OT: Electric vehicles
- Thread starter BellyFullOfWhiteDogCrap
- Start date
That's just stupid. I can't remember the last time I waited in a line at gas stations.
Naturally, the dumb tweet comes from a member of the Teslerati . You can always tell because they always inject a slurpy worshipful @elonmusk in their tweets.
Ooooh Elon! Look at me mocking ICE cars. Love me, love me, love me Elon!
Meanwhile, Musk is sitting at his desk counting his money and laughing at the Teslerati.
that not just a regular gas station. It’s Costco. Lines are long because of cheaper gas. I’m sure those are the consumers that are willing to pay EV premium to switch.
ETA I do hear from a few former EV owners in the city giving up on EVs because of the wait for charging stations.
ETA I do hear from a few former EV owners in the city giving up on EVs because of the wait for charging stations.
”Behind the increase in overall emissions were corresponding jumps in pollution generated by the country’s transportation and power sectors. Compared to 2021, those sectors generated an additional 10 percent and 6.6 percent of greenhouse emissions. Driving those increases was a 17 percent increase in reliance on coal-generated power and more people driving after a pandemic-related downturn.”
Third paragraph is the most interesting
The report underscores how important is it is for the US to clean up its power grid and transportation sector. Another recent study found that wind and solar could meet 85 percent of the country’s current electricity needs. So much of whether the US will meet its Paris Agreement commitments will depend on if the country can mobilize investment as part of policies like President Biden’s Build Back Better Plan. The fate of the bill is uncertain, but what is clear is that the technology is there to enable a clean transition. Until recently, natural gas had never been more affordable, and yet it was still more expensive than renewable sources of energy.
Country has a lot of work to do. I have little faith it gets done because both parties work to obstruct the other from getting stuff done and neither party wants to compromise.
There's not a lot of compromising that should be done with climate change deniers.
Renewable energy and stationary storage are rapidly accelerating. 1/2 of all new energy capacity in 2022 will be from renewables.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/10/2022-will-be-a-record-year-for-wind-and-solar-new-report-finds.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/10/2022-will-be-a-record-year-for-wind-and-solar-new-report-finds.html
Rutgers car mirror covers—
www.brightenta.com
Car Side Mirror Covers
We offer a great selection of sleek LEAGUE element products with team logos, including NBA,NFL,MLB and so on.We also offer Tire cover.
www.brightenta.com
Side mirrors need to go. After a brief search, this was the only article I could find where a car company compared drag coefficient and range with and without side mirrors. 5-9 miles/charge adds up. Reduces noise too.
https://www.greencarreports.com/new...s-could-add-range-to-audi-e-tron-electric-suv
https://www.greencarreports.com/new...s-could-add-range-to-audi-e-tron-electric-suv
Perhaps not with actual climate change deniers. But I was speaking more generally about politics and lots of issues that should be, but aren't being, addressed.
Also, I find that there are fewer and fewer people attempting to outright deny that the planet is warming or the climate changing. Those who do are obviously uninformed or misinformed and not intelligent enough or curious enough to look beyond whatever propaganda they're ingesting. It's ideology for them, which is always bad, IMO.
Most of the reasonable debate I see nowadays is about what impact humanity can have on slowing, or even stopping, the warming trend. A reduction in greenhouse gas production by humanity seems like it could be a reasonable goal in its own right, IMO, and well worth doing even if it doesn't have the impact on the global warming trend we hope it does. But while there is some consensus about it, it's still only a theoretical consensus that even a so-called net zero level of greenhouse gas production will do much to slow the warming trend (I think it will, incidentally, I just don't know it for a fact because nobody has actually observed it happen, firsthand, yet).
Warming is a long term trend that appears to have periods of more rapid change, and periods of less rapid change. And that was even before humanity started making any changes to our GG production.
So in order to actually know, for an absolute fact, that hypotheses about reductions in GG will correlate with significant reductions in the long-term warming trend would be to (a) get humanity to a point of truly substantial reduction in GG production, then (b) take measurements over a very long period of time to compare against the same measurements being taken today. And if we wanted to absolutely know for a fact what impact our GG production cutting measures are having, and wanted to truly prove out GG-production-cutting experiment, we'd have to then actually increase GG production for a while and then take those same measurements over that same very long period of time, and observe a corresponding increase in global temps.
I find it fascinating and wish I'd be around to see what we learn in the next couple hundred years. I feel pretty sure we'll discover the theories that humanity can affect the rate of climate change are at least partially, if not substantially, true. But none of us will be around to witness it first-hand (well, maybe our kids will, but that's a whole different topic of discussion).
The point of my typically long-winded post is that there is still plenty of room for reasonable and informed people to debate humanity's potential impacts on the long term warming trend. And that means there's still plenty of room for compromise. It's unhelpful to approach the subject with an ideologically pure, no-compromises, mindset when there's still so much that is pure theory based on incomplete data.
Oh no, no, no. If you say climate change is less than 100% of human origin you're evil. Forget about the warm period circa 900AD, this is unique. If you think it's nuts to shut down nukes like Germany did you're evil. Forget the fact that it caused an increase in coal generated electricity, that's irrelevant because they increased their wind and solar. And to suggest that there are alternatives to wind and solar like geothermal and "renewable natural gas", like the co-venture between Dominion Resources and Smithfield Foods to generate from naturally occuring methane, you lose your woke card.
I had a bunch of beans with dinner last night. Can I use my natural gas to power my car yet?
Fossil fuels are a finite resource. Either we get off fossil fuels as the primary sources of electricity or civilization collapses.
We can kick the can down the road for future generations to worry about or we can take measures now.
We can kick the can down the road for future generations to worry about or we can take measures now.
Blazing Saddles as alternative energy. Dominion is actually going to be generating electricity using the Thunderdome method of generation. And given their customer base's proximity to Washington DC they'll never lack for a source or methane.
Only on shitty cars. The side mirrors on my car contribute zero decibels to its overall serenity.
That's part of why I'm happy to be weaning the world off of them. And energy might actually be one of the easier things to accomplish with them, as opposed to some other critical uses of petrochemical raw materials. So that should be even more incentive to move to renewables, or at least away from petroleum for energy.
Not sure too many people, outside of oil producers or certain manufacturing segments, are arguing very hard against renewable energy anymore.
From what I'm reading, the attempts to eliminate side-view mirrors and replace them with cameras has run into some roadblocks in terms of view quality. Basically, it's a great idea that seems problematic when driving over bumps or other irregular road surfaces.
I use my mirrors extensively when I drive. So any solution that inhibits my clear view of my surroundings ain't gonna fly with me.
And yeah, actually, it's possible that side-view mirrors can, in certain configurations w/certain cars, actually eliminate, or at least minimize, the loud and uncomfortable pressure buffeting that might otherwise occur when driving with the windows down.
I don't have problems with that - that's something where compromise can be found. But too many in the GOP are simply climate change deniers. There's no use in even discussing clean tech/clean energy with them.
Google 'Trump wind power'. Would be amusing if he were just another nuthead and not a former POTUS.
Next-gen Ford Ranger series set to gain hybrid, EV, or both
Following the F-150 Electric (Lightning), Ford’s electrified truck lineup will see the addition of a Ford Ranger Hybrid variant in the next generation.
topelectricsuv.com
Does Anyone Even Want an Electric Car?
Deloitte’s new report forecasts a messy future.
I feel that if you think global warming is a legit near term threat, then I'd say avoid the longer term concern of running out of fossil fuels.
Unfortunately, Trump ushered in a whole new era of even lower low-information ideology than we had prior to him. But I don’t associate it with the R party itself for a few reasons:
(1) There are plenty of low information, low intelligence, purely ideological voters on both sides of the aisle, albeit not usually with respect to the same exact issues.
(2) Plenty of my R friends are not particularly ideological, and didn't vote for Trump either both times or at least the second time. So a broad generalization firmly associating Trumperism with Rs is actually invalid.
(3) Right or wrong, any generalized demonization of either party for any reasons only serves to further cement people into their positions, inflame and polarize our nation. Such demonization clearly has nothing but negative impacts on the country. So I avoid it as a firm rule.
I view Trumperism as a serious problem that's independent of politics or political party. For me, it's entirely about the man and his obvious, extreme and unique (among prior presidents) lack of fitness for the job.
Yes, there may be certain valid correlations to be made (and some can be made for members of both parties). But making them is unhelpful at best, and more likely harmful.
Of course.
My point is that the transition to sustainable energy is inevitable. Opinions about climate change are irrelevant. It must be done, and yes, sooner is better. Personally, I'm done with the dumbest experiment in human history.
I don't think "experiment" is properly defining humanities use of fossil fuels.
And early on it wasn't dumb at all. Ignorant maybe. The side effects of burning fossil fuels weren't realized until we were well invested as a society.
Heck very possible that if you take out the early (or even more recent) use of fossil fuels, and the industrial (and technological) revolution that was dependent upon them, we would be much further away from becoming a society that is able function using clean energy.
Last edited:
I say experiment because scientists knew as early as the 1950s humans were changing the chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans. 70 years later, "Let's continue on this path and see how things go" seems pretty dumb to me.
No doubt fossil fuels have played a huge role in the advancement of civilization. I question whether they were our only choice. Solar technology, batteries, electric cars, and electric trains were all being developed in the 1800s.
No doubt fossil fuels have played a huge role in the advancement of civilization. I question whether they were our only choice. Solar technology, batteries, electric cars, and electric trains were all being developed in the 1800s.
There is a reason though that fossil fuels became the dominant source of energy and not solar or wind.
And yeah Scientists were aware things were changing in the 50's, but they weren't aware of what, or if they had an idea it was rather vague. And even then there is the scientific perspective and then there is the societal perspective, for whom it was not experiment at all, this stuff worked, no further need for testing.
It's probably an overreach to give a lot of credit to what scientists knew in the 1950s. Don't forget that Rachel Carson, who was a noted marine biologist and conservationist, wrote The Sea Around Us in 1952 and The Edge of the Sea in 1953 and literally all of the science (including all of the geology, as plate tectonics had yet to exist) was patently wrong.
In fact, it was Carson in the former book who coined the phrase "the limitless bounty of the sea", which has led to 70 years of exploitation and overfishing, resulting in the reduction of all consumable species by 90% or more.
In fact, it was Carson in the former book who coined the phrase "the limitless bounty of the sea", which has led to 70 years of exploitation and overfishing, resulting in the reduction of all consumable species by 90% or more.
Ya, this was kind of what I was getting at it. We often hear of the "global cooling" theories from whenever which are absolutely used as red herring's at this point, but they do point to the fact that the science was far from clear back in the day.
At this point? I mean, you don't need to be a scientist to see things are getting crazy.
But I don't like pushing inaccurate narratives. They muddy the waters and open up the door to counter arguments.
Rachel Carson was hailed as a hero through the early 60s.
If she were alive today she would be an outcast and a pariah.
Sometimes "settled science" can change. Such is the nature of science. What's particularly weak is the anti-science arguments based on a presumption of change, while ignoring facts in support of the science.
Science, y'all.
Porsche Taycan outsold the 911 in record-breaking 2021 - Autoblog
Porsche delivered 301,915 vehicles in 2021, the highest number recorded since its inception. Its best-selling vehicles remain the Macan and Cayenne SUVs.
www.autoblog.com
Taycan outselling the 911
Not surprised at all. Two door (essentially two-seater) cars have a limited market. Still, they sell way more 911s than I would've expected a while back. A little over 9K in 2021, a bit less in 2020.Porsche Taycan outsold the 911 in record-breaking 2021 - Autoblog
Porsche delivered 301,915 vehicles in 2021, the highest number recorded since its inception. Its best-selling vehicles remain the Macan and Cayenne SUVs.
Taycan outselling the 911
Far as I'm concerned, the fewer 911s they sell, the better. 🙂
