Electric Vechicles Are Here - The world is rapidly going to S#@!

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
I also have a deposit on the rumored upcoming AWD 1000hp Zora. Rumored to be twin turbos with electric up front . Put the deposit down on the Zora in 2019. Recently put the deposit on the Z06, because they keep pushing the Zora out. Possibly until 2026!
When I last spoke with a Chevy 'guru' insider I know (about 2 years ago), he told me then that the Zora probably wouldn't be released until 2024...and that it likely would be a very limited production car offered only to a chosen few...ala the Ford GTs (SMH)...and because of the rumored "chosen few" sales gimmick, back then no deposits were being accepted.
At that time, rumor was it would sport a minimum of 1,200 twin-turbo h.p. (Now evidently it'll be 1,000 h.p. and the the release date will be 2026?)
I'll be eighty-years-old in 2024. ASSUMING the Zora will be >released< at that time, God only knows (1) when the first of those cars would actually start being delivered (2) if I'd even be allocated one (highly unlikely), and, (3) just how GREEDY dealers will be "ADM"-wise........and.......depressingly, (4) whether or not I'll still have a driver's license by then.
So, I just dumped the whole idea right then and there.
 
Is the end to end total carbon footprint of a EV less than the comparable ICE automobile? I’m talking from mining iron ore, or lithium, through end of life recycling.
 
I believe the big deal is the ability to produce the energy cleaner than burning carbon. With wind and solar and hydro electric they are already a step ahead.That energy production will only get better.At the same time ICE vehicles are also getting more efficient and cleaner.I believe the biggest im pact is to come with the hybrid vehicle. They will fill the gap in rural areas and long distance travel for quite some time. In the end it will be a market driven process. It always is. Change is the only constant.
 
Is the end to end total carbon footprint of a EV less than the comparable ICE automobile? I’m talking from mining iron ore, or lithium, through end of life recycling.
Thing is we are currently at carbon to produce plus hydrocarbon to operate times the number of cars times lifespan of car. EVs do require carbon to produce and operate but we can cut that using renewable energy wherever possible throughout the production process. We are moving that direction, albeit very slowly. However, we can move much more quickly in reducing the number of cars consuming carbon-producing fuels over their lifetimes and as electricity moves towards renewables we get even more total carbon reduction.

No matter what, EV's are a net gain as far as lifetime reduction in CO2 output. Where the big push needs to be is in what supplies the energy to the system producing and charging those cars as more of them hit the road. If we keep bending a knee to the "that's the way we've always done it" industries profiteering off fossil fuels we'll never get there. We'll still need the oil industry - while there are synthetic lubricants, hydrocarbons will still be the best and easiest to produce. Same goes for plastics. As long as we can clean up the refinement process and don't burn much, we'll be using petro products for a long time still.
 
I’ve heard excellent fact based arguments on both sides recently, as well as impassioned lousy arguments.

I believe the real long term solution to clean reliable energy for humanity is ☢.

But that’s a discussion for another thread.
 

Randy V

Moderator-Admin
Staff member
Admin
Lifetime Supporter
Man who teaches F1 drivers how to drive uses a Vauxhall Astra :)

Very interesting video that I really enjoyed. Thank you for posting it!
 
I’ve heard excellent fact based arguments on both sides recently, as well as impassioned lousy arguments.

I believe the real long term solution to clean reliable energy for humanity is ☢.

But that’s a discussion for another thread.
I'm a fan as well. Unfortunately due to cost, fear-mongering, and for some reason the unwillingness of the US to re-process spent fuel it doesn't seem like nuclear will have a future. Reactors are ridiculously expensive to build, and a single failure does lasting damage. Hopefully fusion will get past the perpetually rolling "20 years to viability" problem - that EAST Tokamak fusion reactor China is working with has really made some strides.
 

Neil

Supporter
One thing that is never mentioned in discussing "carbon" (CO2) is that CO2 is essential to plant life. Plants absorb CO2 and produce oxygen (O2), which we breathe. As CO2 levels increase, plant life should flourish- including crops. Trees are an important source of photosynthesis-generated O2, as rain forest proponents keep telling us, but an even greater O2 source are the world's grasses!

I see graphs of the earth's mean temperature over time that shows a small increase over time and alarmists extrapolate this to claim that within 12 years we are all going to perish (that was 2 years ago). I have a problem taking these graphs seriously since accurate data has been available only for the past 2 or 3 hundred years. Before this, there are no accurate temperature measurements available since temperature metrology was not capable of such accuracy. To be meaningful, this data needs to be analyzed over thousands of years.

One more thing, if we are to believe that mankind is responsible for the increased temperature, where is the big temperature spike after World War I and again after World War II? There were zillions of BTUs released by explosives and fossile fuels during those periods. Also, the oceans were covered with oil from ships sunk during the wars but Mother Nature seems to have recovered.
 
There is data from thousand of years back.I have a friend who has studied in the antartic. They know what was in the atmosphere thousand of years ago from Ice cores.Fossil records also say alot.I have been a commercial fisherman for close to 50 yrs. things are rapidly changing.Marshes are diasppearing the sea level is rising. Cold water species are steadily moving north in search of colder water.Warm water species are moving north where they havent been before
Theses things are supposed to take thousands of years not a mans life time. Ocean acidification is a real problem(c02 at work).Shellfish shells are failing as well as the coral.
I am willing to bet that we burn more oil a day today than we did inWW2. The world is so much more developed now. Mother nature is still working on Deep water Horizon. Trust me I know on that one.
 

Neil

Supporter
Data from a thousand years back is nowhere near accurate enough to use for this purpose.
 
Data from a thousand years back is nowhere near accurate enough to use for this purpose.
Sorry dude my mistake. Ill get in touch with my buddy and find out for sure.I know its thousands and thousands .More than enough to convert him over.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
All I know for sure is if terrorists decide to totally destroy a coal-fired power plant...meeeeh...not such a big deal in either the long or short run.
But, if they decide to even cripple a nuke plant...?
That is not "fear mongering"(which always seems to be the counterpoint). That is acknowledging actual reality. Look what happened at Chernobyl or Fukushima without any criminal intent.

Also; say we spend the gadzillions of dollars radical environmentalists insist we need to spend to lower the Earth's temp by even 1/4th a degree in, say, 100 years-or-so...then somewhere along the line one-or-more super volcanoes blow their tops (Yellowstone, anyone?)...or the Sun's solar storm / Sun spot activity hits a record or two...or a large asteroid hits the Earth...or there's a kooky shift in the Earth's axis...or any one of countless other things happen over which man has no control at all. Then what? Will we have been spending all that money for nothing all those years?

What about something as basic as which "green energy" will be able to power ships, planes and freight trains? What green energy will, say, put communication satellites into orbit? And what good will it do if we find such a source but it bankrupts us in the process of finding or using it?

My own view is use green energy where it makes economic sense to do so, but continue to use fossil fuels where THEY make sense.


'Now heading off to get my second (and final!) cataract procedure done. 'Will just have to suffer the slings and arrows generated by my above comments later! The surgery has a much higher priority!
 

Randy V

Moderator-Admin
Staff member
Admin
Lifetime Supporter
Good discussion so far gents - I admire/appreciate your control...

Larry - good luck with your procedure!
 
You
One thing that is never mentioned in discussing "carbon" (CO2) is that CO2 is essential to plant life. Plants absorb CO2 and produce oxygen (O2), which we breathe. As CO2 levels increase, plant life should flourish- including crops. Trees are an important source of photosynthesis-generated O2, as rain forest proponents keep telling us, but an even greater O2 source are the world's grasses!

I see graphs of the earth's mean temperature over time that shows a small increase over time and alarmists extrapolate this to claim that within 12 years we are all going to perish (that was 2 years ago). I have a problem taking these graphs seriously since accurate data has been available only for the past 2 or 3 hundred years. Before this, there are no accurate temperature measurements available since temperature metrology was not capable of such accuracy. To be meaningful, this data needs to be analyzed over thousands of years.

One more thing, if we are to believe that mankind is responsible for the increased temperature, where is the big temperature spike after World War I and again after World War II? There were zillions of BTUs released by explosives and fossile fuels during those periods. Also, the oceans were covered with oil from ships sunk during the wars but Mother Nature seems to have recovered.
You are simultaneously right and wrong.

Plants do use CO2, but that observation is irrelevant to climate change. Humans are dumping far more than plants can use no matter how many trees we plant. Wouldn’t matter, we’re cutting them down too fast anyway.

You are right in the sense that the increase in CO2 is “small”. However, simply doubling the already small amount raises the global average temperature by several degrees. That’s all it takes. That’s enough to wreck the world as we know it. People keep acting like kicking dirt over trash, pouring stuff into the ocean, and dumping carbon into the atmosphere is NBD and it all just disappears without consequence. It’s not 1950 anymore.
 
It's not Orwell's 1984 either.
In all my years at sea.When there was water coming into the boat TURN ON THE PUMPS.Then go find the leak.Whats happening now is just so obvious.Turn on the pumps Slow the rise of co2.We then have some time to see if we are right.
Lets use the airplane analogy. 100 inspectors pilots and engineers have checked out the plane.97% say it not safe to fly.3% say it is. Are you gonna fly it?
 

Neil

Supporter
Making a choice for one's self is one thing but making a choice for everyone else is something else. I support a philosophy of "Do what you want but let others alone."

"It's for your own good" is how tyranny begins.
 
Top