Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?

[Andres125sx]

Find an independent credentialed climatologist or meteorologist with no ties to the IPCC
All you show are people in league with or indebted to the U.N. or the IPCC.
Have you seen any appreciable rise in the ocean? There is nothing going on that can't be explained by other causes.
I believe in the end this will be shown to be the biggest fraud since P.T. Barnum showed Joice Heth as the 116 year old nanny to George Washington.
If you want to believe that's fine but can your insults.

I know you have deep knownledge in the motorsport area, but sincerely, day by day you look like a hardcore USA/Trump fan who can´t accept anything his government don´t tell him first, at least in my eyes, sorry if I´m wrong, but your stubborness is exhausting

There´s tons of evidences, I´ve posted so many links in this thread it´s tiring, you ignored all of them systematically same as you keep ignoring those posted by Djos lately.... while you keep asking for links proving you wrong... If you close your eyes you won´t see the evidence, but the evidence is there anycase, you´re only fooling yourself Strad

[Brake Horse Power]

Andres I admire your efforts but some (a lot) people have there opinion and this can't be changed. For them there is always another reason for things, an example where the ice isn't melting and they have a 150 y o grandmother who lives in the most polluted city in the world. Oh and she smokes as well.

I deeply believe a lot of vehicles have the potential to have a lower total cost of ownership when electrified in some sort of way. So if people don't have the idea the air is polluted by combustion engines, than that might be worth something. And if not, just let them. I believe change is made by a majority who believes in something not by conservative thinkers.

I agree with Strad you need to keep an objective viewpoint, but the fact there is an enormous increase of CO2 temperatures are globally rising etc seems quite obvious from my point of view. The long term effects are hard to have an opinion about but if we continue like this I suppose it is a matter of time before we are in trouble. While we look for other planets with the potential for humans to live on, we are abusing our own in a lot of ways.

[Just_a_fan]

Scientists don´t have an agenda,

That's simply not true. Science doesn't have an agenda, but the people doing it sure can do. They need to get funding in order to do the science. That funding can, and does, come with strings attached. That, sadly, can and does affect the outcome.

Are you really comparing the agenda of petrol companies and governments like the USA and their huge economical interests in keeping ICEs and polluting industries, with the agenda of a scientists who do prefer investigating in this or any other field?? Really?

US (and EU etc) companies and government all have interests and agendas. That's true. But so do scientists. They have them because they are human and humans are not perfect. Look at the fall out from the MMR / Autism scandal where a scientist fabricated results / evidence etc in order to meet the requirements of an interest group (and their money). That's just one case, there are many others. If you believe scientists are clean and without sin or stain then you are somewhat naïve.

I was assuming this is a serious debate, but last replies show me maybe I was wrong... Now science is not science, the big economical interests are not from petrol companies but from scientists, there´s no evidence of man made CC...

This is a serious debate. It doesn't need a lot of emotional invective from either side.

And I never said that there's no evidence of AGW. I merely disagreed with your assertion that scientists do not have agendas.

Did I jump to a parallel dimension where science is based on rumours and didn´t notice?

Science is, in some part, based on politics. Papers often don't get published because they don't fit the agenda of those that control the process. Other, sometimes dubious, papers do get published precisely because they do fit the narrative of the moment etc. Picking where to send papers to get them published is part of the game in science these days. The editors of the journals have a lot of power.

Science should be based on evidence, not emotion. This debate should be the same.

[Tommy Cookers]

Andres I admire your efforts ....
I deeply believe a lot of vehicles have the potential to have a lower total cost of ownership when electrified in some sort of way. So if people don't have the idea the air is polluted by combustion engines, than that might be worth something.

well you lot need to accept the problem of increasing eg by 2000% the supply of zero-carbon electricity

public air is polluted by (among other things) combustion ie for heat as heat and for heat engines producing electricity
ie most electricity comes from such combustion

I deeply believe that the cost of ownership of anything significant adjusts itself to the size of Joe Public's bank balance

[loner]

well the plot looming now is there are lack of nickel resources which its demands will multiply 16 times to 1.8 million tons in few years , so not so sure about lowering total costs, expect lack of some other resources soon as well...

[Andres125sx]

Andres I admire your efforts but some (a lot) people have there opinion and this can't be changed. For them there is always another reason for things

Thanks and agree, I'll accept it and move on

[Andres125sx]

Just a fan, everybody have an agenda, difference is if you have the power to impose it to others or not.
We know petrol companies have more power than some governments, and the most powerful country in the world share same agenda as they refused to join any environmental agreement since kioto, with his current president even kidding about CC publicly

I don't deny scientists agenda, what I say is they don't have a fraction of the power USA and petrol companies have, and even so they've manage to make his point stand, and even grow over the decades. That should mean something, or you think they have more power to manipulate the public opinion than USA and petrol companies together?

I don't think so, if it was a manipulating war they would have lost decades ago, which means they must be right, that's their only power to fight this war

[Tommy Cookers]

Andres
it seems that your proclaimed 'moving on' lasted 24 minutes
and you again ignore the underlying technical issue - the need to expand hugely the production of 'zero-carbon' electricity

[Brake Horse Power]

Andres I admire your efforts ....
I deeply believe a lot of vehicles have the potential to have a lower total cost of ownership when electrified in some sort of way. So if people don't have the idea the air is polluted by combustion engines, than that might be worth something.

well you lot need to accept the problem of increasing eg by 2000% the supply of zero-carbon electricity

public air is polluted by (among other things) combustion ie for heat as heat and for heat engines producing electricity
ie most electricity comes from such combustion

I deeply believe that the cost of ownership of anything significant adjusts itself to the size of Joe Public's bank balance

You are right Tommy that there is a lot of sustainable electricity extra needed, I won't ignore that is a huge challenge and 100% carbon neutral might be impossible. But there are plenty of oppertunities to improve, there is plenty of available technology to improve. I think most of it just need a 'let's do it approac' to make it affordable instead of keep hanging in some expensive pilot project phase. I very much admire the Chinese in this aspect, once they have a vision they go big and extremely fast.

From another point of view you can wonder how can we reduce the energy consumption and decrease energy demand. I think ackknowledgement of the whole emission issue (or let's say global overconsumption) is what it begins with, taking active measurements is step 2. Just aim for circular and net carbon free and see how far we can get..

[Just_a_fan]

Just a fan, everybody have an agenda, difference is if you have the power to impose it to others or not.
We know petrol companies have more power than some governments

Interestingly, in the UK at least, the oil companies are moving over to the EV market. BP now have BP ChargeMaster which is the largest public charge point network in the UK. Shell have chargers which are sourced from certified 100% renewable sources (wind etc).

Companies go where the money is and they see that there is money to be made from EVs one way or another.

In the US, this may be different but then they have a different culture, politics etc.

I think the world will move on with, or without, the US. Too many countries have / are investing in these technologies to allow them to be derailed by the internal politics of one country (even if it is the US).

[Andres125sx]

Andres
it seems that your proclaimed 'moving on' lasted 24 minutes
and you again ignore the underlying technical issue - the need to expand hugely the production of 'zero-carbon' electricity

I was refering to one specific user, not about the debate in the thread

And no, I´ve never ignored that issue Tommy, we´ve talked about that several times, and I´ve always agreed so I find this surprising. I´ve also said repeteadly it will take several decades before electric cars stop polluting at all. But that does not change the fact even today they pollute a fraction of any ICE so even when they´re far from perfect, they still are better. And they will get better year after year

[Andres125sx]

Just a fan, everybody have an agenda, difference is if you have the power to impose it to others or not.
We know petrol companies have more power than some governments

Interestingly, in the UK at least, the oil companies are moving over to the EV market. BP now have BP ChargeMaster which is the largest public charge point network in the UK. Shell have chargers which are sourced from certified 100% renewable sources (wind etc).

Companies go where the money is and they see that there is money to be made from EVs one way or another.

In the US, this may be different but then they have a different culture, politics etc.

I think the world will move on with, or without, the US. Too many countries have / are investing in these technologies to allow them to be derailed by the internal politics of one country (even if it is the US).

Agree with every paragraph in this reply, except first one wich I didn´t know, thanks for sharing

I know some companies are moving to this market, they´ve been blocking EVs for decades, but when technology reach a point any small company can build a car, then they can´t stop it anymore so their only option is joinning the new train

[V12-POWER]

BS, it's merely referred to as "climate change" to combat quacks like you making stupid statements like "Winter is colder this year so Global warming must be BS". The fact is Global warming results in climate change - climate change means more extreme weather in all seasons. eg Hotter drier summers with a higher number of wild fires and colder winters with more extreme storms.

So you are around 20 years old, it's a shame the school system has let you down.

Here in Australia (as does the US), we have the data to see the results of Climate Change - it's real and measurable.

https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.go ... an-trends/

Your 3,000 scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus number is BS, there's less than 100 who have publicly said they disagree with the consensus:

https://electroverse.net/the-list-scien ... te-change/

Lol my school system teached all these global warming predictions and the general consensus that we’re destroying the planet thanks to ICEs

Years later I went on and read the other side. As with history there’s always untold stuff, and frankly I felt much more convinced by the things I have seen against global warming/climate change

The first thing that raised my suspicion was this. During the 70s scientist predicted an ice age didn’t they? I’m too young maybe you can confirm.

Why the same people that were behind the ice age, turned into global warmists later?

The words “climate change” “global warming” are all on tv, internet and even the beloved AM radio is getting infested with this. Luckily I rarely watch tv.

The reason why me or the tougher-made people here don’t follow the masses are simple; we trust what we see and feel ourselves not some study or chart that has been specifically tailored to scare people awa in turn this puts pressure on car companies that must comply. All of this to get a very nice cut of money. I offered you a book, but you refused.

“Scientist” can say whatever they want, they might do a 180 in the few years to come, when the climate change trend fades anyways. What are you gonna 20-30 years from now when you find out these predictions have failed horribly?

(What is sad however is the amount of plastic waste and junk, generally. That IS a true problem)

[Tommy Cookers]

....During the 70s scientist predicted an ice age didn’t they? I’m too young maybe you can confirm.
Why the same people that were behind the ice age, turned into global warmists later?

in the 1950s because the US was tunnelling into the Greenland icecap for military purposes
they took ice core samples covering thousands of years - amazingly these showed periods of sudden severe cooling
proving that 'ice ages' didn't need many thousands of years of slow cooling as the experts had long established
(these driven by known correspondingly slow changes in the Earth's orbit, tilt, and wobble)

then all over the world people took other core samples of sediments from all available locations
proving that there had been globally and shockingly recently such sudden cooling events (matching the polar events)
these sudden cooling episodes were called Heinrich events
so by the early 1970s new ice age experts appeared and proclaimed that the old-school ice age experts were wrong

though officially ice ages still take 100000 years for ice build-up and depletion cycle
followed by an interglacial period of less than 10000 years in the temperate latitudes (we're now at about year 9999)
civilisation has only existed in the current IGP

many panicked that anthropogenic global cooling AGC (due to smoke from coal burning) was starting the next ice age
then someone said oil is taking over and is less smoky so its CO2 warming effect will help cancel smoke's cooling effect
that's how the concept of AGW started itself

in 1974 the UK Conservative Government was brought down by the coalminers unions
later re-elected Conservatives leader Mrs Thatcher BSc Chem offered public funds to any research that attacked coal use
I saw laid-off scientists discussing their ideas to access this funding c 1981

[santos]

The reason why me or the tougher-made people here don’t follow the masses are simple; we trust what we see and feel ourselves not some study or chart that has been specifically tailored to scare people awa in turn this puts pressure on car companies that must comply. All of this to get a very nice cut of money. I offered you a book, but you refused.

I live in Portugal, south of Europe and no, it doesn't belong to Spain, although many americans seem to think it is.
I remember to have 4 distinctive season along the year. Hot in the summer, cold in winter, autumn was when leaves started to fall from the trees, and in the spring flowers start to bloom in the fields.
Lately, i can have a day with 23ºC in the winter and sunny, or a 18ºC windy day with rain and hail in the summer. Leaves, started to fall almost in the winter and born again almost in the summer. I never saw a tornado and now almost every year there's a part of the country that occurs. In France, a few days ago, there was more than 30ºC in Paris, and hail falling in another place. This is what i see and trust. I DON'T LIVE INSIDE OF A SHELL. Maybe it's already late, but people are starting to change, and more and more i see people care about the environment.