Climate Change

[canpakes]

Gunnar, here’s a short and interactive article that hits on the basics of that comparison:

https://www.wsj.com/graphics/are-electr ... vironment/

Thanks! I would love to read that article, but it has a pay wall, and I'm not yet sure I am ready to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal at this time. I have nothing against that magazine, of course, but I want to minimize the number of things that require paid subscriptions.

That didn’t come up for me so I tried the link a few times and received the paywall notice once as well. I just clicked through the paywall notice and the article came up.

That’s unfortunate if this won’t work at your end; I’ll find another good resource for you if so.

https://www.wsj.com/graphics/are-electr ... vironment/

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Gunnar, here’s a short and interactive article that hits on the basics of that comparison:

https://www.wsj.com/graphics/are-electr ... vironment/

Thanks! I would love to read that article, but it has a pay wall, and I'm not yet sure I am ready to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal at this time. I have nothing against that magazine, of course, but I want to minimize the number of things that require paid subscriptions.

tl;dr - They’re greener, just over long run.

My 2 cents, and the reason why I’m installing solar panels on my roof, is the more we invest in taking advantage of that giant ball of radiation in space the sooner we make long-term progress toward solutions that will extend our run as a dominant species on this planet.

[Gunnar]

This article is interesting and it requires no pay wall:

Zero Emissions

Now everyone is guilty of abusing the claim to zero emissions. While EVs quote zero emissions, the competitors point out how dirty the electricity is from the coal-burning facilities. No one speaks to the fact that both the US and Europe are rapidly moving away from coal fired electricity which will soon make this argument moot. Coal-burning facilities are expected to slip to 10% of total new capacity in the U.S. in 2013, down from 18% in 2009, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports. Gas, meanwhile, is expected to soar to 82% of new capacity in 2013 from 42% last year.

Furthermore, a 2012 California survey showed 39% of early EV adopters have implemented the use of solar energy while another 17% are looking into the process. While the implementation of solar and EVs are slow, when viewed together as it applies to the environmental argument, it is noteworthy. For if this relationship between EVs and alternatives continues at even half this pace, it will make a substantial shift in emissions.

It is also worth mentioning that 5-6kWh of electricity are used in the refining process of a gallon of gasoline basically killing the argument that the emissions of EVs are dirtier than ICEs. You see, an EV can travel on average around 17 miles on the same 6kWh of electricity. Even as café (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) increases the standard on gas in the future from 23 mpg to 27 mpg, you still have effectively used 60% as much electricity as an EV just in the refining process of gasoline before even considering the carbon offset of gas itself. With the move away from coal generated electricity toward natural gas, solar, and renewables this argument is pretty much over....

I found the portion I highlighted above particularly interesting.

[Gunnar]

I just looked this up: The article I linked to in my last post was part II of an article comparing the environmental impact of EVs vs. other types of vehicles. Here is part I of the same article: It turns out that the infrastructure of providing refueling stations for EVs is itself much less expensive and more environmentally friendly than that for popularly suggested alternatives to EVs, such as fuel cell powered vehicles (FCVs) and Compressed Natural Gas powered vehicles (CNGVs). That hadn't occurred to me before!

There are large compliance differences between installing a home charging station and a public one. This is true for EVs but even more so for ICEs, CNGVs, and FCVs. Expect at best to find CNGs and FCVs in the same places you would find a gas station, NOT in the ever-expanding places that can host an EVSE (electric vehicle supply equipment). While a level 2 public EV charging station can cost from $4,000-$10,000, a FCV charging station currently cost around $3,000,000 (that's a lot of zeros). CNG will be similar to the cost of providing a gas fueling station. The cost includes much more than the pump itself. This is yet another reason the infrastructure of EVs will be unparalleled with any other type of fuel currently being considered.

[canpakes]

I just looked this up …

You’re already tracking these down, but here’s another link for you about this comparison between ICE and electric -

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos- ... 021-06-29/

[Gunnar]

You’re already tracking these down, but here’s another link for you about this comparison between ICE and electric -

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos- ... 021-06-29/

Thanks! That provided valuable added perspective. Based on what you and I have already found collectively, it certainly appears that EVs already have a significant environmental advantage over fossil fuel powered vehicles, and that advantage can only grow as further advances in green energy technology continue to come on line.

[Gunnar]

tl;dr - They’re greener, just over long run.

My 2 cents, and the reason why I’m installing solar panels on my roof, is the more we invest in taking advantage of that giant ball of radiation in space the sooner we make long-term progress toward solutions that will extend our run as a dominant species on this planet.

Agreed! It's becoming increasingly difficult to see how any fully rational individual can continue to dispute that.

[ceeboo]

In my mind, it is very common and easy for people to gather around and collectively acknowledge/support that there is a problem. Solving the issue/problem is an entirely different thing and it's far less common and it's difficult. Entirely!

Ceeboo,

I have been thinking about this observation.

I may see this differently than you, or perhaps I do not see it differently.

It seems like there is a more ridiculous argument going on with climate topics and politics. The more obvious observation is that if a person or group does not get their way, they are free to suggest that it must be because the other side is stupid or evil.

Without question - As far as politics goes (generally speaking) this is the very reason we often so see people exhibit great self confidence and comfort when they cement labels upon complete strangers that they know almost nothing about ("white supremacist" - "Nazi" - "Xenophobe" - etc)

Climate change, however, is a different animal all together, in my opinion (although it shares much with other political topics, it's quite different) - By and large, the difference is heavily rooted in the price of poker. When climate change is presented - or viewed - as an existential threat, then one can clearly understand why any/all opposition to this type of threat must be seen as evil (not simply stupid - but wicked evil). After all, we are talking about the end of the human race here (I guess it was originally 12 years before the complete end to human beings but I think it's more accurate to say 9 years as I type this.)

In addition, another significant difference that carries a tremendous amount of weight is when climate change and politics attach and merge on the scene together. Now, we don't just have an existential threat - we have political people who claim that, if they are elected into office, they can save us from the total end of the human race. And if that isn't enough - whether you believe the threat or not - the amount of unquestioned and complete power/control that will be given to such a savior is beyond anything imaginable. From a budgetary standpoint alone (considering what the suggested stakes are) there will be no price too high - It will not be seen as one of many threats that we all face - it will be seen as the threat and because of that everything will be thrown at it, including the sink that resides in the kitchen.

This is not unique to one side or the other. If a republican has to test the exhaust on her vehicles and it costs her money, that does not mean that every person at the DMV voted for Gore/Kerry/Biden and can't unclog their own toilet. If a democrat sees a farmer burning the pruned walnut branches, that does not mean he eats babies, voted for Trump twice, hates science, hates scientists and pours used motor oil into streams.

If I had to describe the "F*** Climate Change" crowd, I would describe it exactly the way I describe other political topics. If you expect people to make a sacrifice, you better come at them with a credible argument and a fair deal. Telling them it is for their grandchildren, but their sacrifice needs to be a lot more painful than other people's sacrifices is never going to work. Coming at them with an argument that fossil fuels are bad, but electricity made from fossil fuels is good, is not going to work because that is stupid as crap. And if they do not trust you, they will make it harder for you to take their crap or get their support.

I am 100% certain that the brilliant Bjorn Lomborg would agree (and so do I for what it's worth)

If states make electric car mandates, great. Do they also have a nuclear plant in the works? How will they improve the grid? (This is an example, ceeboo. You get my point.) If not, then do not expect people to take this stuff seriously, including the damn science. They do not have to give a ratsass enough to read what scientists and climate radicals read or learn. So what? That is normal. I was at the vet yesterday with my dog. The power went out, again. Do you think people should trust the grid, the utility company and politicians when they deal with electricity shortages? No. Without credibility, there is no consensus for a solution.

Forget consensus for a solution - without credibility, there isn't even a real conversation about such a solution. What you get is something similar to this thread.

The solutions are very different than the science - getting to your point finally. But when the solutions are not credible, people are not incentivized to understand or participate in the solution or the science. They check out. And that is normal.

Science has done the job of science. That is to say - science has provided more than enough data and information for any reasonable and level-minded person to be able to acknowledge the problem we all face concerning climate change. The solution will come from innovation, period, in my opinion. I am reminded of the catalytic converter and how innovation played such a huge role in its birth as well as the monumental impact this invention has had on all of us.

[Gunnar]

The solutions are very different than the science - getting to your point finally. But when the solutions are not credible, people are not incentivized to understand or participate in the solution or the science. They check out. And that is normal.

Science has done the job of science. That is to say - science has provided more than enough data and information for any reasonable and level-minded person to be able to acknowledge the problem we all face concerning climate change. The solution will come from innovation, period, in my opinion. I am reminded of the catalytic converter and how innovation played such a huge role in its birth as well as the monumental impact this invention has had on all of us.

Of course the solution must come from innovation! Without that there can be no solution. The best thing the government can do is vigorously encourage and incentivize that innovation and let it happen, and stop adamantly denying that the problem even exists, as Trump and too many hard right conservatives and their fossil fuel corporate donors seem hell bent on doing. That is the whole point!

[canpakes]

(I guess it was originally 12 years before the complete end to human beings but I think it's more accurate to say 9 years as I type this.)

Ceeboo, you’re contributing to the very problem that you claim to be against when you present a statement like this without context or reference.

In addition, another significant difference that carries a tremendous amount of weight is when climate change and politics attach and merge on the scene together. Now, we don't just have an existential threat - we have political people who claim that, if they are elected into office, they can save us from the total end of the human race. And if that isn't enough - whether you believe the threat or not - the amount of unquestioned and complete power/control that will be given to such a savior is beyond anything imaginable.

Same here again. Who are these political people who (1) claim that they can save us from the total end of the human race, and (2) are then seeking unquestioned and absolute power to do so?