Possible 90% REDUCTION in CO2 emmissions by 2035?

ASININE strawman content effectively NEGATES entire rest of post content duly noted.

 

/sigh

Back in the 70's I was working on a mainframe that was the size of a house and had 24k of RAM.

Today you have GIGABYTES of RAM all around you AT YOUR personal USE.

HOW did that HAPPEN?

DISRUPTIVE technologies being SLOWLY but as soon as the REACH mass market ACCEPTABILITY they take off like a ROCKET all by themselves because it is the SELF INTEREST of those BUYING them to have them AVAILABLE for their PERSONAL benefit.

Green energy followed an IDENTICAL path, I can RECALL reading articles about wind and solar energy in Popular Mechanics when it was still in it's INFANCY.

Green Energy has REACHED Mass Market ACCEPTABILITY.

So NONE of your puerile name calling about "enviro-zealots" APPLIES to EVERYONE who wants Solar or an EV.

They SOLD one MILLION EV's in the states in 2023.

Are MILLIONS of hardworking Americans all "enviro-zealots" in your opinion?

 

And the other 15 or 16 million vehicles sold in 2023 were ICEs. Unsubsidized ICEs at that.

After 30 years of trying to sell EVs, it still hasn't significantly dented the market yet.

 

DENIAL of DISRUPTIVE technology does NOT make it DISAPPEAR.

Instead those that DENY it exists are BLINDSIDED by it when LANDS on their own DOORSTEP.

https://www.automotivedive.com/news/evs-reach-86-percent-global-vehicle-sales-2030/695319/

 

1. Who is RMI and why should anyone care?

2. The operative words here are "could" and "China".

In other words, it's meaningless.

 

Thanks for PROVING my point about DENIALISM.

Hilarious!

 

Ah, another one of your 'canned' auto-responses? And, more interestingly, I notice that you didn't refute one word I said, or dispute any of the facts I cited. Are you 'real', or just some kind of sophomore-level AI experiment...? You really need to add some new material to your number of responses and adjust the 'for/let' and 'if/then' lines of code in your subroutines.

Hint: like yourself, I, too, did "a little programming" back in the '70's! I can't believe that we're ALWAYS so far apart on everything. You and I have seen so many of the same things, and surely had many of the same experiences...? Do you have any idea how much air pollution has increased in India and China since the 1970's? Do you have any idea how much air pollution has decreased in the United States since the 1970's?

Fact: According to UCAR, Carbon Dioxide, which is necessary for life as we know it to exist on this planet, makes up 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere. Like this FACT or not, "you can run, but you can't hide"....

 

Guess if China thinks they will go mostly EV that explains their permitting and building of massive numbers of coal mines and coal fired power generation plants.

Coal powered automobiles. Saving the planet. LOL

 

Electric vehicles are actually a good idea -- and I LOVE the fact that they don't make any ear-splitting NOISE!

That said, the electricity to power the EV's has to come from somewhere -- and it's for certain that neither wind nor solar power can come even remotely close to supplying what is needed for millions upon millions of these vehicles.

 

Yep. I love the idea of EVs. Less maintenance, higher performance (torque etc.), regenerative braking, and on and on. When they can fill my needs I’m all in.

You are right. There’s no generation capacity, no grid, and no charging infrastructure. And there seems to be no plan to fix that. It’s bizarre. Well, China has a plan. Mine/import coal and turn it into electricity. LOL

 

I never WASTE my time on ASININE strawman FALLACY content.

PUERILE ad hom content VIOLATION of stipulated TOS rules duly noted.

Sad that you CANNOT refrain from using PUERILE ad hom content in YOUR posts.

What asinine POINT are you abjectly FAILING to make here?

The TOPIC is the FUTURE reduction of POLLUTION.

Your INTENTION to DEFLECT from the TOPIC comes across loud and clear.

ABSENCE of relevant Subject Matter KNOWLEDGE content duly noted.

That is NOT the GOTCHA that you IMAGINE it to be because even a BASIC Public School level knowledge of Chemistry EXPOSES the PROBLEM.

Oxygen and Nitrogen are GASES at room temperature.

Carbon is a SOLID at room temperature.

COMBUSTION in ICE vehicles combines the SOLID Carbon with the GAS Oxygen to form Carbon DIoxide aka CO2.

METABOLISM in living bodies combines the SOLID Carbon with the GAS Oxygen to form Carbon DIoxide aka CO2.

CO2 is the COMBINATION of a GAS and a SOLID.

Too MUCH Carbon in the atmosphere ABSORBS energy from the Sun and results in the atmosphere becoming WARMER.

We have DUMPED more than 60% more Carbon into the atmosphere in the last 200 years or so than the CURRENT state of the planet can reasonably ABSORB and SEQUESTER.

That CO2 percentage was 0.026% in the Atmosphere 300 years ago.

NOW it is 0.04% and the ONLY thing that CHANGED was the Industrial Revolution POLLUTING the planet.

SIMPLIFIED Chemistry 101.

Yet another PUERILE ad hom content VIOLATION as stipulated in TOS rules duly noted.

 

Ok, "Nomad", I give up! Honestly, I don't know what I'm interacting with here.... But, let's hope all of us, no matter what kind of 'thing' we are, can have a happier new year starting in a few more hours.

Now, remember 'back in the day' when the last card you punched in your IBM 029 for a program was an "End-Of-File"? Here's mine....

."To tell you the truth, I don't care much for humans either!"

 

Let’s have a look at what the OP believes are “market forces”, companies and consumers interacting in markets for profit.


https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/E...gives-EV-sector-billions-of-yuan-in-subsidies

And:

The OP doesn’t understand economics and doesn’t understand science. SMH.

 

The premise of this thread is a colossal does of wishful thinking. Meanwhile:
Green Inefficiency: Up To One Third Of Power Needed To Charge Up E-Car Battery Gets Lost!
By P Gosselin on 7. January 2024

Electric cars can lose over one third of the electricity just during charging, depending on the model.


AI generated image

Germany’s online Blackout News here reports: “Charging losses for electric cars ranges from 9.8% to 38.2%, depending on the model.”

That means, on some models, nearly one third of the electricity to charge a lithium-ion HV battery gets lost. When charging, the “current flows against the internal resistance of the battery, generates heat and is lost.”

Higher costs, time wasted

Losses occur when AC current gets converted to DC, but also in the cables and connections. “These losses have a direct impact on charging time and costs. A 20 percent loss means a 20 percent longer charging time and 20 percent higher costs,” reports Blackout News.

Loss ranges from 9.8% to 38.2%

The Kia e-Soul models has the lowest losses of the cars tested, only 9.8%. Tesla’s Model Y Long Range saw 14.8% of the electricity for charging end up being lost.

The worst performing – losing more than quarter of the electricity – were Polestar 2 78 kWh AWD (27%), Smart EQ fortwo (29.2%), and the Renault Zoe Z.E. 50 E-Tech (31.1%).

Renault Twingo ZE loses 38%!

The worst was the Renault Twingo ZE with a whopping 38.2% of the charge getting lost. Data Source: Praxis Elektroauto

The efficiency was determined by calculating what was put in and what actually came out.

As a comparison, to get idea how bad the problem is, imagine spilling one third of the gasoline or diesel while filling your internal combustion engine vehicle. That’s expensive and a real waste.

During DC charging, there are only between 5 and 10 percent losses, depending on the charging power and battery system.

See entire article here (German)

 

For sake of argument, lets pretend that Tesla and the like does not exist and that the Big 3 is NOT investing any money in EV ( I am not sure why you are implying that they are not, but but lets go with it)....

If we say that EV becomes the 100% norm globally for automobiles, why would it then be "too late" for the Big 3 to transition? I dont understand your premise. It is not unusual for companies to react once demand is established rather than the other way around. People have no problem buying a Toyota despite the fact that they were not around when the automobile was invented, why would they then not buy a Ford because a Chinese company came out with it first?

It seems to me that the risk of losing money as a result of investing too heavily prior to demand coming to fruition is every bit as great if not more than the risk of losing out on the earliest profits while you transition to fill the newly formed demand for EV. Either way is a big risk, and I'm not so sure it is clear that the latter is a bigger risk. I would assume the former represents far more risk than the latter.

 

New satellite images show the eastern U.S. coast is sinking at a faster rate than what was first reported last year, according to a new study published in the journal PNAS Nexus.

Back in September, a team of scientists out of Southern California found that the New York City metro area is sinking at an average of 0.06 inches annually, USA TODAY previously reported. That number is now 0.08 inches in some areas, according to the new study published on Jan. 2.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ges-show-rate-east-coast-sinking/72152778007/

Admittedly, I assume the satellite images are not being interpreted by bloggers.

 

Hottest year on record puts Earth in touching distance of critical warming threshold, scientists say

Scientists on Tuesday confirmed 2023 as the hottest year on record and warned that the planet is now within touching distance of smashing through the critical warming threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) said 2023, a year in which one researcher described temperature anomalies as "absolutely gobsmackingly bananas," was the warmest calendar year in global temperature data stretching back to 1850.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/09/wor...s-threshold-after-hottest-year-on-record.html

I'm sure it means nothing.

 

Exactly. And then when you combine these facts with the known serious shortcomings of EVs, the risk is even higher.

And the ultimate nail in the coffin is that EV popularity is built on government forcing their adoption by regulation. And then, when it's well known that those government mandates very likely will disappear in the US in a couple months, it's only smart to wait and see.

The modern era of EVs is now 30 years old and they still have no inherent demand inducing aspect. And at this point it's hard to see when they ever will.

 

Note that the problem is subsidence of the land, not rising of the sea.

 

You are correct. It means nothing.
Climate alarmists warn we must take drastic steps within the next 10 years to keep warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial conditions. They claim that warming beyond that threshold will unleash a crisis of substantially worse extreme weather events and other climate harms. However, Europe possesses the best, longest-running temperature records on the planet, and those temperature records show warming has already exceeded 1.5°C. Nevertheless, alarmists’ catastrophic predictions are not coming true.

Below in Figure 1 is the Berkeley Earth average surface temperature record for Europe. Europe is a good location to analyze, because some of the longest continuous temperature records are from Europe. It shows a warming of 1.5°C has already occurred there. In fact the rise is even greater, at 2.0°C since about 1820. Yet catastrophic weather events such as long-duration heat waves have not occurred. So where are the predicted climate catastrophes?

No cities gone underwater. No increase in heat waves or cold waves. No islands sinking into the ocean. No increase in hurricanes. No millions of climate refugees. The tragedies being pushed by activists and politicians for the last 30 years simply haven’t come to pass.


Figure 1. Berkeley Earth average European temperature. Annotated by Anthony Watts. (http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/europe)
References:

1. Global Warming of 1.5 ºC, Special report, IPCC, https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
2. Global Warming of 1.5 ºC, Special report, IPCC, Chapter 3, https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-3/
3. Berkeley Earth average European temperature. http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/europe

 

The government has forced their investment via regulation, and in reality, that regulation timetable is likely to be unrealistic and will be modified greatly. The net result is that you cost our domestic auto manufacturers billions of dollars because they will have been forced to create production capability for half of their cars to be EV by 2030 which is ultimately not going to be a realistic goal from a demand perspective.

 

Yes. And even scarier is the idea that EPA will willfully change their minds before the damage is done (8 years is a very short runway for vehicles that routinely take 4-6 years to properly develop). EPA has never been reasonable to work with. They have automakers by the short hairs and they know it (that's why automakers rarely harshly criticize EPA in public. They know EPA can bankrupt them at will.)

And, as I've said before, automakers at this moment are being forced to make vehicles people generally don't want and they're not going to be able to make vehicles that customers do want.

That's an absurd market inversion that stands to literally destroy the auto industry.

 

A month or so back I had written a longer post on this subject that may have some relevance here....

While I cannot speak to the totality of every person that opposes electric vehicles, I am a person who is skeptical of what we have been told, and do not believe we are anywhere near the point where electric vehicles are going to be the primary mode of transport in this country. I feel as if we are being sold a bill of goods both economically and from a practicality standpoint.

You own an EV and love it. That is great. Many of them are super fast and have great technology. The concept works very well as long as you are not driving a long distance on that particular day. I get it. I can completely understand how and why a person would enjoy owning one, especially now that ownership is down near 1 or 2%. It is a fabulous novelty.

My problem is with the notion that we are anywhere near 60% of vehicles being sold by 2030 being electric, with the mindset that gas engines will be mostly eliminated in the decade that follows, which is essentially what we are being told. I do not believe this for one second, for a myriad of reasons...

-While you have pointed out that you love your electric vehicle as a daily driver, that does not speak to when you need to take a long trip. Clearly you would take one of your gas vehicles. For there to be 60% sold by 2030 and more going forward, that speaks to a world where gasoline engines are no longer in existence. For that world, this mindset does not work. I could understand having one electric vehicle and one for long trips. That is not what those projections are telling us.

-In regards to long trips. It currently takes a few minutes to fill up your gas tank. Charging takes far longer. This means that stopping at a highway charging stations would have enormously long lines while each vehicle is there for 45 minutes or an hour. Even if technology shortens that time down to 20 or 30 minutes and that this powerful charge does not destroy battery life, this creates s scenario that the current set up is not anywhere close to being able to handle that sort of volume. If we say currently it takes 5 minutes, and lets project significant improvement and say they get chargin times down to a half hour (which is a big if), that means that the stations would need to be 6 times larger than they currently are to handle the same volume. We are nowhere near that being the case. On top of that, having refueling stops take over a half hour would be a nightmare on a long trip.

-In regards to electrical capacity, many parts of the country currently experience brownouts when it is hot and everyone is running their air conditioners. Just how much more of a drain on the system do you suppose it would be if every house is charging 2 vehicles every night which is an activity that draws far more electricity than an air conditioner? Our entire infrastructure would need to be rebuilt for this to happen. This infrastructure includes all of the current wiring, and it would require enromous increases in capacity via power plants. This is not taking place, yet we are supposed to believe we are on the precipice of our entire auto industry going electric.

-We are told that EV saves money because you do not have to buy gas, but does it really? It costs 10 or 15k more upfront. That buys a lot of gas. Electricity costs a fair amount as well which I will touch upon in my next stanza. The battery dies and the car is literally useless, which impacts the long term selling price of the used vehicle. At some point when that vehicle is around 150k or so, the battery will die, and with it being normally worth 5 or 6 k at that point, it will be worth zero because nobody is going to put a battery that costs tens of thousands of dollars in a vehicle that is worth 5k. With all of these factors put together, if a person believes that this is a money saving option for them, they have been sold a bill of goods. There is not a snowballs chance in hell the above turns into a money saver.

-Speaking of money, lets tie together costs with the increasing demand put upon the electrical grid. It will need to be rebuilt and expanded which costs a great deal of money. Where is this money going to come from? It will come from increased prices for consumers. You will also be probably doubling the demand for power. What happens when demand doubles?.....the price goes up, by a lot. If people out there honestly believe that EV is a cost saving measure for them I have a bridge I would love to sell you.

-Power companies are essentially monopolies in bed with the government. Giving these monopolies absolute control over our entire transportation grid is risky. They would be able to control travel by controlling pricing and even the out put if they desire. I personally do not want to give that sort of power to a single entity in any given area.

-Batteries use lithium etc which currently mainly comes from China. Even if we find it here, we do not want to mine it because it is very hazardous. Giving this sort of power to China is a bad idea. Additionally, these batteries are very large. We do not have a valid way of disposing of this toxic waste. This is not a big deal when EV accounts for 2% of auto sales. If most or all auto sales are EV, this becomes an ENORMOUS problem in a short amount of time.




Personally, because of the problems above, I fail to see why these so called experts are so convinced that EV is the future. It seems to me that Hybrid would be a much more practical long term option. I realize hybrid uses some gas, but lets be honest EV uses a fair amount of CO2 as well via the power plants. If hybrid is not the answer, then I would expect some other technology such as hydrogen cells to develop into a better option.

While I understand why you might love your current EV vehicle, it only works overall because of your other gas vehicles. I might buy an EV at some point myself. It is not that I oppose the notion of an electric vehicle, it is that I do not believe for one second that EV is on the verge coming anywhere close to replacing gas vehicles, nor do I think it would be a wise idea if we did. It would create huge problems for long trips, ultimately cost us far more per mile traveled, and it would give the power to control our travel to too few of entities.

 

Yes indeed. But you missed the biggest reason why EVs can't compete. They're batteries with motors. At no load (basically not doing work in the physics sense), they're OK if you can live with the inferior range.

Put a load on them (use them to do work) and the range drops drastically. This is because electric motors instantly deliver full torque. It's not modulated like with a IC powertrain. And batteries only hold so much energy. So pulling a 5000 lb. trailer with a Ford EV Lightning drops your range from 300 miles down to perhaps 70-80 miles. Barely enough to get from my house in Virginia to DC much less home to Detroit to see my mom.

This issue is well known to electrical engineers and electricians. But then again, they're working with power supplies hard wired to the electrical plant which supplies a constant unending flow of electricity.

Not a battery.

 

Well, there goes the trees bushes, flowers and crops, if it weren't for the fact than man is responsible for a small percentage to the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere.