The 'settled science' actually isn't, dissent is being suppressed.

Are they thought paying for carbon credits?

 

Saving the planet with money? It seems like greed and the love of money is what got us here.

 

And I wouldn't trust a surgeon to calibrate an engine and emissions system.

So what? Do you have a point?

 

Why are you then claiming people who do not have degrees in climate science know diddly squat about it

 

Unfortunately you have zero companies actually electing to buy them. PepsiCo is running a beverage delivery fleet. That's something like 400 miles a day with returning home to recharge at night.

They aren't hauling 250,000 lbs of cut lumber out of forests on dirt trails off a mountain.

They aren't tandem driving 3500 miles a week circling the US to move freight.

They aren't running a crane out in the middle of Nebraska where the nearest charging station is in Maryland.

Basically they aren't anywhere where real work is getting done.

I've gone over this before. EVs are good at no load. But the famous "instant full torque" operation of electric motors means that as more load that is added to the vehicle it goes directly to increasingly sucking the battery dry killing useful range. You can look it up on any basic electrical site.

The modulated torque delivery system of an ICE powertrain matches power and torque to the actual demand.

And, again, for direct comparison a new Ford Lightning pickup with the optional upgraded battery has a range of 300 miles. My 2017 F150 with a 5.0L Coyote engine has an unloaded range of roughly 650 miles. Put a 5000 lb. trailer on the back of both and my F150 still has a range of about 550 miles. The Lightning has a range of maybe 80 miles.

No contest. And no, this is governed by physics. It won't get better as time goes by.

 

Reading about 8 seconds of the IPCC reports and realizing it's not empirical and is entirely based on unreliable modeling.

That's all I need to know given I do understand the real science of physics.

 

Where does the electricity come from?

 

Cables - they don’t exactly move fast and when the Blackwater dragline “walks” to a new position the town browns out lols! Point is that electricity can power big heavy equipment. The hold up has been devising a battery with the correct power density that is still light enough to work in transport vehicles. Mind you the wired solar challenge is on again next month
https://worldsolarchallenge.org/
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6uC-XGZC7X7nu1ycW1YGbl-wErl027uc


To put it in perspective that would be like driving from California to New York and it is done with a solar powered car. Bloody fun to watch

 

8 seconds…. I doubt you doent that much time if you came to that conclusion. Now please be more specific about what exactly you found wanting in the methodology

 

You can't blame climate change on the wealthy. It just doesn't work.

Your argument is no better than suggesting that those in favor of campaign finance reform should stop taking donations.

 

The IPCC, remember?

It's the only answer you've got for anything. And that's been around (and wrong) for at least a couple decades.

 

I was very specific.

 

So it's hard wired to the electrical plant.

What does that have to do with EVs?

 

The measure of the success of electric technology in changing our greenhouse gas profile doesn't depend on solving all uses. The uses you point to just aren't the majority of travel miles. Delivery trucks put on more miles than long haul. Etc.

Today, 60% of our oil consumption goes to transportation. Cutting that in half wouldn't require a change in the way cut lumber is hauled out of forests on dirt trails off mountains - a rather hilarious thought in the first place.

Torque management is a WEAKNESS of ICE vehicles. Electric motors don't have the problem of requiring matching engine speed with the need for torque. All the torque is always available at any speed. This is a reason that EVs outperform ICE vehicles in acceleration. It's the reason that EVs don't have transmissions.

EVs can't solve everything. But, they can make a difference in several ways - less greenhouse gas, less dependence on oil price changes (a key contributor to inflation), less pollution on city streets thus healthcare savings. They also have lower maintenance costs and cheaper fuel.

Let's remember that people aren't buying EVs in order to sacrifice their own enjoyment in order to save the world.

 

Let's remember that out here in the real world people aren't buying EVs period for the exact reasons I mentioned.

Comparatively, they suck.

 

There is data on how people use vehicles. For example:
https://www.bts.gov/statistical-pro...sehold-travel-survey-daily-travel-quick-facts

This is a national household travel survey.

That's a pretty good description of the target market for personal vehicles.

There certainly are regional differences.

As for EV penetration, there are reasons that EVs aren't being adopted faster than they are.

One is that early models have been expensive and with less than great range. That is clearly changing, as EVs are reaching the point of being price competitive and battery technology is improving rapidly in terms of charge time and range - as the battery industry is worth billions, stimulating serious research.

Another is range anxiety. There are fewer places to charge than to buy gas. That is changing, of course. But, this could be a problem, especially for those living in apartments in relatively rural areas.

Another is that state dealership protection laws have made it difficult for manufacturers who sell direct to customers. (Do you really like paying dealership markups?) Tesla and others have no dealerships and don't intend to have dealerships. State laws have forbidden direct sales from manufactures, as for example that would allow Ford to undercut its dealerships.

 

That data might be meaningful if someone can afford different vehicles for different uses. Most normal people can't. So they buy vehicles on the basis of worst case. If you've got 3 children and like to occasionally visit grandma 5 states away and you occasionally need to get to the Home Depot to buy lumber or you have to haul the debris from a home renovation to the dump 40 miles away and you have a nice camping trailer that you occasionally take with on a family camping trip in the mountains, you're not buying an EV. Period.

You're doing exactly what I've done, an F150 crew cab with a 5.0L.

There isn't an EV yet that can compete with that.

 

It sounds like you picked a good alternative for what you do.

I've heard discussions of the possibility that Ford should focus on its ICE trucks.

It's going to take a long time for Ford, Chevy, Stallantis to catch up and actually make a profit in EV vehicles. They can still manufacture ICE cars, but their volume is going to decrease. That's what Ford believes, or they wouldn't be dumping billions into EVs. And, it's going to be hard for them to tune their business model to a lower volume business and still make money. Plus, foreign sales of ICE cars aren't going to bail them out.

Do you think they can spend what they are spending on EV cars and last long enough to turn a profit?

 

No. The change over to EVs is mandated by EPA. And has to happen by 2035. If this nonsense continues I see an economic clusterf**k for the ages.

Vehicle companies will be mandated to sell what consumers don't want and they won't be able to sell what consumers want. All rational economic theory is gone and no one knows how bad this can get.

 

I don't accept this argument, as policies can be altered to meet further understanding, circumstances, etc.

China just did that this spring. Their regulation on ICE emissions for this year was set years ago. But, auto makers ignored it.

So, China extended to the end of this year, as they still need the emissions standards, but recognized the hardship it would place on manufacturers due to their flouting the law.

And, that's China!

Another angle China took some time back is to charge a few thousand dollars to register an ICE.

 

1. We aren't China in any way.

2. You've apparently never dealt with EPA.

 

Yes, it's in vogue to hate everything China.

But, they have the same issues we do in many areas. They care about emissions in cities. They have invested seriously in clean energy, so that are the world leader in technology patents for green energy, are the largest manufacturer and exporter and are the leader in installations.

I have dealt with the EPA involving environmental impact documentation and building project paperwork.

Right now, I have a survey going on for salt water eel grass because I need to replace a piling.

The EPA is EASY compared to the Army Corps of Engineers, by the way. My last one of those took 4.5 years, and the project had a 5 year construction limit starting from the data of application.

 

That's obviously why they're continuing to build coal fired power plants.

 

I'll avoid telling my wife this (she's a budget analyst with the Corp). I think it's better that way.

 

Just showing two things - one is that there is no limit on the size and power for EVs if the power supply is there and second - you don’t really read my posts