GM is pulling back on EVs

[AZlb5.0]

You and me both. I served, my Son served.

Al Gore said his election was stolen, media said maybe. Hillary said her election was stolen, media said, maybe. Trump said his election was stolen, the media says no way and they are trying to put him in jail.

Only China and Russia want a civil war in the USA.

What branch Brother?

Sponsored

 

[Burkey]

The situation in question is about what might be called the carbon footprint (CARBON DEBT maybe) of a single wind turbine resulting from its manufacture and physical instillation. Including making the steel, aluminum, copper wires, special magnets, fiberglass & resin and all such parts. Then transporting said materials, then digging out for the foundation, then erecting the wind turbine and connecting it to a grid. All that results in emissions before the finished turbine spins a blade in use.

Yes, and I’ve shown you the studies that ALLOW FOR ALL OF THOSE THINGS in their calculations. You just dont seem to comprehend that those studies weren’t simply discussing the manufacturing portion in isolation. I can quote the specific passage to you AGAIN, but at this point, I feel that it would be a waste of my time.
You need to understand and accept it. It’s not that difficult.

Part of that footprint is due to where so much of these parts are made. That being China where much of the electric power comes from coal burning.

When they derived the figures in the studies that you’re ignoring, where exactly do you think these “average” turbines they were referencing may have been produced?
Is it possible that you’re double dipping?

 

[sk47]

Yes, and I’ve shown you the studies that ALLOW FOR ALL OF THOSE THINGS in their calculations. You just dont seem to comprehend that those studies weren’t simply discussing the manufacturing portion in isolation. I can quote the specific passage to you AGAIN, but at this point, I feel that it would be a waste of my time.
You need to understand and accept it. It’s not that difficult.



When they derived the figures in the studies that you’re ignoring, where exactly do you think these “average” turbines they were referencing may have been produced?
Is it possible that you’re double dipping?

Hello; For some time, it was argued the BEV's are clean simply because there is no tailpipe. Eventually the champions came to accept there is an environmental debt/footprint for BEV's from the mining of minerals and the assembly of the EV's.
Likely was the Volvo study which turned that particular tide. Hard to dismiss Volvo since they are become a "green" outfit. I used the number of 68,000 miles a BEV needs to be driven before it starts to shed its carbon debt outdo an ICE. I used 68,000 miles because so much electricity around the world is still made by burning fossil fuels. You, Burkey, countered with a smaller number saying in places with windmills/ solar panels and other such "green" energy sources the EV pays back its debt with less miles.
I do get the point that in a few places electricity comes from green sources and are some cleaner sources. The EV's only have their manufacture carbon debt left with less operational emissions than an ICE. Proves to me you understand the concept.

Every manufactured product has some level of environmental debt added. A portion of that debt can be Co2. Thing is that debt never truly is completely wiped away. We have been preached at about how Co2 hangs around in the atmosphere for very long periods of time by the climate activists. Of course, the problem Co2 is supposed to be what is considered "excess" carbon. Carbon above the amount natural cycles easily remove. You know, the PPM average over 350 PPM.

I bought a 2001 new car and still have it. The carbon debt has not gone away. That debt can now be averaged over the 22 years since it's manufacture. At 22 years the debt is spread thin compared to a new 2001 car that was taken out of service in say eight years. If the activists carbon doom cries are to be believed some of the Co2 from the manufacture of my 2001 car still lingers in the earth's atmosphere as real Co2.
The activists cry of the last span of years has been we have pumped too much Co2 into the atmosphere so natural cycles are overwhelmed and cannot process the extra amounts. That carbon from years ago still lingers and is part of our problems. Some of that carbon in the air came from the manufacture of my 2001 ICE car. Some of the carbon came from my driving it over the years.

Finally, to the point. You are trying to tell me all the Co2 from building new wind turbines gets canceled out somehow in seven months' time. I say no. The Co2 from the manufacture and installation of a new wind turbine seven months ago still exists in the atmosphere. The carbon debt will be spread over the turbines working life. That life is estimated to be 20 years. Two of my linked sources gave 11 grams of Co2 per Kw/hr of electricity produced over 20 years.

The wind turbine may get to a point where its carbon debt averages out to be less than the dirtiest other way to generate electricity, but the Co2 still is lingering in the air from its build and install.

 

[K4fxd]

Who is to say 350 PPM is the normal amount. What if it is supposed to be 1350?
Most plants want more Co2 not less.

More people are killed by cold then hot. More Co2 = healthier plants. Healthier plants = more food per acre. Warmer temps mean longer growing seasons. There is no real downside to warmer average temps.

 

[sk47]

Who is to say 350 PPM is the normal amount. What if it is supposed to be 1350?
Most plants want more Co2 not less.

More people are killed by cold then hot. More Co2 = healthier plants. Healthier plants = more food per acre. Warmer temps mean longer growing seasons. There is no real downside to warmer average temps.

Hello; For many years climate "authorities have cited 350PPM as a stop sign sort of level if memory serves. No doubt past levels have been higher. Well, the various methods used to infer what ancient atmospheres were are cited to indicate higher Co2 levels. Ecosystems exist within a range of environmental conditions. I am sure I read about why the 350 number was picked but do not recall the exact argument just now. Best i can recall is above that level things are supposed to start going bad.

We get that the activists will not accept potential benefits of slight warming. You are correct a change in some places may open up fresh soil areas for growing crops. Since some areas in use for the last many decades have had the topsoil depleted this might indeed be a positive thing.

Note- I used the term "slight warming" as one of my posted links from last night mentioned revised estimates of warming.
Quote from one of my posts.

"But forecasts have since become more optimistic: today, theUN and independent climate trackers agree the world is on track for only 2 to 3 degrees of warming above preindustrial levels.”"

Your 2 degrees of warming number is accurate.

 

[K4fxd]

One of my cousins opened a "hemp" farm in Oregon. He says he keeps the Co2 level in the green house at 1200 PPM.

 

[sk47]

One of my cousins opened a "hemp" farm in Oregon. He says he keeps the Co2 level in the green house at 1200 PPM.

Hello; I keep freshwater aquariums. Have for a long time. I grow freshwater live plants in my tanks. Aquarium keepers who want to grow lush plants use Co2 injectors to add it to the tanks. I have not yet tried it myself as my plants grow well enough. But some swear by the injected Co2 to help plants grow.

 

[K4fxd]

Try it, the plants love it and a byproduct is the plants give off more O2 so the fish like it too.

 

[Burkey]

Eventually the champions came to accept there is an environmental debt/footprint for BEV's from the mining of minerals and the assembly of the EV's.

Wait….according to you, I’m one of those ”champions” and yet at no point did I ever think that BEV’s had no emission cost. So, can you be more specific when you start trying to label people?

Is it my turn to play the victim now?

 

[Burkey]

Likely was the Volvo study which turned that particular tide. Hard to dismiss Volvo since they are become a "green" outfit. I used the number of 68,000 miles a BEV needs to be driven before it starts to shed its carbon debt outdo an ICE.

The Volvo study did nothing to change my mind, given that I already accepted the premise that there was a cost.

 

[Burkey]

I used the number of 68,000 miles a BEV needs to be driven before it starts to shed its carbon debt outdo an ICE. I used 68,000 miles because so much electricity around the world is still made by burning fossil fuels.

No, you used the number because that was the figure that was arrived at based on the “Global Electricity Mix“ AT THE TIME that the study was released. You’re ignoring that the GEM has changed, and will continue to change, bringing that figure lower and lower as time continues.

You, Burkey, countered with a smaller number saying in places with windmills/ solar panels and other such "green" energy sources the EV pays back its debt with less miles.

See above. As I already explained, by simply having the mix of the European Union of THAT TIME (35% renewable vs 20% for GEM) the payback period moves from 110,000km’s to 77,000 km’s.
Also, as I explained earlier, the difference between the two (at the time of the study) wasn’t HUGE in terms of the total actual renewable energy content, which was MEANT to highlight how EASILY a relatively small change in renewable contribution can have a HUGE impact on the speed of that payback period.

But of course, someone who’s so vehemently opposed to new ideas might struggle to see the forest for all of the trees.

What I’m saying is that the number you’re quoting is already inaccurate because the world has changed since the time of that study. Again, it’s pretty simple.

If however we swing the other way, and start using LESS renewables, then sure, the payback period will increase. No argument. But that’s not that’s happening.

 

[sk47]

Wait….according to you, I’m one of those ”champions” and yet at no point did I ever think that BEV’s had no emission cost. So, can you be more specific when you start trying to label people?

Is it my turn to play the victim now?

The Volvo study did nothing to change my mind, given that I already accepted the premise that there was a cost.

No, you used the number because that was the figure that was arrived at based on the “Global Electricity Mix“ AT THE TIME that the study was released. You’re ignoring that the GEM has changed, and will continue to change, bringing that figure lower and lower as time continues.


See above. As I already explained, by simply having the mix of the European Union of THAT TIME (35% renewable vs 20% for GEM) the payback period moves from 110,000km’s to 77,000 km’s.
Also, as I explained earlier, the difference between the two (at the time of the study) wasn’t HUGE in terms of the total actual renewable energy content, which was MEANT to highlight how EASILY a relatively small change in renewable contribution can have a HUGE impact on the speed of that payback period.

But of course, someone who’s so vehemently opposed to new ideas might struggle to see the forest for all of the trees.

What I’m saying is that the number you’re quoting is already inaccurate because the world has changed since the time of that study. Again, it’s pretty simple.

If however we swing the other way, and start using LESS renewables, then sure, the payback period will increase. No argument. But that’s not that’s happening.

Hello; Skipped and left out any reference to what I call the carbon debt of new built wind turbines. The glut of Co2 from construction is a real event.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; Skipped and left out any reference to what I call the carbon debt of new built wind turbines. The glut of Co2 from construction is a real event.

Because I’m not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you again. Nor am I going to waste time explaining to you that the very processes that are used to build these things are also producing less emissions, year on year, as a result of progress. You know, that thing that you’re opposed to…

As usual, the vast majority of the leading scientists on the planet agree with the idea, but somehow you and your brethren know better because you read something on a website dedicated to hating on turbines/EV’s/Solar.

Why don’t you visit flat earth pages to find evidence that the planet is flat? Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it, but that’s effectively what you’re doing.

Something else to remember in all of this is that CO2 typically hangs in the atmosphere for 300-1000 years, so the idea of front-loading the emissions of the next 12 months or perhaps even 20 years, starts to make more sense when you view it though that lens.

I don’t suppose any of the sites you’re visiting happen to mention that inconvenient fact though, do they? Instead they just focus on the immediate emissions of renewables, without mentioning the implications of the counter argument,

As usual, just ignore some pertinent facts and you can reach your preferred conclusion.

 

[sk47]

Because I’m not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you again. Nor am I going to waste time explaining to you that the very processes that are used to build these things are also producing less emissions, year on year, as a result of progress. You know, that thing that you’re opposed to…

As usual, the vast majority of the leading scientists on the planet agree with the idea, but somehow you and your brethren know better because you read something on a website dedicated to hating on turbines/EV’s/Solar.

Why don’t you visit flat earth pages to find evidence that the planet is flat? Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it, but that’s effectively what you’re doing.

Something else to remember in all of this is that CO2 typically hangs in the atmosphere for 300-1000 years, so the idea of front-loading the emissions of the next 12 months or perhaps even 20 years, starts to make more sense when you view it though that lens.

I don’t suppose any of the sites you’re visiting happen to mention that inconvenient fact though, do they? Instead they just focus on the immediate emissions of renewables, without mentioning the implications of the counter argument,

As usual, just ignore some pertinent facts and you can reach your preferred conclusion.

Hello; Most of your reply is about how I am not worth your time and other putdowns. Those i will pass over. I do wish to thank you for one bit of information. Because at least by coming from you avoids several back and forth posts about my chosen links not being valid in your opinion.

A point I and others have been making is those pushing the green energy and EV agenda is there is a price by doing so in too much of a hurry. Among those prices will be the Co2 and other real time emissions from making and building brand new green equipment and at the same time prematurely abandoning already existing structures.

Both the new built structures/equipment and the already existing structures/equipment came into existence within the last 300 to 1000 years. So, by your own post some of the Co2 and perhaps other pollutants from these things still lingers in the atmosphere. For you and others who are convinced Co2 is evil this fact ought to be important.

Another analogy you likely will not buy into, but others may appreciate. The last two falls around the time it starts to get clod at night I have spied a blacksnake crawling up the outer brick wall of my house. Appearing to be going for a small gap in my soffit. The first winter I did not understand what the snake was doing, but i left it alone as a black snake is good to have around.
The spring following that winter I opened the door to my basement garage and there was the black snake on the floor. I left it alone and left the door open so it had an easy way outside. Saw the snake or perhaps another blacksnake just like it around the place outside last summer. Then last fall that snake or one similar was climbing my outside brick wall again.
I have not seen the snake in my basement so far this spring and have left the door open for hours a few times already. Here is the thing. I usually trap a lot of mice in my basement each fall. Not the last two years. Not a one in my eight or ten traps.
Only one set of my neighbors agree that my leaving the snake alone is a good thing. They run a farm. Most would have killed the snake just because it is a snake. Those are new neighbors renting while attending or working for the nearby university LMU. They likely feel superior to me and the older farmer couple and tell me they would not allow a snake to live in their house.

Hello; first image is from two years ago. Last two images are from last fall. I think the snake is heading for the gap at the powerhead pipe in the soffit.

 

[RagmopInKona]

I agree with everything you’re saying but in the world we are in today even with out all of your valid points drag racing would be slowly but surely killed. That’s what’s happening slowly but surely.

Nah, car counts at tracks would be higher if the cost was not so stupid.
Trqcks forcing racers to muffle the noise would stop the locals from pushing to close them.
Face it. If you don't have a track near you. It is a long drive and hope you don't break and need a trailer to get home or need a truck and trailer to drag your crap to the track. Pay the gate fee and such . Then get 2 to 4 runs in .
Or
Risk getting a ticket for getting the lead out for that rush.
Then you have the racers that don't help. That are very vocal about the slower cars wasting day light and limiting the #of runs they get in.
So the newer guys are treated like shyt and say duck this. A few decade of that crap is what is killing it .

Sponsored