Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

[Mister Moose]

Have you changed your mind yet that a different point of view is not necessarily a less educated, less "grown" point of view?

I am sorry you see me this way Moose. I do not view other opinions as lesser than mine. Quite the contrary.

I think you can boil this all down to those who distrust technology and fear change vs. those who embrace technology and do not fear change. I'd say this country is pretty well split between the two. Whichever one you are, time waits for no one.... [Change] simply makes them uncomfortable and they prefer things the way they are. While those who embrace change always want something better. It's an insatiable appetite. Neither is good or bad. One grows, the other doesn't.

Fear, uncomfortable, doesn't grow. Your words. Those don't sound like desirable characteristics to me.

managing the risk of new technology is just too expensive.

Exactly. New technology is usually expensive, and when it is expensive the first adopters are the large companies or wealthy individuals that can afford it, and can afford the risks associated with something unproven, but has promise. There is no correlation to level of interest, education, fear, comfort with technology, or desire to grow. Limited resources pose unyielding boundaries.

So with respect to cars, anyone who is maxed out on paying their mortgage or child's tuition bill isn't going to pay well over $5,000 extra, re-wire their garage, and hope the unproven battery pack lasts 10 years. They aren't necessarily uncomfortable with anything other than the increased cost. They aren't afraid of electric motors. They aren't going to grow any more or less as a result of being financially prudent.

[madhatter]

Have you changed your mind yet that a different point of view is not necessarily a less educated, less "grown" point of view?

I am sorry you see me this way Moose. I do not view other opinions as lesser than mine. Quite the contrary.

I think you can boil this all down to those who distrust technology and fear change vs. those who embrace technology and do not fear change. I'd say this country is pretty well split between the two. Whichever one you are, time waits for no one.... [Change] simply makes them uncomfortable and they prefer things the way they are. While those who embrace change always want something better. It's an insatiable appetite. Neither is good or bad. One grows, the other doesn't.

Fear, uncomfortable, doesn't grow. Your words. Those don't sound like desirable characteristics to me.

managing the risk of new technology is just too expensive.

Exactly. New technology is usually expensive, and when it is expensive the first adopters are the large companies or wealthy individuals that can afford it, and can afford the risks associated with something unproven, but has promise. There is no correlation to level of interest, education, fear, comfort with technology, or desire to grow. Limited resources pose unyielding boundaries.

So with respect to cars, anyone who is maxed out on paying their mortgage or child's tuition bill isn't going to pay $5,000 extra, re-wire their garage, and hope the unproven battery pack lasts 10 years. They aren't uncomfortable with anything other than the increased cost. They aren't afraid of electric motors. They aren't going to grow any more or less as a result of being financially prudent.

yup, intended or not the "emotional" factor MUST be present....

oh and FYI I got that electric razor thing pretty much figured out...it's the manual face scraper that I avoid like the plague...I hate shaving even more than driving...

if there was a fully automated car, electric or gas, that could take me to K w zero user interaction that fit in my minimalist auto budget, I'd be right on it...a viable electric mower, weedwhacker, chainsaw, leafblower would all be awesome too...

edit: I'd also go w a full shave if it took about 30 seconds or less and was derma friendly....

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Fear, uncomfortable, doesn't grow. Your words. Those don't sound like desirable characteristics to me.

managing the risk of new technology is just too expensive.

Exactly. New technology is usually expensive, and when it is expensive the first adopters are the large companies or wealthy individuals that can afford it, and can afford the risks associated with something unproven, but has promise. There is no correlation to level of interest, education, fear, comfort with technology, or desire to grow. Limited resources pose unyielding boundaries.

So with respect to cars, anyone who is maxed out on paying their mortgage or child's tuition bill isn't going to pay $5,000 extra, re-wire their garage, and hope the unproven battery pack lasts 10 years. They aren't uncomfortable with anything other than the increased cost. They aren't afraid of electric motors. They aren't going to grow any more or less as a result of being financially prudent.

yup, intended or not the "emotional" factor MUST be present....

oh and FYI I got that electric razor thing pretty much figured out...it's the manual face scraper that I avoid like the plague...I hate shaving even more than driving...

if there was a fully automated car, electric or gas, that could take me to K w zero user interaction that fit in my minimalist auto budget, I'd be right on it...a viable electric mower, weedwhacker, chainsaw, leafblower would all be awesome too...

edit: I'd also go w a full shave if it took about 30 seconds or less and was derma friendly....[/quote]

Yeah that's the problem that runs through this entire thread. "Progressives" are so delusionally confident of their righteousness that they simply cannot conceive that a sane counter-narrative might exist. Those that disagree with them are merely simpletons who never read the NYT and thus cannot be enlightened.

So no matter what you say they will still believe that your objections exist because you are simply not fully enlightened. You can explicitly state your enthusiasm for technological breakthroughs and they will ignore that. To them your objections to the specific issues you raised are not what you explicitly said they are....they are merely a symptom of your lack of progressive enlightenment.

[deadheadskier]

This article probably has some of the answers to your questions.

http://fortune.com/2015/11/17/electric- ... s-engines/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Basically efficiency, more useful power and ease of maintenance and repair.

So, once the convenience of refueling and the range of the vehicles catch up to gas standards and the costs become comparable, electric motors become the better choice. The long term ownership cost reduction and likely longer vehicle lifespan will be difficult to ignore.

so maybe some day? saved by zero...I'm not sure the engine is the achilles heel that leads to the end of most cars useful lives..EVERY car I owned still ran when I got rid of it...

what little you offered on power generation and transmission merely amounted to "it'll be fine"...seems our grid is old, our power plants are aging, it takes forever to build new power plants, solar is only partially effective and has numerous drawbacks that still haven't been addressed...major metro area where theoretically at least a large portion of the new demand will occur, are still subject to brownouts during peak demand...what happens then? no one can charge? no one can drive? do they place restrictions like they do on watering your lawn in a drought?

the "recharge" time is unlikely to ever be equivalent to the time it takes to pump 20 gal of gas or diesel. so the 4 pumps at the gas station will need to become far more charging stations to service the need...

I'm not seeing where storing solar energy in huge battery banks for future use is really practical or environmentally friendly at all...


on paper this may seem like a done deal to the believer....in reality it's unlikely to happen anywhere near as fast as the DHS time scale...


DHS are you driving a full electric car now? anyone else here driving one?...I have one friend who drives on but only to commute from K to rutland and only because of huge subsidies and free charging thru his employer...no one else I know even has partial electric...

I drive a manual transmission car and likely will for the near future, but once self driving tech becomes the standard that option goes away. So, at that time I'll certainly be looking at electric. My preference for MT is shared by such a small percentage of drivers, I don't really consider it important to the discussion, but you asked.

I definitely could see a situation in 15 years where TaaS takes off and our family reduces down to one vehicle for leisure purposes and we use ride hailing services for local needs. That one car might be electric. With the Tesla Model 3 coming out now for $35k and literally every major auto manufacturer in the world working on electric cars as well as tech companies like Apple and Google, there probably will be lots of options. I think it's pretty telling that most of the tech companies are only trying to build electric.

[madhatter]

This article probably has some of the answers to your questions.

http://fortune.com/2015/11/17/electric- ... s-engines/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Basically efficiency, more useful power and ease of maintenance and repair.

So, once the convenience of refueling and the range of the vehicles catch up to gas standards and the costs become comparable, electric motors become the better choice. The long term ownership cost reduction and likely longer vehicle lifespan will be difficult to ignore.

so maybe some day? saved by zero...I'm not sure the engine is the achilles heel that leads to the end of most cars useful lives..EVERY car I owned still ran when I got rid of it...

what little you offered on power generation and transmission merely amounted to "it'll be fine"...seems our grid is old, our power plants are aging, it takes forever to build new power plants, solar is only partially effective and has numerous drawbacks that still haven't been addressed...major metro area where theoretically at least a large portion of the new demand will occur, are still subject to brownouts during peak demand...what happens then? no one can charge? no one can drive? do they place restrictions like they do on watering your lawn in a drought?

the "recharge" time is unlikely to ever be equivalent to the time it takes to pump 20 gal of gas or diesel. so the 4 pumps at the gas station will need to become far more charging stations to service the need...

I'm not seeing where storing solar energy in huge battery banks for future use is really practical or environmentally friendly at all...


on paper this may seem like a done deal to the believer....in reality it's unlikely to happen anywhere near as fast as the DHS time scale...


DHS are you driving a full electric car now? anyone else here driving one?...I have one friend who drives one but only to commute from K to rutland and only because of huge subsidies and free charging thru his employer...no one else I know even has even partial electric...

I drive a manual transmission car and likely will for the near future, but once self driving tech becomes the standard that option goes away. So, at that time I'll certainly be looking at electric. My preference for MT is shared by such a small percentage of drivers, I don't really consider it important to the discussion, but you asked. I didn't ask about your transmission, I asked if you've adopted this wonderful technology that you continually praise? It's been available for quite some time now I'd think such a zealous advocate would be eager to set the precedent...or is the MT your reason for not having adopted it?

I definitely could see a situation in 15 years where TaaS takes off and our family reduces down to one vehicle for leisure purposes and we use ride hailing services for local needs. That one car might be electric. With the Tesla Model 3 coming out now for $35k and literally every major auto manufacturer in the world working on electric cars as well as tech companies like Apple and Google, there probably will be lots of options. I think it's pretty telling that most of the tech companies are only trying to build electric.

all I see is a whole bunch of probably's, eventually's , predicted's etc...when ya get right down to it ya drive the same thing the rest of us do and intend to do so for the foreseeable future or longer( once self driving tech becomes the standard that option goes away. So, at that time I'll certainly be looking at electric)...

[hillbangin]

2 benefits to an electric car -

1. Quiet
2. 0 to 60 in under 4 seconds - good for passing Subaru's on rt 4, 100, etc.

I'd appreciate reading a story on the total environmental impact on electric vs fossil - from MFG all the way to disposal.

Would be interesting reading if it were factual - not Fake News.

[Woodsrider]

Have you changed your mind yet that a different point of view is not necessarily a less educated, less "grown" point of view?

I am sorry you see me this way Moose. I do not view other opinions as lesser than mine. Quite the contrary.

I think you can boil this all down to those who distrust technology and fear change vs. those who embrace technology and do not fear change. I'd say this country is pretty well split between the two. Whichever one you are, time waits for no one.... [Change] simply makes them uncomfortable and they prefer things the way they are. While those who embrace change always want something better. It's an insatiable appetite. Neither is good or bad. One grows, the other doesn't.

Fear, uncomfortable, doesn't grow. Your words. Those don't sound like desirable characteristics to me.

managing the risk of new technology is just too expensive.

Exactly. New technology is usually expensive, and when it is expensive the first adopters are the large companies or wealthy individuals that can afford it, and can afford the risks associated with something unproven, but has promise. There is no correlation to level of interest, education, fear, comfort with technology, or desire to grow. Limited resources pose unyielding boundaries.

So with respect to cars, anyone who is maxed out on paying their mortgage or child's tuition bill isn't going to pay well over $5,000 extra, re-wire their garage, and hope the unproven battery pack lasts 10 years. They aren't necessarily uncomfortable with anything other than the increased cost. They aren't afraid of electric motors. They aren't going to grow any more or less as a result of being financially prudent.

No nessasarily true. The new technology I offer is exceedingly less expensive than than doing nothing. The ROI is huge. My biggest competition by far is fear of change. The unions are my largest anti-sponsors purely because they fear we will automate their jobs and they have leverage over management. Which has never happened by the way. Their tasks just change. The majority of early adopters have visionary leadership. Regardless of company size.
The one constant in life is change. Be ready for it or get left behind. Kodak is a great example of a successful organization that lost vision.

[deadheadskier]

Hatter,

Quite simply when it comes to self driving technology and electric vehicles, I am looking at it from where the investment is going. There is a shift right now that is gaining momentum that points to electric as the primary option of the future. As battery production ramps up and the power storage improves, that will only advance faster. An electric motor has but a fraction of the moving parts that a combustion engine does and those parts don't break down at nearly the same rate. It stands to reason that this reality will make electric cheaper to mass produce.

It is you who is being emotional and refusing to look at both the trends of technology and the speed in which those advancements are happening. I have nothing left to argue with you. As always you are about as open to the differing opinions of others as a brick wall. So, I'm out.

I'll leave it with my two primary predictions you are taking on and come back to revisit them at those times and either say I told you so or I was wrong.

1. By 2025 you will park your car at Killington next to an electric self driving vehicle. Probably someone very wealthy, but it will happen.

2. In 20 years, self driving technology will be the norm and the majority of new cars being produced will be either all electric or at minimum be a hybrid. The percentage of all gas cars being built will be miniscule.

See you then

[Mister Moose]

MH's point on leaf blowers et al might be instructive.

I didn't buy the first round of cordless tools. They were expensive didn't have enough added utility. Then they got cheaper.

I love my 18V cordless drill. Aside from cord free convenience when you're near an outlet, the usefulness away from an outlet is wonderful. On the roof or a ladder, repairing fences in the back 40, or driving repetitive screws with a set-able clutch are all great and addictive. However, the batteries are still so expensive that you view each battery purchase with pain and agonizing over it. Fifty bucks each!!! ##%$##!! I still have and use a corded regular drill for deeper more power consuming drilling or wire wheeling , a corded right angle drill for close quarters, a big 1/2 inch monster corded drill for big holes, and a bench top drill press. The point being that each of those do different jobs that can't be done well by the others.

My grandfather had an electric push mower for his 1/4 acre lot. Other than dealing with the heavy cord constantly to avoid running over it, it was light, quiet, never refused to start in the spring, and lasted forever. He bought it in the 50s or 60s. Where are the electric mowers now? Why don't I see any at Home Depot? The demand must have been too small.

You do see electric leaf blowers and hedge trimmers, both corded and cordless, but they tend to be smaller less powerful models. The big sellers are the ones powered by 2 cycle gas mini powerheads. The headache of the maintenance of special gas is worth the added power, light weight, endurance, quick re-fuel, and low cost.

So in an unregulated marketplace we see (not surprisingly) that different needs have different solutions and tools of several different power sources have evolved to successfully meet those needs.


Why will cars be any different?

[madhatter]

Hatter,

Quite simply when it comes to self driving technology and electric vehicles, I am looking at it from where the investment is going. There is a shift right now that is gaining momentum that points to electric as the primary option of the future. As battery production ramps up and the power storage improves, that will only advance faster. An electric motor has but a fraction of the moving parts that a combustion engine does and those parts don't break down at nearly the same rate. It stands to reason that this reality will make electric cheaper to mass produce.

It is you who is being emotional and refusing to look at both the trends of technology and the speed in which those advancements are happening. I have nothing left to argue with you. As always you are about as open to the differing opinions of others as a brick wall. So, I'm out.

I'll leave it with my two primary predictions you are taking on and come back to revisit them at those times and either say I told you so or I was wrong.

1. By 2025 you will park your car at Killington next to an electric self driving vehicle. Probably someone very wealthy, but it will happen.that guy will be in preferred parking and gone by noon, or more likely at stowe or stratton parked inside....but ok that's not inconceivable...

2. In 20 years, self driving technology will be the norm and the majority of new cars being produced will be either all electric or at minimum be a hybrid. The percentage of all gas cars being built will be miniscule.hybrid vs fully automated electric uber as our only option is a big stretch...

your prediction was that internal combustion engines were mostly going away in 20 years and that only the very wealthy would own private cars and the rest of us would hail an automated uber if we wanted to go somewhere...and again NO...

See you then

you just got totally OWNED...blathering on about what everyone else should do, will do, is doing, where the demand is, mandates, subsidies, elon musk, tesla, who gives a fvck about some idiot who wants to tow a snowmobile yet when it comes to putting YOUR money where your mouth is ,you the biggest advocate here by far has zero investment in the technology of any sort and drive a gas car I guess cuz of your love for that antiquated relic the manual transmission ( joking, yer talking to a gearhead here, I get yer love of the MT, performance vehicles etc believe me I do)...

so of course you revert to THIS:

Yeah that's the problem that runs through this entire thread. "Progressives" are so delusionally confident of their righteousness that they simply cannot conceive that a sane counter-narrative might exist. Those that disagree with them are merely simpletons who never read the NYT and thus cannot be enlightened.

So no matter what you say they will still believe that your objections exist because you are simply not fully enlightened. You can explicitly state your enthusiasm for technological breakthroughs and they will ignore that. To them your objections to the specific issues you raised are not what you explicitly said they are....they are merely a symptom of your lack of progressive enlightenment.

DHS is incredibly detached from reality, zero self awareness at all...

for those that haven;t heard the story before...the 'hatters live in a pretty energy efficient high tech geodesic dome with numerous "smart" features/technology... we employ many green policies that make sense to us all by themselves w/o any govt intervention or DHS seal of approval...

when I built it 10 yrs ago I looked into every conceivable method of off grid. grid tied alternative energy...NONE of it made economic sense, not solar, geothermal, outdoor woodboiler etc...

I ended up going w passive solar ( nice view too) and super high efficiency insulation ( sprayed foam)...that made plenty of economic sense...

I'm not against technology, change etc... I just don't see the huge demand and economics driving a technology that a huge advocate like DHS has zero investment in despite it having been around for quite some time and being somewhat readily available...

those w his enthusiasm may actually start buying their fantasies in the future but right now it remains uncertain...and thus the likelihood of those fantasies coming to fruition on the timescale he presents is low...

[madhatter]

Hatter,

Quite simply when it comes to self driving technology and electric vehicles, I am looking at it from where the investment is going. There is a shift right now that is gaining momentum that points to electric as the primary option of the future. As battery production ramps up and the power storage improves, that will only advance faster. An electric motor has but a fraction of the moving parts that a combustion engine does and those parts don't break down at nearly the same rate. It stands to reason that this reality will make electric cheaper to mass produce.

It is you who is being emotional and refusing to look at both the trends of technology and the speed in which those advancements are happening. I have nothing left to argue with you. As always you are about as open to the differing opinions of others as a brick wall. So, I'm out.

I'll leave it with my two primary predictions you are taking on and come back to revisit them at those times and either say I told you so or I was wrong.

1. By 2025 you will park your car at Killington next to an electric self driving vehicle. Probably someone very wealthy, but it will happen.

2. In 20 years, self driving technology will be the norm and the majority of new cars being produced will be either all electric or at minimum be a hybrid. The percentage of all gas cars being built will be miniscule.

See you then

if only, I'm gonna guess none of that comes to fruition either...

[brownman]

Ponce de Leon would need to appear for a complete electric vehicle revolution to occur within our lifetime.
Hybrid moved the needle slightly. Solar vehicles made some inroads, though heat dissipation remains problematic.
As to pilotless, let us know when they master the technical and legal challenges.

Economics drive any market. While there are exceptions..
Judging from the duct-tape pickups and rusted Subarus everywhere, food and shelter is more important to the masses.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

A very timely discussion of Tesla just hit the web!!
Tesla battery, subsidy and sustainability fantasies
Lots of "fuel for the fire" here. Not an expert but lots of seemingly damning details here.

Looking forward to at least a few reviews of the perspective presented. For instance:

"In recent months, Tesla sales plunged to nearly zero in Hong Kong and Denmark, as huge government subsidies were eliminated. Now Tesla’s U.S. subsidies face extinction. Once its cumulative sales since 2009 reach 200,000 vehicles in the next few months, federal tax rebates will plunge from $7,500 per car to zero over an 18-month period. "


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/23/ ... fantasies/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Enjoy!

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

And even better....linked in previous article

The Tesla And Solar City Merger Is Rooted In Battery Derangement Syndrome

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markpmills ... 40d92e17fe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some money quotes:

"Tesla is the most successful and biggest electric car company the world has ever seen. Solar City is America’s biggest residential solar company. Both companies lose money. Both are deeply dependent on billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, and both are at the epicenter of dreams to ‘green’ the highways and the grid.

Strip away debate about operational synergies and the sustainability of subsidies and you find a single technological article-of-faith animating believers in the companies’ conjoined vision: the idea that fantastically better batteries are in the imminent future.

Given the physics of the universe we live in and the scale of the global challenge, there is simply no chance that the New York Times green vision will come to pass any time in the foreseeable future… period."

[deadheadskier]

No, I didn't get "owned" madhatter. I haven't adopted the tech because it didn't exist in my price range when I bought my car. That doesn't mean I don't believe that the technology won't be available to people in my budget range in the future. I think it will and it will happen much quicker than you believe.

And even if I choose to stick with a gas powered car when that tech becomes available in my price range, it's going to be because I like driving manual transmission cars and that won't be available in an electric car because they don't have transmissions.

I have this feeling you think I'm championing this from some sort of "tree hugger" / green energy point of view. That is not the case. I only believe what I do about electric and self driving cars because that is what companies like Tesla, Apple and Google are predicting and investing heavily in. Traditional automakers are working on it too and all have very aggressive timelines at least on self driving technology.

https://venturebeat.com/2017/06/04/self ... utomakers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, that's where we are at. I believe in the vision and timelines that innovators like Musk are putting forth. You do not.

I'll revisit this in 2025 and 2037 and see if I'm right. There is no argument to be won or lost today.