Electric cars like Teslas now cheaper to own than gas cars in Europe - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2020, 07:19:17 pm
content: I'm sure this is going to stir some debate in the forum.I was an not a fan of EV's until my wife told me she would make my engine purr if we purchased an EV. We did and not only is my wife still continuing to make my engine purr, after driving an EV for several for several months I have to admit I really like it. (Don't tell my wife that.) Next car I get will defiantly be an EV. I'm won't be buying an ICE car ever again.https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-evs-cheaper-than-gas-cars-study/

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2020, 07:24:44 pm
content: I wonder what their £27,921 EV car and petrol £22,976 car might be? I don't know any similar ICE and EV cars that close in price.

author: jc101
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2020, 08:03:07 pm
content: That report says it covers costs over 14 years. Will an EV cars batteries be serviceable after 14 years? Are there any stats available for EV battery life over time?

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2020, 09:38:53 pm
content: Quote from: jc101 on July 22, 2020, 08:03:07 pmEVs have been around for over 10 years now. Owners who have had cars for about 10 years claim very little batter degradation. Remember EV batteries don't go from 100% charge to 100% discharge so it would be easy not to see any battery degradation over time.

author: greenpossum
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2020, 09:56:16 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 22, 2020, 07:19:17 pmWay to go! That's the spirit!

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2020, 10:11:36 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 22, 2020, 09:38:53 pmNo battery is charged from 100% charge to 100% discharge. This thread honestly sounds a bit rosy. I've heard owners of the earlier generations hybrids writing off their car in comparatively few years as the batteries were toast. I don't have any numbers on modern cars but I'd love to see how they do in actual numbers.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2020, 09:05:51 am
content: I have a VW Golf GTE PHEV, which runs partly on electric and partly on petrol (about 85% - 15%) and I love it.The costs including the loan to purchase an expensive car put it at the same price as my 10 year old Ford Focus.Though the charge port has started to play up which I need to fix.

author: f4eru
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2020, 11:06:26 am
content: Yes, I confirm. My first Tesla has definitely been much much cheaper to ownin the first yearthan my previous shitty old diesel ICE.My second coming Tesla will also be.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2020, 05:16:13 pm
content: I was expecting a bunch of negative posts. At least that's what's happened in the past when there's a favorable post about EVs. I guess times are changing and the anti-EV folks are now realizing the advantages of an EV.

author: Neilm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2020, 06:26:32 pm
content: I have owned a Tesla since September and had just put 15,000 miles on it. I'm paying about 1.5 pence per mile and that is the only cost. No big service (my hybrid it was £500 for small services £800 for majors) no repairs, not even tyres. Only thing so far is washer fluid.I calculated that (in a Covid free world) I'd be saving about £1,500 a year. Over the time I was paying out for the car it worked out on par with the hybrid I was comparing it too.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2020, 06:33:16 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 23, 2020, 05:16:13 pmNo, we are just fed up with people living the pipe dream.The article you linked to shows a difference of 3%. The error margin on such a calculation is easily +/- 25%. And another thing to take into account is risk management which is very important once a car goes out of warranty. If you want to drive with a car for many years then one of the key purchase factors should be cost of repairs. Every car has problems; the biggest question is whether these are expensive problems or not. It takes quite a bit of homework and number crunching to find the car which is the cheapest to run.BTW: KPMG is doing a mobility surveye every year. The one from 2019 shows that most people in Europe are wanting to buy a hybrid between now and 2025. EVs and hydrogen cars are on par at around 10%. The executives from car manufacturers are expecting EVs and hydrogen cars to be on par by 2030 to 2040 but the majority of the cars sold will be ICE based. Google it; there is lots of interesting reading material in there.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2020, 09:49:23 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 23, 2020, 06:33:16 pmHey I remember you. A while back you were telling everyone in the forums just how biomass fuels were going to power the world with some new technology from the Neterlands. How did that work out?In an article published just a few days ago.... "The Netherlands should phase out the use of biomass for generating electricity as soon as possible, the advisory board of the Dutch government said in a report presented earlier this month."Looks like your recommendation that bio-mass fuels are the future didn't workout. And wasn't that what everyone was telling you 2-3 years ago?

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2020, 10:07:43 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 23, 2020, 09:49:23 pmThe ECT has an ISDS mechanism ... the advice of that commission is irrelevant. We are going to burn tons of American, Eastern European and Russian forests and there's nothing common sense can do about it.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2020, 10:58:56 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 23, 2020, 09:49:23 pmI'd suggest you make your bait a bit less obvious. Poking the beehive can be fun but beware of the bees catching on.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2020, 11:03:05 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on July 23, 2020, 10:58:56 pmHave you read the crap this guy has posted in the past? He posted post after post of honest to good information based totally on false information.

author: ahbushnell
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 02:05:22 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 22, 2020, 07:19:17 pmWhat are your thoughts on long trips? Like thousands of miles? I always worry there would be a lot of time spent waiting for the car to charge?I have a PHEV hybrid. I use electricity around town 95% of the time. I just took a long trip and used gas.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 05:10:59 am
content: Quote from: ahbushnell on July 24, 2020, 02:05:22 amPure EV’s have the ability to “fast charge”. From what I understand it takes 20 mins to get 80% charged and you are good for another 300 - 350 miles or so. The only drawback I see with a pure EV is if there is a power outage which lasts for days. Or holidays time at the shopping mall. I’ve seen 14 Tesla’s lined up waiting to get a charge. I guess Tesla owners go to the mall to do holiday shopping they think they are the only Tesla owners who will need a charge.Like you I have a PHEV. For day to day it's rare for thr engine to kick in. But when I wan to drive to LA, Oregon or Lake Tahoe, (I live near San Francisco), I can make it using the ICE nad not having to worry about where to get a charge. (Or having to wait in line to get a charge).

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 05:18:46 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 24, 2020, 05:10:59 amCharging that fast is harsh on the battery, requires you to detour to where such a high power charger is located, requires it to be available for use.. Handy to have a few, not the ultimate solution.But seeing as, vocal objections from a minority of mostly impatient, selfish people aside, thevastmajority of drivers do not need to undertake long trips on a regular basis, and car hire is readily available and cheap around most of the planet if you need a longer range vehicle, it's not a very good argument against EVs.I've taken a trip recently which would be a stretch for some EVs, and I will again within the month most likely. I hired a car last time, this time around I have a car I can trust for a longer trip. If I had an EV and no way to charge it at the other end, I'd just hire a car again. Costs about the same as a train ticket.Remember, we don't have to eliminate all traces of ICE, just get the numbers down.

author: uer166
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 06:14:33 am
content: "Finding a gas station requires you to detour to where such such a large gas storage tank is located, requires it to be available for use.. Handy to have a few, not the ultimate solution."It's really a non-issue, a coast-to-coast Tesla roadtrip today takes about the same time as an ICE roadtrip. There are a few edge cases when there's some event somewhere and a bunch of people try to supercharge at the same place, and power outages, although that is not a common real-world problem.Series hybrids definitely have a place, I wish the Volt didn't die, it's a very good concept for cheaper cars vs. full-EV, yet virtually almost as clean since 99% of driving is not road trips. Ideal case is by 2030 to have something like 50% pure EV (higher-end cars), and cheap series hybrids for the lower end.Edit: oh and battery wear during fast charge is a concern, which is why fast-charging is mostly reserved for road trips which are not a daily thing. Also 80kW urban "superchargers" are much less harsh than blasting a Model 3 at 230kW with a gen3 supercharger.This is all Tesla-only infrastructure of course but others DC charger companies are catching up.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 11:50:29 am
content: Quote from: Monkeh on July 24, 2020, 05:18:46 amSure, but it's an infrequent event. There was a Tesla that was running every day between SF and LA - and supercharging twice a day. The battery still had 90% SoH after 200,000 miles (3 years of usage) and that's an extremely aggressive profile.The worst aspect of repeated fast charging is not capacity degradation, but charge rate degradation. As the battery wears, it becomes less able to accept fast charging without the risk of anode cracking, which can lead to cell failure. Manufacturers are iterating on this but the Model S will reduce the fast-charge speed by around 20% after around 20,000kWh of fast charging - roughly equivalent to 60,000 supercharger miles. So the technology still needs to improve but I would say that for most people in the UK and Europe, travelling 12k miles per annum, they will be unlikely to hit this limit given most of their charging will be done at home or work on 7kW points.

author: ahbushnell
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 01:15:28 pm
content: Quote from: uer166 on July 24, 2020, 06:14:33 amI suggest you go to the tesla trip planning web site and enter a long trip. Say San Diego to Denver in a model 3 per Tesal, and look at the number of hours you spend charging.Barston 30Primm, NV 55St. George, UT 30Beaver, TU 65Green River, UT 25Grand Junction 25Glenwood Springs, CO 35Total Minutes charging 265That's over 4.4 hours charging timeGoogle Driving time is 15 hours 22 minutesIt's easy to say people don't do that. But I do. I really would like a full electric. But it would have to be a second car.If you drive from San Diego toward Dallas in your Model 3, you get to spend a hour next to a McDonalds in Gilla Bend. Not a good thing in the summer. I went through there recently in my PHEV and waved.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 01:16:01 pm
content: Quote from: uer166 on July 24, 2020, 06:14:33 amBut we already have that infrastructure, it doesn't require a massive connection to the electrical grid, it takes a fraction of the time to utilise, and can achieve higher 'charging' density.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 01:24:40 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 23, 2020, 11:03:05 pmIt's the other posts in this thread too. That criticism isn't really addressed doesn't help either.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 01:32:15 pm
content: My poor PEV has been stopped for more than a year and a half now, because I like the diesels better. Bought a few of these the other day:Just for fun, and a sticker:Have a nice day, Musk-eteers!

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 04:00:44 pm
content: Quote from: ahbushnell on July 24, 2020, 01:15:28 pmI'm sure there are some people that drive 15 hours in one day, but surely that is an edge case? How many people just fly this kind of route? (Or in Europe, take the train.)The cost of gas, plus the wear and tear on your vehicle, plus the need to stay awake for so long (and the risk of an accident due to tiredness or a medical emergency like a seizure) would be significant factors in my decision against driving for such a long period of time continuously.I'd also ask why you aren't stopping every 4-5 hours anyway to have a rest and bathroom break. My bladder range is around 200 miles, especially as I drink plenty of caffeine while driving. 10-15 minute break eats up a lot of that charging time. Plus maybe one visit to a restaurant to get a bite to eat. Not particularly safe to drive while hungry.I think all considered that while there are use cases where EVs don't make sense, if the one case you can think of involves 15 hours of driving, then it's surely not a common use case. Remember that with an EV you won't have to regularly visit a gas station for normal use as the car can charge overnight, and the cost per mile is about 1/3rd as much per mile (for comparable vehicles - it's still a $50k vehicle which means depreciation is a significant factor.) So even if it adds, say, 4 hours to your twice-a-year 15 hour trips, it gives you 15 minutes back every other week.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 04:02:32 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 24, 2020, 01:32:15 pmWhat's on the back of the shirt, "COIVD is a hoax" ?

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 04:11:05 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 24, 2020, 04:02:32 pmNo, it says MarkDice.com :-)

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 04:59:24 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 24, 2020, 04:11:05 pmLooks like Dice is one of those people who had a chip implanted by the Chinese or Russians. But they screwed-up and placed in his left hemisphere instead of the right. Is he one of these guy's who thinks COVID is a hoax? Or that is was bio-engineered by the Chinese to dominate the world? And that Americans and Europeans aren't smart enough to mutate the virus to render it harmless.You've got to love these chipped Christians and their alternate view of reality.

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 06:33:15 pm
content: I drive about 100k miles a year(excluding covid) so I'm pretty sure I'll stick to my $5000 cars and do the maintenance it needs. Even when my M3 required a rebuild I did it in my garage for about $1000. At 35mpg highway I don't think an EV will basically ever pay off.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 06:36:48 pm
content: Quote from: maginnovision on July 24, 2020, 06:33:15 pmSeems to me you would be one of the people who would benefit from an EV. You are one of those people who would save a lot of money by driving an EV.

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 06:40:39 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 24, 2020, 04:59:24 pmDice has journalistic chops. And gets a bigger audience from his kitchen than some CNN anchors get. He actively lobbys against the suppression of independent news.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 06:44:09 pm
content: Quote from: maginnovision on July 24, 2020, 06:33:15 pmAnd you think 35mpg is good or something?

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 06:49:07 pm
content: Quote from: Ed.Kloonk on July 24, 2020, 06:40:39 pmWhat exactly is independent news? Christians like Dice try and pass creationism and Intelligent Design off as independent science or news. But is he really a Christian? Or is he one of those "Christians" who makes lots of money off of Christians by saying he's a Christian? You got to love Christians who believe what they are told to believe and nothing else.

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 06:53:06 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 24, 2020, 06:49:07 pmI don't know about any of that but he did bother to go to D.C. and get in trump's face to speak for youtubers and youtube jail. Though, something tells me that prolly doesn't matter to you.

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 06:54:25 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 24, 2020, 06:36:48 pmNo, I actually wouldn't have the time to do it at all. I don't even stop for gas until about 400-450 miles.Quote from: Monkeh on July 24, 2020, 06:44:09 pmYes, you're unlikely to find an M3 that gets the mileage I get.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 06:56:44 pm
content: Quote from: maginnovision on July 24, 2020, 06:54:25 pmThat doesn't answer the question, does it?If I did 100k miles a year I would consider that an appalling waste of fuel when substantially more efficient vehicles are readily available.

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 06:59:34 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on July 24, 2020, 06:56:44 pmThat literally does answer the question.QuoteYou can find it whatever you want. If you want me to manage 80mph and get better mileage buy me a new car.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 07:05:00 pm
content: Quote from: maginnovision on July 24, 2020, 06:59:34 pmI asked if you thought 35mpg was good, not whether you think it's good for a specific vehicle. My previous, poorly running, beaten up car could beat 35mpg doing 80mph crusing easily. And yes, I know you use different gallons - I can math.Really, really rough math suggests, at such poor mileage, that an electric vehicle could pay off in under 10 years.Of course, I don't know what you're doing your 100k miles for, but with an M3 I can't see that it's much more than moving your arse, so there's no much excuse for poor economy there.

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 07:07:44 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on July 24, 2020, 07:05:00 pmI answered Yes while adding information. Do you want me to shout it from the roof tops? It gets better than either of my civics do or did when they were brand new. Also, I'm pretty certain I wouldn't be able to do those miles with an electric car at all or how well they'd hold up to fast charging a couple times a day over a million miles(your calculated break even).

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 07:11:33 pm
content: Quote from: maginnovision on July 24, 2020, 07:07:44 pmNow, that is a valid point. I didn't actually suggest an electric car in their current incarnations would be practical..We have many, many vehicles over here in the rest of the world which are capable of at least 50mpg. In theory, mine should do 55mpg highways, I just haven't taken it for a nice long cruise anywhere without mountains to climb yet.

author: ahbushnell
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 07:12:30 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 24, 2020, 04:00:44 pmIt's not common use in the UK, but in the western US many people go on vacations for long distances. You don't see the beautiful country from the 35,000 feet. There are many people it's not a factor who are local. When I go see my Dad it's about 20 hours total in two days.Also it doesn't take an one hour charging stop to go to the bathroom.For now I'll use my PHEV and get electric most of the time and gas when I need it.

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 07:18:55 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on July 24, 2020, 07:11:33 pmI take my bike when I can which gets about 50mpg combined city/highway. 44mpg if I'm really racing around usually just for fun though not commuting. Long trips I really prefer not to take it for a couple reasons. Small fuel tank is one, and two is the more tired I get the more dangerous I am. No AC, no heat, lots of wind(compared to a car). I recently had a small accident after 3.5 hours of riding in about 105F heat. I just wasn't able to keep hydrated and put it down before I hit a guardrail.If we had the money we'd probably have an EV for my wife but the reduced driving puts the break even waaaay further out. We have 3 cars that are paid off. Maybe the VW ID.3 will be good if it ever comes out.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 07:21:21 pm
content: Quote from: ahbushnell on July 24, 2020, 07:12:30 pmAnd the thought of hiring a vehicle for a specific, occasional task is not agreeable? Sometimes I need a van, I don't own one and drive it to the supermarket twice a week because I might actually need it twice a year.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 07:34:24 pm
content: Anyone looking at the used EV market? My friend, who was anti-EV as I was before I purchased mine was looking for a "new" used car. His budget was around $15,000. He was not even considering an EV. I told him just to test drive one. He did and decided not to even look at ICE cars anymore. In the $10,000 to $20,000 price range there is quite a selection of EV's to choose from. He spent $16,000 and purchased a Volt. After one winter of ownership in Pennsylvania he said he would NEVER buy an ICE again. The Volt is perfect. He gets up to 70 miles EV in the summer and 35 in the winter. He hasn't purchased gas in months. He gets free charging where he works, so he doesn't even have to pay for the electricity to charge the car.He has already saved a bundle in fuel and maintenance costs. So even used EV's are a good deal. Sure beats having to rebuild an engine and having to change oil.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 07:44:45 pm
content: Bought my first one (models S-75) seven years ago. DISCLAIMER , 6 months i thought this piece of engineering was so phenomenal i decided i wanted to work for that company, so i did, and still do.Now i have an X90D and my wife drives a S75D.- Never did any kind of maintenance ( apart from a set of tires and windshield washer fluid )- Zero repairs- Charge where-ever we shop. plug it in , go shopping (costco, walmart, Target, whatever ) by the time i'm done the car is full.- Long distance : San Jose to San Diego. not a problem. drive for 3 hours, grab a bite to eat while charging and then roll on. Chargers are conveniently placed where you can do a pit-stop and fill up your stomach as well.- Take it to far flung places: carry the charger cable. Car eats anything. 110 volt 240 volt , 15 ampere to 80 ampere. It'll charge from a light socket if needed. Even sipping 15 ampere at 110 volt it gains 4 to 5 miles an hour. So if you really must go to that remote cabin next to the lake : arrive there at 2PM , plug it in and by next morning 8AM you have added 90 miles of range. We took it to clearlake once and charged it that way directly off a solar inverter . We were there for 2 days and left with a full pack...- Go solar. Just bought a new home. installing a 18Kw array and 4 powerwalls. My monthly payment for the installation is lower than my electricity bill and i produce so much power i get money from the power company... The entire home can run at night from the powerwalls and still charge the cars as well.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 10:14:00 pm
content: The fundamental problem seems to be that a car gives the freedom to go anywhere whenever you want. With the current electric limitations, that's only partially true and longer trips take a fair amount of planning. Some will say that's a tiny portion and some will say it's a relevant portion. I think both are true.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 10:30:44 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 24, 2020, 07:34:24 pmYou may want to tone it down a tad. Your pitch is essentially that everyone is an instant convert, everyone wins and even that women take care of men with EV's. It all makes it sound EVs can't stand on their own legs. Currently they make different kinds of sense to different people and use cases and it's best for everyone to be realistic about what to expect and what to forget about. You don't want to contend with unhappy men, nor their called upon wives! It'd also be good to disclose any skin in the game.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2020, 11:08:00 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on July 24, 2020, 10:14:00 pmIsn't the reason one ones a car is for the freedom to go anywhere whenever you want? If you didn't have a car you would be flying, taking a bus, boat or walking. Taking a long trip in an ICE requires some planning just as taking a trip in an EV does as well.If you have an ICE vehicle won't you pay attention to the signs in the attached photos?

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 12:51:03 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 22, 2020, 07:19:17 pmIntersting opening for a US'ian to quote a UK analysis, which itself off hand mentions a US analysis (which cannot be located).UK and Norway are not representative examples of car running costs:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/problems-if-we-all-had-tesla-cars/msg705793/#msg705793They might be interesting for people living in those countries, but comparisons from there are hiding behind all the layers of explicit and implicit market forces their governments have chosen to use (almost exclusively weighing on making ICE vehicles more expensive). Even the US is on the unusual end of the relative consumer costs of electricity vs transport petroleum fuels.In Australia the comparisons get extended to ridiculous extremes:https://www.racv.com.au/royalauto/moving/news-information/electric-vehicle-running-costs.htmlQuote from: RACVIf you compare like for like, be that within the same brand or not, electric cars still don't add up economically for the many buyers... unless these sorts of misleading comparisons are made. But there will always be niches at both ends. Leading into this:Quote from: Monkeh on July 24, 2020, 07:21:21 pmIdiots on both sides try to claim ultimate and complete wins for their favoured option, which is plainly stupid. Both types of vehicles (with their radically different characteristics) are suited for different purposes. Reality is, most households can replace one or more of their existing ICE vehicles with an electric and it wouldn't change their current patterns of use. Rentals are great options to cover occasional needs.Economics are entirely dependent on local pricing (second hand EV's might be available easily in US/JP but they aren't in other markets) and predictions of future costs which are open to change. Its widely predicted that once electric vehicles make a significant fraction of the on road fleet there will be some mechanism to tax their use and replace fuel taxes (the current proxy for vehicle use).

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 12:52:01 am
content: Quote from: ahbushnell on July 24, 2020, 07:12:30 pmIt seems you are not a typical UK PHEV user. I've seen two studies now that show most PHEVs in the UK are NEVER EVER plugged in. This could well be a quirk of British car usage, where a huge number of new cars are bought by businesses, and the user has no incentive to save fuel, and might well need to pay for the electricity if they charge the car.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 12:59:09 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 24, 2020, 11:08:00 pmThat's usually not really an issue if you don't live in a third world country and I wouldn't fancy your chances of finding a charging station either. Again, all these pretend arguments are making EVs look bad when there are actually real use cases where they make sense. Zealots professing overly rosy tales only add a fishy smell.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 01:11:38 am
content: Quote from: maginnovision on July 24, 2020, 07:18:55 pmSo even your bike is a comedically inefficient use of fossil fuels, got it. You're living with an extremely US centric view. Just as a recent specific poster who thought nothing of pouring 1,875 kWh of highly refined energy per month into keeping their miniature pool at a comfortable temperature constantly:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/how-safe-is-it-to-use-a-ssr-to-control-power-to-a-spa-or-use-a-relay/?allthat consumption alone, more than the average US electricity consumption per capita, 6 times more than the average world per capita consumption, more in one month than my households entire annual use.If you want to boast about fuel efficiency, leading performance for cars is around the 4l/100km or 70/60 mpg (pick your units). Vehicles meeting that sort of figure come across a range from miniature city cars to large luxury cars.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 01:21:16 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on July 25, 2020, 12:59:09 amYes, given electric charge stations are less common than petrol stations it would be unlikely that a no fuel sign covered a section where there was easily available electricity for vehicle charging. ICE vehicles have had range estimates on their dashes for quite some time, just like EVs do. Both usually have maps showing you where/when suitable refilling stations are. But EV's haven't penetrated the market enough to warrant "no charging stations XXkm ahead" signs yet.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 03:34:34 am
content: Quote from: Someone on July 25, 2020, 01:21:16 amPetrol stations are ubiquitous in most developed parts of the world and refueling is a comparatively minor task to the point of not having to plan for fuel. Peeing tends to happen more frequently and take more time than refueling an ICE. Most commuters won't run into these kinds of issues with their EV but I can see how the introduction of layovers to cars impacts the appeal. It's somewhat contradictory to why people choose to drive. People are terrible at giving up convenience they're used to.

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 04:29:04 am
content: Quote from: Someone on July 25, 2020, 01:11:38 amThat's nice. I'm sort of confused about the pool conversation. It's not mine and I'm not him. Are these cars free too?https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/cars-with-the-best-gas-mileageaccording to this the best you're getting is 58mpg and it'd cost me quite a lot up front. I'm actually NOT boasting about fuel efficiency, I'm saying I'm happy with what my cars do. The cars I own not the cars I don't want and definitely wouldn't buy with the economy going to shit.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 05:04:25 am
content: Quote from: maginnovision on July 25, 2020, 04:29:04 amPointing back to an exclusively US list of vehicles in a thread titled "Electric cars like Teslas now cheaper to own than gas cars in Europe" keeps pushing your incongruous US centric view. Yes, the US do things inefficient, its easy to be inefficient. This has little to do with the economics or available vehicles in Europe, where efficiency has been a bigger selling point of vehicles. Even brands with dealerships in the US that do have efficient vehicles in their stable/models don't sell them in the US market (probably don't see a big enough market for it).If your motorbike is using more fuel than a car, thats inefficient.Also feel free to keep moving the goalposts if thats your thing:Quote from: maginnovision on July 24, 2020, 06:33:15 pmIf you really are travelling 100k miles/year then a more efficient car is likely to have a very short payback period on just the fuel savings (be that an EV or ICE). I know as I bought a car just for its fuel savings and it paid off the purchase cost in less than 100,000km.

author: ahbushnell
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 05:39:16 am
content: Quote from: coppice on July 25, 2020, 12:52:01 amYou got it right!!! I'm not a typical UK PHEV. More like California.

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 05:54:37 am
content: Quote from: Someone on July 25, 2020, 05:04:25 amI'm not moving goalposts. I also mentioned earlier that I own the cars I drive and don't need to buy new ones that likely won't pay off. The reason I only look at US cars? I'm in the US, I figured that's as good a reason as any. Same as my numbers being US mpg, not Imperial which I suspect you're using since you say 4L/100km is 70mpg when in the US it's not, it's only 58mpg. The OP is also in America so I thought it'd be useful to use those numbers even though he quoted an out of country study.I'm sort of confused why you're so angry. Would it make you feel better if I told you I had solar panels? I do have solar panels. No pool though.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 06:56:29 am
content: Quote from: maginnovision on July 25, 2020, 05:54:37 amJumping between combined and highway measures of fuel economy, from undefined test sequences. Seems like moving goalposts. And instead of addressing the point of the discussion, you just claim to be correct in your retroactive framing.... the definition of moving goalposts:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpostsQuote from: maginnovision on July 25, 2020, 05:54:37 amhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figuresQuote from: Someone on July 25, 2020, 01:11:38 amQuote from: maginnovision on July 25, 2020, 05:54:37 amBecause your basic premises are broken, yet you keep coming back and defending them as a proud US'ian... which is exactly the problem you refuse to see. You seem to be angling for a fight.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 08:04:36 am
content: Quote from: Monkeh on July 24, 2020, 06:44:09 pmIt's very good in fact, yes, because the A/C alone eats about a litre per hour.(35 US mpg == 6.7 litre/100km)

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 08:34:30 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on July 24, 2020, 10:14:00 pmA car can't fly or drive on water. That's not "anywhere". It just so happens that hydrocarbons let it go anywhere on land within range of a gas station.EVs are nearly there. Porsche Taycan can fast charge in 12 minutes (5% to 90%). In another decade this will be commonplace and there will be almost no reasonable arguments against electric vehicles.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 08:37:43 am
content: Quote from: coppice on July 25, 2020, 12:52:01 amBig problem with UK PHEVs is the BIK was very generous - i.e. your employer could give it to you virtually tax free - but you then had to pay for the electric and charging point. There's a BMW 330e PHEV up the road from me, I've NEVER seen it plugged in. But mine (pre-Covid) was plugged in every night and I was running 2-3 months between tanks of petrol. They are great vehicles for short commutes but the fuel economy is about the same (maybe 5-10% better with the hybrid system) on longer trips.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 08:41:02 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 25, 2020, 08:34:30 amWithin range of a gas tank you mean. And nothing stops you to carry a few more cans of fuel in the trunk if you want. Try that with an EV.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 08:44:36 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 25, 2020, 08:37:43 amThat's not right. On a long journey a hybrid should be similar or worse for fuel consumption than an ICE car. A hybrid without a big charged battery is mostly a kinetic energy recovery system, and long journeys don't get a lot from that. Its city driving where its a big win. On a long journey you pay the cost of having hundreds of kilos of extra car, without compensating factors.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 09:42:42 am
content: Quote from: coppice on July 25, 2020, 08:44:36 amNot really. It's a lot more complex than you think.ICEs are really bad under light load, their thermal efficiency drops right off. My Golf GTE switches to operating on the electric motor only on hybrid operation if engine load is low. So in roadworks at 50 mph on the flat, the engine is typically off, and the car is putting about 2-3kW into the electric motor to retain the speed of the vehicle. The engine ticks on periodically if you hit a hill or if the car accelerates. (There seems to be some logic that attempts to keep the engine in a good operating point, so if it begins to cool down too much it will start using it again.)There is also the benefit that if the engine needs to be operating that the electric motor can pull energy from the engine if it makes it more thermally efficient, using that to charge the battery. Then when the engine is under lighter load, the electric motor can feed in this energy into the wheels. You can see it periodically doing this if looking at the real-time energy consumption figures. Engine efficiency isn't a flat curve - it's highly torque- and RPM-dependent.Then you have the advantage that all of the consumers are electric. Power steering, power brakes, air conditioning and water pump are all fully electric. There's no alternator; all 12V consumers are fed from the HV battery via a DC-DC converter. The functional benefit is that these don't load the engine continuously with belts and drives regardless of whether they are needed. And they are continuously variable in their operation. In all my prior cars, steering required a power boost from the engine with the RPMs ticking up. The air conditioning is similar, on my car it can operate down to 200W or up to 3000W, and in traffic it uses the battery as much as possible. So you are not sat in traffic with the air con cycling between full load and none. Conventional cars can't shut off the engine in use because these consumers are active, so even when going downhill or under light load, they require the engine to be running.Another benefit is it allows you to use a much smaller engine but still have a rather high power output, making for a pleasant car to drive. The 1.4L TSI produces 145 hp, which combined with the 100 hp EV motor (and accounting for the DSG torque limit) gives you a 210 hp vehicle but with a 1.4L displacement. So the fuel economy is much better than other performance cars that need 1.8~2.0L engines to reach this power output. My ideal Golf GTE would have a 1.0L engine and a 150 hp electric motor (though I suspect VW had good reasons for not doing this, probably relating to trying to get >80kW from a 7.6kWh pack.)When the vehicle changes gears, typically it will change from 6th down to 5th when climbing a hill on a motorway, it will recuperate the energy in the crankshaft used to shift. This improves the shifting speed. This isn't an economy thing (the few Wh gained from it is mostly negligible) but it reduces wear on the clutches, and when you do want to drive a little more enthusiastically, it makes it more dynamic.Granted, under higher loads, 80+ mph, the hybrid system is mostly added weight (performance benefits being helpful but offering no economy), but few cars achieve great economy at those speeds. I find myself setting the cruise control to 70 mph and relaxing. Getting there 5 minutes early, for 25% more fuel usage, is rarely worth it.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 09:43:15 am
content: Quote from: coppice on July 25, 2020, 08:44:36 amEven the same "model" of car can be biased for different fuel economy with unseen aerodynamic (trays, diverters, cowls) or rolling resistance (tires!) changes, alongside throttle or gearbox maps that encourage smoother driving. Two identical looking cars of the same make, model, year, etc can still end up with radically different consumption figures beyond just the engine (VAG bluemotion:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlueMotionfor example). So trying to make an exact comparison becomes impractical, even more so between different make or model cars of the same "segment".The early Prius was an extreme example of this, the entire car was heavily optimised for aero performance. Not comparable at all to other cars of the era.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 09:48:54 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 25, 2020, 08:41:02 amOlder BMW i3 had a range extender which can burn petrol for longer range so there are in fact EVs that support this mode of operation.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 09:54:20 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 25, 2020, 09:42:42 amThis also varies from vehicle to vehicle (engine to engine). A modern forced induction ICE family/commuter car has the engine tuned for maximum efficiency at 60-90km/h (40-60mph) as that is both where it will spend much of its time and that is where the mandatory tests run the vehicle at. Older naturally aspirated vehicles (particularly before injection and VVT etc) were nether as efficient or tuned for that region of operation. Efficiency drops off at light load, and aero drag kicks in at higher speeds, but the balanced point is right at normal operating conditions.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 10:19:45 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 25, 2020, 08:04:36 amOn thing I've noticed about my hybrid (Kia) is the benefit of the electric A/C compressor - 3 phase brushless running off the main battery. The loss of mileage when the A/C is running seems negligible. I guess it's because it's always running at optimum speed for the required cooling load. A compressor which is belt driven off the engine is rarely running at optimum speed (it must maintain sufficient cooling at idle, while tolerating full engine speed), with belt losses and only a simple electric clutch (and probably mechanical over-pressure relief valves) to control it.It also means that you can sit in the motorway services, eating your sandwiches, on a hot day and still have the A/C on, with no noticeable drop in the battery gauge.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 10:22:37 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 25, 2020, 09:48:54 amYep, serial hybrids are a good idea.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 10:27:23 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 25, 2020, 10:22:37 amThe range extended i3 isn't. The range extended ones cost a lot more, weigh a lot more, have less usable space, and for all that get a tiny fuel tank that only extends the range from one gas station to the next. They seemed to build that thing to have the worst possible mix of features. Without the range extender it seems like a nice, if rather expensive, city car.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 10:36:18 am
content: Yes, the range extender i3 is a bad realization of a good idea, and they catch fire easily, or so it seems.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 10:39:53 am
content: Quote from: Someone on July 25, 2020, 09:54:20 amProper hybrid operation also allows you to use much more thermally efficient Atkinson cycle engines (with VVT that can push them into to Otto Cycle if really pushed) with the electric motor taking up the peak loads. With direct injection too, I think these come out much more efficient than small forced induction engines. Especially when you factor in all the other heat recovery measures, heat exchangers on the exhaust and EGR etc.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 10:48:16 am
content: You know the Start/Stop is all BS when it comes to fuel economy. It’s a variation of VW’s Dieselgate.https://youtu.be/k159M8QhCIE

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 10:48:53 am
content: Quote from: Gyro on July 25, 2020, 10:19:45 amThat used to be so, for power steering pumps too, but now there are variable displacement compressors.https://axleaddict.com/auto-repair/Variable-Displacement-CompressorsAnd electro-hydraulic (variable) PS pumps too.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 10:56:33 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 25, 2020, 10:48:16 amThose systems are a joke. Once traffic is heavy enough to keep the engine off for long enough to start showing a fuel saving, the engine starts cooling enough to push the fuel consumption back up. So, the engine has to keep coming back to life in short bursts to keep the battery well charged (all the electric stuff on a modern car can run it down pretty fast), and to avoid the engine cooling too much.In that video he says that a lot of restarting of a warm engine won't wear the battery much. However, if you look at the web site for a car battery maker, like Yuasa, you will find they have specific lines of batteries rated for stop start cars, that are significantly more expensive than their similar sized batteries not build for this kind of use.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 11:10:09 am
content: Regular stop-start systems are indeed a joke. I had a VW Tiguan while my car was in for HV system service.I was in traffic and wondered why the car was not stopped. The car's infotainment system helpfully told me "Stop start system is unavailable: Stop start system requires the engine to be running."More seriously since the 12V batteries are small and they have to account for the 12V starter being able to start the car after having the engine off for 1-2 minutes with all other loads (fan, computers, infotainment, etc.) And then you go to press the 'go' pedal and there's the horrible lurch where the car isn't ready to go so has to start the engine and then take off from "cold". It makes for an extremely lurchy pick-up at traffic lights and eventually you end up turning it off because it's so useless.A true hybrid (not mild hybrid) works much better because the electric motor can drive you up to speed and the engine gets seemlessly clutched in. And air con, heating, power steering etc all work when stopped or moving slowly.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 01:09:26 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 25, 2020, 08:04:36 amNo, it isn't very good, because I can achieve about 45 US mpg in a 13 year old car with AC, and again, my current vehicle should do 55 or more if I'm not climbing the numerous hills around here.

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 05:44:06 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on July 25, 2020, 06:56:29 amWhen I'm in my car it's mostly highway, the bike is more combined so it's the relevant figures. What undefined test sequences are you talking about? What point of the discussion? It keeps changing so I respond. The 70/60 to me I read originally as a difference between bikes and cars because that'd be pretty close for US mpg. I beg your forgiveness.My basic premise is not broken. An electric vehicle doesn't work for me.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 05:59:28 pm
content: Quote from: maginnovision on July 25, 2020, 05:44:06 pmIf an electric vehicle doesn't work for you then don't buy one and continue paying a premium to drive ICE vehicles. EV's aren't the perfect fit for everyone. But for most people, an EV should be fine. Where I live in California many people drive EVs. When I pull into a store parking lot about 20% of the cars in the lot are EVs. So while an EV many not work for you, just know there are many others who find it to be the perfect vehicle for them. And they save a lot of money. One more thing, there are a lot of used EVs hitting the market. So for the folks who want a good, safe reliable care they can buy an EV for around $10,000.I never thought I would ever like driving or owning an EV. Boy, was I wrong.

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2020, 06:05:45 pm
content: I also live in California(southern) I do not see that kind of concentration of electric vehicles though(maybe just the time of day you go to the store?). Where in CA are you? I'm in the LA area and I drive all over Southern California(Torrance, Riverside, Hollywood, San Diego, LA, Long Beach, Santa Monica etc...). Are you up north? I never said I don't like EV's I said they don't work for me and mentioned that maybe the VW ID.3(if it ever comes out) would be good for my wife. I don't have room for 4 cars in my driveway so 1 would have to go. Probably a Civic but any replacement would also need to be 4 door because my wife has back issues and can't manage the kids without all 4 of those doors.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 03:41:50 am
content: I'm about 15 miles east of San Francisco - Lafayette/Walnut Creek area. Teslas are very common where I live. I have a neighbor on each side of me who owns a Tesla. Most of the people here drive Mercedes or BMWs. But Teslas are just about as common. We went with a Volt. It's the perfect car for us. After we were comfortable with an EV and trusted the Volt I sold my two other ICE vehicles. Sounds like you drive way to much for an EV to work for you. I have a friend and EV won't work for him either.EVs will never replace all ICE vehicles. But it sure looks like they would work for many.

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 04:05:46 am
content: Yea, a friend of mine has 3 teslas now. All but the Y. He only drives 20 miles each way to work though and that's the long trips. Driving on the freeways for 20 miles you'll usually see at least 1 but they're definitely not all over like I'd expect they are up north, other than some pockets of owners. There was a time I considered a BMW I3(we were able to lease them for 100/mo no money down at either end) but after my friend and I tried it out we found it wouldn't make it to and from work 1 day even with the REX. It was pretty close but when you just want to get home and back pretty close doesn't cut it. We only had 2 chargers at work and they were off limits to employees(1 for customers, 1 for customer vehicles and vehicles on the lot). One of the guys I worked with drove a volt(1st gen) and he eventually got fired for using the chargers.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 04:31:32 am
content: Quote from: maginnovision on July 26, 2020, 04:05:46 amNice employer. I looked at the BMW i3. I don't get it, why such a small engine and fuel tank. Dumb. I have never liked GM cars, but I have to admit the Volt is the perfect car. EV for trips to the store, driving around town. And gas for those trips from the Bay Area to Palm Springs. It's brilliant! Which is why Chevy probably discontinued the car. We've owned two, and I would defiantly purchase a third.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 10:55:03 am
content: Quote from: maginnovision on July 26, 2020, 04:05:46 amI know people in the US who had a Nissan Leaf as a second car for a while, because it was only $100 a month. How did that work? Was the government providing massive subsidies, or were the manufacturers footing the bill?

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 01:17:23 pm
content: The batteries of the Leaf are the worst...

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 03:09:11 pm
content: In the meantime while charging times are still a thing..Why can't they come up with a swapable battery solution, in lieu of charging?Weight? Impact/explosion risk?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 03:20:53 pm
content: Quote from: Ed.Kloonk on July 26, 2020, 03:09:11 pmSwapable battery vehicles do exist. However, its very difficult to get a market for them to grow unless there is extreme standardisation. A swapping station is only going to be able to handle a few different packs for different sizes of vehicle. That kind of standardisation requires a fairly mature market. Its a chicken and egg type of problem. In the meantime, with chargers going up to 350kW, the time to get a reasonable amount of charge might be heading down to the few minutes it might take to drop a battery pack out of a car, fit a new one, and make sure those high current connections are clean and secure.

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 03:24:43 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on July 26, 2020, 03:20:53 pmI'm surprised some nut hasn't figured out a way to put a power plant in the trunk/boot and a cord around to the inlet. I bet these cars don't go when incoming power in on.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 03:29:30 pm
content: Quote from: Ed.Kloonk on July 26, 2020, 03:24:43 pmSomeone on Youtube put a generator on a small trailer behind their Tesla, so they could take the Tesla into the wilds beyond the reach of a charging network.

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 03:31:51 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on July 26, 2020, 03:29:30 pmThis is why I don't earn the big bucks.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 03:47:16 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on July 24, 2020, 07:44:45 pmyes a Tesla is great but your above description is a bit deceptive.1. Service - in the UK if you do not do the services - your warranty disappears. And I find the service cost in the UK for a Tesla "exorbitant" compared to my Honda. With the tiny amount of service actually needed - Tesla UK charge roughly the same as an equivalent BMW/Mercedes/Audio for service. So since you are employed by Tesla - I guess you don't give a hoot about warranty2. Parasitic battery consumption = to about ? 3000 miles per year for Model S? I drive maybe 4-6000/year. That is a bit like pouring 75 gallons of fuel out on the ground. (My Honda does mixed about 40MPG) Then when we do drive - it is usually very long distances to in-laws etc. So 250+ miles there and back.So I promise you I have looked at and would love a Tesla - but it just does not make financial sense for my profile. I guess you need to do 15-25k+ miles a year before becoming even "profitable"I might still buy a Tesla because I love the tech and love not polluting the local area. But it would not be due to the savings. It would probably have to be a super long range model but now we are moving even further from the in-laws so 320 mile range would be minimum - when you transport children. Not many petrol/charge stops have playgrounds yet.Our new house will get solar cells, batteries and a generator of some sort. Not because primarily savings or the environment - but for independence. And panels will be oversized so I do not have to import (hoping) a single kW (in the UK...)If someone ever makes a "reasonable affordable" micro power plant for my house - I will be first in line for that.Because I want my independence!and I sincerely think our power grids will have a lot of issues in the future. But it has to work financially without any "government support"./k

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 04:17:25 pm
content: Quote from: kaz911 on July 26, 2020, 03:47:16 pmAre you really British? In the last paragraph you sound so American.

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 04:18:59 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 26, 2020, 04:17:25 pmSurely you haven't missed the big news story from there last year?

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 04:31:40 pm
content: Quote from: Ed.Kloonk on July 26, 2020, 04:18:59 pmAre you guys throwing European Coffee in the Thames river dressed as Gauls because you don't want to pay taxes to the EU? So American. What are you going to call it, "The Thames Coffee Party"?

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 04:36:43 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 26, 2020, 04:31:40 pmDumping overboard all that useless lead-free solder.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 04:37:09 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 26, 2020, 04:17:25 pm? What has that got to do with EV's?Anyway - I live in the UK - but have lived and worked in many countries and cultures on this side of the Atlantic. Originally I'm Scandinavian but got fed up by the government interference. UK is still 20-30 years behind Scandinavia in interference levels.And I do promise you there are a lot like me around who wants independence.But let's get back to the topic of EV's.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 05:09:06 pm
content: Quote from: kaz911 on July 26, 2020, 04:37:09 pmWe've beat that to death in the forms here many times over.There are the people who own one, who like them and will probably never buy an ICE vehicle again.The people who have never driven an EV and just parrot all of the reasons EVs are a failure without looking at the facts.And the people who would be willing to try and EV as their next car.Did I miss any group?And it's usually always the same people posting. So nothing much new is said or learned. But we do have fun discussing the same thing over and over. It's like going to a pub and having a beer with the same group every night.Getting more towards EVs. There is an MIT Professor, Sadoway who has a Liquid Metal Battery which was suppose to come to market in 2019/2020. Anyone know what's going on with liquid metal batteries?

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 05:09:34 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on July 26, 2020, 10:55:03 amIn my case it was either the dealer or BMW basically paying. The cars sat on lots and they wanted them out on the streets being driven. This was one of the biggest dealers in north america so while it was probably BMW I wouldn't rule out the dealer. If the leaf did it too... Almost certainly BMW and Nissan both wanted them out and about. In either the case the manufacturer/dealer would have collected the subsidies from the government also. I think 7500 federal and almost half that again from the state in addition to ZEV credits.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 05:16:22 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on July 26, 2020, 10:55:03 amThey were footing the bill, in the UK at one point could could lease a Leaf for £130pm (8000mi/yr) and a friend of mine took them up on the offer...trade in value was pretty low but Nissan ate it. They just wanted to get them out there.You can actually lease an e-Golf for just over £200pm now (if you find a dealer offering it) which given the range and quality of the car could make a lot of sense. I've considered selling the GTE for it.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 05:19:48 pm
content: Quote from: maginnovision on July 26, 2020, 05:09:34 pmIn Californai we reeived $12,500 in tax credits and cash for buying or leasing an EV type of vehicle. Our power company gives us a lower rate for electricity. (For us, that turns out to be about $1,000 per year.) And we had solar panels installed on our home. Thank you tax payers and I only had to pay 70%. My fellow tax payers are paying for the other 30%.One has to love the finances of EV in the US/California.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 06:26:47 pm
content: If we're talking about subsidies to EVs should we mention the implicit subsidy that all of the CO2 emitted by cars will need to be cleaned up in the future? Costs of this are estimated to be in the $10 to $100 TRILLION US dollar range.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 06:36:55 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 26, 2020, 06:26:47 pm"Cleaned" ? Why?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 06:47:01 pm
content: Because high levels of CO2 emissions (above 400ppm, which we exceeded last year or so) will be ultimately extremely harmful for the climate and oceans in the long term.We will likely not get this sorted out before we hit 550 - 600 ppm of CO2 and equivalents in the atmosphere ... which will require action in the form of carbon sequestration or capture to avoid catastrophic harm.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 07:14:44 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 26, 2020, 06:36:55 pmIf you are asking that question you will be dead soon. Most people alive today care about the world they live it and would like to have a livable world with food in the future. If you are dead, makes perfect sense you are asking why.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 08:15:12 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 26, 2020, 06:47:01 pmNo, sorry, I have no interests in the global warming business, and I don't buy it. Thanks.Edit:Good luck with the cleanup !!

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 08:19:55 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 26, 2020, 08:15:12 pmExactly - You are some old guy who is set in his ways and doen't care about the world you live in or will leave behind when you are dead. Like the dodo bird, people like you who don't believe will be extinct soon. Problem solved and you will be fertilizer from the next generation.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 08:22:20 pm
content: Ok, ok, thank you.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 08:39:19 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 26, 2020, 08:22:20 pmThe only people I know who don't think the climate is and has changed have chips in the heads. Do you also believe in anti-vaxing, chem-trails and the Corna-19 virus was engineered by the Chinese? Get the chip removed from your head so you can look at the science and not have your thought being manipulated those who are controlling your thoughts. Once that chip is gone, you'll be able to look at all of the evidence showing man caused climate change is what has caused CO2 levels to rise over 250 years. The only credible evidence which proves climate change is not occurring are the honest to good facts people tell which are based on fake and misunderstood information.

author: Pulsepowerguy
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 08:51:09 pm
content: I and my spouse each own a Prius. Why? Because Toyotas are very reliable and this tech is affordable. Not as clean as EV, but 50+MPG in the summer (more like 38 in the cold cold winters of Wisconsin). The hybrid Synergy drive is an engineering marvel. I would love to own a Tesla - test drove one once and was blown away by the acceleration - but the amount of money required is a bit beyond my reach. I find the hybrid approach (done properly) to be a very good stop gap; especially since electric power in the mid-western US is coal based. We have a 2007 model that is going strong and no sign of battery 'fatigue'.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 09:54:46 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 26, 2020, 08:39:19 pmAnd still it is just an inconvenience to people. SO2 and NOx output from electricity generation are much more of a serious health issue (killing hundreds of thousands of people every year globally but nobody seems to care) compared to a warmer climate and rising sea levels. Rising sea levels are a future problem which can be mitigated by building dykes and dams; SO2 and NOx output are today's problems and EVs only make those worse because emission levels for power plants are much less strict compared to those for ICE cars.@Pulsepowerguy: Actually a Toyota Prius is by far the cleanest car you can buy (and with far lower CO2 emissions as well if your electricity comes primarily from coal). My next car will very likely be a hybrid but I need to do some number crunching on which one is the best choice at that moment.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 10:12:30 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 26, 2020, 09:54:46 pmInteresting how you pick and choose facts instead of looking at the entire issue. No mention what man caused climate change is doing to our food supply and ability to grow food. Normal human body temperature is 37c. Any idea what happens to a human if the temp is increased by a few degrees? We know just a few degrees in the temp of some animals results no viable offspring. Same things happens to your sperm. We have already seen how some staple crops will not grow with man caused climate change. And that pests which are killed of in the winter when temperatures drop are not being killed at the temperatures and not dropping enough to kill them because of man caused climate change. Have you seen what's happening to the two largest reefs in the world due man caused climate change? They are dying because of the increased water temperature.Just as it is going to take most of the people in our world to to control the spread of the corona-19 virus. It's going to take most of the people of the world working together to control climate change. You might not be one of them. But that means others are having to do what you don't think is imported for current and future generations.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2020, 10:31:47 pm
content: Oh dear...

author: Pulsepowerguy
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 02:25:30 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 26, 2020, 09:54:46 pmYes, and that is one of the reasons we own them.With regard to the other gentlemen discussing climate change: As the population on this planet gets to a large enough number, things that humans do cause more and more harmful effects - it cannot be avoided. Ultimately anything that was "OK" to do in the past (e.g., dumping raw sewage in a river) has to become regulated or we will cause misery for ourselves in some way. Building dikes and dams is but one tiny engineering fix for a vastly larger system of interconnected variables. Over simplification arguments are useless. All living things, including humans, are basically trying to get what they need, but humans excel at doing that and we tend to forget the consequences of our choices. With a certain population number, we won't get a choice. That's our future in some form. I am slowly coming to grips with this.OK, I'll stop now.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 02:38:33 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 26, 2020, 10:31:47 pmUmmm you do know Tony Heller is not a real person. The guy behind the doesn't have a degree in climatology.Hasn't done any primary of secondary research on climate change.Hasn't written a single academic paper about climate change.He doesn't have a job related to climatology or the weather.Upon peer review of his articles articles it's been found he makes up facts and misquotes researchers and findings to get high ratings. Or what's called click bait.Politifact.com, which rated his articles as liar. liar "pants on fire".Makes perfect sense why you would listen to someone who is being who has a political agenda with a goal of causing confusion and doubt.So why do you choose to believe the words of someone who tells you honest and truthful information bases loosely inaccurate facts and false information?Is it that chip that's controlling how you think?

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 07:05:02 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 27, 2020, 02:38:33 amThank you Greta. Now go back to school.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 09:02:57 am
content: Quote from: coppice on July 26, 2020, 10:55:03 amThere are some bizarre market distortions in the US (California particularly):https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economySo the major brands have to somehow sell a pile of low emissions vehicles to continue selling their "desirable" models. They dump the low emissions vehicles onto the market below cost in some cases.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 09:17:00 am
content: Quote from: Someone on July 27, 2020, 09:02:57 amIt would be nice if Californians had helped us all out by helping foster the development of new and cleaner technologies through these compliance car programs. However, it seems that compliance cars, except perhaps the hydrogen powered ones, are so contrived that they haven't further vehicle technology at all. The hydrogen ones are obviously going nowhere, unless there is a radical change, but they did at least get a bunch of fuel cells into real world use where their long term performance could be evaluated.The $100 a month Leafs were not just a California thing. I know 2 people in Dallas who had them.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 09:57:01 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 26, 2020, 08:15:12 pmDenying the existence of climate change caused by human factors is like denying gravity exists or that a virus causes Covid-19. It's idiotic and psuedoscientific. Now, you could argue that some of the doomsday predictions are a little on the aggressive side, I think that is fair to say. But, the real problem is that if we look 50 years out, we have some horrible error bars. We could be looking at just 2'C rise, especially if people shift their habits working from home more, driving electric cars or cycling, not flying as much and maybe not eating as much meat. And then there are things like, we don't know how significant the ocean could be as a carbon sink and it might be better than we expect. But the opposite side of those error bars looks really terrible, especially if we do little to nothing in terms of action.When you've got the earth in the test tube it might be worth taking a cautionary approach, rather than the almost no-holds-barred approach that we're currently taking.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 10:16:11 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 27, 2020, 09:57:01 amAfter pickpocketing us billions of euros for those lucky enough to be in the global warming business... all we know is that we can't stop using fossil fuels.There are none so blind as those who will not see.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 10:46:10 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 27, 2020, 10:16:11 amSo tell me, who makes thousands from climate science?In the UK the average salary for a climate scientist is... drumroll please.... between £27,000 and £55,000https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/climate-scientistIn the US it seems to be around $60k - $70k.It's hardly a good salary for what is a highly technical field requiring at least a masters, there are many EEs that earn twice that.I also recall a study, I will dig it out if you like, which showed the climate scientists have amongst the highest rates of depression and suicide in any scientific field. Probably because the future does not look great.And surely the oil industry would be very keen to get research out there that showed this was all a big scam? Yet even the behemoths like BP and Shell accept that it is a problem and say that they can provide the solution (they probably can't - but that's PR.)And we can stop using fossil fuels but of course we would have to change our lives considerably and look at other ways to extract energy. This isn't an overnight thing but a transition over 30-40 years. That's the only way it can happen. The problem is it isn't happening. We're burning more fossil fuels than ever before because we aren't applying the appropriate penalties to the use of fossil fuels. If we taxed carbon equivalent to the actual cost, over multiple decades, we'd rapidly shift the market in the right direction. But the big oil lobbyists and countries like the US, Saudi and China would oppose that as it would weaken their standing.There are none so blind as those who will not see

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 11:25:01 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 27, 2020, 10:46:10 amStop that nonsense, because above all you have been and are the main beneficiary of all the goodness of fossil fuels. Pray that they don't end while you live.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 11:53:28 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 27, 2020, 11:25:01 amI would be an utter fool to say that fossil fuels have not had an enormously *positive* impact on the world. That doesn't detract from the argument that there are significant future negative externalities caused by the continued use of fossil fuels.Care to address my other points?

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 12:46:44 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 27, 2020, 11:53:28 amLet me fix that 4u: "That doesn't detract from the argument that theremight besignificantsome (as yet unknown)future negative externalities"QuoteNope, sorry. This is a debate that once started never ends. If you want to believe and it makes you happy, go for it. Time will tell who was right. For what's worth, the arctic is still there. And Al Gore said it wouldn't be. And Florida still afloat, too. Phew!

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 01:14:12 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 27, 2020, 10:46:10 amTom - I think you you might misunderstand what motivates scientists. They work on 2 core principles... 1. Published Papers 2. Grants (so they can publish papers) - Personal income is not high on their initial list - but published papers and grants are. With grants comes staff and "power". With published papers and grants comes years and years of job security which usually then lands them a Professor position at much higher pay grades.And right now - you can not get any funding if you do not support the "consensus of CO2" being the global temperature dial. So very little money and research is put into any alternative explanations or possibilities.But as it is coming out of late even from IPCC - We do NOT have any kind of climate emergency. The world will not stop in 10 years.I do agree we have to look after our planet and treat it well. But we also have to realise that we have an impact but I think money is well spent on how to mitigate the impact and not create disaster scenarios that had my kids terrorised for months.Thanks god we noticed the stupid teachers teaching one side only and have over the last 3 months taught our children to question things and not just accept what comes out of the mouth of school teachers. The School and teachers gave my kids actual nightmares.Please read up on the other side (Yes I read BOTH sides of the argument as I want to know) but the last two books I've read are:False Alarm by Bjorn Lomborg andApocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All by Michael ShellenbergerBoth books have a lot of interesting and highly relevant data. It is time we again allow multiple opinions around the table. Because without we are never going to get good solutions. It is like when everybody around a table likes Marmite - it is easy to think that everyone in the world loves Marmite. But we all know that is NOT the case./k

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 01:45:36 pm
content: I ask, if climate scientists are so motivated by grant money and citations, why doesn't the oil industry hire some climate scientists to show us the real truth that the damage is not happening? They could fund entire studies and journals showing the great fraud that is before us. This was a strategy that the tobacco lobby used to reasonable success - it significantly delayed the introduction of controls on cigarette advertisement and kept it culturally/socially acceptable to smoke for some time. The oil industry has tried but found only a few disreputable scientists to represent their view. I could accept the view of the climate denialist movement if some 10% or more of climate scientists were speaking up about there being widespread corruption but we only hear a few figures and even those figures seem to strongly disagree with each other.I do think the doomsday singers have damaged the climate science movement, and I include politicians like Al Gore in this. But I think there needs to be a modest amount of hyperbole to convince people that change needs to be made. The problem really is, if the climate works the way we think it does (and yes, it could be wrong, but the chance is quite low, say 5% or so) then there is a very long lag to any human behaviour. Changes now have effect in 20-30 years time. So if we start looking at problems 30-40-50 years in the future and say "let's wait for the evidence to be absolutely, guaranteed certain" then that it might be too late.I'll be honest this climate stuff isn't fun to debate, it's depressing, and I don't see us sorting it out in time. But it's worth a shot, perhaps? I look at it this way: If it turns out to all have been some grand conspiracy, or completely misunderstood, what do we lose? We get cleaner energy, less dependency on oil, better transport, and a huge investment in R&D in new technologies that could have useful offshoots, like space-based solar and hyperlocal weather prediction.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 02:20:29 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 27, 2020, 01:45:36 pmHi Tom,here is another question you should ponder about.What if I told you 10 times that a 50M pull up resistor was correct for your board design? You then make the board - and find out it does not work with 50M pull up. It does not even work intermittently. The right value you find out - was 10k and then everything works.How would you then take my next recommendation? Would you trust it?I sincerely doubt it....But everybody seems to trust all the bad predictions we have had from Mann & Co and the world "leading" climate scientist and Al Gore over the last 30-40 years. Nobody even QUESTIONS when their predictions and models does not work and continuously "guesses" so wrong that it is equivalent to my 50M vs 10k - but why do you continue to trust the models and predictions? (I mean You as in not you personally but in general) - The world should have ended for the last 25-30 years according to Al Gore. The Maldives should be under water 10-20 years ago. New York's Finance district should have been under water 15-20 years ago?And another for the measurement geeks. We all like our data to be precise - we spend hours and hours calibrating and making certain our measurements are correct. I can tell you for certain (99.9%) that my temperature sensor is within calibration. I do monitor temperature here and log it. But in 100 years some morons thinks my measurements are not good and should be adjusted down with no credible reason.This is happening to "old" data all over the world. So was the scientists 100 years ago not as "nitpicky" about their data as we are today? I promise you they was.But their data is being completely manhandled by many countries "Met Offices" to engineer scenarios that fit the agenda - with no consistency apart from adjustments are ALWAYS down. Statistically that is simply not possible that all temperature readings are out in one direction only. But that is how our officials chose to adjust them - to fit a narrative. That has happened everywhere - US, UK and Australia.So in 100 years will you be happy if people question your carefully calibrated measurement data without any valid reason?NopeI think is the answer to that.So please start to QUESTION the the data. Work with the REAL data and if data needs adjustment - keep the original data and document WHY you think it is prudent to adjust that data. That is not happening today. There are so many places where there are "undocumented" changes to original data that you would not believe it. But if you dig down and confer with newspapers from the time and weather reports forecasts from the 1900-1960's - suddenly a lightbulb turns on leaving you questioning the entire establishment of "climate scientists"If I had told my granddad that his measurements from 1930 was wrong (he was even more of a perfectionist than me) - I would have gotten a very good can of "Whoop'ass" served for dinner./k

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 02:48:30 pm
content: Again, I don't regard the political positions of Al Gore as reasonable - as much as I don't agree with Mr Trump's "money over all else" position despite supporting forms of market capitalism.However, the research really doesn't agree with your position @kaz911. I note that the likes of WattsUpWithThat point out Hansen, et al., perform particularly poorly; example:https://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0154327e47d7970c-piAnd in this case Hansen would appear to be wrong - that happens. But let's see what the general consensus is. This paper analysed 17 models and found that all but Hansen correctly predicted what we're seeing now, even way back into the 70's predictions were within range of observations.https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2019GL085378This isn't a case of a 50M ohm pullup. It's a case of one engineer saying you should use 6.8k and one engineer saying 10k and then the pullup denialist saying "Look! They don't agree! Therefore pull up resistors are not needed at all!"You can dive into the research papers if you like. I recommend looking at them over looking at websites like WattsUp. There's certainly value in the journalistic reporting - but it's biased.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 03:43:17 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 27, 2020, 02:48:30 pmHi Tom,while you reply to some of my statements - you ignore the issue. The issue is the comparative data (source data) has been modified. So I guess the model data used is the "modified data - and not the original? (Worldwide temperature data sets dating back to 1850's)If you modify the source data - you can make any model fit.Apart from that - the model "validation" you quoted starts at 1955 - which again is so convenient as it ignores the heat waves from 1936 to 1949 where temperatures wore as high or higher than today (at least according to the original measurements and newspaper reports) - that means temperature shows an almost linear increase. If they included another 10-15 years the picture would be a lot different (using original temperature data - not the modified ones)I do NOT doubt that we (humans) help increase the temperature on earth or helps increase CO2. Not a doubt in my mind. But I do doubt that CO2 is the main factor and I do doubt that we can do much about CO2 until the human population starts shrinking.We are constantly told that Humans lives are not impacting CO2 in the atmosphere - but I do think we are. The ONLY 100% CO2 curve match you will get - is if you pair human population with CO2. Then you have a PERFECTLY matched curve.And when you look at population graph vs CO2 - the ONLY times CO2 drops is when we have BIG number of people dying like during WWII. At that time CO2 actually dropped - despite factories running 24/7 producing for the war machine around the world and we burned more fuel and unclean fuel than any time before. (Warships, tanks & 1000's of planes etc)/k

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 03:51:42 pm
content: The source data is adjusted to account for errors in any measurement. Just as many multimeters will adjust the reading to correct for measurement error.However you can get the raw data and perform comparative analysis. The point of the paper I linked to is it takes the data that is corrected/befunged/fiddled with, and then plots it against what we observed the climate actually doing. The fiddling has no impact: what matters is did the model predict what we saw?And the result is - model predicted warming of X, climate warmed by X+/-Y, with Y being quite small, in general. The great thing about science and engineering is its predictive capacity - many of these models date back before 1990 and predict changes well past 2017. I can't really help you if you don't accept the original data. It's gathered by teams of scientists across the world, and all correlates in one direction. So even if you don't accept Mann's data, you could look at data gathered by European or Chinese researchers. It's all showing the same trend.I absolutely can accept that we may not be looking at a doomsday scenario: but to deny that humans are not causing some measurable warming, with negative effects being *extremely likely*, is foolish, in my opinion.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 04:22:27 pm
content: Man Caused Climate Change we know is a multi-million dollar business. There are even trade-shows were businesses/organizations sell their Man Caused Climate Change products to politicians and the public. The product these businesses are sell is called doubt and confusion about(whatever product you want politicians and the public to have doubt and confusion about.)It has been very well documented for enough money you can hire MIT and Harvard professors and prominent e scientists to promote whatever scientific or political agenda you want. We know the Koch brothers spent over $1 billion dollars in hiring several of these companies to sell doubt and confusion about man caused climate change. While the Koch brothers were selling doubt and confusion they also hired a team of independent scientific researchers to investigate the science of climate change. All of the independent scientists did not think climate change/global warming was a real thing. After years, all of the scientists found the evidence for climate change is overwhelming. The Koch brothers then wanted to know if climate change caused by man. After looking at the data and all of the theories for climate change none of the non-man proposed theories match the data. But when you look at the activities of man over the last 250 years mans activities along with the type of fuel man was burning it nearly matches the climate change data.With this information the Koch brothers increased the amount of money they spent on causing doubt and confusion about climate change.We know political organizations have paid millions to convince politicians and the media there there is a lot lot doubt in the scientific community when it comes to man caused climate change. Some names of the thousands of well distinguished scientists who have signed the Oregon Petition, (to reject global warming) include Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Aldof Hitler, Mickey Mouse, Joseph Stalin and Sponge Bob.Anyone who still chooses to believe man caused climate change is not a fact is just a victim of the "doubt and confusion" industry.Other issues the "doubt and confusion" industry was hired to work on include cigarette smoking not causing lung cancer. Second hand tobacco smoke not causing complex heath problems for non-smokers. Acid rain, ozone hole, flame retardants used in children's clothes, sugar added to food not causing obesity and the list goes on.The scientists who are part of the "doubt and confusion" industry are very proud of the work and have spoken publicly about their work. For the people in this forum who are true believers man caused climate change is not a fact you would make the folks in the "doubt and confusion" industry very happy as they fooled you.Isn't capitalism wonderful? If once spends enough money and says something over and over again it must be true. Isn't that something Dr. Joseph Goebbels did to convince the people of several countries to believe in an ideology with enormous success?

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 04:23:41 pm
content: Well, this thread's screwed now.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 04:34:06 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 26, 2020, 09:54:46 pmTell that to the people living on on lew island like the Maldives. Build a wall around your islands. It'll be like living in a hole in the water ... waiting for when the water will flood over and filly our hole...

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 04:42:57 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on July 27, 2020, 04:34:06 pmA series of dykes and dams was proposed for San Francisco Bay 70 years ago. They even went so far as to build a scale model of the SF Bay to see what would happen. The result would have been total disaster for the entire San Francisco Bay. And what would happen in the next earthquake?You keep saying dykes and dams, but thanks to the model of SF Bay and what happened in Louisiana we know that won't work. Why not go with a solution we know will work, cutting down on greenhouse gases?

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 04:49:25 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 27, 2020, 04:42:57 pmBecause that won't work either, the weathers they are a-changin', have always been.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 04:52:39 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 27, 2020, 04:49:25 pmExactly - They are a-changin' more quickly "due to man caused climate change".

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 07:53:21 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 27, 2020, 04:52:39 pmWhen I grew up in the '70s everybody thought we wore heading for an ice age. Every newspaper was full of it. And that was before Internet and instant "vilification"I earned a LOT of cash during the winters of the late 70's and early 80's - by removing ice from fishing boats with wooden mallets - so boats would be ready to go out again. At that time it was the coldest it had been in many years and a lot of fishermen died due to over-icing boats and therefore sunk. They wore not used to the amount of ice and low temperatures. There was so much snow that we had to climb out the top windows on 1st floor of our houses and we walked at the same hight as the electric lines normally hanging in the air.People was talking about we would soon be able to walk between Denmark and Sweden again as there was so much ice - not seen since the Swedish / Danish war in the 1650's.The study Tom referenced earlier that compared climate - sets the temperature "normal" to that exact time. So they name the Y axis temperature abnormality with 0 referenced somewhere in the 60-70-80's. Anything above that is counted as above the "normal" baseline. But the 70/80's was anything but normal - it was the coldest period in many decades. So it really does not show integrity if studies set the zero point to the coldest - because what is the RIGHT temperature? Is it the 30/40's heat waves? the 70/80's cold years?As I said -I do not doubthumans are part causing climate change. I do doubt that Co2 is the only/main culprit.But the doomsday predictions are far from true - and should be stopped.As someone who is one the water often in many parts of the world - there is no real evidence of the claimed "accelerated" sea rise anywhere. Yes there is sea rise - but not accelerated - it is very stable slow rise that has been about the same for as long as we have measured. In some places we have not got rises where the Ice was at the previous little Ice age - earth is still stretching its legs, so there, the sea levels are dropping. You can pick your places for "accelerated" rises - but when you look at averages there is no acceleration at all.All I'm saying is we need to get back to science and let all parties be heard. Not just one side or the other. Right now it is all the marmite loves who are at the table - with no representation of the other side.But we are not heading for any sort of climate catastrophe any time soon.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 08:12:52 pm
content: If the Gulf Stream were to dive or slow due to de-salinisation from the melting polar ice caps, you could well be scraping ice again.The UK (among others) would become a very different place.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 08:21:09 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on July 27, 2020, 08:12:52 pmYes but the main impact on species and climate on earth so far has been natural disasters like (maybe) meteors and volcanoes. The tiny changes humanity is causing - is probably statistically insignificant in the overall "extinction scenario" - but we are managing to feed 7.5 BILLION people - something that was pure fantasy in the 50's - at that time we would all run out of food to feed the rapid population expanse.All I'm saying is stop the fear mongering. It helps no-one.But I would still love to add a Tesla to my GAS library.

author: ahbushnell
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 08:38:15 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on July 27, 2020, 04:34:06 pmLike the Netherlands.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 08:38:44 pm
content: Quote from: kaz911 on July 27, 2020, 07:53:21 pmDo you know why "we" thought in the 70s we were in a period of "Global Cooling"? And why we now know were are in period of climate change caused by man?

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 08:46:47 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 27, 2020, 08:38:44 pmYes I do know - so lets just spread some aerosols and cool the planet again. It worked before.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 08:47:02 pm
content: Complaining about some scientists thinking global cooling was a serious issue, is like suggesting modern medicine is incorrect because some doctors once thought illnesses were brought on by bad humours.For what it's worth, the majority of the scientific community was not particularly concerned about global cooling. It got a lot of media hype, because well, the idea of a massive ice age sells. There was some concern due to aerosol damage to the atmosphere - I believe some of this research eventually led to the bans for CFCs.Global warming has been a concern since the the early 1900s, although we have only seriously begun to notice the effects (higher CO2 concentration) from about 1950 onwards, and temperature rise became noticeable approx in the 1990s. Why is data based in 1950? Because it's a convenient starting point. If we first notice the rise in CO2 in 1950, then we can start there. But we can start anywhere, it doesn't really matter, it is a temperature *anomaly* rather than a raw temperature figure.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 08:47:50 pm
content: Quote from: ahbushnell on July 27, 2020, 08:38:15 pmNah, I live 6 meters abovegroundsea level. It is practically a mountain. I probably cannot go to work anymore with a car or a bicycle, but thats alright, they will probably just sell this:Life goes on like normal. Nothing wrong.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 08:49:07 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on July 27, 2020, 08:47:50 pmWhat? Just floating there? Can we join you? It sounds cool.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 08:49:45 pm
content: Quote from: kaz911 on July 27, 2020, 08:46:47 pmIt's not actually a completely terrible idea. The problem with CO2 is it harms more than the atmosphere; we get acidification of oceans which kills corals and other sea creatures. So we would probably still need to fix that (given cca 30% of all life depends on the oceans in some significant manner.) But it seems that some form of stratospheric atmospheric injection of sulfur dioxides is a possible solution. The problem is this should really be treated as a last ditch intervention, if all other options have failed, because we *really* don't know what the other effects of high intensity aerosol injection might be. Acid rain? Contamination of oceans? Better to not put the CO2 up there in the first place, but, yes... it is an option.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 08:52:32 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 27, 2020, 08:47:02 pmThe problem with vast dynamic systems like the Earth is that you don't know know for sure what effect relatively minor inputs might have. Who's to know whether de-salinisation like we're seeing at the moment would unexpectedly tip a warming climate into an Ice age (other than trying it).I agree, we shouldn't fear monger, but at the same time, we shouldn't go poking things that we don't fully understand! We should be goodcitizensspecies.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 09:14:49 pm
content: Just to quote how fast things changed when the last Ice age stoppedQuoteSource:https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/news08/modern_age_is_defined/That was probably not due to fossil fuel burning. But it happened very quick.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 10:24:20 pm
content: Quote from: kaz911 on July 27, 2020, 08:46:47 pmSo if you know what the story is why do you keep repeating it as if it were true today?

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 10:26:15 pm
content: Quote from: kaz911 on July 27, 2020, 09:14:49 pmWasn't this due to micro-organisms in the environment? Their population got out of control and "polluted" their environment.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2020, 10:29:03 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on July 27, 2020, 08:52:32 pmBut we do know what happens when the salinity of the ocean and the salinity currents in the ocean change. That has happened in the last 50 years. And we know what the results were. It is understood how disruptive this is to our environment.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 08:13:58 am
content: And this is why stratospheric aerosol injection or other methods (such as a 1% sunshade) to reduce the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere must be considered extremely carefully -- the CO2 is still harmful in larger doses, because it screws with ocean acidity which kills corals and sea plants, and it weakens the shells of many types of marine life.It's very much a last ditch solution.The best solutions, in order:1. Find a way to not put CO2 up in the atmosphere, or at least make the removal rate equal the emission rate (clean energy, ban ICE vehicles, biofuels for aircraft etc.)2. Remove the CO2 from the atmosphere by direct air capture or similar technology. Proposals are expensive and energy intensive - $600/tonCO2 is the last figure I saw. It also doesn't help methane emissions or other high GWP long lived gases. Carbon taxes could pay for this but might significantly dent economic activity if there is no alternative technology available, so R&D in alternative energy sources/uses needs to be included.3. Band-aid the effects of high CO2 by reducing insolation, or increasing albedo. Unknown side effects and doesn't solve ocean acidification.4. Do nothing and hope it'll all be OK. <-- Roughly where we are right now.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 08:56:06 am
content: We know option 4 - Do nothing and hope it will be okay isn’t working. In the US we are already seeing real estate prices being affected by man caused climate change. Insurance companies are factoring in man caused climate change in the rates. We are seeing issues with our food supply. Increased temperatures is resulting in loss of crops. And in other cases increased crop destruction by insects. And then there are the coral reefs which are very sensitive to increased temperatures. I think half of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia is dead. And it’s a similar story with the second largest reef. Increased temperatures have altered the water chemistry resulting in killing all life on the reef.This is an experiment in progress. We have seen over the last 250 years where this experiment is headed. Every year we do nothing the changes occur faster. But this all might change with COVID. I live in the US where we. Want our freedom. And I want all of my elected officials to exercise their right to NOT wear a face mask. To them I say bravo and to please visit the nursing home where 25 people just died and 125 tested positive for COVID without your mask. I find the politicians who don’t want to do anything about man caused climate change are also the ones who do not wear face masks.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 09:18:38 am
content: And the polar bears... what?

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 09:26:29 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 28, 2020, 09:18:38 am... Are in population decline and predicted to be more or less extinct by the end of the century. They rely on sea ice.And if the summer temperatures in Turkey rise by 5-10'C by the end of the century, who gives a sh*t. Got any children or grandchildren?

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 06:18:55 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on July 28, 2020, 09:26:29 amWhat GeorgeOfTheJungle is a conspiracy theorist. He's promoting the views of some guy how makes a lot of money feeding people like GeorgeOfTheJungle false and misleading information. There's a big business and a lot of money to be made dupng people like GeorgeOfTheJungle into believing alternate facts.The guy GeorgeOfTheJungle is promting is also saying cornoa-19 virus and covid like man caused climate change is a hoax and is all about big pharma making money. I've invited GeorgeOfTheJungle, the guy he is promoting, politicians and everyone else who things the covid is a hoax to pay a visit to the care faculty that's about 10 miles from where I live where 25 [people just died from covid and another 125 have tested positive. And there's no need for them to wear a mask because covid is a hoax. I will even pay for your travel expenses as you will only need a one-way ticket.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 06:27:29 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on July 28, 2020, 09:26:29 amOther people are saying that polar bears are increasing. That they are getting cleared out of areas where the used to do well, but if you look around they are prospering in new places. Its hard to know who to believe about this.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 06:57:37 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 28, 2020, 06:18:55 pmCan you explain to me how Tony Heller is making money from this?He does not have any advertising on his videos. He is an engineer - much like many of us here.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 07:00:00 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on July 28, 2020, 06:27:29 pmIf you want to know the facts GeorgeOfTheJungle isn't telling you about the polar bear counts is that we do not have an accurate count. What GeorgeOfTheJungle is intelligently NOT telling you is the polar bear counts were not accurate. There was a wide margin of error. No one is funding an accurate count so the honest answer is we just don't know. GeorgeOfTheJungle has a agenda to spread inaccurate information

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 07:31:39 pm
content: Quote from: kaz911 on July 28, 2020, 06:57:37 pmYou do know that Tony Heller uses other names. And that he's being paid to promote the point of view he is taking. He's making big bucks and is hiding it. His incomes is coming for multiple "shelf" organisations to make it look like one organization is paying him a lot of money. He uses multiple names to future mask his income sources. He is part of an industry known as the "Merchants of Doubt". They can be hired to "sell" confusion and doubt about any scientific research that's been done for a political agenda. Tony Heller has gone so far to author scientific research papers in which he writes the outcome of his research paper and then makes the data match his outcome.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 08:09:25 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindlerWow wow we are already with the ad hominems? You have no better arguments?BTW, he's (Heller) an electronics engineer, IIANM.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 08:22:36 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 28, 2020, 07:00:00 pmUntil she said Polar bear count is not declining Susan Crockford was counted as one of the experts. Her best guess is 39,000 with a range of 26k to 58k.https://polarbearscience.com/about-2/Have you ever been to a place with polar bears? Have you taken the time to actually talk with anyone from those regions? I have done multiple trips - and managed to see them twice. But there are very irregular visitors close to settlements on Greenland - they try to avoid humans unless they are starving. So when they are starving you see them. When they are well fed - you do rarely see them. They are masters at hiding especially when they have cubs. That makes counting them very hard.My company has been a sponsor of and I a technical consultant to WWF for about 12 years. Most of the things they do are really good. But some of the top leadership in WWF are hellbent on alarmism, as it bring inhugedonations. Much to the dismay of a lot of the really smart people actually doing the work. I therefore stopped working with them - sensible discussions was no longer allowed. Money always wins - in both extreme camps.But I'm "a-political" - I don't care about left or right - I care about the correct use of data available without having to resort to "fiddling the numbers" - without proper documentation to why. And there is too much fiddling with the numbers for my liking.I want a sustainable planet - but the way we are trying to do it now with alarmism and killing peoples access to fuel and cheap transport - will kill humanity quicker than any kind of global warming. And it will be most serious for the developing world.And I know for certain that avg.globalsea level acceleration is pure *bs* - at least in EU and the around the Middle East and Indian Ocean which I have sailed, lived and worked the last 16 years. But my fellows on the West cost of USA is of the same opinion. But some scientist's continues to claim accelerated global sea level rise? But when I check their numbers - they filter out perfect good stations delivering data that is precise - but not in line with "consensus" - and then you get a "bollocks" excuse for why they did that. And usually the excuse is "It is not conforming to the trend so itmustbe wrong" - that is just the wrong answer and circular logic.And I do own property right on the sea side. My insurance company just laughed when I asked if they charged extra for waterside residences due to climate change. They charge for flood risk - and my risk percentage right on the water edge has not increased in 22 years - at least according to my insurance company end of 2019. They do charge more for flood risk if you are close to rivers or dykes that has been recently modified - until proven the modifications brings improvements. Until then, they may count ANY modifications as additional HIGH risk. Pretty much logic is it not?So my sincere belief is we have to work on the "original" AND "full" numbers. We have to put up MORE measurement stations to get good numbers. We have to discount heat island effect on a lot of stations or have them moved to where there is zero effect from towns and unlikely there ever will be. But that kind of thinking does not fit the narrative. We also have a lot less actual "working" measurement stations now than we had 50-60 years ago. That is illogical - we are heading into bad problems and we are not trying to find out more by measuring MORE? No, we measure less....So I thinkanykind of extremism is bad. Be it climate ("denier" OR "alarmist") - or religion - or or politics. And though out the years - I have learned that all of the extremism is mainly due to money and power. Not one of the previous mentioned subjects are "clean" on either side. But you can't just silence one side - if you do you end up with revolutions and severe backlash - leading to even harsher extremism.Unfortunately a lot of innocent people get caught in between.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 08:42:07 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 28, 2020, 08:09:25 pmThere is nothing to argue about. You choose to spread doubt and lies of fictitious people. Can't argue with someone who doesn't exist.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 08:53:34 pm
content: Quote from: kaz911 on July 28, 2020, 08:22:36 pmNice thoughtful reply, thank you. No disrespect but you are looking at bits and pieces of data to support your point of view and I have done the same. The issue is climate not weather. Just so I am clear are you saying you don't think there is any evidence for man caused climate change?So if man caused climate change is bull shit, then why is the military changing because of climate change? They obviously believe climate change will affect their ability to defend our country and fight a war. If the climate isn't changing why are they?

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2020, 09:52:54 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 28, 2020, 08:53:34 pmDoug - I have already said multiple times that I do believe climate is changing. Where I'm not certain is that CO2 is the biggest bad wolf or other factors are equal or bigger. As I wrote before I do have a feeling that humans in GENERAL are the cause of CO2 increase - as the number of people on the planet have a linear scale to CO2.What I do NOT believe is that human are a "zero sum" game in CO2 as many climate scientist claims - so they do not count humans as part of the cause (I will not call it a problem) when you have near perfect overlap between population and CO2 graph.CO2 makes plants grow - at least we can agree on that? yes? More CO2 makes plants grow faster - that is very established as well.More people = more consumption of food - thereby releasing the CO2 back (we exhale CO2 from combusting the fuel we take in) - and IF our population was steady and NOT growing - humans might be counted as a ZERO sum game.But since we have MORE people every day - we need and consume more food. Therefore our CO2 out is actually higher than it would be in a zero sum game. But since we breathe out CO2 (+ all the other CO2 factors like fossil fuel burning) we are actually helping Mother Nature be able to produce more food faster.Add to that all the other factors from increasing populations - more livestock - more farming - and we get the food we need for our ever increasing population. But a lot of the support material produce CO2 (livestock) as well - plus other gasses.If CO2 was back at the minimum at 180 - I do sincerely not think we would be able to feed our 7.5+ billion people.So what is the RIGHT amount of CO2? Our planet have had from 180-6000 ppm.What is the RIGHT temperature? Well so far over the last few 1000 years it has been roughly +1 to +3/ -1 to -3 deg c compared to where we are now. At least for US East/Atlantic/Greenland/EU/Mediterranean and Antartica. So where is the "optimum" figure? The people at equator wont like it too much hotter. The people up north won't like it too much colder.But nobody seems to care about what the goal is. But those should be the fundamentals that we try to solve for first. Else it is going to be very hard to find a solution.If we concentrate on cutting Co2 drastically - all we will get is a starving population.And no it does not help turning everyone into vegetarians. Humans do in general benefit from animal farming - and eating a bit of meat.Growing up in a small village with fishing harbour where everybody was either fishermen or farmers teaches you to appreciate the full circle of land use and marine use. It is much harder to grow crops without animal "left overs"No animal made fertiliser and you have to buy "chemical" fertiliser. Else you are forced to leave the land bare/wild for years to rebuild the nutrients to grow crops. We can not feed our populations with vegan food only without a lot of fertiliser or hugely expanded farm land mass. Meat is densely packed nutrition - where as vegan is "lighter" packed. So transport costs is also a factor.So this is a huge puzzle - but with a lot of science geeks shouting at each other - without getting anything real done. Now we are in the "Alarmist" period and that might damage a heck of lot from which there are not many roads back.And food is the main thing here. The amount of people who eat not enough variety is staggering. That impacts our learning ability especially post the teen years. I could write a lot about that - but many would then call me racists despite it having nothing to do with race at all. Just because a lack of good nutrition when they grew up.But I think we are beginning to see the same "problem" in the developed world - less home cooked food = more high processed fast food. And now average Industrialised world IQ and "average person hight" have started to drop. I think there is a connection.If we stop fossil fuel burning those problems will just get worse. And it will be the poorest who will suffer the most.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 01:55:42 am
content: Quote from: kaz911 on July 28, 2020, 09:52:54 pmVery thoughtful answers. I agree with just about all you have said. Let me just add a few thoughts you might know or might not know. Somewhere between 30% and 40% of to the world is currently being feed thanks to synthetic fertilizer. We have Fritz Haber to thank. Haber should be a famous as Einstein except he's that brought possessions gas to the World War I battle field and created Zyklon used in the gas chambers in the Second World War.The sex of marine and reptile life is determined by the temperature. An increase of a degree or two will resent in all one sex or the no offspring at all.While CO2 is a good fertilizer it's not that simple.Some plants need a period of cold to produce crops. With milder winters the crops will not produce or crop production will be greatly reduced.Cold is one way pest insets which destroy crops are kept under control. With milder winters these pests are destroying more of our crops.I've heard it said with temperature rising crops which would not grow in northern states would now be able to be grown there. It's just not as simple as that. Plants are sensitive to day/night hours. And a change in latitude changes the day/night hour ratio and plants will not or have a hard time growing.Like everything in science it's rare to find a simple solution. I don't believe we will ever be able to stop using fossil fuels. They are just too energy dense. The only other solution is nuclear. But people have issues with what to do with the waste in the US. Fission if we can get it figured out will be the long term solution.This is one of those issues that's going to take decades to undo. It's taken man 250 years of man burning to raise CO2 levels. And your a right there depending on when you were born either twice or four times as many people on the planet now. To say this is not a problem today will just make it much more difficult to solve in the future.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 07:09:30 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 29, 2020, 01:55:42 amDoug - I lived 10 years in the middle of a turtle breading area. And WWF was fighting hard to maintain them.But how long have we had sea turtles and other reptile life? They are some of, if not the oldest spices on the planet - more than 260 million years. That actually means they have survived many changes in temperature already. Some of them insanely fast. They even outlived the dinosaurs. Their spices have managed to deal with it over time. So don't you think that they will deal with it again? I find that argument puzzling - as puzzling as what the RIGHT temperature and CO2 levels are.Just like humans - we migrate with changing temperatures - the animal life will as well. And plant life has done the same. It might take a few plant generations to change adopt a plant to a new latitude - but it seems like it works quite fast - almost as fast as temperatures are changing.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 09:02:57 am
content: Quote from: kaz911 on July 29, 2020, 07:09:30 amThe problem isn't so much the change but the rate of change.You are correct to say the ecosystem has dealt with change in the past and historically the planet has been both far hotter and far colder, and life prospered. But life is optimised for a climate very similar to what we have now. That's what 100k years of evolution does. We're now seeing the climate change far quicker than any time in the Earth's history, bar the meteoric impact 65 million years ago which wiped out some 80% of all life on Earth.This is a good image:https://xkcd.com/1732/Ultimately this comes down to: we don't know for certain that this is bad, but we only have one planet, and we have a lot of evidence to suggest it will be bad.It's sort of like saying: being in a room with coronavirus patients doesn't guarantee you will get Covid-19, but it does seriously increase the risk...

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 10:07:36 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 29, 2020, 09:02:57 amThe natural rate of change can be far faster than anything we have experienced. The date on which the last ice age ended is known to a specific year, because its footprint on things like the ice core record is so obvious. Most species survived these events, even if lots of their number where culled by conditions they couldn't cope with.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 12:16:21 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on July 29, 2020, 10:07:36 amWhat evidence do you/we have that most species survived?

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 02:00:13 pm
content: You know we can relate man caused climate change two events which have affected all of us in our life time, acid rain and smog. The Romain and Greek structures and statues which were build over 2,000 years ago have survived wars and man physically trying to destroy them. But starting in the late 1950s it was found the marble was being dissolved. The cause was sulfuric acid from the ever increasing burning of wood and fossil fuels. This is not to say we had not been doing this for more than 2,000 years, we had and our planet could absorb it. But post World War II we had mass consumerism and everyone was buying cars, and using more electricity and dispute the war the human population was increasing.Every year mans was burning more and more to a point our environment/planet was changing faster than species could evolve. We were destroying animal habitats, it was affecting our food supply as crops/soil would not grow in the acidic rain. The issues wasn’t that we were creating SOx, but the rate we were creating the SOx.Just like with man caused climate change there were people saying acid rain isn’t occurring. And if it is occurring it’s not a big deal. AND if you look at the names of the scientists who were “selling doubt and confusion” about the science and what acid rain is doing to us to politicians and the public about acid rain you will find the names of many of the same sciences who have been saying “there is doubt and confusion” about the science of climate change. There is an entire industry that sells “doubt and confusion” about any scientific topic if one has the money.Once the marble statues of politicians were threaded they took action and we have taken measures to reduce the amount of SOx and NOx.Then there is smog which is naturally occurring. Smog predates man, but man can also create smog. The thick London fog which was once so very common is now very rare. What created that thick pea-soup fog? Man’s ever increasing burning of fossil fuels. That thick pea-soup London smog is now a rarity. Why? Man’s reduced burn gas of fossil fuels since the 1950s.I live in the US, California and we had a similar issue. Smog is naturally occurs in California as well. But starting in the late 1940s people began to notice the air quality was getting noticeably worse. The rate at California’s population was growing was ever increasing as was the rate we were consuming fossil fuels. By late 1950s early 1960s smog days were now quite common. There was no doubt that the rate man was burning fossil fuels was the cause of the smog in the San Francisco Bay Area and LA. I remember those days and those days could last for weeks. We has done a view of San Francisco which was about 12 miles away. I remember days when we could not see San Francisco though the fog. I remember breathing that yellow-green-brown smog and having my throat and lungs burning from having to breath that stuff in. I can remember my eyes burning and tearing from that smog.Thankfully our politicians passed strict ant-pollution laws. It took decades for all of those mandated pollution control devices to be installed. And thankfully they were installed as our air is cleaner that it ever has been I’m my lifetime. It took decades for our air to clear. That is until recently. With China’s increased consumption and their increased rate of burning fossil fuels smog days in California are returning. I’ms sure you’ve seen pictures of just how bad the smog can be in China. The smog blows over the Pacific Ocean and settles in California where we have to deal with it.There were people who were against installing the anti-pollution controls. They hired teams of sciences who “sold” “doubt and confusion” about the effectiveness of anti-pollution controls. Care to guess some of the names of the scientists? If you guessed the names of scientists who said “acid rain” isn’t man caused and not an issue your are correct. And these are the same scientists who are saying there is a lot of “doubt and confusion” about the science Of climate change. And there is no evidence man is the causing climate change.These are just two examples which have occurred in my lifetime that we were able to turn around in just over half a century. The issues with man caused climate change aren’t going to be solved in 25 or 50 years. It’s going to take sometime and you and I will be dead. Question is do you believed in “Manifest Destiny”? Or do you think we should live in a world that we didn’t screwup for future generations. Didn’t people fight and die in World War II to leave a better world for the future generation?I think it is despicable that there are scientists out there who “sell doubt and confusion” about the science for nice profit. If you look at some of the posts in this forum you will see these scientists have duped some forum posters into believing the science is uncertain when it comes to climate change. What do you do with these people who have been duped? You can try and educate them. But as we are seeing in this forum, they refuse to look at who is feeding them them false information. In one case it’s not even a real person.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 03:43:48 pm
content: QuoteSource treehuggers.com :http://treehugger.com/china-polluting-californias-air-4857698Distance from Shanghai to San Francisco: 9950km/6218miSee the winds in real time:https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/equirectangular=-167.50,-0.87,290Choose a height in the control panel:I find the claim unbelievable. Maybe a particle or two makes it to CA, per trillion I mean, at most.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 03:54:20 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 29, 2020, 03:43:48 pmWhat evidence/scientific experiments support your hypothesis that "Maybe a particle or two makes it to CA, per trillion I mean, at most."I find it unbelievable you believe the words of a fictitious person who conducts fictitious research who says climate change is not occurring. And that you discount the work of thousands of independent university educated scientists from around the world who have demonstrated man caused climate change has been occurring for over 250 years.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 04:05:06 pm
content: When I visited Greece it was quite common to have days where there was a thick haze caused by dust from the Sahara blowing over the continent. You also got radioactive samples from Fukishima on CA beaches (negligble amounts, but still detectable.) It doesn't sound all that unbelievable to me.AQI (air quality index) generally is measured for <1mg pollutants in a cubic meter for "worst case" pollution so you wouldn't need much more than a few tens of ppm to start being noticeable.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 04:34:58 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 29, 2020, 04:05:06 pmYes it happens, albeit very rarely. The distance is less than 1000 km though.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 04:57:34 pm
content: Did the same guy GeorgeOfTheJungle keeps referring to said California was going to become uninhabitable because of all of the radioactive leakage from Fukishima. What the dummy didn't mention is UC Berkeley dumped 80,000 barrels of radio-active waste at the Farallon Islands decades before. If we California were to become radioactive it would have happened already.I just wonder why GeorgeOfTheJungle continues to believe the words and research of people who are being paid to sell confusion and doubt about man caused climate change. Especially when the same people were hired to sell doubt and confusion about the heath dangers from tobacco smoke, acid rain, the ozone hole, DDT, flame retardants used in children's clothing and that added sugar is not causing obesity.One of the well know distinguished scientists, Fred Singer, who was very active in the campaign to "sell" doubt and confusion about man caused climate change just died a few months ago. For decades he was paid by Exxon, Shell, Unocal Sun Oil, and ARCO to promote doubt and confusion about man caused climate change. In an interview in 2017 or 2018 Singer in an interview he admitted he knew for decades the climate was changing. He continued saying the research over the past decade is sold conclusive showing climate change is being caused by man.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 05:00:42 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 29, 2020, 04:34:58 pmThere you go again stating incorrect facts. If we use the km which is in common use today it's 1.7 times the km you used.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 05:32:46 pm
content: Nope Sir, it's called sahara dust but it's all over the north of Afrika. And there's much less than 1000km from Afrika to Greece, don't take my word for it, look it up in google maps.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 05:56:21 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 29, 2020, 05:32:46 pmCare to tell us why you believe the fear, doubt and confusion "sales" job of Tony Hiller and all of the pseudonym names he goes by when to comes to man caused climate change? How can you believe a guy that won't use his own name? You do know he is being paid to cause doubt, fear and confusion when it comes to climate change by making up and distorting the facts. One of his partners in the "selling" doubt, fear and confusion when it comes to climate change admitted just before he died that they know and have known for years climate change and more specifically the science clearly indicates man is the cause of climate change.Yet you continue site and post links to a guy who is a known fraud? Why?

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 06:00:26 pm
content: Sahara sand apparently plays a vital role in the Amazon ecosystem a literal ocean away. It seems particles travelling vast differences are common. I'm not sure if and how that translates to things like smog, but it gives a new perspective on how interconnected our ecosystem is.https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-satellite-reveals-how-much-saharan-dust-feeds-amazon-s-plants/

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 06:08:46 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on July 29, 2020, 06:00:26 pmIt's not only sand that get's blown across oceans but insects, birds and other small animals.Chinese smog making it's way to California is well documented. We've had to endure days with elevated smog levels due to smog from China.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 06:16:55 pm
content: The distance fromAfrika to Brazilis less than 3000km. And look at the winds:https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/equirectangular=-33.41,-1.14,666

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 06:42:44 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 29, 2020, 06:16:55 pmCare to tell us why you believe the fear, doubt and confusion "sales" job of Tony Hiller and all of the pseudonym names he goes by when to comes to man caused climate change? How can you believe a guy that won't use his own name? You do know he is being paid to cause doubt, fear and confusion when it comes to climate change by making up and distorting the facts. One of his partners in the "selling" doubt, fear and confusion when it comes to climate change admitted just before he died that they know and have known for years climate change and more specifically the science clearly indicates man is the cause of climate change.Yet you continue site and post links to a guy who is a known fraud? Why?

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 06:47:07 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 29, 2020, 06:16:55 pmTaking the centre of both the Sahara and the Amazon the distance is 9500 km. Nearest edge to nearest edge is about 4200 km and furthest edge to furthest edge is about 13000 kilometers, but I don't think anyone is supposing the dust comes from the edges only. For comparison the Earth's circumference is roughly 40000 kilometres, so the dust travels between 10% and a third of the total maximum distance and possibly beyond. I'm not sure we know a lot about dust precipitation in the Pacific. As we don't know how this reflects on smog there's no need to desperately start explaining this away. It's just an interesting example of how large and interconnected our ecosystem is and how distance doesn't necessarily mean a lack of connection.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 06:51:34 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on July 29, 2020, 06:47:07 pmI would agree

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 06:52:15 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on July 29, 2020, 06:47:07 pmFalse.Edit: Oh well, I think you mean from the edges of the Sahara and the Amazon, ok.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 06:56:59 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 29, 2020, 06:52:15 pmWhy is EVERYTHING this guy is post wrong. From man caused climate change, and posting scientific data from a fictitious person to the distance between Africa and South America. I Used Google maps and he's off by 60%. That's no small margin of error.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 06:59:30 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 29, 2020, 06:52:15 pmThere you go. I sure hope you're not going to tell us the Earth isn't a sphere?

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 07:00:15 pm
content: Quote from: treehuggerAre you blind or simply stupid? I'm off, troll.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 07:06:00 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 29, 2020, 07:00:15 pmThat's not the Amazon.The outlines varies from source to source but that part of South America is never part of it. A lot of sources put it more inland than I did but I wanted to give the argument the benefit of the doubt as I'm not trying to skew matters in favour of any argument.Amazon:

author: nigelwright7557
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 07:13:25 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 23, 2020, 05:16:13 pmdepends on how the car is used.for a long distance rep having to stop for a few hours to charge up just isnt usable.for[[ short distances they are fine.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 07:42:25 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on July 29, 2020, 06:00:26 pmYup. I recall this being mentioned in a BBC documentary as well (fertilizer for the Amazon forrest originating from the Sahara). In the end it doesn't matter how far the dust travels exactly. It gets from A to B. And air pollution does the same.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 08:46:15 pm
content: Not sure how this discussion turned into an argument as to whether or not sand from the Sahara gets to the Amazon... perhaps we should get a bit more on-topic regarding EVs and the cost of running them?When I bought my Golf GTE PHEV the cost of that car, even with the interest of the bank loan I used to buy it, was comparable to that of my 10 year old petrol car. That was for doing 12,000 miles a year, half in the form of commuting and the other half in the form of driving to the shops, to the hackspace or DIY stores etc.The argument was: yes, I spent £300 per month on this car. But, I get equity in the car (it will be worth money when I sell it, I based the projected value on the average of the GTI and GTD) and I am not paying £150 per month in petrol any more. So I think it worked out as £10-20 pm more than my old Ford Focus 1.8L petrol, but that was without factoring in replacement of that car (it was pretty knackered) and that the Golf was substantially nicer with adaptive cruise control, sporty drivetrain, etc.And I didn't want a diesel because they are quite bad on short cycles and most of the inexpensive diesel cars you get are pretty luggish in performance.Under lockdown that argument has disappeared somewhat (but hey, that's life) but still, the car is nice to drive and works very well as both a hybrid and pure electric car.Now what would I replace it with? It is coming up on 2 years of ownership and 5.5 years total age and 70,000 miles and frankly the worst thing about it has been that it is a VW. I don't know if the Mark 7's were an off batch but so much has gone wrong with this car that it is so absurd to think about. The high voltage battery has been replaced, at a cost of £7,500 (under warranty, phew) because VW did not fit the seal properly at the factory and water got into it tripping fault codes. The 12V battery fuse has been replaced as the fuse assembly on Mk7 Golfs is prone to cracking and with the long heavy positive cable mounted to it in the rear of the vehicle, it makes a perfect spring which fatigue fractures the fuse. The gearbox selector has a warning code periodically due to a dodgy microswitch. The "granny charger" was replaced under warranty. The charging port has started to malfunction.Really VW ... not a great showing. I have seen the light of pure electric - I cannot go back! On hybrid, the car is nice, but there is still an engine in the loop, which means performance still has a slight lag. On pure electric, despite only having 100 hp, the car feels like a monster. And so cheap to run (3p/mile in summer, 4.5p/mile in winter). And I can preheat and precool it. And it's really nice to try and maximise electric economy - it's a game. So my next car must be electric.But what are your options these days for under 50000 EUR?Tesla Model 3 - really expensive but rather nice. Realistically I would be massively stretching to buy this car even in the base spec.Peugeot e-208 / Vauxhall / Opel e-Corsa 50kWh - small car, Peugeot. I had a 206. It was a good car all considered for the ~8000 EUR it cost my father (I bought it from him second-hand), but at the end of the day, the e-208 is a 30,000 EUR Peugeot. It's really hard to justify spending that much on a "basic" car.Hyundai Ioniq 38kWh - very efficient car so battery goes a long way but hard to get one.VW ID.3 - my experience with VW puts me off. But, the most inexpensive for long range (~EUR 24000 for 44kWh)Mini Electric/BMW i3 - I mean you're buying a BMW, and the range is only 100 miles at 70 mph in the Mini, about 25% more in the i3. Expensive car to maintain if anything goes wrong. Also limited to ~45kW fast charging.Nissan Leaf - battery has no cooling so will be ruined by 5th year, residual values as a result are in the toilet. Very expensive for the range offered.Renault Zoe ... not particularly attractive but probably the best of a bad bunch. Only 50kW fast charging though.MG ZS EV ... very cheap but from an unknown brand. Corrosion issues already visible. Does support up to 100kW fast charging but with aggressive tapering.One thing is for sure ... the EV market is far better than it was a decade ago. But it's still clearly very nascent. I really wish Tesla would release a reduced size Golf competitor. For now, I think I have to stick with my hybrid, and I'll wait a couple more years to see what happens with the market.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 11:12:57 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 29, 2020, 07:00:15 pmDude that's not the Sahara desert and that's not that Amazon. Is it the drugs you are off on or are you just a troll spreading more false information.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2020, 11:33:56 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 29, 2020, 08:46:15 pmI use to love VWs. I think I have owned 6 of them over the years. Their quality just keeps getting worse. But once diesel-gate hit that was it. VW is all about making money and screwing the customer. VW has lost all credibility. Not so sure I would get a Tesla. While I like the techy side, in the states people are having to wait many months for replacement parts. Maybe for my next car. Or the car after. I would pass on the Leaf.i3 from the Bavarian Money Wasters (BMW) is too expensive and lacks features.The other cars I know nothing about.The Hyundai Ioniq was given good reviews by the car reviewer in Australia. Here are some links. He's down under, so make adjustments for Northern Hemisphere models and a steering wheel on the other side.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2020, 08:08:00 am
content: You can get those 2nd hand, from 11k euros, at autoscout .comhttps://www.autoscout24.com/lst/hyundai/ioniq?sort=price&desc=0

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2020, 09:08:34 am
content: It's a shame they aren't higher performance vehicles. I am not going to lie the guilty pleasure with my vehicle is using the full 210 hp drivetrain. I don't do it often because the average fuel economy starts looking quite poor! But I'd miss only having a car with 90 - 110 hp even with instant EV torque.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2020, 09:43:56 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 30, 2020, 09:08:34 amIf you want that Formula E experience, you’ll want the Tesla.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2020, 10:06:51 am
content: I don't like it, it's ugly.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2020, 10:10:27 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 30, 2020, 09:43:56 amThe GTE is enough of a handful as it is.I don't think I'd be safe with 380 hp...

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2020, 10:17:10 am
content: Not to mention the autopilot would try to kill you...

author: richard.cs
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2020, 01:24:51 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 29, 2020, 08:46:15 pmI've been driving a Zoe for just over two years and I like it a lot, an older 22 kWh model with 22 kW max charging, at some point an upgrade to a newer one is on the cards. Limited range of that model aside, the main niggles have been silly things like the infotainment system being a bit buggy (hopefully fixed on newer ones). I've not driven any of the others on your list but feel free to ask zoe-related questions.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2020, 09:54:06 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 29, 2020, 11:33:56 pmLook at the Kia Niro instead (Kia and Hyundai are the same company). Exactly the same drivetrain but in a more practical form factor. Better interior space, your rear seat passengers will definitely thank you.P.S. Go for the smaller wheel size. You get a better ride and much higher mileage.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2020, 10:43:55 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 29, 2020, 11:33:56 pmThe Ioniq seems nice in various ways, but it has a rear window that is split in two with a huge chunk of metal separating the two halves right at the height where you are looking with the rear view mirror.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2020, 06:48:55 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 27, 2020, 01:45:36 pmhttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-21/eu-approves-biggest-green-stimulus-in-history-with-572-billion-plan"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2020, 07:27:22 am
content: That's good to see. It's like funding the fire department when the building is already on fire, but it's a step.I still don't see how this money goes into the hands of the climate-researchers......or why the oil industry does nothing about these *obvious lies* with their trillions of dollars of revenue every year.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2020, 07:41:45 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 31, 2020, 07:27:22 amYou say that because you've left the INGSOC...Quote from: tom66 on July 31, 2020, 07:27:22 amIt isn't the first time, that's been going on for years now. And all the billions simply sublimate, disappear, year after year. This is blatant robbery, no more no less. Anyone in favor of this (*) is a useful idiot.(*) Not that anybody can stop it because the EU is not a democratic institution.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2020, 09:43:09 am
content: I wouldn't mind if we were in the EU. That said we would likely have been on the hook for 50 bn EUR in Coronavirus bailouts; instead we only have to help ourselves to the tune of 250-300 bn EUR. I'm very much on the fence about the EU. I was previously strongly in support.The money doesn't disappear it gets invested in R&D and technology, you're a fool if you believe money really disappears when it is spent on research, development and new technology. Unless you think your salary disappears because you spend it on things you need.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2020, 09:52:26 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 31, 2020, 09:43:09 amGovernment spending on R&D has been a real mixed bag. If you look at the times it has worked well, like the EU's development of cellular and digital broadcast standards, the success had more to do with acting as a effective coordinator than the money they poured into actual research. Much government R&D spending is just welfare payments. It gets sucked up by the bodies least able to create something new and useful with it.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2020, 09:58:39 am
content: Absolutely.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2020, 10:04:37 am
content: Tom,I think you would learn a lot of you worked with some professorsfor a while - not about their fields - but about how "closed circuit" universities and research funding.Most universities in the "olden days" would accept monies from anybody to do any kind of research. (Lots of tobacco research...)Now they have panels that go through suggestions of research and accept or deny permission. Right now you could not get a research approved if it has anything to do with not toeing the line of current climate "consensus" - so if you wanted to research alternatives - you are 100% on your own. That means a lot less citations -- and less grants as Uni name can't be attached. . You need to then setup you own labs out of the universities - and probably loose any tenure position you had. And you can't have students helping as they are not assigned to you or your project. So studying something controversial - is a mine field at best at most Uni's.That means you will not find many people trying to research other sides. Anything controversial gets shut down before it even gets to the grant stage.Tom - EU Funding - hmm - I think you will find that you would have had to do the 50bn+++ plus the 250+300 if UK was still in the EU. It could have been a lot worse for the Northern EU countries if Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands and Poland had not had their finger in "bail out package" - the EU package is mainly supporting the countries in the south. Who are also the largest "takers" before COVID.The Northern EU countries have been supporting the south for the last 30 years money flow wise. And it is quite funny - the North countries are always the first to implement EU regulations.But the South has a much more ... relaxed .. attitude to EU regulation. So in Spain there are EU LAWS that are 25+ years old - that have still not been implemented - DESPITE EU regulation states it has (EU has 2 kinds of regulation - the things you have to implement and the things they recommend you implement) - Spain does not give a HOOT about it and just does what ever they want. If it benefits Spain they implement. If not they "delay". France and Italy acts mostly like Spain...

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2020, 03:37:59 pm
content: Quote from: kaz911 on July 31, 2020, 10:04:37 amWhat are “the other sides” of science? Religion, royal degrees, political agendas, capitalism, conspiracy theories, anti-science? Science is all about understanding the world we live in.In our modern era there has alway been committees to review and approve the ethics of experiments and to ensure money is being spent on research which assists us in understanding of the world we live in. There is a limited amount of fund so, every research project can not be funded.Once one has tenure at a university it is not easy to have them removed.In the US there is an entire industry of scientists who sell “doubt and confusion” about any scientifically researched topic. Five years ago it was found there were scientists who were creating false data to data to confuse politicians and the public about man caused climate change. These scientists were “bought” by companies to produce false information. I guess this could be considered the “other side”. Would you really want to see research money being spent of false and deceptive research?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2020, 03:43:27 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 31, 2020, 03:37:59 pmThere you have a key "other side" of science, especially in the current era, where tenure is proving tenuous. Once faculty get tenure the main pressure on them is to do very little, not rock the boat, but suppress anything that might call the useful work they did in their youth into question.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2020, 03:56:53 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on July 31, 2020, 03:43:27 pmThat is up to the individual? It’s always easier to go along with the status quo. Take climate change. Seventy years ago this most certainly was not an accepted theory. But thanks to research being funded on climate change we slowly began to realize our climate was changing faster than it ever had in the history of the planet. Slowly as the research results started coming in finding our climate was changing, the “don’t rock the boat” types realized there was enough evidence to consider climate change as a fact. And with additional funding, we know realize all of the evidence is showing us man is the clause of this rapid climate change.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2020, 04:01:23 pm
content: The evidence that the billions have disappeared...

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2020, 04:09:43 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 31, 2020, 04:01:23 pmBillions of what?

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2020, 04:24:32 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 31, 2020, 04:09:43 pm

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2020, 05:41:48 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 31, 2020, 04:24:32 pmAppears you have found the billions that have disappeared.So what's the problem?

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2020, 06:03:39 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 31, 2020, 03:37:59 pmDoug - that is a very naive world view - sorry. I do not like making discussions personal.But let me just give you an example I was involved in many years ago. Remember Shell Brent Spar? The oil rig that Shell had planed to clean up and sink at the bottom of the sea. The other part in that was Greenpeace.Despite! having evidence of the opposite - their nincompoop Greenpeace guys calculated the platform had 5000 tons of oil in it - and they should therefore not sink the platform. (Off course the platform did not have 5000 tons of oil in it)Only a few days after Greenpeace issued their press release - to world uproar - the guy behind it found out that he had a comma mistake in his calculation. He was wrong with a factor of 10000. Easy mistake to make.... But since they had issued the press release - they could not back down from the "action plan" so they continued everywhere - in all media and TV and trying to "occupy" the rig.Later Shell's plans was found to be environmentally sound and better than slashing the platform up on land. (Which today is the norm applauded by environmentalists for creating habitats for marine life)The Greenpeace mistake was figured out by someone I worked closely with ... and Greenpeace was confronted. And I promise you Greenpeace just said "Yes we know and F**K you too" and continued their vicious campaign with the 5000 tons as continued headlines.It did have backlash on Greenpeace later - and Greenpeace was forced to write apology letter to Shell for the "mistake" - but the Greenpeace mistake was slightly slurred pointing to errors in measurement and not a simple calculus error. But the damage to Shell's brand was done - and the platform was being cut up on land at a much higher cost and a lot higher environmental impact.At the time I worked closely with Journalists - and I have done so for many many years. And working with journalist have taught me a few things.1. You can't ever trust journalists (90% - 10% can/might be trusted). And that is meant for integrity - not if they will bend to my will.2. I learned to hear on the way a journalist asked me questions - if he was really interested in my opinion or not. If it was not - it was probably because he/she had already written the story and just wanted confirmation. (That was the standard years ago that you confirmed stories before printing them) - and if you "disproved" the journalists story - he would just move on and usually print the story anyway - and maybe find another "sucker" who would accidentally confirm the story without even knowing what he confirmed.3. Some journalists are NEVER interested in the story - just the glory. So if they think they find a Glory Story - they will hunt it down until they publish - even if they know they are wrong or not presenting quite honestly.---so back to science.1. WE doNOTknow that climate is changing faster than it has ever done before. Let me quote again from Ice core research 2008 "The Ice age stopped exactly 11.711 years years ago - and it happened so fast it was like someone pushed a button". (Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Centre for Ice and Climate at NBI at the University of Copenhagen)2. Middle Warm period - for every article that say it was a local North European thing - there are just as many saying it covered most of the world with evidence from Med/Australia and China. So not no settled science but the unsettled science created the Mann hockey-stick that completely ignores the warm period as it was local. But there is so much evidence it was not local only.The science is IMHO not settled - far from it. But there is no room for anything that invalidates the hockey-stick by M.Mann.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2020, 07:59:24 pm
content: Quote from: kaz911 on July 31, 2020, 06:03:39 pmThank you for a thoughtful reply. I have worked with journalists and agree with everything you said about them. But let me add one more thought. Tell me if you agree or not. Journalists typically do not have an education in science. (Same is true of most politicians.)I think we are in complete agreement.Mistakes happen. Forgotten/missing comma can completely change the meaning of something. How many times have inches been confused with centimetres? Or liters with gallons. You have to congratulate Greenpeace for admitting they made a mistake. Many times people/companies have refuse to admit they were wrong.As for climate change you do realize there is an entire industry of very credible scientists who have been paid well to confuse politicians and the public about man caused climate change. It is well documented that these scientists are being paid very well by the fossil fuel companies and political organizations to confuse and deceive the public.The credible evidence is overwhelming which indicates the climate is changing due to man's activity. There is no question that for the past 250 years man's accelerated burning of fossil fuels has resulted the our climate changing faster that it ever during man's existence.Glad you bring up the Mann hockey-stick graph. That graph has been looked at by other credible "honest" scientists. What they have found is very similar to what you pointed out with Greenpeace, there were calculation mistakes made. The "honest" scientists would allow Mann to update his calculations and present a updated graph. But that's not what's happening. The not so honest scientists who are being paid to promote "doubt and confusion" about climate change use his graph with his incorrect calculations to "prove" climate change is not occurring and that the "honest" scientists are "manipulating" the data.The only problem with that is there are so many independent studies which have been conducted by scientists from different countries which have all found tangible evidence for man caused climate change. We know Exon, Shell and the Koch brothers all have independently conducted research on climate change and have found the evidence is overwhelming indicating the climate is changing due to man's consumption of fossil fuels.So not sure why with so much credible evidence indicating man is the cause of climate change some people continue to believe the dishonest scientists who are being paid to deceive the public. Ins't the exact same tactic Dr. Gobbles used with the people of Germany? He would make up facts to deceive the people of Germany about how the war was going for Germany? Even in the last month of the war Gobbles was saying Germany was doing well in the war and those pictures of the bombed out cites were just false propaganda. Some people still believed Gobbles, even as bombs were falling from the sky and their town was being destroyed. You can choose to believe the false and misleading propaganda you've been given. I, like many others continue to look the the evidence. That evidence clearly indicatives man is changing the climate of our planet.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2020, 08:09:01 pm
content: Quote from: kaz911 on July 31, 2020, 06:03:39 pmMost journalists aren't even interested in the glory these days. Its all about maximising clicks.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2020, 08:24:23 pm
content: Most journalists aren't even interested in the glory these days. Its all about maximising clicks. = More money.We live in a capitalist world where money is the most important thing. The United States did that about 175 years ago with "Manifest Destiny". Many counters in Europe were doing the same with the "rape of Africa".What has that given us? BLM and man caused climate change.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2020, 08:47:45 pm
content: Oh dear...

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 01:02:27 am
content: I think we're all forgetting one thing: Climate science is relatively new. Whilst we understand a lot, there is still a lot we don't know. The climate is changing, there is absolutely no doubt about that. But you'd also be naive to believe that it's all entirely caused by humans. The climate has been changing long before we even got here and will continue to long after we're gone. How humans are having an impact on climate is still something we're learning about and to blame it solely on something like Carbon Dioxide is idiotic (and before someone jumps down my throat; I'm not suggesting that CO2 doesn't have an impact).Switching to electric vehicles has its merits but also has significant disadvantages depending on where you live in terms of its impact on the environment. For example: In some Australian states, an electric car can actually "produce" more CO2 than a vehicle with an internal combustion engine because of how the electricity used to charge the vehicle is generated. This isn't just one of those odd edge-cases either. Consider the current model Toyota Camry, 2.5L 4 cylinder sedan (among Australia's top 20 best sellers), it produces about 111 grams of CO2 per kilometer driven when you consider the fuel lifecycle, compared to 147 grams per kilometer for the current model Tesla Model S.We can all have a positive impact by just doing the little things:1. Don't drive with a lead foot.2. Buy only what you need and consider the types of packaging it comes in.3. Recycle as much as you can.4. Reduce food wastage.5. Switch off appliances and lights not in use.6. Lower or raise your air conditioning temperature just a degree or two from your "ideal" temperature.These are all things I do every day.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 01:31:31 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on August 01, 2020, 01:02:27 amThat's where you are mistaken. There is direct correlation between climate change and man's activities over the past 500 years. Have you looked at the evidences recently? Or are you using the false facts and made-up evidence the group of scientists who being paid to create doubt and confusion about climate change?It's far more than just CO2 than just CO2 levels that humans have changed over the past 300 years.Australia has a large coal industry. The Australian auto guy who is on YouTube has many excellent videos on what's going with the politics of EV cars, the coal industry and Tesla down-under. From what I understand your coal industry and car industry is doing all they can to convince everyone in Australia there is a lot of doubt and confusion over man caused climate change. Haven't you had some of the worst wild fires in Australian history which have been attributed to man caused climate. Hasn't man caused climate change through increased temperatures killed half of the of your great barrier reef? Just like with humans an increase in just a few degrees can be deadly.I am very surprised as one of your country's greatest natural treasures, no the world's greatest treasures is being killed off by man caused climate change (increased temperatures) that there is any doubt in your mind that man is not causing climate change. There must be an outstanding team to cause doubt and confusion when half of your countries greatest treasure is dead. How much more of the reef needs to be killed off before you realize its being killed by man causing climate change? If you wait until the entire reef is dead it will be too late.

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 01:40:47 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 01, 2020, 01:31:31 amThere is a small subset of information about conditions in Australia that you are receiving instead of the whole picture.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 02:39:32 am
content: I am sure you are correct.Isn't it true that 50% of the Great Barrier reef is dead?And you have experienced some of the worst wild files in Australian history?And many of your politicians and the coal industry say climate change is a hoax? Or something to that effect?

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 03:01:48 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 01, 2020, 01:31:31 amDid you bother reading anything I wrote?At no point did I say it was only CO2. And I did also point out the science was new. 500 years is not a long period of time, particularly when we're talking about the climate. And yes, I've read quite a bit on the subject and if you knew me like many on this forum do, you'd know I don't use false facts or made-up evidence. If you can point out where I made an error, I'd be happy to clarify it.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 03:37:26 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on August 01, 2020, 03:01:48 amI did read everything you wrote. Do you agree there is a lot of false, incorrect and misleading inflammation that's being spread about man caused climate change?And that there is an entire industry out there of credible scientists who are being paid to spread doubt and confusion about man caused climate change?You say I'm naive to think climate change is entirely caused by humans. Would you agree it's more like 95 - 98% is caused by humans?Have you looked at the research the Koch brothers funded to investigate climate change? (I'm assuming you know who the Koch Brothers are and the business they are in.)Why do you say there is no correlation in the data linking climate change to man's activities over the past 500 years? The is evidence which shows a clear correlation.Yes the Earths climate has changed over millions of years. But that's not what's at issue. The issue is man's burning of fuels creating large amounts of CO2 and other gases in a short amount of time, (250 years) which is changing our climate faster than it ever has before. Just as we had an issue with man caused smog in 60 years ago. We took action and for the most part solved the problem in the US. Same is true with man caused acid rain. We made changes to reduce the amount of SOx and NOx released into the atmosphere and its under control.These are just two examples where man altered our environment. By making some changes we reversed the changes we made to our environment. If there is man caused smog and acid rain, isn't it very plausible that over the past 250 years with a world population that's quadroppled and we are burning more fossil fuel than ever before we are rapidly chaining the climate of our planet?

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 07:09:57 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 01, 2020, 02:39:32 amDoug - I suggest you read this :https://jennifermarohasy.com/2020/04/coral-catastrophes-imagined/Not that I claim she is right - but there are always multiple opinions - and read the Peter Ridd case as well.Peter Ridd went in and did growth samples on the reefs - as the AU scientist had not done any since 2005.The person/Scientist who is adamant about coral bleaching is Terry Huges. His statistics is based on flying over the reefs mainly. But I would as an engineer and a pilot seriously question his methods as flying over something even if could get down to 45 knot speed - it is very hard to judgeanythingunder the water. Water refracts light dependent on both angle and depth and current. But the basis of the 50 or 60 % bleaching is from a flyover only.Jennifer Marohasy seems pretty down to earth - but like me have a stick up the backside about science should be done right. But just look at the "deleted" temperature measurements from AU stories. The official Met office deleted an old reading of thehighesttemperature ever measured long time ago - for the reason of "It was Sunday and the guy was not supposed to do readings that day - so we think it is wrong" - well colour me colour-blind...If there is an interesting event like extreme high temperature - is that not something that would entice each and one of us to actually go to work that day to observe that event? I know I would. The type of event does not matter - if it is unusual or interesting we do not care if it is mon-fri between 09am and 5pm... We do it anyway because we usually have an interest in the job we do and we do not want to miss extraordinary events.I have just read the Middle East have record > 50c temperatures for the first time ever. To that again I say absolute bull... Temperatures are OFTEN above 50c in the Middle East - but the scarcity and maintenance of measurement stations is horrible. I had multiple times of 52-53c in my open garden (calibrated w/full Stevenson screen with ventilation) - 15-10 years ago. But at that time the official station was down for as their tech could not deal with the heat... so zero measurements which was quite usual during the summers .... I had water temperatures of 36-37 deg c! (Arabian Gulf)So all the hysteria articles are bad for us. What I have found is they rarely present the truth. The represent a very interpreted version of the truth.And since I have experienced it so many times where data reported turns into sensationalist headlines - that was when I became a "settled science sceptic"

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 07:33:14 am
content: to respond to the actual subject of cost of running yes they are cheaper, if the electric car uses 250W/m and electric is 8p/kWh then you do the math against a car that uses 0.1l of petrol per wile at 135p/l, I calculated that at 7-10'000m/y you break even

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 07:34:29 am
content: Oh and if you want to look into real disasters in the Middle East around the Arabian Gulf - just check for pollution.All the countries around the Arabian Gulf - deposits so much crap in the water that we in the west would run lawsuits from here to the moon.My good friend took up fishing from his boat. Then took the catch home and prepared it and ate it. He would fish multiple times a week so he ate local fish for a good 3-4 times a week. Until about 3 months later when he was rushed to hospital for mercury poisoning... He was in hospital for 2 months. It is so severe he has to do checkups every 3 months for the rest of his life.The Arabian Gulf is also one of the saltiest sea water places in the world. One of the reasons is they dump the sludge from Reverse Osmosis plants back into the sea. (Reverse osmosis is used to turn salt water into drinkable water)When Air pollution in UAE became a big issue - the solution was to ban measurement stations and close them.But you can't complain as that would be counted as "insulting the government" which carries a prison sentence.We can't change CO2 and pollution until China, India and others stop building coal fired plants. Our current efforts are like shovelling water up a hill.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 07:35:24 am
content: Quote from: Simon on August 01, 2020, 07:33:14 amSimon - does that include the parasitic drain? (Tesla S 3000 miles/year?)

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 08:36:12 am
content: Quote from: Simon on August 01, 2020, 07:33:14 am250Wh/mi is too optimistic. The real world figure (using the A/C, some highway driving at highway speeds, etc) is in my experience at least 1.3 times that much: +20kWh/100km (325Wh/mi).Also, the price per kWh is 32..36 cents in Teslas' superchargers.https://electrek.co/2019/01/18/tesla-increases-supercharger-prices/

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 08:51:47 am
content: Quote from: Simon on August 01, 2020, 07:33:14 amNot to nit pick but is the assumptions on your cost benefit not slightly skewed ?1. you assume Eco 7 (cheaper night time electricity) in the UK based on your price - real cost would be between 8p/kWh and 15p/kWh dependent on when you charge and IF Eco 7 makes sense for your household. Since we occupy our house the whole day (working from home 2 adults etc) - we would even with an electric car based on our milage - not benefit from Eco 7. So we would pay 13.25p / kWh (current rate)2. You assume 100% socket to charger and battery efficiency - so 1 kWh from grid = 1 kWh in car? I think the efficiencies between 80 and 90% (https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/charging-efficiency.122072/) - so I would assume 85% avg.So your 7-10.000 would for me translate roughly into 13.000 to 18.600'ish miles per year for break even. And then probably add the parasitic consumption of 3000 miles for model S - so 16.0000 to 21.600 miles per year.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 09:04:46 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on August 01, 2020, 08:36:12 amMy PHEV gets 4.5mi/kWh in summer and 3.5mi/kWh in winter (with heating on) and it's not even particularly optimised: it has a small battery and a relatively small electric motor driving a 6 speed gearbox.It's a quite reasonable estimate for a "mid-size" European hatchback. The Hyundai Kona SUV gets about 5.5mi/kWh average.And comparing the cost at a fast charging station isn't entirely reasonable when most people will get most of their range from a home charger, and a lot of that can be shifted into the evening or night when electricity is even cheaper - I pay 5p/kWh between 00:30 and 04:30 and my car is filled in that time (I also run the dishwasher and washing machine then too.) It's like complaining that petrol cars are expensive to run when you fuel them up on the motorway only. Well duh. But the supermarket charges 50p/L less.My car can't utilise them, but I used to be a member of a fast charging network that charges 16p/kWh for up to 150kW chargers. The problem with these chargers is they are expensive and the price is only economical when you can get them at 70-80% utilisation.BTW - you can reduce the parasitic drain of Model S to nearly zero if you turn off the app connectivity. It's primarily there so you can wake up the car AC/heating immediately. This is a design flaw on the Model S but it doesn't affect Model 3 as the infotainment computer runs on a separate vehicle power bus.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 09:10:52 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 01, 2020, 09:04:46 amHi Tom, which electricity company offers 5p for nighttime? What do you pay outside of that per kWh? It is not Eco 7 I guess? I'm with Peoples Energy and I think their cheapest is 8.5p/Eco 7 but PeoplesEnergy is mostly "green" energy sources.and thanks for the parasitic update. I'll check on Model 3 later. I think X is same as S as far as I remember./k

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 09:14:17 am
content: From:https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/model-3-real-world-kwhmile450.8e3/1018 === 442Wh/miQuote11e3/66 === 166 Wh/mi (the guy is clearly a liar)QuoteQuoteThen there's this, as @kaz911 has also pointed out:Quote

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 09:14:28 am
content: Quote from: kaz911 on August 01, 2020, 09:10:52 amOctopus Energy. It's normal 14p/kWh in the rest of the day. You need a Smart Meter though.https://octopus.energy/blog/ev-tariffs/Prior to this I was on ~8p/kWh via Yorkshire Energy at night.My night time bill was 2x my daytime bill. Lockdown has changed that a little!

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 09:24:44 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 01, 2020, 09:04:46 am1/5.5 => 181Wh/miSorry, but that sounds too good to be true...

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 09:31:35 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 01, 2020, 09:14:28 amok so roughly after charger losses - up to 27 kWh charge per day - or about 100 miles give and take.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 09:33:51 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on August 01, 2020, 09:24:44 amThe rated consumption is 225Wh/mi. It's really quite efficient for an SUV.Real world people get ~210Wh/mi (~131Wh/km):https://drivetribe.com/p/real-life-ev-test-which-one-went-Fa5yDo9dTkysjS24C7wBTw?iid=Zsy0QygFRSeZiROD_dzQBgSo maybe 4.8mi/kWh -- I'm sure I saw someone say 5.5mi/kWh but for now consider that retracted as I can't source it.Still pretty good.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 09:35:36 am
content: Quote from: kaz911 on August 01, 2020, 09:31:35 amYes it's a pretty good deal if you are driving a normal amount of mileage. The average UK motorist has a 20 mile commute.Although for those who are lucky enough to own something like an Audi e-Tron or an older Model S they support 48A single phase charging so you can really suck the grid dry if you try.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 10:02:10 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 01, 2020, 09:33:51 amThat it's possible to obtain those figures (hypermiling) is one thing, and another very different thing that in normal driving the figures are those.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 11:28:10 am
content: Quote from: kaz911 on August 01, 2020, 07:09:57 amohh and I almost forgot the most funny thing about why it is neverofficiallyabove 50c in the Middle East...The labour law in many of the states - say - If Temperature > 50 - workers have to be given the day off.So very often the official meters stop at 49.99c...../k

author: f4eru
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 11:37:37 am
content: QuoteNope. 160 Wh/km (257Wh/mile) for me, real world, with A/C, and driving on Highways, even Autobahn occasionally, if you know what that means speed-wise...QuoteCompletely irrelevant. When 90% of charging is at home, the average price of the electricity for the vehicle is very close to the price of electricity at home(0,14 Euro/kWh in my case)In my case, in europe, I pay approx 4x less for the EV charging than for the previous diesel(pre-COVID). Liquid fuels are expensive here, lots of taxes on it.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 11:42:40 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on August 01, 2020, 08:36:12 amAnd what is your experience, other than in rejecting numbers which don't suit your narrative?

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 11:57:24 am
content: It's quite simple. We can't risk making the planet uninhabitable for ourselves. The scientific consensus is that climate change is caused by man and the rest is covered by that assertion. We cannot risk not acting and reducing our impact seems to be a good idea for many other reasons. We don't need climate scientists to tell us that rivers comprised almost entirely of plastic or endlessly pumping dubious substances into the environment may not be the best idea. I consider myself a practical person rather than some idealist and I'd like to be careful with this planet for the most self-serving reasons there are.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 12:24:59 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on August 01, 2020, 10:02:10 amWell, no, not really. Economy figures for cars are usually given in "hypermiled" figures anyway.But realistically this is what I got on my Golf GTE:which is just over 4 miles per kWh with the AC blasting on a hot day. (N.B. for some reason the dashboard shows 300 mpg even if you never use the petrol engine. And yes, I did clean the dashboard after seeing how filthy this was!)Air conditioning usually uses about 2.5kW when first getting into the car but once cabin is at temperature it drops to 1kW or so. This is why the pre-heat/pre-cool function is so important for a PHEV, and still useful for a BEV, because you can use the wall power to do this instead of the limited battery capacity.And if you want serious efficiency this is what you get with an e-Golf. I borrowed one for 24 hours to evaluate it as a replacement for the GTE. I drove to Wales and back across the Pennines - a ~1200ft ascent at motorway speed followed by a similar descent - keeping to the 70 mph speed limit most of the way and it was particularly cold in the evening so we needed the heating on the way back.This is around 5.6 miles/kWh which is fantastically efficient for an EV. It's helped by the aero skirts, 16" wheels, flat undercarriage and fixed speed gearbox. The GTE really is quite inefficient in comparison which is interesting given that you would have thought the battery pack cost would have been more critical. In some respects though it reflects its origins as a "compliance car" although it is still quite a good short range PHEV. I would love a version with a double-size battery.It was pretty nice to watch the regen gauge in green pretty much the whole way - the drivetrain was more than efficient enough to recover 10kW going down hill at 70 mph, whereas my GTE can about maintain the speed while coasting, probably due to the extra resistance from the DSG and less efficient drive motor and tyres/wheels.If they made an e-Golf with 200 mile range I probably would already have that instead of GTE. Who knows when I relocate I may decide to swap as I will be closer to my typical destinations.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 12:54:27 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on August 01, 2020, 11:57:24 amSiberia is big, only parts of the world will become uninhabitable.Peak fossil water will make tons of places uninhabitable regardless of climate change too. In general peak f'ing everything is going to crash humanity's population. Peak water, peak phosphorus, peak copper, peak IQ ... favourable climate around the equator is just one thing running out of many. Not the most essential thing to maintain technological civilization for a large population either.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 01:02:32 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on August 01, 2020, 12:54:27 pmWe'll have to flee to the highest ground, like the Peak District.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 01:04:43 pm
content: The thing about flooding and sea level rise is it isn't a constant.A place can be unlivable if it floods yearly. So the flood maps are usually made with this type of assumption. Don't live here unless you enjoy redecorating and replacing your furniture every year.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 01:17:21 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on August 01, 2020, 12:54:27 pmNetherlands is yet another country with NO accelerated sea water level. (Like most others despite what some “scientists” are peddling eing as the pure truth..”)https://www.clo.nl/en/indicators/en0229-sea-level-dutch-coast-and-worldwideI think I fear more drowning in Alarmist tears than accelerated sea level change.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 01:21:41 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 01, 2020, 01:04:43 pmEverywhere I know! Sea Level rate of rise IS CONSTANT. Apart from where the Ice lay heavy - where sea levels are actually declining.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 01:42:04 pm
content: Groundwater rise (water table) and sea level rise are closely linked, if the groundwater rises then you will get flooding. There is also the risk of changes in weather patterns and anywhere that is close to a tidal flow will be affected too.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 02:04:59 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 01, 2020, 01:42:04 pmYes but 1m rise of sea water is NOT 1m rise of water level. The groundwater rise is a fraction of the sea water level rise. Apart from that sea water turns to fresh water when filtered through enough pressure of soil, limestone etc. so salt content goes down. Salt water is also heavier than fresh water so it stays below the freshwater.But all of that is “very new science” with a range of very limited reports so far. So I would say we are years from having any suitable statistics and reports.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 03:38:19 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on August 01, 2020, 12:54:27 pmWith increased global warming all land locked areas are likely to suffer from extreme weather. With the habitable area shrinking there will be a fierce and uncompromising struggle amongst those surviving and most of us have to expect to either perish or suffer. I'm hesitant to just accept that. I want a good life for me and my children.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 03:46:29 pm
content: This is why I plan to relocate in the next decade to somewhere that is *relatively* immune from the changes to the climate. A semi-arid cool climate looks particularly appealing; it's likely as the climate warm such an area will get less snow and hotter winters, but still adequate rainfall to keep aquifers full for drinking water and sanitation.I feel particularly sorry for any country which presently experiences 45C+ summers - these will become more like 50C+ summers which, despite only being a 5C rise, will have a dramatic effect on drought and crop yield.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 04:54:20 pm
content: I can't help but feel sorry and sad about your thinking. You are on an engineering forum but your sense of cause and effect seems way off together with your timescales.In 80 years - water levels will have increased 120-150mm max if it continues like now.If we do not have accelerated sea level rise - how likely are we to loose a lot of land?Even if we do - in Bangladesh they live closer to each other than most. In all of EU/UK/US/AU we have more than sufficient land mass to not get in each others way even if we loose 20% of the land - we would still have more space per person than Bangladesh have now.But come one - take your critical hats on and start to question the "data" it does not take long for anyone with a HINT of science background to invalidate a lot of the claims from Alarmists.I want us to pollute less and have net zero energy houses - I want to drive an Electric Car - I want my children to grow up on a planet they can be proud of.But I also want them to be critical thinkers and not just accept any gospel as the truth no matter WHO utters it.I have put so many postulations here and so much data which shows the OPPOSITE of the Alarmist brigade. And so far not a single one of you have refuted any of the thingswith any data.But you still go back to the "I'm scared" position. The position the politicians loves because then they can charge you more in taxes.And I do not doubt we will find solutions to combat any potential problematic future - there are so many potential choices.But for me the constant lying about "GLOBAL Average Accelerated Sea Water levels" was the thing that started me questioning my own sanity first. The scientist keeps repeating it - but everywhere I go and check - there is NO acceleration. But the acceleration is counted as the PROOF of Mass Glacier melts will increase sea levels by 1 to 3 meters before 2100. It will put Vietnam almost completely under water...I think the people with MOST to loose like the Dutch - as they live a lot below MSL - would be all up in arms about sea level change - but no - their data does NOT support accelerated sea level change either. So if their data is right -the consensus must therefore be WRONG. It can't be both ways.Going back to Mr. Mann and the hockey stick - again the reason we are having this problem is the data - Michael Mann still thinks Middle Warm Period does not exists. That has skewed the avg. temperatures over the last 2000 years that the period is not included. But more and more evidence comes out every month disproving that it was "local" and that it was a GLOBAL thing.So Sea Water Level Acceleration is NOT Global - and Middle Warm Period is.Two off the absolute main pillars of climate alarmism fractured to pieces.So lets find out what we think should be the CORRECT temperature and work from that basis. But nobody is interested in that.We continue to working based on Mr. Manns absolutely flawed and faulty cocky hockey stick setting our "average optimum" temperatures based on FAULTY data.I want open data source "data" - where collected numbers are ACTUAL - with suggested EDITS in a separate "table" and every kind of edit should be fully "open source" with explanations to why.I want ALL climate research to publish their data with RAW numbers AND calculated numbers - and how they did their "experiments" so ANYONE can repeat them.Just like the crazy COVID software predictions - we need to have all the climate models and source code OUT in the open as Open Source. With the money we spend on creating the models that all come from our tax payments - the bloody things should be accessible to everyone to work on and inspect and triple check.When the COVID prediction software came out in the open - it showed what a piece of spaghetti code it really was that would give you radically different answers dependent on the computer you ran it on. And that was even after it had a MAJOR code clean up from Microsoft Staff.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 05:07:17 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on August 01, 2020, 03:38:19 pmPopulation growth in ME/Africa already are creating that fierce and uncompromising struggle ... look at Burundi. Even with the slowing population growth ME/Africa are so close to local carrying capacity (or well beyond in Burundi's case) that climate change is coming too late to push it beyond.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 05:14:43 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on August 01, 2020, 05:07:17 pmThey still have less than 1/2 the people per km2 than Bangladesh. (463 vs 1115) vs. England 432 - UK 272 - EU 103. Or even Malta with 1505/km2. And usually about 20% of Bangladesh floods every year (and have done for decades - not a new thing)

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 05:30:12 pm
content: Quote from: kaz911 on August 01, 2020, 07:09:57 amThank you for the post and the information. I have read through Jennifer Marohasy web site and looked at several of the papers she has written with an open mind. And just so you know where I'm coming from 15-20 years ago I did not believe in global warming climate change. But to be totally honest and fair about it, I never really looked at the research.Back to Jennifer Marohasy. She clearly has the pedigree of a "credible" scientist based on her education and research. I don't When I read through her blogs posts and papers she has written she uses the exact same words, terms and pharisees the "credible, but deceiving scientists in the United State use. This is the group of scientists who we know are being paid by the oil companies to create doubt and controversy about climate change. So now I'm wondering if Jennifer Marohasy's words are that of an "honest" independent scientists? Or has she been "bought" and is being paid to promote an agenda of doubt and confusion over man caused climate change.Something else that's interesting about Jennifer Marohasy is she clearly states she doesn't believe in anthropomorphic climate change. Religion is about beliefs where as science is about looking at what the evidence shows us. It is surprising to me that a scientist of her caliber would state her beliefs and not the findings. Okay, so not a big thing. But this is exactly the same words the scientists in the US are using who are promoting doubt and confusion about climate change.So now I'm wondering who is employing her? Is she being paid to have an agenda? Or is she acting as an independent scientist and looking at the evidence from an unbiased point of view. This is where things get very interesting. For 20 years she worked as a biologist. But then in 1997 she gave up research and became an environmental manager with with the sugar industry. She is now "fighting" environmental regulation of the sugar industry. Then in 2003 she became director of an organization with the mission to disprove global warming/climate change.She has accepted a large some of money from a philanthropist through an organization she and her husband created, "Climate Modeling Laboratory".Since working on climate change issues her some of her research work was found to have be falsified and is now been discredited.I can't say for sure but it looks like she receives financial compensation indirectly from the coal and petroleum industry though several intermediary organisations. The intent is to distance her financial income coal/petroleum industry.She published a "scientific" journal for just under two years. The journal would contain "scientific research" which disproved climate change and found flaws in "honest" research which found evidence for climate change. She would then cite the research in "her scientific journal" as proof of doubt and uncertainty of climate change.I will let you draw your own conclusions as to if she has a bias or not. But what I will tell you is everything she is doing is from a "playbook" the scientists in the US have used for 75 years to cause doubt and confusion to politicians and the public when it comes to a wide variety of environmental science issues. Cigarette smoke causing cancer, DDT, acid rain, fire retardant chemicals in children, added or artificial sugar causing obesity, climate change, man caused climate change and now most recently how covid is being transmitted.You should do your own research to see if what I have stated is true and accurate.My question for you... If what I have reported is correct, would you still trust her research and claims that man caused climate change is not occurring?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 05:41:51 pm
content: kaz,There are two issues here at play.First, we have risk management. We know that large amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to warming. I doubt even the denialists are at the stage of ignoring or denying that (indeed, it's the kind of experiment that can be done at home.) We also know (through even simple models) that the amount of CO2 that humans put in the atmosphere is a *considerable amount more* than the amount nature puts there, e.g. by volcanic eruption or open parts of the carbon cycle. We also have a *reasonable idea* that the rate of change is the most dangerous thing to our ecosystem. In other words, the idea is one more of the capacity of the environment and ecosystem to adapt to the changes at play here, rather than the fact that the change is happening. How quickly can ocean life adapt to lower pH? How quickly can humans engineer crops or shift agriculture from affected areas? How quickly can we build dikes or levees to prevent flooding?Secondly, you get hung up on sea level rise but that really is one small effect as a result of human caused climate change. It's presently around 3mm per year and this can be measure by using satellites. There's plenty of data on this, I won't bore you with it, you can find it easily enough. 3mm per year means about 1 metre in a decade. It may cause flooding in some areas but is perhaps unlikely to be disastrous for many. However the present rate of sea level rise is based only on the assumption of constant growth: we don't know what the effect of a mass decrease in Arctic ice might be. If the Arctic disappears for entire summers, this changes the albedo of the Earth considerably, which will lead to warming seas, which amplifies the glacier and ice loss effects. The biggest effects really are on changes to our weather, and arguably we have already begun to see them. You talk about temperature, but can you explain the historically high temperatures observed in the UK? This year has been notably colder than many, but we've had peak temperatures in almost every year in the last 20 years. And the sun has been on a gradual solar decline cycle for the last 5 years.I think as engineers we must treat things with a skeptical eye, but at the same time, climatologists and related sciences are far more experienced in these fields, and I defer to their superior experience. When you go to your GP, you don't question the doctor's medical degree with five minutes of YouTube videos or half an hour on Wikipedia. I've still not seen any evidence of mass fraud. There's speculation that scientists are taking backhanders or the grant system prevents counteracting evidence from being discovered, but this *just isn't true*; there are so many examples in science of studies being in contrary to previous published and accepted theories (think of, for instance, the Michelson-Morley experiment!) I could believe a bias towards alarmism (in general scientists do tend to be a little more cautious) but an outright conspiracy is extremely hard to accept.There are so many variables that even climatologists stand back from making grand predictions about what might happen. It's all "could" and "maybe" and "strong possiblity" or "mild possibility". Note that the language generally is negative, and that's just the way our language works. You are unlikely to hear from your doctor about the things that don't cause cancer, but he'll warn you about the things that will. Climate scientists are saying that if we continue to emit CO2 (and equivalents) in the way we do, that we are *very likely* (but not certain) to cause *significant, possibly irreversible harm* to the climate. And please don't worry about what politicians like Al Gore have to say. They're here to promote an agenda. It happens to be an agenda that generally I agree with, but as much as you shouldn't listen to an oil company CEO, you shouldn't base your climate science on Al Gore. The man's no saint: he still flies business class or in a private jet to almost all of his speaking engagements, for instance. At least Greta sailed half way.And regarding my situation - don't worry. I'm not a particularly great fan of the UK for a number of reasons and believe that generally we're on a long decline, especially post Brexit. So a move somewhere else will hopefully be a positive for my present situation as well as providing some insulation against future changes. Just know I will be considering long term climate changes in any move in the next couple of decades -- just as much as someone should begin to consider floodplains when purchasing a home.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 05:52:37 pm
content: Doug - I now know what you read to verify people about climate - and that site is just as bonkers...anyway - as I said - it is a different perspective - but their debunk of the hottest day in Australia I can not find. The link points to a Guardian article that just does anything but debunk the temperature manipulation I referred to.But as I said - read it all - good and bad - and find your own perspective.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 05:58:23 pm
content: Quote from: kaz911 on August 01, 2020, 05:14:43 pmBangladesh is indeed a shitshow too, which has long caused regional tension. Fossil water exhaustion will push more countries in this kind of shitshow status long before climate change will.The UK and Malta are highly advanced cultures with a technology base which uses unsustainable amounts of fossil resources, Burundi and Bangladesh can't afford that. They live on charity.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 06:08:53 pm
content: Quote from: kaz911 on August 01, 2020, 05:52:37 pmkaz911 not sure what you mean be "the web site". I used many including her own web site. I also looked a Wikipedia and the website of the orgs shes is connected with.Are you familiar with the "Merchant's of Doubt? industry? These are very credible scientists who have "sold out". The are covertly being compensated, typically by large corporations, to have a specific agenda. There goal is to cause politicians and the public to think there is enough scientific doubt and confusion about the science of a specific environmental issue. In the US there's even a trade show to hire these scientists.Once you learn these scientists have been bought by industry, would you trust their scientific opinion anymore?

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 06:11:01 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 01, 2020, 05:41:51 pmHmm 3mm X 10 years = 3cm - not one meter - that is 0.03m = 30mm. And it is 1.2mm to 1.8mm from most official sources. But still no acceleration.QuoteI promise you that I do question GP's - yes I know I might be annoying but it gave my stepdad another 10 years of life due to right time cancer treatment...But it is very British not to question the so called experts. Where as where I'm from we do (did) get brought up to question the experts.When I did my pilots license I liked the Garmin 430 (First mini colour map Radio/GPS unit for GA planes) - before that everybody used Bendix King radios with Yellow LED displays. I was constantly told by the Pilot Instructors/Experts that Garmin was a fad and would go away and Bendix King radios would outlast them as they wore better. Look at the GA Aviation market today. I don't think I have seen a Bendix King now in 15 years. Its mostly Garmin with a few others hanging on their tails.QuoteFrom being a salt water boat person my entire life - I applaud what Greta did to promote sailing. But the rest of her trip to save "CO2" was absolute hogwash. Not a gram of CO2 saved on her promotion tour.QuoteHmm - I suggest you try and move out for a few years. You will probably find the UK to be a lot nicer once you have been away. As I have said before - I have lived in 7 countries around EU/Med and Middle East. My business have brought me to many other countries for extended stays.I do find the UK to be one of the most acceptable places to liveNot perfect but better than most.But it is in general too cold still.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 06:21:35 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on August 01, 2020, 05:58:23 pmMarco - I do business every day in Bangladesh .. which I why I know quite a bit about their situation. And it is not black and white. Since their independence in 1970 I think it was - the population has not stopped multiplying. From 30 to now.. 160-180 million dependent on who counts - living on the same land mass.They make a lot of children - so they can have them work and make money. There are many western companies there still "abusing" the workers.All while many corrupt politicians screw over the country again and again. It is sad. Quite a few of my friends have been "disappeared" - maybe for saying the wrong thing. If they are alive or not I do not know. But I've started to unwind my business there as it is getting too much. 10 years ago it was reasonable and openminded - now it has gone completely into "religious" wars and politics. Before I went there every month. Now I do not go at all. Just too risky for my taste.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 06:34:38 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 01, 2020, 06:08:53 pmAs I have tried to convey multiple times - I trust neither left or right. And I do know Merchants of Doubt. But even a blind chicken can find a corn.But I do trust my own findings and my own research.And I do think humans cause CO2 - I do just not think it is primarily fossil fuels fault - I think it is our population and the food production for our population - so all the macro numbers that accumulate you staying alive and eating your food and going to work.I do agree the world has been heating - but not out of bounds from what has been before (so far)See attachment for relationship between CO2 and population. There is NO curve fitting apart from devisor between population and CO2. Population estimates where "unknown" has been interpolated between previous and next number. We did not have very good population stats before 1910-20's.

author: Connecteur
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 06:38:04 pm
content: Nice for now, but it won't be long before supply and demand drives up the price of electricity.I like it better when the governments built the power plants and considered it a public benefit.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 06:38:29 pm
content: I am amazed to see that there are still people unable to see how crooked the establishment is.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 06:40:58 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on August 01, 2020, 06:38:29 pmYes like the scientists who are paid to create and use false and misleading information to say man caused climate change is not occurring.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 06:44:30 pm
content: Quote from: Connecteur on August 01, 2020, 06:38:04 pmWe've seen what happens when that occurs... The electric clocks all run slow. Clocks in Europe have lost 6 minutes since January.Do you know why?

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 06:45:56 pm
content: Quote from: Connecteur on August 01, 2020, 06:38:04 pmIt is like the UK's ban on Gas for heating in new builds in 2025. It is crazy to say the least.Natural Gas prices have an average annual increase in price of about 1-1.5%Electricity have an average annual increase in price of about 5%So if you pay GBP 100 now for heating your home with electricity - in 10 years you will pay GBP 162,- for the same via electricity. (Same goes for EV's of course)With natural Gas it would be GBP 116,- in 10 years.But people want to be deceived. It would be far better to improve CO2 capture from Natural Gas burning and spending the money on that vs banning it.

author: Connecteur
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 06:52:51 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 01, 2020, 06:44:30 pmThree-phase generators deliver power at 50 Hz in Europe and 60Hz in North America. Most electric clocks derive their accuracy from that. For a long time the rotations of the dynamos were counted, and then cycles were added or subtracted to maintain a constant cycle count. That's why old electric clocks kept perfect time.Nowadays who knows? Maybe they just can't be bothered.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 06:54:17 pm
content: Quote from: kaz911 on August 01, 2020, 06:34:38 pmAppears you, like I follow evaluate the research and use critical thinking skills and evidence to get to the truth.The graph you posted is doesn't provide enough fine detail to see the correlation between the mans burning of carbon fuels and CO2/other gasses levels.Have you looked at the research the Koch brothers paid to have done? They hired a well respected scientist, who at the time was a climate change skeptic?

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 06:58:58 pm
content: Quote from: Connecteur on August 01, 2020, 06:52:51 pmYou do know all of those clocks which have kept accurate time for decades all of a sudden lost 6 minutesso far this year.correction this was a few years ago. We found out why this year.We do know. It's because the one government stepped in and took control of power prices making them free.But do you know the rest of the story? Why all of a sudden did the clocks start losing about a minute a month?

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 07:04:26 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 01, 2020, 06:54:17 pmNo - I don't care about Koch brothers or anything Soros touches. They should all be avoided like the devil.Anyway - the data is not really available in finer grain. CO2 before official coordinated numbers are from NASAs data and might not be perfect. It is mostly ice core based until 1958 after which it is from Mauna Loa and South Pole adjusted by NASA. Population data is from worldometers - but every time I update the current years they update numbers going back all the way to 1850... They keep finding out more people was alive back then somehow.But what you can see in the data is the CO2 drop during WW II - and we did not skimp on fossil fuel consumption during WW II...

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 07:11:36 pm
content: Quote from: kaz911 on August 01, 2020, 07:04:26 pmWhy are you discounting the high quality research the Koch brothers funded? They hired an excellent scientist from UC Berkeley/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. His work has been peer reviewed by thousands of scientists.

author: Connecteur
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 07:15:39 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 01, 2020, 06:54:17 pmThere's nothing about an education that instills integrity.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 07:29:17 pm
content: Quote from: kaz911 on August 01, 2020, 06:34:38 pmWell, of *course* human population and CO2 are strongly correlated.More humans = bigger cities, more heating/aircon, more transport, more power, more food.The *single biggest* change any individual can have is to have one less child. You can drive a Tesla, be a vegan and go off grid on solar only, but that child is worth some 60 tonnes of CO2 emissions per year, in clothes, future energy/transport, food, etc.And as for food production then you are right. Land use changes (often from forests) effectively create more CO2 (by removing the things that absorb it from the cycle) because often times we are replacing dense forest with cleared areas, and those have considerably lower CO2 absorption factors. Often times these clearings are then used to either grow crops to feed cattle, or to graze cattle...Then you have cow farts as methane has a GWP of approx 30x of CO2, hence the term CO2e, for equivalent of CO2. So if a cow emits 100g of methane, that is equivalent to 3kg of CO2 in a 100 year timespan. (It gets more complex because, over time, some greenhouse gases breakdown, usually into lower GWP compounds, and others don't, and the time to breakdown varies from compound to compound. But a 100-year GWP is a reasonable way to look at it; methane's real half-life is closer to a decade, so while it is in the atmosphere, its effective GWP is far higher.) And you are correct in a sense, because this has a significant effect, estimated to be around 10-20ppm equivalent CO2 emissions. That's roughly 10 years of human contributed CO2. A positive feedback effect exists here. Huge amounts of methane are trapped in permafrost, in places like Siberia. As these areas heat up, the permafrost may melt, releasing the methane, causing increased heating. These positive effects are critical: if we unlock the wrong ones we could very well make the changes irreversible in any human time span.Then you have leaks in refrigeration systems and this is a big reason to move things away from R134a or R32 as refrigerants as leaks from these systems are really significant and in many cases the atmospheric half-life of these elements is well beyond 100 years. An AC unit with a 1kg charge of R32 is equivalent to driving a 120g/kmCO2e city car, approximately 5,600 km. Or half a year's car usage for one damaged or improperly serviced AC unit. My car uses R134a; if it were to be involved in an accident, the 560g of AC refrigerant that may be released would be equivalent to 800 kg CO2! Using R-1234yf, is far better (GWP ~= 1), and later generations of the same model moved to this refrigerant.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 07:37:01 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 01, 2020, 07:11:36 pmyou just lit another fuse by mentioning peer reviewed.... Do you actually know what the process of peer review entails? Every-body falls over themselves about "peer reviewed" but it is not a validation of the study.It is usually only a validation of the process. It carries very little meaning. It is much like doing review of a business proposal for your sales guy before it it sent out. It doesnotmean another scientist has validated the results. It only means they have inspected the method leading to the result and maybe checked source references. It used to mean more but today so many papers are published that it has become quite hard to actually find reviewers who do much more thank skim the results.I'll take some time out and listen to him later on. But usually both Koch and Soros are "persona non grata" in my house.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 07:50:50 pm
content: Quote from: kaz911 on August 01, 2020, 08:51:47 amIt was not meant to be thorough no. I am on a wholesale linked price, my price throughout today has been sub 8p/kWh although I have to pay between 20 and 35p between 16:00 and 19:00

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 08:00:18 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 01, 2020, 07:29:17 pmBull ... I'm not a cornucopian who believes technology will drag us out of this, but I hope it will. The alternatives are horrific. We need more high attainment individuals, not less.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 08:02:08 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on August 01, 2020, 08:00:18 pmDon't be silly, we all consume, the more of us on the planet at once the worse it is.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 08:06:36 pm
content: Forbes article about Spiegel article about Germany's renewables...https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/06/the-reason-renewables-cant-power-modern-civilization-is-because-they-were-never-meant-to/#1f2d8d2bea2b

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 08:14:47 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on August 01, 2020, 08:02:08 pmThe more people not improving life on the planet the worse it will become ... the people who should take the advice definitely won't, so stop confusing the people who shouldn't. Their kids are the ones who have to pull this planet out of the fire. People and cultures are not fungible.Dysgenic anti-natalism is silly, it just offers up the planet to barbarism. I don't want some steady state Kacyzinski'esque humanity living a low tech life, practising infanticide as population control and all those other lovely quaint traditions of the noble savage existence, waiting for the next natural extinction event.Forward or bust.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 08:18:17 pm
content: birthrates naturally decline in developed countries, who is and who is not to have kids is a whole other argument. My sister has just had a baby, I don't think they want another one, I do'n want kids so out of 3 have come 1 as an example, now whether or not my niece is "worthy" I cannot tell you.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 08:30:26 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 01, 2020, 07:11:36 pmI listened to his presentation and he makes sense.In that case I have hereby proven that the human population is the actual cause of the CO2 in the atmosphere - as the curves actually fit almost perfectly.If I discount the people sadly losing their lives during WW-II the curve will fit even better (there wore not a lot of population stats during WW-II so population data in that period is interpolated which skews the data due to baby boom post WW-II)

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 09:08:15 pm
content: The topic was not about global warming. However, CO2 is a greenhouse gas (causes warming) and we produce it! I don't see the controversy. There may be other elements at play but we emit a gas that holds heat...

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 09:36:41 pm
content: Quote from: kaz911 on August 01, 2020, 07:04:26 pmYup. If you look at ice drilling data you see there is an increase in CO2 before the industrial revolution which is in line with the cyclic high CO2 levels the earth has experienced. I'm very sure we are experiencing a double effect: 1) human activity causing more CO2 and 2) a natural phenomenon causing more CO2. Together it is a perfect storm.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 09:42:51 pm
content: The percentage of people who would genuinely get us out of this situation would be, 0.01% of the population at a high estimate. Even the smartest people will become lawyers, doctors, other research scientists, business people... so saying "have one less child" is not a terrible concept if you were truly worried about there being a shortage of smart people to solve this problem. In any case it is already well documented that as economies get richer the birth rate falls as women (and, to a lesser extent men) prioritise careers over parenthood. That isn't a bad thing.We more than have the resources to do this. How many engineers spend their time engineering the next iPhone or the next missile system. If we truly wanted to put resources into resolving the climate crisis we could do this, it just requires a rethinking of the economic mandate of growth at all cost. A lot of it is down to simply reducing consumption full stop. iPhones and cars aren't "bad" but the endless and constant consumption of products for needless self-gratification is.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 09:55:24 pm
content: Quote from: kaz911 on August 01, 2020, 07:37:01 pmIf we don't use peer review what method would you propose?In the past we have had the pope tell us how things are. That was until Martin Luther peer revived what the pope was saying what was in the Bible was not true.The method used by Dr. Goebbels was very effective Peer review anything he stated and you landed in a concentration camp.Should we peer review what Elon Musk's hyper-loop? Or question his plans for a EV semi-truck?Or how about Elizabeth Holmes and here Theronos machine?Aren't you glad we peer reviewed everything these people told us?If peer reviews isn't any good how would you do it?

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 09:57:12 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 01, 2020, 09:36:41 pmBut this is NOT what was found.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2020, 10:03:31 pm
content: Quote from: kaz911 on August 01, 2020, 08:06:36 pmGermany has been burning more coal lately to produce electricity. And while they aren't in favor of nuclear energy, they don't mind if they get it from France. Not that's the way to be environmentally friendly.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 03:00:56 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 01, 2020, 03:37:26 amYes, I do agree that there is a lot of false information out there. But not just due to people deliberately being misleading, but because mistakes have been made in the science and we're still finding out answers to unanswered questions (and reviewing what we thought we already knew). As I've already stated, the science is relatively new.I don't agree that humans are 95-98% to blame. I also don't disagree with that figure because we simply don't know yet.At no point did I say there was no correlation between humans and the last 500 years. Where did you pull that from? I'm left to assume that you either didn't read what I wrote or you misunderstood it.Anyway let's get back on topic, being the cost of EVs versus internal combustion. Arguments about climate change are unwinnable and spiral out of control. Most people aren't willing to accept things that contradict their own thoughts and beliefs and everyone just ends up walking away with the same stance they started with.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 05:11:05 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on August 02, 2020, 03:00:56 amWe can agree on a lot of the issues and disagree on a few. I’m in that minority that went from not thinking there was not enough creditable evidence to show climate change was occurring. But once I looked at the “credible” evidence it was overwhelming. And with the evidence we have now, it all points to man as the cause of climate change.Then I found out about this industry where very prominent scientist are being bought to see confusion and doubt about man caused climate change. These people are discussing. Fred Singer for decades was one of these scientists. After 20+ years of causing doubt and confusion about man caused climate change he finally admitted he knew all along the evidence definitely indicated our climate was changing and man was the cause. He just passed away, so it’s going to be interesting to see who, if anyone, will replace him.Back to the topic of the post.Here’s how the youth of America today view EVs. My daughter’s good friend just graduated from college. She landed a job and immediately leased a Tesla. The women is 23 years old and she entered into a 7 year lease so she can drive a Tesla EV. Here yearly salary is $55,00 per year. Something like 65% of her monthly paycheck is going forwards the car. And at the end of 7 years she still doesn’t own the car. And we thought Jobs mesmerized the “kids” with the iPhoane. Elon has done a far better job in getting “kids” to buy Tesla’s than Jobs could ever do.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 05:51:30 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 02, 2020, 05:11:05 amWell, we are all young and dumb at one point.EVs are not there yet as a viable alternative for most people. Of course this is highly dependent on where you live, but for a city like Sydney, an EV won't even get many people to and from work on a charge. Then there is the issue of actually charging the thing. "Greater Sydney" is huge and spans about 70 kilometers west from the coast. Then you have a lot of people (like myself) who commute from outside of Sydney to and from work each day. EVs just aren't suitable for drivers like myself.The other issue I foresee is that the value of them will plummet the moment they are driven from the showroom. The batteries themselves have a very finite and limited lifetime and replacement costs need to be factored in, if you 're purchasing a second-hand EV. Just last year, a Nissan Leaf owner in Australia wasquoted over $33,000to have the battery in his vehicle replaced. The cost for replacement batteries for the Model 3 and Model S Tesla's seem to be around that USD$16,000 to $20,000 mark. It's a lot of money. With cars that have internal combustion engines, the cost of servicing and replacement parts are spread across the life of the vehicle, rather than a large lump sum payment as things begin to wear out or fail.Just like with battery power for homes, the investment outweighs any costs savings. I looked into a combined solar/battery system for my home a few years ago and calculated based on my location and usage, it would cost me more than twice as much over the 10 year life of the system, than to just buy energy off the grid.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 06:51:39 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 01, 2020, 09:42:51 pmThe problem with the above - less children - is it creates a lot of other issues on the macro scale.1. Less children mean less people to pay taxes - which leads to less service for everyone and less pension for pensioners and less quality health service.that is currently one of the biggest issue in all over EU - declining government revenue to pay forward promises like pensions. That is also why Boris Johnsons invitation to grant most people from HK refuge in the UK - is completely genius. Hard working, well educated people that do not complain as much as some other groups. (I'm not a BoJo fan but credit where credit is due)2. Less children leads to inflation in salaries for companies - giving companies higher cost base for less quality workforce (less children = more spolied children) - so a complete downwards spiral.3. For countries with a continuously growing population - (like Bangladesh) - the salaries are kept low and very competitive if the population wants to work. (Saudi is an exception as there are not many manual labour jobs available due to "asian" worker competition - but I think avg. no of children per family is about 8 )So it is a balancing act....

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 07:00:29 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on August 02, 2020, 05:51:30 amMost modern cars with automatic gear boxes have some potentially very expensive repair items. Like Fiat 500 automatic gearboxes (or all automatic gearboxes) but the Fiat 500's is a very problematic one and costs (in Scandinavia) roughly $4-6000 to get replaced (official Fiat price)The Radio in my Ford Galaxy $3500,- for a crappy German Becker "In Car Entertainment system" - but I wont even give the price on a Porsche entertainment system replacement.....QuoteYes - most people forget to calculate the whole cost incl. battery ageing and replacement.But remember electricity prices keep climbing up by avg. 5% per year - so for me it is not about just the price. It is about the potential for as much independence as possible - and thatis priceless.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 08:05:29 am
content: an EV would make a lot of sense for me as I don't work far away. I might consider one when i need a new car but even second hand prices of low range cars are now high as they are in demand.

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 08:07:04 am
content: Quote from: kaz911 on August 02, 2020, 07:00:29 amEven if you can't do it yourself you save a lot of money taking things to other places to get them repaired, not replaced. Automatics are expensive in their entirety but unless you have some mechatronics issue which most people won't mess with they're unlikely to be expensive to fix(comparatively). Same with radios, if you really want to save money it's very easy.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 08:13:30 am
content: Quote from: Monkeh on August 01, 2020, 11:42:40 amhttps://insideevs.com/reviews/343702/electric-car-energy-consumption-epa-compared-april-1-2019/

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 08:32:19 am
content: George, why do you ignore my two real world results.VW Golf GTE PHEV, 13 mile commute from work, summer weather, mostly flat, average speed 35 mph, top speed 70 mph for 4 miles, AC set to 18C with outside temp of 25C, Michelin Pilot Sport 4 tyres (38 psi):VW e-Golf BEV, return trip to Wales across Pennines (~180 miles), cold weather, 1200ft incline followed by similar decline, average speed ~60 mph, top speed ~75 mph, cabin at 18-22C, heated seats enabled, Michelin Energy Saver Tyres (inflation unknown); fast-charged at destination:(Data captured the evening after before I returned the car to the dealer.)The EPA cycle test really isn't that great. It makes no accounting for temperature, incline or road conditions, and weather. Heavy rain alone adds 10% rolling resistance. A tail wind or head wind can have an effect too. I'd like to see a WLTP style test with the outside temperature at 0C and cabin maintained at 18C - would show whose car has a good battery and climate management system. And a comparable test for 30C weather with AC on maintaining cabin at 20C.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 08:39:38 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on August 02, 2020, 08:13:30 amso you can get cars that do 250Wh/m at the end of the day the "fuel" cost is comparable. The challenge will be to build more generation and the impossible to get people to work together. My employer has a huge roof, it's wasted real estate, they could probably get some grants and install solar with car chargers and charge people deductible from their wages 8p/kWh which is more than they would get in export but less than any would pay to charge at home unless on a really good deal like I am. That would mean that for normal weekly use people that live locally will not even have to charge at home and only need to charge when going on a long trip. People that drive quite some miles to work can charge each way extending their range except the idiots where i work that like the furthest would only be happy if we wend back to steam engines and just make up rubbish about electric because they don't like them.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 08:41:17 am
content: Quote from: Simon on August 02, 2020, 08:05:29 amI think if you wait until autumn there will be a lot of cheap EV's for sale due to sudden unemployment.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 08:52:15 am
content: Even assuming 330Wh/mi is pretty cheap. 205Wh/km. Say the Tesla Model S in comparison to a BMW 520d. Tesla charged on normal domestic electric at 14p/kWh.Fuel consumption of 520d is 4.2L/100km (https://motoreu.com/bmw-520d-mpg-fuel-consumption-technical-specifications-59367) on the WLTP test cycle, and assume price £1.15 per litre of diesel...So BMW costs £4.83 for 100km and Tesla £2.87. Now if the Tesla takes advantage of night time electric (5p/kWh) - there's no real way to do that with diesel, the Tesla costs £1.02 for the same distance. If the Tesla charges on superchargers at 28p/kWh then the price is pretty much parity. So between 0% and 80% cheaper per km - it depends on how you use it - but if you do you majority of charging at home, it can be exceedingly cheap to run.Now depreciation needs to be factored in but if you drive both cars to their grave then arguably the only concern is how long the car will last.And I think Tesla reliability is so so, right now, there is at least not enough data to say for sure.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 08:54:15 am
content: my fiesta is around 9m/l

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 08:57:00 am
content: Quote from: Simon on August 02, 2020, 08:39:38 amBut only a few do 250Wh/mi and only city driving, where as for most people most of the miles they do are on the highway not in the city, it seems to me.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 09:01:03 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on August 02, 2020, 08:57:00 amReally? most of the people i work with drive at most from one town to the next. In my case it's through back roads. There are people who pay to go to the gym at 5am and then drive to work when they live in jogging/cycling distance. I too could cycle if the weather was nice and I could find a path that did not ivolve mingling with crazy people on the roads in cars

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 09:01:47 am
content: Quote from: kaz911 on August 02, 2020, 08:41:17 amDon't worry, theINGSOCEU's €572 billion "green stimulus" plan will save us from poverty.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 09:07:53 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 02, 2020, 08:32:19 amI know how to make photos like that too, maybe I'll do and post them here for u to see, to prove that my diesel does even better than any EV... :-)Edit:I also have an EV, I know very well how much power it draws.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 09:09:17 am
content: Can you do those with the tripmeter showing 190 miles thoughEdit:I own a PHEV and have driven about 8 other EVs from Teslas to e-Up! and Mini BEV, and I know how much power they draw too.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 09:12:42 am
content: Quote from: Simon on August 02, 2020, 09:01:03 amSimon, then do the math! Count the miles, please!

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 09:14:47 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 02, 2020, 09:09:17 amThen maybe you always drive in a city like a grandma and w/o A/C/heater, that explains it all :-)

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 09:15:15 am
content: most affordable electric vehicle, when two wheels will do 40 km/hLouis Rossmanns at 1:04 His 40 km/h ebike with custom batteriesYuba Mundo is a cargo bike

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 09:15:53 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on August 02, 2020, 09:12:42 amWhat I am saying is that you do not live in the UK, a run on open roads to work is a mere dream for us in this overpopulated country. Even a drive to the next town requires stop start traffic jams. I myself leave for work at least 45 minutes before I am due to start to travel 6.5 miles that takes me 15 minutes to do but if i left 20 minutes before I was due to start I would arrive 10-15 minutes late.....

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 09:18:11 am
content: Quote from: jonovid on August 02, 2020, 09:15:15 amThose things are fun but I imagine you'll feel the same on those on normal city streets the way you'll feel on most single cylinder bikes on a freeway.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 09:22:54 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on August 02, 2020, 09:14:47 amNope. I live in a rural area and most of the roads are 50 - 60 mph and there's a short section (~4 miles) of 70 mph motorway. Average speed is 35 mph with only a small amount of traffic occasionally. I do pre-heat or pre-cool the car, but I also use the heating and cooling while driving. Generally speaking my commute is 14~15kWh/100km in summer, and about 18~20kWh/100km in winter. Worst efficiency ever (for a "typical commute") was 25kWh/100km where a motorway blockage forced me to take backroads the whole way, whilst it was 3C outside.The GTE isn't as big as something like a Tesla so of course it will be a bit more efficient but 4mi/kWh is quite reasonable for that car. With some hypermiling and more economical wheels (the CNC-cut alloy wheels are not good for aero) and better tyres (Pilot Sport 4 great for grip and a sporty car like the GTE, but worse for efficiency) then I would very likely be looking at 4.8 ~ 5.2 mi/kWh - members on the GTE owner's forum have reported figures like that, in line with the e-Golf.Notably when I have winter tyres on the car the efficiency does reduce so I think next time I'll get cross-climates on it rather than swap every season, I've been impressed enough with the summer tyres even in poor weather on this car.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 09:30:08 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 02, 2020, 09:22:54 amDon't do that. The rubber of summer tyres is only sticky when temps are high, it hardens too much at low temps to have any grip and you'll end up crashing into something or someone sooner or later.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 09:32:33 am
content: In this country we hardly have winters, I have never fitted seasonal tyres

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 09:36:23 am
content: I saw a comparison recently that showed cross climate tyres are pretty much as good as winter tyres on all roads except ones with heavy snow.And given the UK generally only has 1-2 days of proper snow every year it's a lot of expense and efficiency loss to just do well in snow.That said when we had snow the winter tyres were particularly nice as I was able to pass all the other cars on the road that are stuck with their cheap summer tyres on even in a FWD Golf. So for smugness factor it is worth it.I noticed an interesting characteristic of my hybrid - the snow really kills the range (not at all surprising) so I had to use the engine, especially as I took a longer route to bypass areas with more traffic. The engine is not as good at handling snow as the electric motor because the gearbox has torque slip limits, so when it needs to apply just a small amount of torque to get you out of a bind the engine can't do it, but switch to e-Mode and the car can easily do it if you're gentle with the pedal.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 09:36:50 am
content: Quote from: Simon on August 02, 2020, 09:32:33 amI have never even seen winter tyres in England. I don't know if they have them in the north of Scotland.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 09:40:43 am
content: Quote from: coppice on August 02, 2020, 09:36:50 ama colleague lives north of us and he will see more snow than we do so north of England (Leicester and up) even yes but Northamptonshire and down hardly see's snow. It was a few years ago that we had enough snow to stop traffic.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 10:00:59 am
content: Quote from: Simon on August 02, 2020, 09:40:43 amwinter tires are not for snow - they are for cold. Good all season tires have become better IF you buy quality tires. But don't use summer tires with temps < 10c - you wear them down far too quickly - and the other way around.All season tires are probably ok > 5c but I have still not seen many that then have the same "range" on a set of tires as if you have separate Summer and winter tires (divided by tires) - so usually it is better to have both for the tires to last as long as possible (So price per mile per tire)

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 10:05:27 am
content: we hit -5 if we are lucky round here, coldest i drive in is around 0.

author: gmb42
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 10:11:15 am
content: Quote from: coppice on August 02, 2020, 09:36:50 amI live in N. E. Scotland, last two vehicles have been 2.2d (Renault Laguna and Mazda 3), and both were very poor in snow, probably due to low profile tyres and the heavy lump over the front wheels.Getting a spare set of rims and fitting winter tyres for the Mazda was a revelation. I could actually get out of the drive (shared with neighbours, very little traffic and untreated) when there was more than a few cm of snow which happens for maybe 20 days a year up here.FWIW I would jump at the chance of an EV if the sticker price was more reasonable for my ~34 mile round trip commute (when I used to do one before CV-19). Hopefully the Mazda will run for a few more years (10 years old, 95K miles) and there will be more price competition in the market.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 10:41:54 am
content: The winter tyres I have are snow tyres. During lockdown I've left them on the car as my driving has decreased by ~90% and it didn't seem to be worth having the summer tyres swapped back on. Though the loss of traction is notable compared to the PS4s.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 12:12:42 pm
content: Did anyone read the article this post is about?https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-evs-cheaper-than-gas-cars-study/

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 12:21:14 pm
content: No...( I'm kidding )

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 01:45:49 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 01, 2020, 09:42:51 pm0.01% of less people among the only cultures advanced enough to gain the education to get future generations out, is still less people to do so.QuoteWith mass immigration it has almost no impact on consumption, their educational attainment takes many generations to catch up but they can consume just fine. I'm not suggesting forcing eugenics. I'm suggesting not spreading dangerous memes and anti-natalism is a dangerous meme which reduces the hope of future generations to avoid a whole lot of needless suffering. Maybe not by much, but enough ... so just don't.We will not consciously shrink our way out of this. Evolution works, the current susceptibility of humans to anti-natalist forces will pass, the breeders will inherit the earth and they will be more than smart enough to experience suffering ... whether they will be smart enough to change their environment to reduce that suffering and have the resources to do so is an open question. This is humanity's final shot, if this civilization collapses the remaining humans will be on an exploited earth where most easily available surface resources have long been strip mined. We have no clue how to recycle pure materials from complex waste streams, don't expect future humans to develop that from a low technological base.

author: Connecteur
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 01:59:49 pm
content: We "need to do" a lot of things, as any coffee shop discussion will tell you, but social engineering never works. Programs here and there can have great benefits, but you can't command an economy or a society. Things will evolve their own way regardless.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 02:09:40 pm
content: Quote from: Connecteur on August 02, 2020, 01:59:49 pmThey rarely work out as planned, but they quite frequently have large impact. The world is full of highly successful memes and highly dangerous memes ... which in my opinion if not invented would have caused the world take a fundamentally different turn. I believe in chaos theory, small perturbations can have large effects.QuoteWell this Brownian motion and chemical reaction driven device is trying to push against the spreading of anti-natalism ... that's just how I evolved.We're both part of evolution, fatalism never works.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 02:23:45 pm
content: I'm afraid that this civilization with each passing day is becoming more Orwellian.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 03:06:27 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on August 02, 2020, 02:23:45 pmYou vastly exaggerate, to put it mildly.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 03:57:56 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on August 02, 2020, 02:23:45 pmDisagree. Some aspects perhaps, but we are more aware of the behaviour of the state and corporations than ever before. It is hard to keep secrets when they can be so readily distributed across social media networks.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 04:01:01 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on August 02, 2020, 01:45:49 pmIt's long documented that as people get wealthier their priorities towards children drop considerably. It is common to have many children per woman in poorer countries in part because infant mortality is high and children represent free labour once past the age of 8 or so. In industrialised countries the work required can be increasingly done by fewer and fewer individuals; automation is progressively eliminating more jobs than it creates. How long until we have a society where there are almost no driving jobs, few warehouse jobs, and almost no customer service jobs?This isn't anti-natalism. I'm not opposed to people having children. By all means raise a family if you feel that you would like to do that. But I wouldn't oppose policies that encourage fertility rate to match death rates. That includes any net migration.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 04:13:06 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 02, 2020, 04:01:01 pmWhat is actually documented is when people live in the type of developed society most of the people in this forum live in, they breed less. The exact cause and effect is poorly understood. Typically people in developed societies have several things that people in older societies didn't:More moneyMore educationAccess to a variety of birth control techniquesEye wateringly high costs to raise and educate a childMany more leisure activities to occupy their time... and let's not ignore the social pressure that raising children is for losersHow that all plays out as overall human behaviour is difficult to figure out.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 04:15:20 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on August 02, 2020, 03:06:27 pmNo exaggeration at. Just look at the tag line GeorgeOfTheJungle uses.http://youtube.com/c/TonyHeller/videos<- realclimatescience.com"There are none so blind as those who will not see."GoerogeOfTheJungle has been sol blinded he can’t see or think.Tony Heller claims to be an expert research scientist in climate science.Sounds impressive until you find he also uses two pen or false names to promote his opinion of climate change being a hoax.What credentials does Tony Heller have in addition to using two false names? An undergraduate degree in geology and a YouTube Channel. Tony and the other false names he uses. Heller has done any scientific research, all he does is provide negative commentary of “honest” scientific studies if the conclusion indicates climate change is occurring.Tony Heller is doing this for the money and fame not the science. Tony Heller and the two other fake names he uses is just trying to confuses the uneducated people in our society about the truth. Dr. Goebble’ did this to the German people during World War II. Then Holocaust deniers used the same tactics after the war to say there were no concentration and death camps.We’ve seen other “Tony Hellers” do the same thing when it comes to tobacco smoke causing cancer and other diseases. They lie, create false research and discredit “honest” scientists and doctors who are trying to help society.While it is good science to discuss different scientific theories this is not what the guy GeorgeOfTheJungle is promoting is doing. The guy GeorgeOfTheJungle is prompting is just in it for the fame and money like Dr. Goebble did.One has to ask if GeorgeOfTheJungle why is he so blind that he can’t see Tony Heller isn’t someone who can be trusted? Why can’t he use critical thinking skills to see what a fraud Tony Heller really is? But what should be even more alarming is that GeorgeOfTheJungle is promoting the videos of a dishonest person.When Tony Heller is asked where he is getting his information and to provide the evidence he has collected to support his position on climate change he just leaves.Yet with all of this evidence GeorgeOfTheJungle still believes the words of Tony Heller and the two other fake names he goes by. Not sure where GeorgeOfTheJungle lives or where he was educated. But one has to wonder why he can’t see how Tony Heller is duping people into believing what he’s saying. Wasn’t it Goebble’s who said, tell lies over and over and people will believe the lies as being the truth and begin telling those lies to others? This is worse than Orwellian.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 04:19:31 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on August 02, 2020, 03:06:27 pmHaven't you seen the facial recognition cameras that are all over China?

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 04:22:06 pm
content: Oh my, the knowsitall potholer guy strikes again. I can't stand his uber posh accent and musicality it's hideous. @dougspindler I see you very affected, try to forget that gotj dude and relax a little. Everything will be fine.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 04:45:36 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on August 02, 2020, 04:22:06 pmGeorgeOfTheJungle why do you avoid answering the question?Here you are on a form with smart, educated people and you promote a guy who lies, deceives, makes up data and calls himself a scientists. Why? Do you think there aren’t any smart people here?How can anyone trust a word you say when you promote someone who is deceiving you? I think that’s a fair question.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 04:48:21 pm
content: Whether or not potholer sounds like a posh twit, has no merit towards his arguments. I might say you would do better if you actually addressed them instead of sticking your head in the sand but that would represent a considerable change of tune from you!

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 05:13:08 pm
content: I subscribed to his channel a long time ago and trust me, I've watched almost every vidjeo he's ever made, and I'm almost sick because of it :-)If a skeptic said 2+2=4, he'd make a two hours long vidjeo to demonstrate the skeptic's wrong and show a ton of papers with peer reviews and all, lol.But he'd still be wrong... because 2+2=4. IOW it's a waste of time.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 05:15:43 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 02, 2020, 04:48:21 pmI did if you look through my previous posts.The fact is Tony Heller also goes by to other fictitious names. Do you know any credible scientist who uses false names?Tony Heller claims to be a scientist. Yet he has not presented one scientific paper.Tony Heller has been shown to make up scientific data.Tony Heller has been shown to lie about credible scientists work to discredit them.Tony Heller is making money from his YouTube videos where says he's "proving" man is not causing our climate to change.Tony Heller is not paid to do any scientific research on climate change.Is there any doubt about Tony Heller's credibility?So why is he doing it? Whey doesn't he prescient the truth?And more improbably why would GeorgeeOfTheJungle who i would think would be well educated to be posting in the EV forum believe what this dishonest man is saying? And then he promotes him?

author: DrG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 05:16:15 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 02, 2020, 04:45:36 pmIMO, two possibilities.1.https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0230365and 2.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 05:18:34 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on August 02, 2020, 05:13:08 pmSo GeorgeOfTheJungle maybe I owe you an apology. Are you saying Tony Hiller is full of shit? So why do you promote him in your tag line. I'm confused... which is why I am asking.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 05:25:31 pm
content: Quote from: DrG on August 02, 2020, 05:16:15 pmWell seeing as he don't work for the government and unlike Tesla who said he was communicating with martians I will go with option 2. But you know there is a third option... A chip implanted in his brain. They are controlling him through Bill Gate's 5G cellular network. At any time Bill might trigger his chip and give him covid which only Bill has the vaccine for.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 06:39:03 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 02, 2020, 05:15:43 pmI think you misunderstand me Doug ... I am saying George should address the points.You have addressed your position quite clearly.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 06:46:51 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 02, 2020, 08:52:15 amBut rest assured charging prices will go up. If you buy an electric BMW or Mercedes you can charge your car at Ionity for 29 eurocent / kWh for the first 3 years. After that you pay 79 eurocent per kWh. Tesla is likely to follow with their fast charging network. Tesla isn't making a profit on their cars; they rely on selling emission certificates to make a profit. Once that ends (their contract with Fiat/Chrysler runs until 2023) Tesla will have to create alternative revenue streams.And for those who think paying to charge for one or two holiday trips costs peanuts may not like the math. If you have a daily commute of a total of 60km you'll travel about 13800km a year. One or two holiday trips in Europe (skiing or go to a sunny place) easely add up to 5000km. That makes a total of 18800km per year of which over 26% needs to rely on public charging. Assuming 250Wh per km (>120km/h and heating on or AC on) you are looking at a charging bill of over 980 euro (assuming 79 ct per kWh). That amount of money buys me 700 liters of gas which easily takes me 8000km with my current car and 14000km with an efficient hybrid. The latter shows why the EV versus gas car comparisons typically don't include hybrids.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 06:57:55 pm
content: You seem to be proving your point with a lot of conjecture. Not all of us drive 5'000km just for a holiday. I go away once a year with a car full of people travelling just a few hundred miles. My electric will always be around 8p/kWh at some point in the day. As things expand prices will come down as competition emerges.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 07:16:17 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 02, 2020, 06:46:51 pmWell no that's not really true.Tesla sold ~$600 million of regulatory credits in 2019 (source: TSLA 10-K for 2019), and sold $19 billion of cars at a cost of $15 billion. They were loss making - but not on cars - the car sales are profitable for the company. And they aren't going to be profitable purely on regulatory credits, unless they get extremely lucky (IIRC this happened once when they turned a tiny profit randomly in 2013 or so, but it hasn't happened since, and their subsequent profitable quarters were driven by automotive and energy system sales.)The problem with fast charging is the investment in the infrastructure. Fast charging stations aren't free to install (a 100kW station costs ca. $50k to install) so with the presently low utilisation of the stations (build it and they will come) the price should fall. Competition will also drive this. Unlike a gas station, which costs some $10mn to install, requires regular deliveries by truck and requires much land plus trained staff 24/7, a fast charging station can be installed almost anywhere such as outside a coffee shop and costs very little in ongoing maintenance.And the Chinese are already producing CCS stations for a fifth the price of the mainstream vendors so I suspect we'll see more of these installed. There's a brand new petrol station going in down the road and the landlord has put in a bank of fast chargers with provision for more. It's a lot easier to do that when you start from scratch.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 07:25:51 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 02, 2020, 06:39:03 pmThank you tom66.While I do not expect everyone to be educated in all subjects. Those of us who are need to point out BS when we see BS.The Earth is not flat.Man has been to the moon.The Chinese did not create the corona-19 virus to control the world."The" Government did not blow-up the Twin Towers in New York.There was a holocausts.And Hitler is not alive and living in Antarctica or South America.There is a reason "honest scientists" who look at the evidence for many caused climate change sure indicate that is what is happening.I'm just puzzled why and educated person promotes something that is known to be false.GeorgeOfTheJungle I hope you will explain why you continue to promote the views of a dishonest person.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 07:43:46 pm
content: 15 pages before Godwin's law got invoked. Not bad..

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 07:58:34 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on August 02, 2020, 07:43:46 pmDid it take that long? I thought it was on the same page as when GeorgeOfTheJungle mentioned Tony Heller and someone mentioned the Australian "sell-out" scientist who is saying it's not true that the that Great Barrier Reef is dying when 50% of it is dead. (Not to mentions coral reefs around the world are also dying.) That's like Dr. Goebbels telling the Germans in April 1945 that Germany is winning the war as bombs from the British and Americans bombers were destroying German cities. Some people like GeorgeOfTheJungle still believed what they were being told. But the question is why? Why can't GeorgeOfTheJungle see Tony Heller for the fraud he is?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 08:04:02 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on August 02, 2020, 06:57:55 pmWell, if you'd follow the news you'd know half of Europe is congested during the holiday seasons. Millions of people going on holidays with their cars. And if you want to emphasize on personal cases: we average at about 10k km per year. A few rounds to the south of France adds up quickly. We just drove 5400 km in one trip.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 08:10:21 pm
content: Don't most people fly instead of driving some 1000's of kms to their holiday destinations? I admit I want to do a European road trip sometime but it is a "once in a decade" thing rather than a common holiday trip.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 08:12:09 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 02, 2020, 08:10:21 pmNo. Most people drive. You can't bring camping gear or a caravan on a plane. And travelling from one city to another doesn't work very well when using planes.In Europe 'black saturday' isn't a sale but the days the roads are extremely congested due to holiday traffic:https://about-france.com/busiest-driving-days.htm

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 08:13:00 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 02, 2020, 08:10:21 pmEspecially with pre-covid airfares far less expensive than the train.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 08:15:33 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 02, 2020, 08:12:09 pmNot sure I understand. Worked great for us last summer. Paris to Dubrovnik was just 2 hr flight and I recalled we paid 75 Euros because we purchased tickets same day. If we had purchased in advance it would have been 35 Euros.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 08:21:21 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 02, 2020, 08:15:33 pmJust look at the news and see the endless traffic jams that are caused by people driving thousands of kilometres through Europe. That's how people are using their cars.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 08:24:35 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 02, 2020, 08:04:02 pmWe don't do that in the UK, to travel 5'400 km you must have just driven around in circles - hence the flipping congestion, as always as i have seen before you just make shit up! such trips are not representative of everyone. Our local roads cannot deal with any traffic so just getting to work is like a mission to mars

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 08:27:39 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 02, 2020, 08:15:33 pmYeah, but then you are stuck in Dubrovnik. Some cities don't take much more than one or two days to visit. For example: last year we went to Vienna (Austria) for little more than a week and took day trips to Bratislava and Boadapest. A car just gives a lot of flexibility.@Simon: I've seen lots of cars from the UK in France (as usual); there is a canal tunnel which allows you to use your car in the rest of Europe as well.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 08:35:20 pm
content: When we flew to Italy we hired a little Fiat 500 it cost 6 euros per day. I think the petrol was more. We drove all over Italy. Tolls there are expensive. But beautiful country and great food.I'm sure some people do what you're saying nctnico, but I'd be surprised if it's a majority of people.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 08:48:12 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 02, 2020, 08:35:20 pmCondolences.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 08:51:34 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on August 02, 2020, 08:48:12 pmHaving a 1.0L 3cyl with a 5 speed manual -really- makes you appreciate your own car ...Still, it was interesting to drive a little car on the wrong side of the road for a week or so, good to keep in practice with the clutch pedal.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 09:00:41 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 02, 2020, 07:25:51 pmWho are the honest ones? For every major public policy issue (e.g. smoking) there has been a bunch of scientists being honest, and a bunch of scientists being dishonest. Sometimes its easy to see who the good guys are. Sometimes its so obscure even the people themselves probably haven't figured it out.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 09:01:25 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 02, 2020, 08:35:20 pmI suppose it's an unknown phenomenon to those who don't travel by car, but I'm quite amazed people aren't aware of the annual traffic situation in Europe. Just this weekend it was estimated 400000 Britons alone were on holiday by car in France. Pretty much all weekends of Juli and August are designated "red" to indicate roads will be congested due to large numbers of travellers. Car holidays are anything but an obscure phenomenon.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 09:10:11 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 02, 2020, 09:00:41 pmIf you can name more than a handful of dishonest climate scientists I'll be quite surprised...

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 09:27:57 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 02, 2020, 07:58:34 pmHi Doug,"Everyone who is not for Climate change is a sellout scientist". I think you should try and read your own words just once. Maybe Jennifer is a sellout maybe not - but the sellouts are on both sides.You constantly make everything personal while some of us try to keep it "balanced".Please remember there was a lot of scientific consensus that has later proved 100% wrong. Just because there is consensus does NOT mean it is correct. And as I keep saying - there are a LOT of scientific holes in the current climate debateAgain:1. Michael Mann's data and hockey stick is questionable AT BEST. I would actually call it an outright fraud.2.GlobalAcceleratedSea Level rise - IS COMPLETE BS. (Unless someone has found a new definition of Global)Those 2 items are two of the MAIN pillars every other evidence is built on or lends support to.All the alarmist screams are based on those two points mainly.Yes I know we currently have warming. Yes we have increasing CO2.But do we have a climatecrisis? No I do not think so. I might be wrong and willing to admit I'm wrong.But when so much data presented as FACT by the scientists in peer reviewed studies turn out to be absolute and pure BS - how am I to trust anything ? People just ignore facts they can look up themselves.But the pillars have crumbled under at least 2 of the absolute MAIN support pillars of the main "consensus"As I said my water side property risk have not increased for almost 30 years and my insurance company said it wont.So please - yes Tony Heller might be a paid shill.But so is Gretha, Al Gore and many others on BOTH SIDES of the discussion. Al Gore wants to make money from CO2 credit trades. That is his game. There is nothing more fraudulent at the moment than CO2 tradable credits. The world is so full of fraud everywhere that I'm personally disgusted.So this is NOT one sided despite YOU and others keep posting like it is.So please put your science hats on and start the thinking hat for solutions vs the constant verbatim attack on people who believe another side of thereligionyou believe. Yours belief is sponsored by Soros who is a known "destroyer" - who thinks it is funny to manipulate with peoples lives as he has nothing more interesting left to do in his "lifetime"IF CO2 is such a big issue - why the HECK are we not blocking and blaming China and India? Their CO2 emissions grow MORE than the entire west manages to turn DOWN CO2 emissions. But no-one blames China? Why?The Western world (EU/US) have ACTUALLY turned down CO2 emissions a lot. If it was not for China's explosive growth of Coal fired plants - the total CO2 emissions would ACTUALLY start declining. But with the current planned number of coal powered plants we will NEVER EVER decrease CO2 emissions.So we are in a fight we have ALREADY LOST.But we are killing the western world with fuel taxes and expensive electricity - our companies will die out - due to high cost of electricity and transport.--------So you are on a ship patching leaking holes one by one - in one end - while China and India are using shotguns to punch new holes in the ship in the other end..All while you blame the shipbuilder for not having improved the boat earlier and the shipbuilder should have known earlier how easy it was to punch holes in the boat... And it is the shipbuilders fault you are sinking.... And all the scientists agree the shipbuilder is the only one at fault - while people pointing at China and India are told to shut up....Bravo....I hope you see absolute complete lack of logic?-------I'm trying to keep an OPEN mind and investigate and validate OR in-validate where I can. That means listening to everyoneeventhe crackpots from both side of the fence.I'm neither denier or alarmist - I'm in between - but the debate is sadly non existent as anyone who critiques Mr. Mann's methods or results (or other similar) just gets shut down without hesitation. That is NOT scientific.Lets put some more straight facts on the table:1. IF you use Biomass / pellets - counted in many countries as "green fuel" - you take wood grown for 15-35 years and release the stored CO2 in an INSTANT. How is that good for the environment? What age does a natural resource have to be before it is good/bad CO2?2. If you like me don't drive more than 10-15.000 miles per year - and you buy a Golf EV - you have just there used the car production CO2 emissions for the next 5-10 years in one fell swoop. So you are EXPENDING the CO2 up front for about 100.000 km. How does that make any CO2 sense?If you only drive a little - is it not better for the environment overall that you try and keep your old car for as long as possible? (3000-6000 miles per year of CO2 from petrol car) - my car would be MAX 1635 kg of CO2 per year. A Tesla costs 5.3 to 17.5 tons of CO2 to produce BEFORE you start driving it and feeding it electricity (where some can maybe later be re-cycled through Battery recycling - but to the best of my knowledge Tesla have NOT started recycling battery material yet)So who is more environmentally thinking - the person who buys a Tesla and write off 5.3 to 17.5 tons of production CO2 in one go - or the one who spends 1.6 ton / year? As VW said in their own study - the crossover line is 100.000 KM before CO2 starts making sense.But if we have such a CO2 crisis - should we not do our UTMOST to limit the CURRENT amount of CO2? So block everyone from buying an EV unless it their personal driving style would make it CO2 neutral in maybe 3-4 years and not 5-10-20 years?So think tiny burps vs large farts....Later on when our production of EV's make more CO2 sense and battery recycling have proven itself - THEN we can start letting lower milage drivers get an EV.There is something absolutely Topsy Turvey about the whole thing.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 09:49:37 pm
content: Quote from: kaz911 on August 02, 2020, 09:27:57 pmI agree. And transport isn't the most CO2 intensive part of our lives. Last week I came across a very interesting article about what has the highest impact on the environment c.q. produces the most CO2 (and thus where we can gain the most): every day stuff. The consumer magazine (which is independant / doesn't have advertisers) points to this research:https://thinkbigactnow.org/en/It turns out electronics have the biggest impact on the environment (not a surprise) but also something simple like a pair of jeans produces 32kg of CO2 to make and transport.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 09:50:27 pm
content: QuoteThere is a good reason the majority of environmental campaigners are strongly opposed to biomass being counted as a "green energy" source. At one point, I am not sure this is still the case, Drax was being fuelled with wood pellets imported from the USA. That is absurd.This is part of the problem of the lack of scientific literacy amongst politicians and the general public.For what it is worth, this has been raised by Greenpeace almost a decade ago:https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/new-greenpeace-report-biomass-report-slams-industry-claims/There is a desperation to seem green and biomass is a cheap way of appearing to meet these goals.QuoteYou hit the nail on the head. In my case my 2008 Ford Focus was on its last legs. And some kind fellow had hit my car on the motorway and drove off in the distance. Thankfully my dashcam caught the whole affair and his insurance company paid for my car to be written off. It was later sold at auction but has not been re-registered so has likely become a parts car. At 140,000 miles and 10 years old, it had done a fair service. So replacing a car like that with a 3 year old PHEV seemed reasonable to me.If you take for example Doris who drives her 1997 Toyota Yaris to the church and shops once a week and replace her car with a 2020 Tesla Model 3 you would most likely never make the CO2 back. But that's not a typical use case.15.8 million passenger cars were produced in the EU in 2019. (2020 is likely to be a different matter...) Almost all of those will have been ICE cars and almost all of them will have a service life of some 15 years before being replaced. Why aren't those electric? Or, at least, why aren't at least 50% of those electric, or at least plugin hybrids? If we are to make some serious strides towards reducing CO2, which you yourself have admitted is a problem - whether you agree it is a crisis or not, it is certainly a serious issue - then we should be addressing it now. Rather than making some vague noises about "banning ICE vehicle production by 2040" which is what this government has suggested (although to their credit there has been the further suggestion of bringing this to 2032. I would counter with 2027 at the earliest, with 2025 being the target.)

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 10:07:22 pm
content: Quote from: kaz911 on August 02, 2020, 09:27:57 pmComparing timescales like that is meaningless. It takes months to grow a rice crop, yet I consume a bowl of the resulting rice during dinner. What counts is if you are creating biomass faster than you are consuming it. If that's the case you have a win.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 10:31:07 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 02, 2020, 09:50:27 pmThat is nice wishful thinking but it isn't going to happen. Not by a long shot. See this survey made by KPMG in 2019. Page 11 is very interesting because it provides an overview on what consumers expect to buy and what the executives working in the automotive industry think is realistic to expect:https://automotive-institute.kpmg.de/GAES2019/downloads/GAES2019PressConferenceENG_FINAL.PDFThe automotive executives foresee that in 2040 48% of the cars sold in Europe will be ICE (ICE + hybrid). In the end it all depends on what people can afford to buy. KPMG does this survey every year BTW.And before any EV makes sense the electricity production must not be from fossil fuels otherwise you get more toxic gas output (which causes smog)! For now the best option is to buy a hybrid.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 10:42:00 pm
content: Biomass is considered a green resource as it's closed loop. You only release carbon into the atmosphere you first captured. That process is net zero whereas oil and fossil fuels are not. That's why compensation of fossil fuels by planting trees is nonsense. Once carbon is pumped from inert reserves into the system it stays there. You've added carbon into the loop no amount of trees are going to permanently remove. Biomass is just solar power on a longer time scale.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 10:42:28 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 02, 2020, 09:00:41 pmThe "honest" scientists are the ones who are trying to find the truth doing so with honesty and integrity and will follow the evidence wherever it leads. The "dishonest" scientists are the ones who have an agenda. Many have no education in the sciences or if they do have an education it is very superficial, yet they claim to be experts. Some attend non-credited schools and claiming they have a PhD. A few of these "non-credible scientists do have a PhD from very prestigious schools and have sold-out, meaning they are being paid to present a specific scientific outcome. We know these scientists are loosely organized and even have trade shows and conferences to share methods of duping politicians and the public. They are typical paid very well. We know the PhD working at Theranos was being paid $500,000 per year and never had to come in the office. Therarnos just wanted to have his name endorsing their product. Theranos would do all of the junk science and then place his name on the research.Dishonest scientists will not have peer reviewed work. Or if it is peer reviewed they use made up names and make up names of scientists.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 11:01:39 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on August 02, 2020, 10:42:00 pmYes and no. One of the problems with biomass is that you have to refine it (like turning it into ethanol or gas) before burning it. Otherwise you get unwanted emissions. In the NL subsidies on burning bio-mass have been cancelled because burning wood is relatively dirty.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2020, 11:13:19 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on August 02, 2020, 10:42:00 pmThe massive amounts of nutrients which go up in smoke aren't returned to the soil ... and neither is the fly ash.The EU is depleting the soil of vast areas, destroying biodiversity and are planning to stop doing it long before it becomes carbon neutral ... because it's utterly unsustainable, there's not enough forests in the world. It's combination of insanity and value signalling for idiots, so they can say the EU "met" its self imposed obligations. Just letting go of the promises and going back to the drawing board for less economically suicidal ones would have been better for the economy, the environment and even emissions.Biomass is a f'ing scam and now governments are getting second thought, they are discovering ISDSs lock them into persisting with it.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 12:26:39 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 02, 2020, 07:16:17 pmYou fail to mention that a gas station can serve many more cars per hours compared to a fast charging station. And you've got to be kidding about needing extra land for a regular gas station. Just do the math based on cars served per hour versus amount of land needed. Also a fast charging station has to get the energy from somewhere. If your predicted growth happens there will be a need for storage and/or adding extra wiring. That is where to excessive costs are going to be. And I also think you are mistaken about the ongoing maintenance. A fast charging station will also require supervision, monitoring, cleaning and maintenance. Last but not least; people will charge mostly in front of their door (either from their own outlet of public charging). This means that fast charging stations will not see as many customers compared to regular gas stations. In turn this means that fast charging stations will be more expensive compared to regular gas stations. The economy of scale regular gas stations have is not there for fast charging stations. The bottom line is that there are 2 options: fast charging stations won't be as plenty as gas stations so if it is busy you have to wait for a long time OR fast charging stations will be ridiculously expensive. This is simple economics.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 12:30:07 am
content: Quote from: kaz911 on August 02, 2020, 09:27:57 pmkaz911I will address each one of your points.Please provide the names of a couple of "sell-out" scientist who are being paid to take the position that man is causing climate change and the name of the organization that is funding them or method of compensation. I have looked and can not find one. But sounds like you might know of some.How can you say Jennifer "might" be a sellout? There is no question that she is a sellout and who is paying her. While she was a scientist in the past she gave that up years ago.Are there really two sides when it comes to climate change? If you think there are just two sides can we call that the "honest" scientists and the "dishonest" or the scientists who are being compensated to cause confusion. If they were an honest scientist they would follow the evidences to see where it leads.Your statement, "Please remember there was a lot of scientific consensus that has later proved 100% wrong. Just because there is consensus does NOT mean it is correct."No disrespect but science doesn't prove anything. You should have been taught this in every science class you have taken.Scientific breakthroughs are made when the evidence shows the consensus is incorrect. That is what science is all about.It's going to be hard to have a discussion with you if you do not understand the fundamentals of science.You say Mann's data/hockey stick is fraud. The definition of fraud is "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain." What criminal act was Mann committing which resulted in financial or personal gain?As I state previously Mann's data has been reviewed and there where some mathematical calculations which did not have enough precision. His lack of precision is what the 'dishonest" scientist are using to spread doubt and confusion. Remember Mann was performing statistical sensitivity tests. Mann made and "honest" mistake in his calculations which is something all scientists, no people do. I'm sure you have made made incorrect mathematical calculations. Was this by accident? Or was your intent to commit fraud?You keep citing Mann's hockey stick graph. You do realize that was 20 years ago and we have far more data and information then Mann had 20 years ago. Have you looked at the "credible" research that's occurred over the past 20 years? Do you know how many 'credible" scientists have admired they were wrong about climate change? Publicly several hundred "credible" scientists admitted they were completely wrong about climate change. They went so far as to take out a huge ad in a Washington DC newspaper to say they were wrong. And not only that, they added, the evidence for man caused climate change is overwhelming. After looking at all of the theories which have been proposed we only have one that corresponds with the data. And that is man's burning of carbon fuels.I would encourage you to update your knowledge about man caused climate change. Over the past 20 years there's been a lot of "credible" research which surpasses Mann's original work. Remember his work was done over 20 years ago. Just compare the computing power he was using in the 1990s with the computers we've been using. It should be obvious why there were calculation errors in his statistical calculations.What prof do you have that "Global Accelerated Sea Level rise - IS COMPLETE BS. (Unless someone has found a new definition of Global)"In the United States it's not considered BS by our military and insurance companies. Our military is having to adapt military operations because of sea levels rising. Insurance companies have found they are paying out claims due to sea water at high tides traveling inland farther then it has ever before. If the sea levels are not rising why are insurance companies having to pay claims to home owners they never had to before in the past. In Massachusetts sea water levels have risen on Martha's vineyard and surrounding islands. Structures and roads that were built at the time of the pilgrims is now underwater. The graveyard where people where the pilgrims were barred is now underwater. And 400-500 year old caskets are pooping out of the ground.If sea levels are not rising why is all of this happening?You agree we have warming and increasing CO2 levels. And can we agree that man is the cause, and we are affecting our planet?Should we be alarmed? Well that depends. When should we be alarmed? And when should we do something? No one knows for sure. And anyone who says they do know, doesn't really know. We are in the midst of the experiment. This is just like covid. Should we practice physical distancing and wear masks in public? I do. But some politicians in America aren't. I'm am inviting all of those politicians to visit a care facility where 25 people just died of covid and 130 tested positive. These politicians can come a talk with these people and see if they become ill by not wearing a mask.See with covid, where do we sound the alarm? Same with climate change. Should we sound the alarm after the worlds coral reefs are dead and our crops are failing? That might be too late. What if we start now? It will give us a lot more time.We know Tony Hiller is a paid shill. Just as we know Jennifer is a paid shill. And we know who has paid Jennifer.Al Gore is a politician so of course he's going to have a political agenda. Is Gretha a paid shill? I don't see here getting paid millions for doing what she's doing. We know Jennifer is.Why do you keep saying there are sides like this is a war, a debate or an election. This is science. We look at the data and see where it takes us. Now there can be a difference of opinion as to what the data is telling us. But that's why we do additional experiments/research so we can provide additional information which might alter one's opinion. As I stated previously, there has been a lot of "credible" research since Mann's work 20+ years ago. All of this additional research has convinced hundreds of scientists around the word that man's burning of carbon fuels is rapidly changing our climate. If we do nothing there will be a tipping point.One key fact you and most of the "dishonest" scientists seem to conveniently do not mention is that the Earths population in their lifetime had doubled if not almost tripled since they were born. The amount of carbon based fuel we burn has not just doubled or tripled it's far more. If we look at how much carbon based fuel was consumed per person 250 years ago we find that every year we are more and more every year. The rate at which the world's population burns carbon fuel every year accelerates. And one more thing people are living longer. Over the past 100 years or so, human life expectancy has doubled. So we are living longer and every year we burn more carbon based fuel than we did the previous year.The reason I and other are vocal about this is because posters such as GeorgeOfTheJungle is posting links and promoting the work of people who are being paid to misrepresent the facts to people. There is a lot of junk science out there. Do you want people to know the truth? Or be deceived by someone for financial gain. I took science classes to learn the "truth" about the world we live in.I welcome your and anyone's comments.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 12:35:51 am
content: Quote from: Marco on August 02, 2020, 11:13:19 pmWhat goes in must come out, which sets it apart from fossil fuels.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 12:39:04 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 02, 2020, 11:01:39 pmIt's better than fossil fuels either way. Those are dirty and open loop. I'm not saying there aren't better alternatives, although we should be mindful of their respective forms of pollution.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 12:41:24 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 03, 2020, 12:30:07 amYou better do some research on this before making bold statements. In the 1600 - 1700 period the sea levels where at a low so it makes sense that some structures build in that period are under water. But this has nothing to do with the current climate change.Edit:And on a larger time scale the sea levels have been rising steadily with some fluctuations:

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 12:43:24 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on August 03, 2020, 12:39:04 amNo. Because the emissions from burning wood are killing people. It is plain and simple as that. In the past decade there has been too much emphasis on CO2 reduction and too little on looking at the bigger picture (making the earth a healthier place to live at the same time).

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 12:47:25 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 03, 2020, 12:43:24 am5 years ago people were pushing hard to get CO2 emissions from cars down, with diesel being the preferred short term solution. Then the scandal with diesel cars cheating on emissions made people very concerned about nitrogen and sulphur, and suddenly higher CO2 producing gas powered cars were back in favour.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 12:47:50 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 03, 2020, 12:41:24 amDude you are mixing up climate change weather.If water levels were lower in the 1600-1700s how is it people have been living there for the past 300-400 years? It's only been in the past 20 years the graveyard, houses and road are covered in water. And how about Venice Italy? Why is no one living on the first floor anymore?

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 12:51:25 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 03, 2020, 12:43:24 amAs I understand it biomass isn't just wood and wood isn't necessarily burnt in a traditional open fire either, changing the resulting emissions.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 12:52:32 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 03, 2020, 12:47:50 amThe sea level rises recorded so far are only about 20cm. The big rises people quote are predictions for the future. I believe the main issue in Venice is the city is sinking. Its places like Miami and GuangZhou that are at serious risk from actual sea level rise.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 12:55:00 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on August 03, 2020, 12:51:25 amThat is why I wrote 'wood'. I wanted to make clear that burning wood as-is isn't a good solution. Liquid and gas bio-fuels (let's call these refined for lack of a better word I can come up with right now) are an entirely different story.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 12:56:47 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on August 03, 2020, 12:51:25 amBiomass includes many things, but 100% wood is one form used in large amounts for electricity generation in some places - e.g. the large Drax Power Station in Yorkshire, UK. Its burned with scrubbers in the flue, though, so most of the pollution it generates should be CO2.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 12:58:32 am
content: Quote from: coppice on August 03, 2020, 12:52:32 amAll of Venice is sinking? IDK.Add to Martha's Vineyard the list. It's not at risk, it's already happened. US government is paying people to move because for the firt time in 400 years roads and towns are underwater due to sea water levels have risen. I know Miami is almost there. Not sure about GuangZhou.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 12:59:37 am
content: Quote from: coppice on August 03, 2020, 12:56:47 amStill you have to be really carefull with thinking that scrubbers filter everything because they don't. In the NL the required filtering level depends on the age of the installation. And likely even the best filtering is not good enough to make an EV run cleaner compared to a Euro6 ICE car.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 05:19:23 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 03, 2020, 12:58:32 amSince the 1930's in that area the sea level has risen at a fairly linear 2.5 - 3.0 mm per year rate (sources:https://www.mass.gov/doc/sea-level-rise-understanding-and-applying-trends-and-future-scenarios-for-analysis-and-planning/download,https://www.whoi.edu/science/coastaltraining/events/oct_nov_dec_07_files/Sea_Level_Rise_Vulnerability_RThieler.pdf) While there are peaks and valleys over the years, I don't see any significant acceleration in the rate in recent years. Of course there are projections that assume massive glacial melting, and planning should those projections come to pass. As for the military and their contingency plans, no doubt they have plans for all sorts of scenarios including attacking space aliens. That doesn't mean that it's going to happen, it's just a plan.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 07:45:39 am
content: Quote from: fourfathom on August 03, 2020, 05:19:23 amYou might want to look again. They are showing accelerated sea levels rising. But isn’t this for Boston and Boston Harbor? I was talking about Martha’s Vineyard and surrounding islands. The US government has already paid to have residents relocated because sea levels have risen. Same thing is happening in Louisiana and Alaska.As for the military why would the prepare for higher sea levels if as some posters here have said man caused climate change is not occurring? I don’t think our military prepares for situations that are not occurring. Do you think the US military is preparing for a sneak attack by the Japanese in Hawaii? Or Germany sending long range bombers to bomb New York. Both of those seniors are more probable then attacking space aliens.I would still like to know what smart people in the forms here keep quoting people and scientists who are being paid to promote doubt and confusion about man caused climate change. Are smart people that “dumb” as they can’t see these people are being paid to lie about climate change?

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 08:00:28 am
content: watch the missing acceleration.... (most current graph)And if MV is so threatened by ACCELERATED sea water level - then either Obama is a total moron or he does not trust the data either - as he has bought a gigantic sea front property on MV.....And please do not twist my words. I do know sea level is RISING. But there is NO evidence ofACCELERATEDSea Level rise - and theACCELERATEDpart is used as EVIDENCE for mass glacier melting will drown us all.The two words that are ESSENTIAL are GLOBAL ACCELERATED.. That part is the BS part.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 08:05:46 am
content: And here we have the more consolidated graphFunny enough we are still BELOW the 30/40/50's warm period in relative Sea Level Rise. That was when the world had very high temperatures last time. Temperatures that in the books was warmer than today but have been revised downwards....Sadly Miami's main tide station has been out of service for Sea Level Measurements since the '80s .... Finding stations with actual historical data is not easy. But I'll continue to try and find some both in the Bay and towards the Atlantic. But again if Sea Level Rise is SO important to monitor - why is the stations not repaired?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 08:16:38 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 02, 2020, 10:31:07 pmWith all due respect of course existing automotive CEOs want to sell ICE vehicles:- They have the unique experience required, which reduces the chance of competition. It takes a ton of development effort to make an emissions-compliant powertrain that customers will accept. Look at the fraud VW committed to the cost of several tens of billions of dollars in the end. They were that desperate to make these vehicles work. Outside of building engines, car manufacturers are fancy coachbuilders. Many of the pieces that go into a car are from third parties, not developed by the manufacturer directly. This has meant that these companies have lost of wealth of engineering talent. There's a reason Chinese companies are now offering electric vehicles at an increasing pace, because they can buy the ABS, power steering, brakes, suspension, etc. from third parties, and just have to engineer the chassis, interior and battery packs.- These vehicles support their existing service and parts network. The dealers don't make money selling cars. But they do make money servicing these cars. EVs require less servicing, which means less service income. EVs aren't popular with the main dealers for this reason. PHEVs are, because they still need regular service.- ICE vehicles don't require a substantial investment in battery production and would lose the ICE manufacturer's first mover advantage. They missed the ball with Tesla. The Model 3 is, what, the 5th best selling car in Europe? And it's 50000 EUR? It's only just behind staples like the Golf, Fiesta, 208, etc. People are desperate for a *good EV*.Quote from: nctnico on August 02, 2020, 10:31:07 pmOh, this chestnut...Do you think it is more efficient to have millions of individual catalytic converters, DPF/GPF and SCR exhaust treatment systems driving around? Or if we do really need to generate the electricity from fossil fuels, that it is better to generate it centrally in one efficient power plant and distribute it to all customers?The average UK CO2e/kWh in the UK is 277gCO2e/kWh including transmission losses  so if you take a very "average" EV that gets 4mi/kWh (bearing in mind the "average car" is closer to a Golf that gets 5~5.5mi/kWh) then that is about 70gCO2e/mi. OK let's add 10% for charging losses which is on the high end. 77gCO2e/mi.Compare a small hybrid like the Toyota Corolla Hybrid which is 101gCO2e/km  (162gCO2e/mi) and we're already off by half. Now we need to account for the losses in the distribution and refinement of the petrol. This is hard to do, but transport is about 5% (big heavy truck carrying the fuel for 1 week also needs its own fuel), and refinement is from 20-30%. But even if we assume the 'average' case for the EV, and 'best' case for the ICE (the CO2 is *only* emitted by the exhaust and nothing else) there's a huge gap to make up.Now charge the EV at night when CO2e is closer to 50-100gCO2e/kWh. No competition. And the UK grid keeps getting cleaner.https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/904215/2019-ghg-conversion-factors-methodology-v01-02.pdfhttps://www.toyota.co.uk/new-cars/corolla-hatchback/build?path=engine/881ef498-b467-4895-8074-cbc4340ccc81/7b77d85b-8f26-4645-82ac-22154a7d6293/7050eead-26f3-4a12-834c-e96b4106decd&financeOption=cash

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 09:20:09 am
content: Quote from: kaz911 on August 03, 2020, 08:05:46 amAgain you are talking about Boston and Boston Harbor. Not exactly an island, and while Martha’s Vineyard is close to Boston, it is a ways away. How about looking at the other graphs in the document you posed. I’m seeing accelerated growth curves.Do you really not know why’s Miami’s station was not repaired? It’s 1970s/1980s era technology. It’s obsolete and has been replaced. We now have other equipment which is able to make more perceive.When scientists talk about sea levels rising do you understand what is meant? You refer to one data point, Boston as if that represents what’s happening around the world. While globally on average sea levels have been rising and are continuing to do so, there are some locations where the sea level has dropped. In other places is rising above the global average.You need to be Thinking globally instead of locally.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 09:22:15 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 03, 2020, 12:30:07 amPhil "hide the decline" Jones (a.k.a. "Mr. delete all the emails"), CRU.Michael "this isn't about truth at all" Mann, PSU.James "godfather" Hansen, CU.Al "global warming business ambassador" Gore.And a gazillion other @ universities and businesses all around the world, eager to grab their piece of whatever climate change budget pie that happens to be up for grabs: e.g. theINGSOCEU's €572 billion "green stimulus" one from last week.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 09:44:55 am
content: The attempt to solve tho issue is not evidence for believe in the issue irrespective of science. You are just a conspiracy theory nut job and apparently all of the scientists in the world who agree that the climate is warming are involved in some massive conspiracy plot.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 09:46:41 am
content: WRT sea levels, let's not forget there's a thing called plate tectonics, by virtue of which an apparent sea level change can well be due to subduction, or ordinary crustal dynamics.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 09:50:18 am
content: Quote from: Simon on August 03, 2020, 09:44:55 amOh, perhaps I forgot to say that I know (don't "believe",know) that the climate is warming?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 09:55:57 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on August 03, 2020, 09:50:18 amDo you believe this to have (net) negative consequences for humans in the coming century?

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 10:05:05 am
content: As i said earlier, we make CO2, we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, ergo to produce it is a bad idea if we don't want the climate to warm.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 10:19:17 am
content: Quote from: Simon on August 03, 2020, 10:05:05 amThat is a pretty weak argument. We know from history that some environmental changes go completely out of control, while others self correct and achieve stability. We know some of the effects of putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, but its naive to expect we know them all right now. I suspect most of the claims will be proven wrong. Things either won't change very much because self correction dominates, or things will go completely off the rails due to something like rapid tundra melting, or the gulf stream being disrupted.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 10:23:38 am
content: Quote from: coppice on August 03, 2020, 10:19:17 amBut we still know that we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere and we know what it does....... We also know that in the past the earth was much warmer, we also know that there was more carbon in the air and that it got absorbed and fossilized, that's the shit we are burning now. it does not take much to put two and two together. We are doing something that has the potential to create a change in the system. Are we happy with how the system was? did we want it hotter or colder? No? then maybe we should avoid doing what we are doing. How the system works and what it will do is a whole other argument.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 10:36:29 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 03, 2020, 09:20:09 amI am thinking globally but to think globally you have to examine locally. I have YET to spot a point in the US, EU, India, Middle East where I can find proof of ACCELERATED Sea Level Rise.Yes there are local spots withacceleratedsea level rise just like there are local spots with accelerated sea level drops.Help me find the tide stations with back history around the US West coast and you will probably see the same. Noaccelerationon most stations - bar a few.And if the Miami station was replaced why did they not update the sea level sensors? There are NO Miami readings since the 80's DESPITE it being the place with Fish in the Streets.... As a scientist I would pee my pants to to get the right data - but it is just not available. I have gone through some 80 tide stations in Florida without finding any with sufficient data or any data on sea level. Please remember to DISCOUNT any station that is close to a river delta or enclosed. Rivers and enclosed spaces have their own calculations and streams - just like the Mediterranean in EU.Waterlevels in the Med (enclosed space with narrow water escape point - aka Straight of Gibraltar) means the tide in the Med is dependent on the "normal factors - PLUS heavily dependent Wind direction and speed from the Atlantic. When you have high tides in the Med - and add a storm you get flooding in low areas like Venice. It takes quite a while to move the water masses - but Venice flooding is not new. Venice has just been unlucky multiple times where events have coincided (like they have done multiple times before)

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 10:40:00 am
content: So the ice is not melting, or it does and just vanishes

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 10:40:30 am
content: Quote from: Simon on August 03, 2020, 10:23:38 amPeople REALLY struggle to put two and two together. I'm not saying its OK to keep taking millions of years of accumulated underground carbon, and pump it into the atmosphere. However, we definitely are going to keep doing that for a considerable period, because technological development and large scale industrial deployment take time. What I am saying is that claims to know in any detail what the outcome will be are mere speculation.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 10:45:53 am
content: Yes they are speculation, that is all a scientist can do until proven right or wrong. The problem is we can't wait for it to happen to agree on who was right. it's like an asteroid hurtling towards the earth, do we argue for a decade about minuscule differences in calculations of it's trajectory and wait until it arrives to pat someone on the back and say you were right or do we prepare now to do something about it?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 10:47:22 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 03, 2020, 08:16:38 amNonsense. I guess you didn't read the report very well; it includes those from EV manufacturers as well and many of the manufacturers are also producing electric cars. In the end there is no use to produce something consumers are not going (or are not able) to buy.QuoteIt is a misconception EVs require less servicing. If you think this is true then you have no clue about the actual running costs of a car per km. The real problem is that people are used to bring in their car for servicing regulary but this is a big waste of money either way. Just fix what is broken. Somehow EVs are now touted as being low maintenance but the reality is that cars have been low maintenance for a long time already. By far the biggest maintenance expense on a car (per km) are the tyres and the suspension.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 10:50:42 am
content: Quote from: coppice on August 03, 2020, 10:40:30 amOf course there is an aspect to speculation.But we can model the changes.And on those changes we can make predictions.The oldest woman in the world, so far, was Jeanne Calment who died at age 122 years and 164 days. She smoked every day.Does that mean smoking is not harmful? No. But it means like everything it infers a risk and in this case Jeanne got lucky.We might get lucky. Increased temperatures might be adapted to quicker than expected. Coral bleaching might be caused by other factors and life might thrive in the newer climates. Maybe we can remove the CO2 from the atmosphere or geoengineer our way out of this problem.But this is like the smoker believing that there will be a perfect lung cancer treatment available in 20 year's time. Don't bank on it.We know enough to have a *great deal of confidence* that high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, pumped in at the rate for which we pump them in, is likely to be harmful. Therefore, it makes sense to push in the right direction as much as possible, which as far as we know would be to reduce the CO2 increase by putting less of the stuff up there.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 10:59:10 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 03, 2020, 10:50:42 amAlmost right. Life will go on, but which life?, on average we humans are adapted to the current climate, the hotter it gets the more difficult we will find it, our evolution is slower. It took me 10 years to get runner beans from the UK to grow in southern Italy because I meticulously grew the seeds from the last year and eventually got something resembling a crop or two rather than 3 barely surviving pods per plant. We don't evolve that fast.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 11:00:38 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 03, 2020, 09:20:09 amDoug - there are only 70 nm between Boston and MV. For sailors like I who have actually learned how to calculate current and tide through our education - can't in our wildest dreams figure out how you can have more tide rise 70nm away - unless something else is happening. IF there is accelerated sea water level rise in Boston - you would have it at MV too. The Cape Cod bay would actually act as a slight buffer - but not enough to cause serious differences.Normally when we plan sailing - if we do not have a local tide station - we do interpolate between tide stations. And they are can can be 200-300 nautical miles apart - and that works pretty well for navigation - until you reach "chokepoints" like river deltas etc.Therefore you OFTEN have tidal stations inside river delta entry points and exit points - but you would NOT use those too interpolate with as they do NOT follow the normal coastal tide as they have a "buffer" due to the choke points. Slower to fill - slower to empty.Many can be estimated outside of heavy water fall seasons or storm seasons - if there are enough historical data. (Almanacs are used for that) - so water flow on the "inside" will be time-delayed compared to the coastal tide.Boston is as far as I know the CLOSEST tide station with history to MV? Find me a closer one and send me the link from NOAA.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 11:09:39 am
content: Quote from: Simon on August 03, 2020, 09:44:55 amSince before the beginning of this century the EU have been wasting thousands of billions euros on climate change. Last week's stimulus plan alone is 572 billions.Other than the tons of "we're all gonna die" peer reviewed papers, can anybody please name a single tangible benefit, invention, viable plan, or any other sort of good outcome?Don't you guys expect at least something in return when thousands of billions have been taken forcefully out of your pockets?And, don't you realize it's such a huge amount that it's your children and grandchildren that are going to have to pay for it because it's gone straight into your country's deficit first, and public debt second?Are you even aware what the deficit is, and the public debts of your own countries, guys?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 11:10:32 am
content: Quote from: Simon on August 03, 2020, 10:59:10 amHumans are among the most adaptive species on this planet. We can live from the polar regions to the equator and eat whatever grows in our surrounding. Comparing to plants is just ridiculous. When climate changes plants and other animals migrate. We humans have the technology to help that happen.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 11:14:24 am
content: Quote from: Simon on August 03, 2020, 10:59:10 amScientist have just published that the Roman Warm/Optimum period was sea temperatures was 2 deg c higher avg temperature than current... Earlier Spanish research showed air temperatures was 2-2.5c higher than today. (250BC-500AD) - so we have pretty good ideas about how life was in EU in 250BC-500AD...Added quote:Quotehttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67281-2

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 11:18:51 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 03, 2020, 11:10:32 amOf course humans are going to survive pretty much any environmental disaster that leaves at least some life left on Earth for us to consume. Perhaps if the only life left is deep in the Marianas Trench that's not quite true, but things would need to be extreme to kill 100% of humans. The real question is what percentage of humans would various disasters kill off? Might we be looking at a 99% reduction in human population? That's not unrealistic, considering that just throwing us back to the population before James Watt started patenting would reduce the world's population by about 95%.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 11:23:45 am
content: Quote from: Simon on August 03, 2020, 10:45:53 amExcept that there's been many times as much CO2 in the atmosphere before, and all the while there was life and fully functional ecosystems. But this time it's gonna go off the rails and kill us all? Why?If you want to imagine the worst calamities, imagine that the fossil fuels ended tomorrow. Hunger, poverty, and 7 billlion people killing and eating each other to survive. Yeah, that would be really bad.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 11:27:02 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on August 03, 2020, 11:09:39 amthe stimulus package is as it says a stimulus package, it's actually to help the economy due to covid-19 and an attempt to take the oportunity to improve our way of doing things, but of course you missed half the story out to twist it where you wanted it.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 11:33:36 am
content: Quote from: Simon on August 03, 2020, 11:27:02 amNope Sir, the 750 billions "recovery fund" for the COVID are one thing, and the 572 billion "green stimulus" package is another.https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/21/economy/eu-stimulus-coronavirus/index.html

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 11:40:15 am
content: Quote from: Simon on August 03, 2020, 11:27:02 amA stimulus package is supposed to stimulate. If it ends up as money tossed down the drain it stimulates nothing. It is crucially important to be focussed about how any stimulus is spent. It doesn't matter so much which areas it stimulates, but if its not fostering growth in some useful areas, its a failure. Much of what the EU has done as so called climate change improvement has been worse than pouring money down the drain. Things like increased burning of coal in Germany, because this week the focus has moved from CO2 to just how horrible nuclear power is.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 01:14:04 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 03, 2020, 11:10:32 amIt would be a foolish person that would say we would go extinct as a species due to climate change, but it is certainly possible for us to make life extremely uncomfortable.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 01:18:01 pm
content: Quote from: kaz911 on August 03, 2020, 10:36:29 amAnd here we have Woods Hole - 5nm from MVAgain no evidence ofACCELERATEDSea Level rise

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 01:32:38 pm
content: And here we have Key West FL - the so far closest to Miami with any historical data:Again noACCELERATEDSea Level RiseAnd to the North of Miami - Fernandina BeachWhich is the only one showing so far a "slight" skew in the data but nothing outside of the normal variance bounds and since Key West is not showing the same - there might be something else going on.Can we now putACCELERATEDGlobal Sea Level Rise to bed? It simply does not exists EVEN in the places we hear about the most - or the acceleration is so tiny it has no relevant impact on anything.....So MAYBE Obama is not a complete moron (at least for buying property on MV...) - or maybe he was as he was a MAIN sponsor of "global accelerated sea level rise" - so maybe he did it to purchase property on the cheap. He did get it for 1/2 price as far as I remember...And it is as I said - one of the MAIN fear sellers among alarmist - and it is simply not true no matter where you look. It was the reason I started having doubts about the official science because it did not match my personal observations around EU/Med/Asia.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 01:45:15 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 03, 2020, 11:18:51 amThat would be much better than continuing to increase the population until we are one person per square meter. See Albert Bartlett's "Exponential function, Arithmetic, Population and Energy" talks.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 01:53:19 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on August 03, 2020, 01:45:15 pmAnd if you listen to the news instead of conspirators you would have heard that they expect the population to stop growing and start to reduce, we will have ruined it all by then anyway but we are too many already.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 02:04:09 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on August 03, 2020, 01:53:19 pmI'm glad to see that we agree on this. But. When and where have you ever seen any anti-population-growth measures, plans or policies? Other than in China when they were starving and dying of hunger by the millions?

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 02:07:36 pm
content: I know, in liberal democracies it is frowned upon to do these sorts of things. Personally I would abolish child benefit and increase minimum wage. That way only people that want children will have them and those that are not really into kids have the money to pursue other interests, but even that is too "courageous" a move for any politician that wants to be elected in 4-5 years or at the rate we are going in the UK next 6 months.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 02:28:30 pm
content: And just for good measureSan Francisco US - so we have the west coast of the US as well...One of the OLDEST stations in the US...Again no ACCELERATED Sea Level RiseSan Diego:Again same - getting a bit tired of repeating myself here...And if you go to Neah Bay close to the Canadian border - you have sea level dropping - just as Sweden - probably due to the land rising after this ice ages. But I have not researched Canada Ice age so that is just speculation.This concludes the "Round the USA tour trying to find evidence of Accelerated Sea Level Rise" - sorry the tour did not find the results some people are looking for.

author: M0HZH
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 02:31:27 pm
content: Are science facts actually being debated as beliefs in this thread ? Smatterers claiming it doesn't exist because they haven't seen it ? People creating alternate realities that suit their level of comprehension ? Is this where these forums have ended up now, the cesspool of the internet ?The planet is getting warmer, the ocean levels have been continuously increasing due to our industrial activity and greenhouse gases have a runaway effect. These are scientific facts that can be measured & proven, supported by the brightest and most educated minds this planet has. If you're unsure of any of these it's because you don't have enough education in the matter.Can we get back to Teslas now ?https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

author: sokoloff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 02:44:35 pm
content: There are facts and there are models that are matching what we’re seeing. Even as an engineer whodoesbelieve in anthropogenic global warming, I judge that the model matching doesn’t rise to the level of indisputable fact for me.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 02:45:54 pm
content: Quote from: M0HZH on August 03, 2020, 02:31:27 pmIf you'd paid attention during your education you'd know there is no such thing as a scientific fact. Only truth by majority but the majority can be wrong... That is the nuance several people are missing because they want to see things black and white. So all in all you can only say the majority of the scientists agree that rising CO2 levels cause global warming and that we should reduce the CO2 output based on their shared opinion.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 03:05:31 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 03, 2020, 02:45:54 pmonce again you turn words on their head. The fact that a majority of people who know jack shit agree that the science is wrong does not make it wrong. The fact that the majority who do know about these things agree that this is the case is not the same as the majority of those that know nothing agreeing. If they have all examined the evidence and all come to the same conclusion then they are very probably right.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 03:14:59 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on August 03, 2020, 03:05:31 pmRead more carefully. Majority= majority of scientists. Not general population. The context is really clear about that.

author: M0HZH
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 03:50:31 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 03, 2020, 02:45:54 pmOf course there are scientific facts; the speed of light in vacuum, the relativistic relationship between mass and speed or the half-life decay time of Plutonium 238 are good examples. These have been proven by scientific methods and accepted by the majority of the scientific community. It is also true that scientific facts can change in light of new discoveries or a revolutionary change in understanding of some area of science, but no discovery can change how fast Plutonium decays or the fact that the planet is getting warmer, the sea level is increasing, we are generating massive amounts of CO2 or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Where the science is not very clear (and there is room for debate, where debate means equally qualified scientists revealing new evidence) is how soon is too late and how bad it is going to be. Even if their prediction models are still vague, they are still infinitely more accurate than what Facebook scientists, antivaxxer moms or flatearthers understand about the science behind it.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 04:04:05 pm
content: Quote from: kaz911 on August 03, 2020, 11:00:38 amI think I see what's going on here. You are a sailor trying to be a climate scientist. You are using NOAA tide monitoring stations and almanacs which is good enough for sailors to see if sea how much sea levels are rising. The problem you have is you don't have the precision and enough data points come to the conclusion you making.I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. Many decades ago, the Army Core of Engineers built a scale model of the SF Bay Area to see tidal flows and ocean currents. There were several proposals to build dams, fill in the bay, build additional bridges etc. Only way to know what would happen was to run tests on a scale model.What was found and making one small change to the bay would result in water levels rising in another just a few NM away. For you to say with certainty a tidal measurement made 70 nm away is good science is just bad or junk science.And we know what you are doing IS junk science because people who have lived on the islands for nearly 500 years have had to move because of sea level waters rising. So while you cite these measurements as being proof sea levels are not rising what do you tell the people who were forced to move, and the people who are being relocated? Your wrong? Dr. Goebbels would be proud of you.Just as he told the German people Germany is winning the war in April 1945 as bombs were destroying German cities you are telling people sea levels aren't rising as there land is now underwater because sea levels have risen.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 04:16:00 pm
content: Quote from: M0HZH on August 03, 2020, 03:50:31 pmNow you are grasping straws trying to link simple physical properties to an utterly complex system. We are not even able to predict the weather accurately a few hours ahead using extremely powerful computers let alone get to an accurate prediction of what the effect of higher CO2 levels are.And you also need to define 'bad'. The bad I've seen predicted are just inconveniences. An earthquake, viral pandemic or a large meterorite hit are bad. Rising CO2 levels change the climate but the climate never has been constant anyway. Part of the problem is people objecting to change and feeling so superior that they won't accept their living environment isn't constant.Again, pollution is much more important to address because that kills people every day right now. If you want a hard scientific fact then this is one for sure.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 04:19:21 pm
content: I'd sill like to know why smart, educated engineers in this forum believe the research and findings of people like Tony Heller and Jennifer Marohasy. They both are being compensated to promote climate is not changing without providing any credible evidence.Just look at the facts about Tony Heller.The fact is Tony Heller also goes by to other fictitious names. Do you know any credible scientist who uses false names?Tony Heller claims to be a scientist. Yet he has not presented one scientific paper.Tony Heller has been shown to make up scientific data.Tony Heller has been shown to lie about credible scientists work to discredit them.Tony Heller is making money from his YouTube videos where says he's "proving" man is not causing our climate to change.Tony Heller is not paid to do any scientific research on climate change.Is there any doubt about Tony Heller's credibility?So why is he doing it? Whey doesn't he prescient the truth?And more improbably why would GeorgeeOfTheJungle who i would think would be well educated to be posting in the EV forum believe what this dishonest man is saying? And then he promotes him?

author: Connecteur
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 04:30:48 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 03, 2020, 04:19:21 pmA skeptic has nothing to lose by giving both sides a fair hearing.If something is proved wrong, we get to shed a false belief.If something is true, it just adds weight to it.Nothing to lose either way.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 04:36:41 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 03, 2020, 04:16:00 pmHere you demonstrate your ignorance. Predicting that CO2 will increase global temperatures is a much simpler "calculation" than calculating minute changes is several thousand locations at once. Weather is a very chaotic system, but the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas does not require billions of calculations on multiple simultaneous sub systems every few minutes to establish.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 04:39:57 pm
content: Quote from: Connecteur on August 03, 2020, 04:30:48 pmThese people are not skeptics. They are paid professionals that's in an industry to promote doubt and confusion with the public and politicians about climate change.Question I have is why, when we know these people are being paid to discount the science do smart people in this forum believe them?

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 04:43:47 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 03, 2020, 04:04:05 pmDoug - whenever people on the left are losing a discussion - they draw in someone from Germany and compare them. That is just not good debate tactics.That is the absolute losers choice.Youare actually comparingmetoNaziswhich I do find really offensive. No name calling please. I do not call you names or compare you to someone in an insane asylum, or information bubble or anything else like that.And again - we are talkingACCELERATEDvs. Normal Sea Level change. I'm NOT claiming the sea level is NOT rising. It does and have done for as long as we have measured at MORE OR LESS the same rate every single year.And again - yes - when you change something in an enclosed system like SF Bay or the MED - the result is VERY different to what happens at the oceans. You can make the experiment in your kitchen.... Which again is why you have different tide stations by rivers. Which is why Venice flooding is not primarily due to climate change just unfortunate circumstances and weather patterns which have happened before and will again.Can you please tell me which island have been abandoned due to Sea Level rise and NOT tektonic plate shift or normal costal erosion?We can talk a lot about costal erosion as I have actually also worked with that for 5 years - so I have a pretty good idea how that works and does not work.... But costal erosion again - has very little to do with ACCELERATED sea level rise. Sea Level RISE do of course impact it. But it is caused by the same effect that makes sand from rocks - and transports sediment from the erosion up and down coastlines. It is even quite easy to computer model - or model next time you mount your swim shorts and go to the beach.Just put a stick upright in the sand where the water washes over - and you will be able to deduce some actual science. Put in multiple sticks and you will learn a lot. Then put some artificial structures around - and you will soon be an expert.Sorry but how dare you assume what my education and background is? And how dare you compare me to monsters from the past. I think an apology should be made.And please tell me which islands have been abandoned ONLY due to Sea Level change in recent times?

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 04:44:27 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on August 03, 2020, 04:36:41 pmYou are correct, this is simple chemistry. Something every students would learn in an introductory chemistry class. (Exocet the quantities are much larger.)Today's super computers take many hours if not days to calculate the weather predictions. And our models are not good enough to be completely accurate.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 04:46:44 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 03, 2020, 04:39:57 pmAs if thousands of billions wasn't a big carrot...

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 04:55:01 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on August 03, 2020, 04:36:41 pmMaybe you should try to stop attacking me out of some form of a personal vendetta. Not understanding what I wrote and selective quoting in order to pull my texts out of their context is not helping your case. In the original message I clearly wrote the CO2 levels will change the climate so there is no debate on that. So why are you trying to make it look like I deny that climate will change while I clearly wrote something else in the original text?I'm just wary of environmentalists predicting dooms-day scenarios which are unlikely and for sure don't happen from one day to the other. I remember Greenpeace wanting to ban chlorine (http://ecosense.me/2017/01/17/issues-68/) which was a major fallacy on their part.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 04:56:45 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on August 03, 2020, 04:36:41 pmThe greenhouse effect of CO2 is very easy to analyze, but most important related things are not. The ocean sinks some CO2, but the amount, and how fast it gets sinked is still a research topic. Various other absorbing and releasing factors are surely at play, and not well understood. The warming effects of CO2 are currently countered by global dimming, which seems to be mostly from aerosols created from fossil fuel usage. Stop creating those, and the full effects of CO2 might be seen quite quickly, but again this is not that well understood. It will be interesting to see how the picture looks for this spring, when all the data is in, because COVID-19 has brought the first material drop in fossil fuel consumption, that's longer than the Christmas holiday, since James Watt.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 04:58:08 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on August 03, 2020, 04:46:44 pmName one "credible" scientist who is being paid billions of dollars to create fake data and promote an agenda.I have given you the names of 2 sellout scientists and you have given me the name of someone guy who goes by 3 names who says he is a scientist who we know are being compensated well.Why do you promote these sellouts?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 05:40:53 pm
content: Quote from: Connecteur on August 03, 2020, 04:30:48 pmIf a man claimed to the skeptical about gravity would you assign the same level of acceptance?This is not really a matter for debate. Climate change *is* happening. It is *almost certainly* majority-driven by humans. The degree to which it is happening, the risks it represents, and how we resolve those risks or prevent it from happening are debatable, because they are still very open questions with nebulous answers. But climate change? I hate to say it is "settled" but there is so little chance that there is an error that we must consider it as close to being certain as we reasonably can.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 05:54:08 pm
content: Quote from: kaz911 on August 03, 2020, 04:43:47 pmAre we debating? If so what are we debating? Good science vs. propaganda? Is there anything to debate? Let me be clear I am not calling you or anyone a Nazi. And no, I will not call you names... You have my respect.Do you know much about the "merchants of doubt" industry? This industry was started by a law firm in Washington DC when their client realized the science was overwhelming indicating their product was harming people. They realized they could not win or disprove the science as those were facts. But what they could do is promote doubt and confusion about the science and to do so they needed an entire industry. Who was the best propagandist in modern history? It was Dr. Goebbels. While toady we find what he was promoting to be vile, there is no doubt he was and still is the all time master of propaganda. His methods and mastery of using technology at the time was unprecedented. Still today his work and tactics are being studied and used. While what the Nazi's did was terrible, that doesn't mean we aren't using many of the things they came up with.You do realize when we talk about seal levels rising that this is a global average? And that in some parts of the world seal levels are decreasing and in others they are increasing much more than the average?If you look at "credible" research they looked to see if the sea level rising was due to tectonic plate shift or coastal erosion. No correlation was found. When they looked at sea levels rising and flooding is where they found a correlation.I do not live on the East Coast so can't tell you the name of the island. I do know that for years old caskets have been washing up on the shores of the islands and you can find news stories on this. The caskets are popping up out of the ground due to sea levels rising. There was a news story a few years ago about people on the islands around MV being compensated by the US government to relocate due to seal levels rising. Homes/land that had been lived on for centuries was flooding due to sea levels rising. Same thing is happening if Florida, Alaska and Louisiana.If you are a sailor then you should know islands in the Pacific which have been inhabited have been abandoned due to sea water levels rising.Why would you put a stick in the sand when we have satellites?From experiments using the the San Francisco Bay model we know sea level rising will cause flooding in San Francisco, Oakland, Alameda, Marin, Napa and Sonora counties. This is not some kitchen sink experiment. Are you even familiar with the SF Bay Model? It's sill exists.Appears you are mixing up erosion and sea levels rising. Erosion is akin to weather where sea level rise is more like climate.Do we agree the ice in the arctic, antarctic, glaciers, and on Greenland are all experiencing accelerated melting? You say you are a sailor, where is all of that water going?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Army_Corps_of_Engineers_Bay_Model#/media/File:USCAE_Bay_Model_-_San_Pablo_Bay_Panorama.jpg

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2020, 06:26:32 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 03, 2020, 05:54:08 pmThe sticks in good locations are the gold standard for their location. Tectonic movement is predictable and easily corrected for.There's been so many error sources discovered in satellite altimetry ... you can't do without the sticks. A couple salt flats are not enough to calibrate against.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 03:42:01 am
content: :phew:This post sure got a lot of hits/reads.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 08:08:22 am
content: Real world efficiency of EVs:Grid/transmission/distribution losses 6% (*)AC2DC Charger efficiency 92% (**)Li-ion Battery round trip efficiency 90% (**)DC2AC inverter efficiency 90% (**)0.94*0.92*0.9*0.9= 0.70(*)http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-much-electricity-disappears-between-a-power-plant-and-your-plug/(**)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=9m32s

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 08:11:34 am
content: Real world efficiency of ICE: 25% (petrol), 35% (diesel)70% sounds pretty good

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 08:15:07 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 05, 2020, 08:11:34 amSure. But.. you always forget to account for that in your Wh/mi figures...

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 08:21:43 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 05, 2020, 08:11:34 amAnd... what happens if we include generation losses?Generation losses: 65% (*)0.7*0.35= 0.245Ha!My diesel is greener than your Tesla!(*)http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-much-electricity-disappears-between-a-power-plant-and-your-plug/

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 08:39:37 am
content: As always worse case figures are cherry picked, my solar inverter is 96%, a similar DC/AC inverter to drive a motor will be similar. I'll tell you how efficient electric is, my employer will go bust if they don't pull their fingers out of their asses and find other areas to supply because soon all you will need for a radiator is something not much bigger than the overpriced coolers for your PC that cost in volumes £10's. The big radiators we sell will no longer be required. electric cars are so efficient that I'm not even sure the coolant circuit is used for cab heating as there is not enough heat.As for generation losses you ignore that we are going renewable. My solar system makes enough power for my house and my driving..... so what was that about generation losses? and transmission losses? There aren't any to speak of. If any unused electric car was plugged into the grid and every house had solar with local windfarms providing the rest you won't need coal fired stations anymore or gas ones and transmission losses will be less than they are now.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 10:19:06 am
content: Coming from a skeptic... it must be "fake news"

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 10:26:40 am
content: Quote from: Simon on August 05, 2020, 08:39:37 amSimon - I thought inverters quote on peak efficiency - but have an efficiency curve like most other things. The 96% is from its inputs to its outputs at its “Best Possible” scenario - it is probably not the “realized average”The Tesla charge history I linked to earlier in this thread actually showed that pretty well and showed a rough average of Ah reaching the batteries as about 85% of consumed power. It can be 90+% when you look at isolated levels of charge. And I do estimate that the efficiency will slowly decline with battery wear?When you spec a solar system you do specify the losses into the calculation.And sadly with solar for us up here in the north - we would need some gigantic solar arrays to charge our cars during the winter season even with solar trackers. If just roof mounted we would probably need 6x our summer need?I looked at the global data yesterday on fossil vs renewables. Fossil fuels generated 150TWh vs. Solar and wind 2TWh as per 2019 globally.Renewable incl Hydro and Nuclear is about 10TWh. (I moved Wood burning to Fossil fuels as I don’t think you can call it a renewable) - so we are actually generating less power from wind and solar than we did from Fossil fuels in 1850.... But our burn per person has increased by 3x and population by 4x.Society will only prosper with cheap fuels and energy - that is one thing that is not really debatable. So we do need to find a cheap way to create a fuel that does not pollute. Else we are screwed badly.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 11:15:10 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on August 05, 2020, 08:15:07 amThe only thing not accounted for in that is the 6% grid loss (the operator pays that, I'm billed for actual kWh) and the 8% loss in the OBC (which on my car is 5% loss, but it's fairly marginal.)The on-dashboard display shows exactly how many electrons that went into the pack, had to go to move the wheels.These cars are still between 3x and 3.5x as efficient as a regular petrol car and have zero emissions at the tailpipe and much lower running costs.Yes they are more expensive ... no one is denying that.But cars in general are expensive. If I was in the market for a new car and a Golf was £23k and an ID3 was £25k (example) then the ID3 would easily win.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 11:16:02 am
content: Quote from: kaz911 on August 05, 2020, 10:26:40 amOK so converters are not that efficient all the time, nor is your ICE those too are horrendous when not run at peak. How many roofs around you have solar? I am in Northamptonshire. There are two houses on my estate that have solar and mine is the biggest. Now what if every roof on the estate was covered, we would be self sufficient and more.Renewables are cheap! As I keep saying my tariff is wholesale rate linked. I pay twice what the current half hour rate is, guess when it is at it's cheapest? when it's windy and sunny! The problem is storage, but with so many cars used for not many hours they can be the storage. i drive (drove when going to work) 13 miles a day for a total of 30-40 minutes, the rest of the time if my car was electric could be used as a power bank and a battery in my car would age before it decayed due to use.The problem is that the best solutions require cooperation, and as is constantly demonstrated humans don't do cooperation.If you want to know what we are actually using for power go towww.gridwatch.co.ukas you can see it's more renewable than you will be willing to admit! I ask people how much renewable they think we have, the usually say around 5% and are surprised when i tell them it is on average 25% and peaks at 60%!!! Power is cheap, it's not like if we upgraded the infrastructure and say increased it my 20% many would notice, but then renewables are cheaper anyway the only downside is storage.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 11:17:30 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 05, 2020, 11:15:10 amYou pay the transmission loses ultimately but if you distribute generation then what losses? my neighbors electricity is supplied by me much of the time, virtually no losses

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 11:18:45 am
content: Quote from: kaz911 on August 05, 2020, 10:26:40 amOf course wood is renewable. The stuff grows on trees. What it is not is highly scalable, because of the huge amount of land needed to produce substantial amounts of it.

author: Connecteur
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 03:22:09 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 05, 2020, 11:18:45 amWood is renewable and carbon-neutral. That's why the carbon cycle wasn't disrupted since humans discovered fire 1.7 million years ago. The trouble started when they began to burn fossil fuels.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 04:20:28 pm
content: I can’t believe all of the miss-information and flat out lies that get posted by some people in this forum.I thought people in this forum would be a bit smarter and more educated than most of the people on the Internet.You have GeorgeOfTheJungle who makes facts and figures up and supports his claims using propaganda web sites which are filled with non-factual information. And he knowingly repeats it over and over as if that will make it true.That was the tactic of a brilliant propagandist 80 years ago. If you tell lies over and over people will begin to believe it as being the truth.And GeorgeOfTheJungle is not the only one. The guy from the Netherlands, nictino was promoting bio-mass fuels several years ago saying bio-mass in just a few years would power the world. His was called out many times from the BS technology a company in the Netherlands had created. It’s been three years and the wold is not being powered it’s bio-mass fuels. Is he an honest man admitting he was wrong? NO! He’s still posting and pedaling that bio-mass will power the world.Then there’s the guy from Australia who says all of the scientists who have shown half of the Great Barrier Reef is not dead are lying. He points to the work of a women who represents the oil companies to say the reef is not dead., the scientists are all lying. As proof she posts some doctored photos.But the best post I have seen, would in not a renewable resource. It sure as shit renewable because I get food from trees. (Oranges, lemons, apples, pears, peaches, plums, walnuts, etc.). And in California we have forest fires where trees catch fire and burn to the ground.kaz911 are you from England? If you are then you know your British history and your are correct about trees not being a renewable resource because of man’s activity. England was once covered with trees. The British burned the trees as fuel without replacing. If we look at the historical record this is when the climate began to change. If you know your British architecture you this was turning point in the structures people lived in. It is also when large windows started appearing.As the British ran out of wood but not renewing it, (man’s over harvesting) another source of fuel was needed. We switched from one carbon fuel, wood, and switched to another, coal/fossil fuels.If one looks at the data from man caused climate change we can see this transition from the burning of wood to coal, to coke and other fossil fuels. This is just some of the evidence that when people look at it makes them realize man is cause of climate change. And when one takes a look at the other data we have collected it also points to man as being the cause of climate change.Just as man whipped out the forests in England 250-300 years ago. Our continued burning of carbon based fuels is just continues to be the cause of climate change, increasing temperatures, sea levels rising and CO2 levels increasing.Kaz911 you are correct trees are NOT a renewable resource if man keep cutting them down. But that’s just one data point. Just as the people who use one data point out of context to say this is definitive proof man caused climate change is not happening they confidently ignore all of the other data points.GeorgeOfThe Jungle, nictno and my friend from Australia are so fixated on just a few data points being repeated over and over they believe it as being the gospel truth. Even if God almighty appears and told them they were wrong they would continue to believe in the false prophecies. I myself believe in the science.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 04:23:14 pm
content: QuoteStrictly speaking it isn't, neither is agriculture.Quote from: treehuggerSure."The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it"

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 04:30:58 pm
content: Quote from: Connecteur on August 05, 2020, 03:22:09 pmThat's not entirely true. When the Romans occupied England they described it as an oak forest. By the start of the industrial revolution the oak had pretty much gone. It wasn't all burned - a lot was used for construct and ship building - but it was used and not replanted. Buildings and ships eventually rot. Globally this has happened on a massive scale. Its a one way route from captured carbon to atmospheric carbon, just like the burning of fossil fuels.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 04:57:06 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on August 05, 2020, 04:23:14 pmGo on, what's your new definition of renewable? Yes you can exhaust the soil but we are talking renewable as in if things are done right you can replenish.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 05:00:35 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on August 05, 2020, 04:57:06 pmI guess 3 billion years of plants cycling through life, death and renewal just isn't very much to him.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 05:07:43 pm
content: He said "renewableand carbon-neutral". Think about it...

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 05:11:44 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on August 05, 2020, 05:07:43 pmIf you burn and don't replant wood is neither renewable or carbon-neutral. If you burn and replant wood is both renewable and carbon-neutral. Agriculture is not sustainable, as it only works with the endless addition of fertilizer. Large scale forests have provably renewed themselves for millions of years.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 05:12:34 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on August 05, 2020, 05:07:43 pmThink about what you said. Agriculture - Before you post words, lookup the meaning.Read my post my friend. No need to continue posting misinformation.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 05:14:35 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on August 05, 2020, 05:07:43 pmOh so what's "your" definition of carbon neutral?

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 05:15:27 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 05, 2020, 05:11:44 pmYou are 100% correct.I just can't believe how misinformed these other posters are. Are they making stuff up? Or do they just believe the lies they are hearing over and over?

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 05:17:06 pm
content: Unless you fertilize with pee and plant and harvest by hand, I see fossil fuels involved in forest and agriculture exploitations. Lots of.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 05:17:43 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on August 05, 2020, 05:14:35 pmAnyone can make up "their" definition of carbon neutral/ But the accepted definition isCarbon neutrality, or having a net zero carbon footprint, refers to achieving net zero carbon dioxide emissions by balancing carbon emissions with carbon removal or simply eliminating carbon emissions altogether.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 05:20:53 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 05, 2020, 05:17:43 pmIts only people who can't get to grips with that who think hydrogen is a sensible fuel. Everyone else looks to make, consume and regenerate liquid fuels, like alcohol, which are much easier to store and transport.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 05:21:29 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on August 05, 2020, 05:17:06 pmNow that's bullshit. Forrest have existed for 385 million years. No fossil fuels involved. Use your brain and think before you post. You've been brainwashed into believing things as being true when they are not.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 05:22:21 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on August 05, 2020, 05:17:06 pmAnd you use fossil fuels to mine fossil fuels...... if you want to quibble about how every human activity is done and as soon as you spot one use of fossil fuel claim that renewables are debunked then feel free, I mean everyone is entitled to their choice of insanity. It's like moaning that my solar panels are not carbon neutral because they had to be made - sure, but their lifetime emissions is nothing like coal as once installed they just sit there, I don't get daily deliveries to the house of coal to run my panels.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 05:30:21 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on August 05, 2020, 05:22:21 pmSimon have you noticed GeorgeOfTheJungle has his own distorted belief system. He continues to promote the works of a conspiracy theorists. The definitions he uses for words not the same as what everyone else uses. He apparently never took or passed a chemistry or physics class. Hard to have a productive conversation with someone who believes in the lies of others and doesn't know ho to think critically.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 05:33:45 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 05, 2020, 05:30:21 pmYes i have already spent 30 pages debating george and his dutch mate in another thread where we just redefined everything and then redefined it again when convenient. The insanity never ends but then any follower of any religion finds it hard to refute their blind faith.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 05:54:26 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on August 05, 2020, 05:33:45 pmOne has to wonder where they were or if they were educated. Maybe have been chipped? Or are under alien control?I have an 80 year old mother-in-law who received a minimal education in another country and language that who can critically think.It is so easy to remain undercoated and believe in conspiracy theories than to become enlightened and find the truth. wondering.I'm living in a country were our leader doesn't think covid is that big of a deal as one of his non-mask wearing political supporters just died.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 06:39:12 pm
content: Hey guys, FYI:"Pimentel (1984) indicated that 17% of the total energy used in the US economy is consumed in food systems, with about 6% for agricultural production, 6% for processing and packaging and 5% for distribution and preparation. This 17% of the total US energy use represents an annual per capita use of about 1500 litres of fuel just for food."https://www.climate-policy-watcher.org/plant-physiology/fossil-fuel-use-in-agriculture.htmlEdit:Choose the one you like best:https://duckduckgo.com/?q=energy+fuel+use+in+agriculture

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 06:49:19 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on August 05, 2020, 06:39:12 pmDude are you for real? You linking and citing a reference on a climate policy watcher web site.Who authored the article? No name is given.Links on the web site are dead.And the guy is pedaling how book on alternative fuels.And you are citing research from 1984. That's over 35 years ago. What is the relevance today? Don't you think things have changed in 35 years?How do you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously when you continually post links to non-credible sources?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 07:08:33 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on August 05, 2020, 08:39:37 amOh, great, let's use your super expensive car battery for grid storage. I guess as usual you didn't do any of the math on that either. Let's put a few numbers on that: battery cost: 8000 euro on an average EV. Lifetime of the battery: 300k km (realistically a car doesn't need to last longer; so this is a good durability target). That means that the total energy storage capacity is 300k * 0.2kWh=60000kWh Cost per kWh= 13 cents. You can shift the numbers all you like to get lower but electricity from a wind turbine costs around 4 cents per kWh. Grid operators would love people using their cars for grid storage because they can charge the transport costs twice. But ask yourself: who is going to pay you to use your battery?

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 07:14:27 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 05, 2020, 07:08:33 pmThat's not what he said. You are making things up again. How can anyone trust anything you have to say when you aren't telling the truth? You just lose all credibility.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 07:16:49 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on August 05, 2020, 07:14:27 pmLearn to read. I've marked the text bold for you. Grid means transportation between points and thus transport costs. Also losses will still be relatively high due to conversion and chemical losses. All in all stating that transportation losses will be lower is highly unlikely. Simon better present some real numbers instead of wild assumptions.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 07:24:35 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 05, 2020, 07:16:49 pmSir I know how to read. But even more important is I understand what I read. A skill you apparently you lack. You repeatedly links to web sites which misrepresent the truth or do not support your position. I like others in this forum have learned the information you post just can't be trusted.It would be one thing if you were honest. But you continually post non-factual information thinking people are believing you. We aren't.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 05, 2020, 07:27:41 pm
content: i have a better idea