Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?

[djos]

djos; I have said when they get all their ducks in a row I might consider an electric car.
But not because of AGW. I like the performance and smoothness. I like the instant full application of available power best. However I must be able to confidently drive from Seattle to Phoenix for example or to southern Texas. I have to be able to stop and charge up as quickly or close to as I would fill up with gasoline. I can't have to stop and wait an hour let alone 8 or more hours to continue my trip.

I like EV's too, but right now I wouldn't buy one either (not as the main family car at least) as like you, we do a lot of interstate driving (500-600 miles) to visit family in South Australia and New South Wales (from Melbourne, Victoria).

We don't have any subsidies for EV's here in Aus which contributes to them not making financial sense at the current prices.

[Just_a_fan]

Fighting spirit won't build an entire EV-supporting zero-carbon infrastructure, sadly.

people used to say "you'll never be able to have everyone streaming 4K"

We haven't managed it yet...

[roon]

Fighting spirit won't build an entire EV-supporting zero-carbon infrastructure, sadly.

Ah, don't be such a cornwallis, lad. Such things are the seed of endeavor. It took over a century to build the existing electrical grid and hydrocarbon infrastructure. Who's to say its development stops now? These sorts of changes arrive not overnight.

but it is what it is, a vast amount of gases and nothing else. The human body on the other hand...

I'll have you know some forum members are almost completely composed of air, hot air to be precise. And that thin air that you mock, well, that is where you are pulling most of your arguments from. Bite not the hand that feeds? Anyway, what was our last exchange about? Cigarettes cause smog or something to that effect?

Merc overheated in Austria, that's all the proof you need. A mountainous state full of wooly cattle and glaciers. Too hot! Now, I can hear you blaming it on the bodywork and radiators being too small and whatnot, but... no! It is the air temperature! You can't just blame the bodywork because it is just thin little sheets of carbon fiber. Have you ever seen a carbon fiber? No, you haven't, because they're too small to look at, you need a microscope. Now, I know a microscope is a scientist's-thing, not much more useful than a dousing stick or some bones scattered on the floor of your hut for rain forecasting, but hear me out. If you look under a microscope with one, well not literally under one of course, you'll probably just find dust and some old issues of the communist manifesto. Anyway... zoom in really far, close up on the atoms and you'll see there's just not much there at all. Just a bunch of quarks running around in circles. Quarks are like small gremlins, but don't confuse them for leptons, you'll anger them and they'll haunt your cupboard. So how can we blame the bodywork if the heat is just pouring through it like a sieve? Have you ever touched the bodywork of an F1 car after a race? Well, I have. Red hot! And then I was asked to step back behind the cordon, and then they demanded I show some form of ID or press credentials. But that's another story. Point is, don't believe these pseudoengineers saying the car's too hot because of some paper thin carbon collander bodywork or the water filled radiators. Water, which is generally cool to the touch, getting to hot, in Austria? Next to dozens of glaciers? Doesn't compute, Hans. No it's the air, the air's too hot.

[Andres125sx]

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.

Well, here we haven't had tornadoes too and few years ago there was one. But there is still no reason for me to say "CLIMATE CHANGE DID IT" because the last time it happened was well over 80 years ago. Weather and climate is way too complex for any computer to simulate

So you say you only rely on what your eyes can see, but at the same time you recon climate is way too complex to simulate...

Ok, now imagine a hypothetic scenario: CC is real and we´re ruining the planet. How should scientists convice you if you only rely on your eyes but recon the subject is too complex to simulate?

much less to say a few PARTS PER MILLION of CO2 can have such severe impact,

Sorry but you´re minimizing the problem to feel ok when you ignore it. It´s not a few parts per million, far from that, we´re around double the historical average, and around 40% above the highest historical level. That´s far from a few parts per million, it´s a significant and unquestionable unbalance



https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

the atmosphere just can't be so "fragile"

Any reason apart of your fear to accept it? It´s a balance, any balance is easily unbalanced

[Andres125sx]

The Milankonvitch cylce has a frequency of 26.000 years.. A climate change is now measured in a period of 100 years. Can you explain that?

Even tough the CO2 PPM doesn't seem that much, the CO2 in the atmosphere has risen 30% since the 1960's. That is much more a period which is in line with the climate change...

Not taking one side or the other, but where does the 30% come from? That seems impossible unless it was previously measured on a mountain top and now measured in a carpark.

Take a look at my previous reply, it´s NASA who say it.

[izzy]

So Its on an island in the middle of the Pacific?
Edit.
Is it based on this?
https://radioviceonline.com/wp-content/ ... ration.pdf

well that kind of science, tho that paper's 10 years old. It's not my specialist subject or anything but the scientists are reasonably consistent about it.

[izzy]

You sure? Cause I’m not even gonna argue if you really believe computers can accurately model the atmosphere. (How come many of these computer modeled predictions have failed?)

That June argument was already brought by others here, and it’s sorta a meaningless stat. Not gonna comment on that

The question is whether thousands of scientists with their computers and data can model the climate better than you and me wandering around on the ground looking up at the sky Climate is so variable that it's all down to trends, and those Junes are a mother of trends. And yes it's not perfect, but we can't have perfect, as usual. We can follow the evidence or follow what seems convenient, but the evidence is quite consistent i think.

Personally I've been in a couple of electric cars and they are wonderful. They instantly made ICE's so last millennium! I've seen wind turbines and solar farms sprouting up, news stories like "today we didn't burn any coal for electricity", and I'm in! If we're going to have 10+billion people on the planet this is the kind of effort we have to make. With an EV you can charge it up yourself with your own turbine or solar panel, if you don't do a lot of miles, and with the internet you might not need to do so many miles.

[izzy]

Fighting spirit won't build an entire EV-supporting zero-carbon infrastructure, sadly.

people used to say "you'll never be able to have everyone streaming 4K"

We haven't managed it yet...

We're a lot closer than a lot of people used to think we could ever be:
Figures published by www.thinkbroadband.com have confirmed that more than 19 out of 20 UK homes and businesses now have the opportunity to upgrade their internet connections to superfast speeds of 24 Mbps or faster
It's that Can Do attitude

[Tommy Cookers]

for a long time our atmospheric CO2 was 1200 ppm - but temperatures weren't abnormally high
yes before humans existed

NASA is cherry-picking to support the consensus of the well-meaning (keeping in with the politicians)
NASA has become rather partisan and sloppy in its new game of writing for the general public

there was and is a 100% conspiracy to conceal the fact that CO2 greenhousing peaks ie self-limits at plausibly forseeable ppm
there was a letter to this effect published c.1980 in the New Scientist (before self-limiting became concealed)
future executors of my affairs might find my copies of these


regarding 'natural' air pollution ....

the UK etc grows a huge amount of oil-bearing crop
but there's a worldwide conspiracy to deny the polluting effects (in-growth oil evaporation into the atmosphere)
the only admission that 'the countryside' produces air pollution comes from the godlike WHO
who instruct climate modellers to assume zero pollution until said air enters the city ...
but then to count the pollution of said air as adding 10% (of the WHO pollution limit) to the cities pollution
this is false accounting aka scientific fraud - no doubt well-intended

plants from arid and semi-arid regions produce lots of oils, resins etc (to protect against death from water shortage)
these are volatile organic compounds VOCs which are 'illegal' only in things manmade eg paint and car breather and tailpipes
in the 1980s the authorities in California became scared that eg the LA basin was stuffed with such plants and trees
though an arboriculturist UK friend was then not being taught any such thing
now the UK requires coniferous fuel wood to dump its VOCs to atmosphere for years before usage as fuel is permitted
another conspiracy of official scientific fraud

there is a plant well-known for its cup-like leaves trapping and retaining its oil vapourised on hot days
I had this plant - and found yes the oil vapour did explode when a burning match was introduced (the plant's 'party trick')

the main source of UK city air pollution is 21st century wood-pellet burning for heat
large scale wood-pellet burning for electrical generation has increased the local air pollution threefold
as the WHO has recently halved its advisory level (this is the legal limit throughout the EU) ....
we might think that wood-burning (supposedly carbon-neutral) will not be further expanded

the only good news seems to be the general takeup of combined cycle gas-fuelled generation (over simple-cycle hitherto)
63% efficient over simple's 50%
30% of coal-firing's carbon
but not zero carbon (without carbon capture)

[Andres125sx]

for a long time our atmospheric CO2 was 1200 ppm - but temperatures weren't abnormally high
yes before humans existed

NASA is cherry-picking to support the consensus of the well-meaning (keeping in with the politicians)
NASA has become rather partisan and sloppy in its new game of writing for the general public

So NASA, funded by a government who deny CC, now goes against their interests supporting man made CC... For what reason exactly?

It's NASA, not a newspaper after sales

[Tommy Cookers]

NASA has become rather like a newspaper (attracting the attention of the public)

NASA thrives on 'big-Government'
ie Democrat Party more than Neo-Conservative Republicans and Trumpism
it's part of the establishment

like the UK's BBC it's ingratiated itself with the public, attempting to make itself beyond the control of the elected Government

[V12-POWER]

I can’t address one by one the replies I’ve got. To those who say I’m just spitting straight out BS, I offered someone here a book and he very smartly said “It’s BS”

I’m not really gonna force stuff down someone’s throat like warmists do.

It’s eady to fool people but it’s hard to make them realize they’ve been fooled. There are charts of millions years ago where CO2 concentrations were higher and there was life indeed, dinosaurs or plants or whatever.

Here’s a good site for you to get started.

https://nov79.com/gbwm/gbwm.html

Btw, we have people like Andres that thinks NASA is a 100% transparent company with absolutely zero political/economical bias in regards to what they release and what they don’t. The likeliness of this is almost null, cmon...

Forgot to say. Yeah computers don’t model the atmosphere accurately. Lets not go too far; there are tens of satellites, the best of satellite images, thousands of meteorologists and computing power yet they can’t predict what will the weather be like 2 weeks from now, with accuracy. But I’m guessing I’m the only one who has been shocked by how wrong the forecasts can be, 2 days from now (for example)

If we can’t even predict whether it’s gonna rain or not, do you think it’s possible to accurately model the atmosphere?

[izzy]

Here’s a good site for you to get started.

https://nov79.com/gbwm/gbwm.html

lol what a site . It takes general principles and misapplies them to the specifics of global warming, to push an agenda. Fake science, i bet Donald believes it . Like

"One molecule of carbon dioxide surrounded by 2,500 air molecules is not going to heat anything no matter what else happens."

well no it's true, the co2 doesn't heat anything - it's the sun that does the heating! The real story is more like

There are several different types of greenhouse gases. The major ones are carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and nitrous oxide. These gas molecules all are made of three or more atoms. The atoms are held together loosely enough that they vibrate when they absorb heat. Eventually, the vibrating molecules release the radiation, which will likely be absorbed by another greenhouse gas molecule. This process keeps heat near the Earth’s surface.

Most of the gas in the atmosphere is nitrogen and oxygen – both of which are molecules made of two atoms. The atoms in these molecules are bound together tightly and unable to vibrate, so they cannot absorb heat and contribute to the greenhouse effect.

[Big Tea]

Its not that I am 'Anti' global warming, just that I do not automatically trust figures the government or any large organisation where I cannot check the source before 'normalizing' takes place.
Which ever way it goes, the less of anything we put into the air the better I like it.

[roon]

These measly 170 mg of caffeine diluted in my 400,000 mg coffee will have no effect on me...