S550 may be eliminated sooner rather then later...

[Gregs24]

Yes, we heard. "The science is settled". That was in the 80's I think.

https://www.cfact.org/2020/01/31/alarmist-scientists-urge-dialing-back-over-the-top-assertions/

Wow you are right. (Cfact is obviously not a biased source of information !!!)

2 climatologists - is that a clutch or a flock ?

Sponsored

 

[Gregs24]

That is an informative video. Too bad none of the people who subscribe to climate change will believe it.

The poor Guy died in 1991 and his views have been distorted by climate change deniers for ages - don't tell me you have only just found it !!!


Roger's daughter, Carolyn Revelle, wrote:

Contrary to George Will's "Al Gore's Green Guilt" Roger Revelle—our father and the "father" of the greenhouse effect—remained deeply concerned about global warming until his death in July 1991. That same year he wrote: "The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time." Will and other critics of Sen. Al Gore have seized these words to suggest that Revelle, who was also Gore's professor and mentor, renounced his belief in global warming. Nothing could be further from the truth. When Revelle inveighed against "drastic" action, he was using that adjective in its literal sense—measures that would cost trillions of dollars. Up until his death, he thought that extreme measures were premature. But he continued to recommend immediate prudent steps to mitigate and delay climatic warming. Some of those steps go well beyond anything Gore or other national politicians have yet to advocate. Revelle proposed a range of approaches to address global warming. Inaction was not one of them. He agreed with the adage "look before you leap", but he never said "sit on your hands".

 

[Gregs24]

You're sadly un-educated on the history of this planet's environmental changes, it's ups and downs. Ice ages and inter-glacial periods. You're looking at a part of a blink of an eye in the history of this planet. It's temps go up and down naturally.

You're indoctrinated. You've been had.

Oh wow you are right. The professional climatologists have missed the peaks and troughs on the graph

Thanks for the revelation. You really need to ring NASA in the morning and let them know as this is massive. Oh hang on it is a weekend - No this is too important to wait until Monday you need to ring them.

I hear the hold music is really good

 

[Norm Peterson]

of course. But what is the number of such trips out of the entirety of all trips taken in a year of american driving? 1e-12? It's a lousy justification for even having a personal vehicle, irrespective of ICE.

It only takes once where the original planning for a trip simply falls apart. At present, an EV is not nearly as well-equipped to cope with major mid-trip changes, regardless of the reason.

As EV penetrates into society more, I expect a significant majority will be for 'run-about' purposes and price and batt capacity commensurate. For everything else there's MasterCard, er. Budget/Enterprise rent-a-car be it a long-range/wagon EV or proper ICE/hybrid.

On a long trip I'd much rather be driving the car I was completely familiar with than some make and model of car I would not likely have ever even sat in before.

I'm not opposed to EV in the abstract. Where I vehemently object is being forced to own one, or just as insulting, having my pocket picked so someone gets one.

This ^^^

I hadn't put any thought into where EV subsidies ultimately came from. But, yeah.


Norm

 

[Gregs24]

I hadn't put any thought into where EV subsidies ultimately came from. But, yeah.


Norm

This is an interesting if partly political conundrum. The reality of the world is that our behaviour is modified by many methods for the greater good of everybody. From imprisonment for crimes, fines and subsidies. We have a sugar tax in the UK to make sweet drinks more expensive, this has meant that people drink less sugary drinks because they are more expensive and less sweet alternatives have been made available that are cheaper. This is done to reduce sugar intake which is directly linked with diseases such as Type 2 diabetes which costs health systems hugely which we all ultimately pay for. I don't think the EV subsidies / taxes are any different to this where a goal for reduced pollution for the greater good of the whole population is desired. Obviously a V8 Mustang owner that drinks lots of full fat Coke is going to be most affected by those two !

Society places constraints on itself for the good of the majority which inevitably upsets the minority !

 

[Vlad Soare]

Yeah, but making sugar more expensive doesn't mean people will eat less sweets. It means they'll eat more chemical sweeteners. Make normal Coke more expensive or less tasty, and they'll buy the Zero. You're just trading diabetes for cancer.
That reminds me of an old joke. In Russia a little boy asks his father:
"Daddy, it says in the newspaper there's a new tax on vodka. Does this mean you're going to drink less?"
"No, son, it just means you're going to eat less".

 

[Gregs24]

Yeah, but making sugar more expensive doesn't mean people will eat less sweets. It means they'll eat more chemical sweeteners. Make normal Coke more expensive or less tasty, and they'll buy the Zero. You're just trading diabetes for cancer.
That reminds me of an old joke. In Russia a little boy asks his father:
"Daddy, it says in the newspaper there's a new tax on vodka. Does this mean you're going to drink less?"
"No, son, it just means you're going to eat less".

Not really. The sugar tax has worked because drinks makers have reduced the quantity of sugar and not replaced it with other things.

Suggesting 'chemical sweeteners' (what is sugar if it isn't a chemical) cause cancer is a bit of a sweeping statement !

There really is serious thread drift now !

 

[Norm Peterson]

This is an interesting if partly political conundrum. The reality of the world is that our behaviour is modified by many methods for the greater good of everybody. From imprisonment for crimes, fines and subsidies. We have a sugar tax in the UK to make sweet drinks more expensive, this has meant that people drink less sugary drinks because they are more expensive and less sweet alternatives have been made available that are cheaper. This is done to reduce sugar intake which is directly linked with diseases such as Type 2 diabetes which costs health systems hugely which we all ultimately pay for. I don't think the EV subsidies / taxes are any different to this where a goal for reduced pollution for the greater good of the whole population is desired. Obviously a V8 Mustang owner that drinks lots of full fat Coke is going to be most affected by those two !

I can live with that analogy . . . though I think it's be more equitable for both situations if your total bad stuff usage over some period of time was given consideration at least equal to bad stuff usage only during the period over which it was actively being consumed. Gallons/year rather than mpg. Quantity of pollution vs rate of pollution production.

IOW, the driver who in one year gets 15 mpg over 3000 miles on the street and gets 5 mpg for 500 miles at the track is arguably doing less overall harm to the environment than the driver who drives his 40 mpg car 15,000 miles a year. Certainly using less fuel.

The person whose total annual Coke intake is maybe a dozen cans, each downed in 30 seconds vs the person who sips his way through a case a week . . . same kind of thing.

Society places constraints on itself for the good of the majority which inevitably upsets the minority !

Especially as the terms of most mandated changes are somewhat arbitrary and assume levels of technological development that may not even be possible. Some things you just can't project with any real confidence, and simply wanting them to happen won't make them happen.


Norm

 

[K4fxd]

Even Mr Musk says we don't have enough electrical generating power for EV's

https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2...-evs-will-double-worlds-need-for-electricity/

 

[Vlad Soare]

Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that. And frankly, I think he's overly optimistic when he says the need for electricity will double. I think it will increase manyfold, not just twice.

 

[K4fxd]

People have no idea how much power is in a gallon of gasoline. Try pushing your mustang one mile at walking pace. Then think about how much power it takes to push that same mustang at 70 MPH down the freeway for 25 miles.

I think you are correct and if we do go 100% EV we will need to increase our electrical generating capacity 5 fold just to stay even with today.

 

[Gregs24]

People have no idea how much power is in a gallon of gasoline. Try pushing your mustang one mile at walking pace. Then think about how much power it takes to push that same mustang at 70 MPH down the freeway for 25 miles.

I think you are correct and if we do go 100% EV we will need to increase our electrical generating capacity 5 fold just to stay even with today.

Rather than guessing and uninformed assumptions, some people have done some proper work on the subject.

Global EV Outlook 2020 – Analysis - IEA

The potential impact of electric vehicles on global energy systems (mckinsey.com)

The impact of electric vehicles on electricity demand - Energy Post

6 myths about electric vehicles busted | National Grid Group

 

[Norm Peterson]

Rather than guessing and uninformed assumptions, some people have done some proper work on the subject.

Global EV Outlook 2020 – Analysis - IEA

The potential impact of electric vehicles on global energy systems (mckinsey.com)

The impact of electric vehicles on electricity demand - Energy Post

6 myths about electric vehicles busted | National Grid Group

How about pulling some quotes, some numbers, and maybe a graph or two from those sources for us. Not just buzz-words and twitter-length stuff. I know I have zero desire for accepting cookies from them just so I can view one topic.

One thing for sure, looking at the total additional load tends to spread the demand for that much additional electricity uniformly over the whole day. We know it's not going to work like that, and will be more likely in residences to coincide with peak demands for cooking, light, HVAC, and other home electrical uses.

De-rating how fast recharging takes place would be good for the energy production and distribution sides of the coin, but crappy for the guy who needs a full recharge overnight tonight, and the power company says "sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that". Movie reference intentional.


Norm

 

[Gregs24]

How about pulling some quotes, some numbers, and maybe a graph or two from those sources for us. Not just buzz-words and twitter-length stuff. I know I have zero desire for accepting cookies from them just so I can view one topic.

One thing for sure, looking at the total additional load tends to spread the demand for that much additional electricity uniformly over the whole day. We know it's not going to work like that, and will be more likely in residences to coincide with peak demands for cooking, light, HVAC, and other home electrical uses.

De-rating how fast recharging takes place would be good for the energy production and distribution sides of the coin, but crappy for the guy who needs a full recharge overnight tonight, and the power company says "sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that". Movie reference intentional.


Norm

What is the point of me paraphrasing and rewriting (and then I will no doubt be accused of cherry picking by some) - the whole articles are there for a reason as was the attachment. Much better to post the data source and then let folks read it for themselves.

Anyway if you want a summary - electricity demand is expected to increase to 10% ish to cover EV's but timing of the load will also change compared to today. General electricity usage has been dropping in recent years in many countries because of things like LED lighting and better home insulation. Several sources all coming to similar conclusions.

If you are worried about cookies the internet is the wrong place for you !

 

[Norm Peterson]

What is the point of me paraphrasing and rewriting (and then I will no doubt be accused of cherry picking by some) - the whole articles are there for a reason as was the attachment. Much better to post the data source and then let folks read it for themselves.

As better hints about the content than just the name of the site, which doesn't tell me much about any agenda behind the content going in. More on the matter of links toward the bottom of this post.

Anyway if you want a summary - electricity demand is expected to increase to 10% ish to cover EV's but timing of the load will also change compared to today. General electricity usage has been dropping in recent years in many countries because of things like LED lighting and better home insulation. Several sources all coming to similar conclusions.

Thanks. I realize that efficiencies in things like lighting have been on the increase (our house is almost completely LED-lit at this point including all of the shop lights in the garage and in the attic). I might question the 10%-ish number being sufficient, though. From there it gets into base vs peak load, which I'm pretty sure drives the choice of power plant. I.e., nuclear is a great choice for base but a poor one for peak.

I spent about 30 years working in the nuclear power industry (on the AE side), and I distinctly remember feeling uneasy as corporations like Excelon started gobbling up individual power stations. So 'agenda' can't help but come to mind.

If you are worried about cookies the internet is the wrong place for you !

I'm OK with the cookies I need for places like M6G, S197Forums, TrackMustangsOnline, Camaro6, and a few others.

Many links go to places that want you to subscribe to them after seeing a limited number of topics without subscription. I can't be bothered with sites like that and don't want to be linked or pestered with requests to accept push notifications from them.


Norm

Sponsored