Considerations on EV's

[dorankj]

So Mister Coffee since we are brothers on this issue (and you are so all knowing and knowledgeable) which BEV do you use and for how long/miles?

[dorankj]

PAL, your political type has been saying since the 60s and 70s that we couldn’t sustain our population (peak oil etc.) and here we are nearly 9 billion and people worldwide are living longer and healthier and more comfortable (100 years ago not even the richest had household A/C!)

So reality doesn’t support your premise but it supports mine (and no need for mass killings Al la Thanos)

However, it is legal if you wish to reduce the population by 1 so you got that.

[PAL]

I probaby won't be alive in 2035 anyway. What can be done for the people that are not able to afford an EV? Especially here in the Valley. There is Trango but not always convenient for the workers.
You still don't address the mining and the tires and the planes. There's gonna be a shift alright. And I hope I am not around for it.

[mister_coffee]

There is some kind of mandate for Wa. state by 2035.
...
But David, your last post is just tool simplistic for me.

Not really a mandate:

https://ecology.wa.gov/About-us/Who-we- ... ic-Comment

The reason I say that is that the proposed rule (1) specifies that new light vehicles sold in 2035 or later have to be zero emission. They can be electric, plug-in hybrid, hydrogen powered, or through some hitherto unspecified technology, and (2) if you still have a dinosaur burner in 2035 you can keep operating it -- although I will be rather surprised if you can find a convenient location to pump gas into it. So nobody is going to be forced at gunpoint to give up their Monster Goliaphant Greenland Melter, and the rules even make clear that you will have alternatives to electric vehicles (although I have severe doubts about hydrogen vehicles) come 2035. That can't really be called a mandate.

Simplistic? Yes, but sometimes things are damned simple We are witnessing a major technological shift right now, which will likely be followed by economic, social, cultural, and political shifts in approximately that order.

[PAL]

There is some kind of mandate for Wa. state by 2035. Google Inslee and Wa state in this regard. I don't remember the details.
On mining what people are ignoring is who is doing the mining, regardless of whether or not no new mines are needed. Here's a link that is quite informative. Don't look at human rights. It's easier not to.
https://www.business-humanrights.org/en ... -vehicles/

Of course, with mining in the US, we would never abuse children.

And Jingles, I got you wrong there on the mine. Oh yes, the Valley is growing and changing and not necessarily for the better. By that I mean, we better take a look at water and if there will be enough for the projected growth. Sewer capacity, etc.
Jingle, humans have had an impact on climate change. Methane from cattle and pig lots. We raise 'em, they produce alot of gas. When I said that yes, Nature does do her thing and will keep doing it, but lately or maybe for a long time she's had help. We can't help it that we are here. We should be here, but not billions and billions of us. That's what I mean by carrying capacity of the earth, Ken.
Also, technology will not save us. Here is a book, Techno Fix by Joyce Huesemann. There are many others on the subject as well as EV's.
Yes, David what you say is true, but those are the key words, "fast enough". And yes, it is step by step. Using fossil fuels to get to the next step.
Can anyone answer about tires and the manufacture of them? Is there a cleaner way to produce them.
I still maintain, we need to cut back on use.
So far this is a good discussion without anyone getting too nasty, but we know it's getting close and why?

But David, your last post is just tool simplistic for me.

[mister_coffee]

Where are the govt mandates to force you to buy an EV?

There aren't any. There are proposals to phase out sales of vehicles powered by fossil fuels though.

My own opinion is that this will happen on its own pretty rapidly. First because, as you pointed out, EVs are just plain better vehicles. Secondly, especially in urban areas, the land use cost for fueling stations is pretty high and using that land for pumping gas is pretty inefficient. EVs charging has a much smaller footprint and, over time, EV charging stations will be known as parking spaces. I strongly suspect that before any "EV mandates" go into effect people won't be able to purchase fuel in any convenient location for their dinosaur burners and most people will just go with an EV when they replace their cars.

I am one hundred percent convinced that the resource consumption issues with current EVs will be solved as manufacturing scales up.

Also, you still win if you burn fossil fuels to generate electricity to power EVs. This is because of the simple fact that one giant engine (which is effectively what a power plant is) can be far more efficient than many thousands of much smaller engines. And as we scale up renewables that problem will issue will go away like a bad memory.

[dorankj]

Washington and many states are mandating all electric vehicles by ‘35, maybe you need better news sources!

[Rideback]

Where are the govt mandates to force you to buy an EV?

Mandates to use masks and get vaccines all have historical prescedent, they have saved lives for over a hundred years. Get over it.

[dorankj]

Ah, Rideback always incorrect but never in doubt! (I’m looking forward to all your apologies about Covid, masks and ‘vaccines’)

FYI I actually own a BEV for my commute but I don’t agree with government mandates/control to force us.

[Rideback]

In no particular order; forests across this land are dying at faster rates because of climate change. A current study by Oregon State where they measured with aerial grids found the surprising result of millions of trees that are dying with the same result in a study in Calif. The trees are dying because of climate change drought and heat;

I don't understand why any individual given the opportunity to purchase an EV wouldn't want to. They can be charged at home or on the road for bare bones cost, they have less maintenance, they perform better than IC vehicles both in cold and hot temps and the promise of being able to keep $ in your pocket instead of giving it to the BIG OIL boys seems pretty John Wayne American to me.

EV's do have about 6x the amount of minerals needed to manufacture them than a IC vehicle. With the current technology leaping ahead we're seeing some of those resource issues fade away; ie, hydrogren, new batteries (see the Salton Sea in Calif research). But with geopolitics becoming more challenging globally daily it doesn't matter what fuel we're talking about, they all are in a turmoil. For decades people have complained about the size of the US defense budgets (and they've been right) but now with the Russian aggression ramped up and Russia cementing partnerships with China and Iran there's no doubt that security is more important than ever. The US has to protect international waters as long as there is global trading, if not to protect imports then to protect the commerce of trade of our exports. It's all interdependent now.

The climate is screaming at us to pay attention. Each season there are more and more extreme events, whether it's excessive heat, snow in SoCal, drenching rains, hurricanes that are moving further and further inland, record cyclones hitting Asia, Siberia warmer than Seattle, Siberian wildfires and methane leaks, 7 tornadoes hitting Oklahome in February, record winds in Ireland...and still the planet continues to warm.

[dorankj]

Or, solve our problems/issues through innovation and technology. And how do you best get innovation and technology? Profit motive and government that protects personal property rights I.e. capitalism!

Otherwise, feel free to offer yourself and/or your family to reduce our population that’s it.

[mister_coffee]

On climate change:

We know that carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas. Without trace quantities of it in our atmosphere the average temperate on Earth would be well below freezing.

We know that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have been increasing for some time, probably over 200 years. We have very good data showing that carbon dioxide levels have been rapidly increasing since 1950.

We know because of the isotope mixture of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and how it has changed over time, that the new atmospheric carbon dioxide is very likely from fossil fuels.

You can make reasonable good-faith arguments about how much of a temperature change you can expect to see based on the changes we have experienced so far, within limits. You can't make a reasonable argument that it is not happening, cannot happen, or won't happen.

On the carrying capacity of the planet:

You couldn't pack the world population safely into Texas. There wouldn't be enough water for them and many would die of thirst. The point is that carrying capacity is not driven by available space, but by resource availability. You can debate a lot about what resource is the controlling one (reference: The Law of the Minimum) but the truth is that we aren't really sure, and probably cannot know until it is bluntly too late to do anything about it except watch many people die.

[dorankj]

Isn’t comparing non-related statements non-sequitur?! Both put things in perspective in their own rite. I agree with Reagan’s statement, we can in fact grow more trees so stopping all logging here (and then getting all our wood products from Canada) is pretty stupid/short sided.

[just-jim]

The planet is absolutely NOT past it’s “carrying capacity”! Technology (and capitalism) has reduced death and increased life expectancy and comfort around the world for the last 100 years. BTW, the entire earth’s population can live in single family homes (4 people per house) on 10,000 sq.ft. lots in the land area of the state of Texas.

Saying the planet is not now over populated because everyone can live in Texas is like the old Ronald Reagan/Rush Limbaugh non sequiter that “we don’t have a problem with forests in this country, ‘cause there are more trees here now than when the Mayflower landed”….it’s counting tree stems, not the value of Forests.
It’s an absolutely useless description that belittles the real questions in front of us.

[Jingles]

Jingles, unfortunately the video is correct in one sense about the mining. But guess where the mining is taking place, mainly, not in this country but the 3rd. World countries. (No we are not 3rd. World yet, and I don't even like to call them that) Anyway, EV's will not save the planet or be the solution.
They may reduce the pollution in the air and the exuding of fossil fuels but not the use of fossil fuels to make them.
I do not believe that a copper mine here in the Valley would have been a good thing,So yeah, not in our backyard. I think you and maybe a small handful of others were for it.
Again, can people fly less? That's some real fossil fuel use. They won't. People like their convenient lifestyles.
Can people drive less? They won't. They might like showing off their EV.
But what are the solutions? Climate change is real. The earth through the ages has always been changing. But there are more of us and we do influence it. The no no subject is that the planet is beyond it's carrying capacity. Too many people.

Pearl
I do have mixed feelings about there being a copper mine here in the valley. Part of me, the prospector part, would be in favor as everything man wears uses or eats is either farmed or mined, and part of me says no to the mine because of the possible detrimental impact it could of had regardless of how many safety and environmental precautions are taken and are now required for a mine to operate, however with the population of this valley exploding and changing, that alone IMO, has had a significantly larger detrimental impact on the valley compared to what it was 35 years ago.
As far as climate change and how does man alter it? basically we don't, mother nature does it, there are cycles of global warming and cooling throughout history of the planet. I think back to when I was in HS and the big "fear" concern was we were at the beginning of a new Ice age if man did not change their ways, then there was the concern that if man did not change their ways the ozone layer would be destroyed and humankind would be eliminated due to solar radiation or some such "BS", well no ice age arrived, the ozone is still intact and both those got put aside for Global Warming, again changed to now Climate Change. Well yes the climate does change and naturally as is evidenced by past history.

Vern Herrst

[just-jim]

Great - unknown dude, from unknown background (lobbyist?), in unknown place, railing against an ‘administration’…state or federal, in some point in time….coulda been 5 or 10 years ago. Simplistic 2 minute tic toc videos don’t tell the story very well…

One of the key principles of doing economic comparisons side by side - i.e Benefit/Cost - is that you must account for ALL the costs and ALL the benefits.

So…in this imaginary case above: while yes, EV cars require more mining (although the 6x probably came out of a dark hole, too), they DO have benefits which must be included; x number of people do NOT get sick with lung disease, die early, children don’t develop asthma, etc. All these effects have well established, long researched costs. Those are direct benefits of EVs. There are other indirect societal benefits, like less noise pollution.

To the continuing COST of NOT going EV - you would need to add in, over the life of each gas/diesel vehicle, the cost of drilling, refining, transportation by ship, pipeline, railroad or truck. AND the costs of replacing and maintaining all that infrastructure over the life of the average vehicle….say 10 years? Oh, and the cost of dismantling and eventually cleaning up all the production and transportation infrastructure. And the costs of almost certain ensuing toxic spills and other environmental cleanup. This dismantling is exactly what is happening in the North Sea now - it is going to take decades to cleanup and dismantle the 50 years of oil production, there. It is TENS of Billions of $$ that the oil companies and the governments of the UK, Norway, Germany, Denmark and others share in. (I know something about this, as my father was in charge of building a big chunk of it).

Now, add in as a COST on the gas/diesel side - the continuing health problems, again well documented, due to fossil fuel use. And all the other societal problems.

Yes, we will need more electric infrastructure. That has been well recognized by electrical generators and suppliers for quite a while. Not a surprise, but is a cost.

I’d bet this analysis has already been done. And I bet EV comes out near top of the stack as far as cost/benefits go….and maybe even ahead by a bit. At worst, It might be a wash, but that is just my guess…..which is probably about as close as the guesses of the anonymous dude in the video.

So, don’t go too far down that rectal/cranial road…..you might end up looking pretty funny with your own head up your…..
.

[mister_coffee]

That video is a wildly ignorant interpretation of reality.

The reality is that the vast majority of the material we need for electric cars we can get from existing mines, if we'd just process all of the material from other mines. Most of the time you don't have a specialized cobalt mine, and don't need one.

The other reality is that technologies don't track linearly, and as we get better at manufacturing something we can change paths to cheaper and more available materials over time. So it isn't rational in any way to extrapolate from how things are made today to how things might be made in even five years. And the technology will in all likelihood move that fast.

[dorankj]

The planet is absolutely NOT past it’s “carrying capacity”! Technology (and capitalism) has reduced death and increased life expectancy and comfort around the world for the last 100 years. BTW, the entire earth’s population can live in single family homes (4 people per house) on 10,000 sq.ft. lots in the land area of the state of Texas.

[PAL]

Jingles, unfortunately the video is correct in one sense about the mining. But guess where the mining is taking place, mainly, not in this country but the 3rd. World countries. (No we are not 3rd. World yet, and I don't even like to call them that) Anyway, EV's will not save the planet or be the solution.
They may reduce the pollution in the air and the exuding of fossil fuels but not the use of fossil fuels to make them.
I do not believe that a copper mine here in the Valley would have been a good thing,So yeah, not in our backyard. I think you and maybe a small handful of others were for it.
Again, can people fly less? That's some real fossil fuel use. They won't. People like their convenient lifestyles.
Can people drive less? They won't. They might like showing off their EV.
But what are the solutions? Climate change is real. The earth through the ages has always been changing. But there are more of us and we do influence it. The no no subject is that the planet is beyond it's carrying capacity. Too many people.

[Jingles]

This person pretty well spells it out that those mandating and saying everyone should go EV to save the planet has a cranial Anal Insertion

VID-20221223-WA0002.mp4

(10.42 MiB) Downloaded 78 times