensive. Some companies are trying to come out with less expensive models from the get go. But, they tend to have low battery life and other factors that I think are unattractive.

Lng could well be cleaner than gas, but I'd still have questions.

 

They are re-opening the talks around green hydrogen/green ammonium as a fuel source. Of course for rural there is always pig poo power ;D

https://www.politico.eu/article/spa...s-to-pig-poo-power-climate-change-green-deal/