ICEs and EVs

[kuririn]

I feel bad for the residents of Lahaina. But they and possibly you do not appreciate what can and cannot be attributed to climate change much less so to CO2.

View attachment 630330
https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...attribution-climate-versus-weather-blame-game

Not saying that climate change was the sole factor in the wildfires.
But it certainly was a factor.
And that is not my opinion, scientists and researchers feel the same.
For every link you post that claims otherwise I can post multiple links that support it.
https://www.latimes.com/environment...ate-change-influence-catastrophic-hawaii-fire

https://news.yahoo.com/hawaii-wildf...ted-to-starting-the-maui-blaze-183530125.html
Excerpt:
"A 2022 report from the United Nations Environment Programme projected extreme fires to increase up to 14% by 2030, 30% by 2050 and 50% by 2100 if humankind continues on its current path of burning fossil fuels.

Unless nations swiftly and dramatically reduce the greenhouse gas emissions causing global warming, the recent increase in wildfires is just a small taste of worse things to come, experts say.

“This is our new reality,” Mike Flannigan, research chair for predictive services, emergency management and fire science at Thompson Rivers University in British Columbia, told Al Jazeera in June, about the Canadian wildfires. “We’re on a downward trajectory. Things are going to get worse and worse and worse.”

 

[kuririn]

I feel bad for the residents of Lahaina. But they and possibly you do not appreciate what can and cannot be attributed to climate change much less so to CO2.

View attachment 630330
https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...attribution-climate-versus-weather-blame-game

And from that same link:

An analysis of the planet's extreme heat in 2015 found that almost all of the increased risk for such an extremely hot year could be attributed to global warming due to rising greenhouse gases and other human-caused factors. More than 99% of the increased risk was attributable to human causes according to an ensemble analysis of eight models. Model simulations that included only natural influences on climate (pink line) diverge sharply from observed surface temperatures (charcoal line) around 1970. By 2015 (gray dot), only the model average that included rising carbon dioxide levels (red line) resembled the real world. NOAA Climate.gov graphic adapted from Figure A2.1(e) in Kam et al., 2016.

 

[speed]

Care to expound on that and enlighten the rest of us?

Members of the IPCC lied and got caught explaining how to make their numbers look like climate change is getting worse when it wasn't.

 

[speed]

OK, I googled it and found that the East Anglia email incident was a manufactured controversy and has been thoroughly debunked.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/debunking-misinformation-about-stolen-climate-emails
No wonder I never heard of it.
Is that the only example of "lies" from the IPCC?
If so, then yeah, I'll keep doing what I'm doin'.

Hockey stick graph.
Sorry, it wasn't debunked. Your sources are lacking

 

[speed]

OK, I googled it and found that the East Anglia email incident was a manufactured controversy and has been thoroughly debunked.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/debunking-misinformation-about-stolen-climate-emails
No wonder I never heard of it.
Is that the only example of "lies" from the IPCC?
If so, then yeah, I'll keep doing what I'm doin'.

Of course thats from their union! Bwaaahaaa
Got a better source thats not a bunch of partisan hacks? Lmao

 

[boatgeek]

Of course thats from their union! Bwaaahaaa
Got a better source thats not a bunch of partisan hacks? Lmao

What, like this one? https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

Or does it have to agree with you to not be from a "bunch of partisan hacks?"

 

[CalebJ]

Of course thats from their union! Bwaaahaaa
Got a better source thats not a bunch of partisan hacks? Lmao

It's interesting that you want a better, non partisan source, when you haven't provided any source - partisan or otherwise.

 

[kuririn]

Members of the IPCC lied and got caught explaining how to make their numbers look like climate change is getting worse when it wasn't.

See post #1768.

Hockey stick graph.
Sorry, it wasn't debunked. Your sources are lacking

Of course thats from their union! Bwaaahaaa
Got a better source thats not a bunch of partisan hacks? Lmao

The Union of Concerned Scientists is a well respected bonafide scientific organization.
But there are others who have debunked it:
Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

• A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
• Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
• A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
• The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."

Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.

• The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.
• Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.
• Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."
• An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."

It appears that you are the one who is partisan against all science and scientists.

 

[speed]

What, like this one? https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

Or does it have to agree with you to not be from a "bunch of partisan hacks?"

Did you even read it? I don't think you did. Or you would have seen their contrary ideologies. Plus, it's factcheck.org. not reputable at all.
Next....

 

[speed]

It's interesting that you want a better, non partisan source, when you haven't provided any source - partisan or otherwise.

Not your googlfu. Your interweb experience should make a quick search pretty easy.
Just remember..idfc...

 

[speed]

See post #1768.


The Union of Concerned Scientists is a well respected bonafide scientific organization.
But there are others who have debunked it:
Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

• A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
• Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
• A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
• The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."

Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.

• The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.
• Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.
• Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."
• An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."

It appears that you are the one who is partisan against all science and scientists.

The UCS and the IPCC serve no useful purpose other than to green money from gullible peons. I have no respect for them or those that believe their bs.
Factcheck
Politifact
Ap
Epa
Bwaaahaaaa. If you believe them....its got to be a tough life.

 

[CalebJ]

The UCS and the IPCC serve no useful purpose other than to green money from gullible peons. I have no respect for them or those that believe their bs.
Factcheck
Politifact
Ap
Epa
Bwaaahaaaa. If you believe them....its got to be a tough life.

Who do you believe?

 

[kuririn]

The UCS and the IPCC serve no useful purpose other than to green money from gullible peons. I have no respect for them or those that believe their bs.
Factcheck
Politifact
Ap
Epa
Bwaaahaaaa. If you believe them....its got to be a tough life.

Seriously?
The Associated Press and the Environmental Protection Agency are not believable?

It appears that you are the one who is partisan against all science and scientists.

I rest my case.
Moving on.

 

[boatgeek]

Of course thats from their union! Bwaaahaaa
Got a better source thats not a bunch of partisan hacks? Lmao

Oh wait a minute! You believe that the Union of Concerned Scientists is a labor union for scientists?

 

[boatgeek]

Did you even read it? I don't think you did. Or you would have seen their contrary ideologies. Plus, it's factcheck.org. not reputable at all.
Next....

Typically, the person making the claims does the research and presents sources. I mean, as long as they don't want to come off like a know-nothing who just gets their news from whatever YouTube influencer happens to come across their feed.

 

[KenECoyote]

Let's get serious about this...

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...pter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson

Of note that he was criticized about some points including the note about EV batteries lasting 10 years. I found his educational background surprising.

Edit Add:
Counterpoint article:
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...wan-atkinson-is-wrong-about-electric-vehicles

3rd Person Opinion of both articles:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae.../rowan-atkinson-is-trolled-over-ev-criticism/

There...covered the different sides?

 

[jderimig]

A glimpse of some possible sane optimisim. Linked NYT article is behind a paywall, may have to wait a few days for this to be viewable for free.

The Biden administration is reportedly considering easing tailpipe emissions regulations, a move that was designed to force Americans from gas and diesel-powered vehicles to electric vehicles, according to The New York Times, citing three people familiar with the plan. This potential policy adjustment is in response to concerns from major automakers and labor unions and comes amid sliding EV demand, recently prompting companies such as Ford Motor Company to reduce EV production and lay off workers.

 

[darrenf]

It is astounding how everyone just eats up the narrative of "sliding EV demand". No Mr. "journalist, it's "Crappy EVs" that no one wants. The major auto manufacturers put out a half baked product that no one wants, and there is little Tesla just chugging along, putting out the best selling car in the world that happens to cost significantly more than the 2nd best selling car in the world, all while being available in fewer markets than the number 2 car.

 

[jderimig]

It is astounding how everyone just eats up the narrative of "sliding EV demand". No Mr. "journalist, it's "Crappy EVs" that no one wants. The major auto manufacturers put out a half baked product that no one wants, and there is little Tesla just chugging along, putting out the best selling car in the world that happens to cost significantly more than the 2nd best selling car in the world, all while being available if fewer markets than the number 2 car.

To be fair, I think a large part of value appeal of Tesla is that its a Tesla. Tesla brand has a prestige appeal (like BMW etc), Ford, GM and Polestar do not. If Tesla did an ICE sports car it probably would sell like hotcakes also.

 

[John Kemker]

My biggest issue with the arguments saying that it's inevitable, like moving from horse and buggies to ICE automobiles is that those happened without government intervention. We have so much regulation intended to "encourage" us to adopt EVs, it feels wrong. I believe that is part of what's causing people to shy away from EVs. It's a case of "if the government says we have to do it, there must be something wrong with it."

 

[KenECoyote]

My biggest issue with the arguments saying that it's inevitable, like moving from horse and buggies to ICE automobiles is that those happened without government intervention. We have so much regulation intended to "encourage" us to adopt EVs, it feels wrong. I believe that is part of what's causing people to shy away from EVs. It's a case of "if the government says we have to do it, there must be something wrong with it."

I'm very much against "forced technology" advancement and adoption. To me, it's a huge waste of money to force the tech faster than it would've naturally progressed (except when necessary like World War or Ironman).

Toyota was doing very well with hybrids. Laptop and cellphone battery tech naturally advanced through people wanting to pay for the better tech.

What happens to all those EVs around the world if or when a new much better EV battery or tech appears on the market? Force feeding trillions of dollars at this is almost guaranteeing quicker obsolescence of current tech.

 

[afadeev]

It is astounding how everyone just eats up the narrative of "sliding EV demand". No Mr. "journalist, it's "Crappy EVs" that no one wants.

To be fair, there is a concentrated anti-EV disinformation marketing campaign underway.
From all sorts of sources, now including the folks who need new material to whip up paranoia for the upcoming election cycle:
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/power-switch/2023/10/02/here-comes-the-ev-backlash-00119466

My biggest issue with the arguments saying that it's inevitable, like moving from horse and buggies to ICE automobiles is that those happened without government intervention. We have so much regulation intended to "encourage" us to adopt EVs, it feels wrong. I believe that is part of what's causing people to shy away from EVs. It's a case of "if the government says we have to do it, there must be something wrong with it."

The "inevitable" part of the argument has been vastly overblown by one key EV automaker and its bombastic CEO.
The EV adoption is material, but more gradual than exponential. It does have significant energy diversification benefits to the US economy. But the shift is neither absolute, nor inevitable.

I would say the "holier than though" preachy-ness of the vocal EV minority is as much a turn-off as "culture war" hysterics..
Both extreme ends of the political spectrum serve to turn-off the sane majority of the population from whatever they are screaming about.

I'm very much against "forced technology" advancement and adoption. To me, it's a huge waste of money to force the tech faster than it would've naturally progressed (except when necessary like World War or Ironman).

Exactly - except when there are compelling national interests in play.
I would argue that energy diversification and independence from oil supply countries (most of which actively hate and try to undermine the US, for one reason or another: Iran, Iraq, Saudis, Russia) is a valid long-term national interest.

Some times, society needs an incentives' push to accelerate progress. Sadly, such initiatives a rarely advertised well enough for the entirety of the population to embrace it. Lets face it - our government sucks at marketing.

Take incandescent light bulb ban, for example. Few, myself included, were onboard with the program when it was initially announced, mostly because I did not care enough about the subject matter enough to research it and form an informed opinion. My initial knee-jerk reaction was similar - why do I need government to tell me what light bulbs to use?
But it does make sense:
https://www.thecooldown.com/green-business/energy-efficiency-standards-lightbulbs-ban/

What happens to all those EVs around the world if or when a new much better EV battery or tech appears on the market? Force feeding trillions of dollars at this is almost guaranteeing quicker obsolescence of current tech.

Nothing wrong with technological progress. All older cars are technologically inferior to anything that is current: ICE, hybrid, or EV.
Old stuff going EOL is natural part of evolution.

a

 

[jderimig]

Is this the start of the bloodbath? (too soon?)

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/stellantis-lays-off-400-salaried-161939684.html

 

[jderimig]

Would you buy this or any other Chinese EV if it $15000 cheaper than a domestic offering and ICE's were not competitively available?

https://www.the-sun.com/motors/10920995/xiaomi-su7-ev-smartphone-tesla-porsche/

 

[boatgeek]

Would you buy this or any other Chinese EV if it $15000 cheaper than a domestic offering and ICE's were not competitively available?

https://www.the-sun.com/motors/10920995/xiaomi-su7-ev-smartphone-tesla-porsche/

Two thoughts:
Me personally? Probably not, but that's mainly because the car itself doesn't appear to fit my needs. Even my smallest car needs to seat 3 across the back, even if it is a squeeze.

If it did fit my needs, I'd want to look really carefully at how much local support it had, and what the repair history looks like. I certainly wouldn't buy the first model year.

 

[afadeev]

Would you buy this or any other Chinese EV if it $15000 cheaper than a domestic offering and ICE's were not competitively available?

https://www.the-sun.com/motors/10920995/xiaomi-su7-ev-smartphone-tesla-porsche/

That car looks like a clone of Porsche Taycan. With unverified Chinese specs provided by a cell phone manufacturer. 'cause, you know, there is a lot of common parts between cell phones and cars.
However, there are plenty of other Chinese auto-makers (BYD, Geely, etc.) that are building reliable and technologically advanced cars. EVs and ICE.
Personally, I would be curious to test drive a bunch of them to develop first hand opinion on what they've really got (auto-journalists are the least reputable wing of that profession).

But I would be disinclined to buy one.
Partly because I'm not a fan of Chinese antagonistic foreign policy towards the US.
Partly because it takes a lot more than a cheap box on four wheels to make an enjoyable vehicle ownership experience. The post-sale service infrastructure is a huge consideration, as <boatgeek> pointed out. Even Tesla, which has now been around for 20+ years, still can't keep up with building adequate service center capacity in the US. The nearest to me SC takes appointments 3-4 weeks out, with waiting times growing year/year.

Looking for a Xiaomi service center will be as much fun as looking for a Toyota Mirai hydrogen filling station (hint - only 3 states have them in North America. 2 of those are North of the border).

In the mean time, Chinese made cars are unlikely to appear on the US auto-market any time soon. For starters, there is an additional 25% import tax on imports of vehicles manufactured in China. On top of that, Biden's US Commerce Department will likely restrict Chinese-made cars on national security grounds (similar to what FCC did to Chinese telecom gear suppliers).
https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news-...5-us-launches-probe-into-chinese-auto-imports

To be specific - restrictions will likely apply Chinese OEM cars.
Western-branded (Tesla, Buick, Lincoln, Volvo, etc.) Chinese built cars are already all over US roads.

a

 

[MClark]

We were in South Africa and there are Chinese manufacturered cars, ICE.
They are junk, ill fitting panels, cars with low mileage blowing oil smoke.
But they are cheap!

 

[kuririn]

Soliciting opinions.
A new 2024 Tesla Model 3 base has an MSRP starting at $39K.
Hertz car sales has a used 2023 model 3 base for $29K.
Only 10K miles on it.
Is that a deal?

 

[Art Upton]

Soliciting opinions.
A new 2024 Tesla Model 3 base has an MSRP starting at $39K.
Hertz car sales has a used 2023 model 3 base for $29K.
Only 10K miles on it.
Is that a deal?

Would it be if it was an ICE with only 10K on it?

25% - 10K off for 10K miles a year old tends to be an OK deal for an ICE.

Art

 

[kuririn]

Would it be if it was an ICE?

Don't think so.
Tesla doesn't make ICEs.