• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Charging electric cars

Status
Not open for further replies.
As someone who engineers supporting technologies in the hopes they eventually are mass produced in electric vehicles, I must admit that the "Green" factor with electric cars is merely a trade-off from end-use pollution to source (and probably destination) pollution. They haven't yet really offset the "net" pollution. However, without sales to fund further development, we'll never get to where we potentially can be. Those that don't like or want electric cars, don't buy them. But, please don't discredit those that do. Those sales are feeding tomorrow's solutions.
 
mpgmike said:
As someone who engineers supporting technologies in the hopes they eventually are mass produced in electric vehicles, I must admit that the "Green" factor with electric cars is merely a trade-off from end-use pollution to source (and probably destination) pollution. They haven't yet really offset the "net" pollution. However, without sales to fund further development, we'll never get to where we potentially can be. Those that don't like or want electric cars, don't buy them. But, please don't discredit those that do. Those sales are feeding tomorrow's solutions.
Click to expand...
So it doesn't work today but maybe some day as long as people are forced to buy them it might work out, maybe?. Sounds reasonable. In the meantime let's send our money overseas where the raw materials are strip mined ( you know,'cause we greenies). So within a couple of very short years of America becoming fuel independent our sell outs push for this ****. Gee, anyone think that this has way more to do with money than the environment?
 
mpgmike said:
As someone who engineers supporting technologies in the hopes they eventually are mass produced in electric vehicles, I must admit that the "Green" factor with electric cars is merely a trade-off from end-use pollution to source (and probably destination) pollution. They haven't yet really offset the "net" pollution. However, without sales to fund further development, we'll never get to where we potentially can be. Those that don't like or want electric cars, don't buy them. But, please don't discredit those that do. Those sales are feeding tomorrow's solutions.
Click to expand...

Washington state lawmakers vote to phase out gasoline cars by 2030

Ban on new petrol and diesel cars in UK from 2030 under PM's green plan

Amsterdam to ban petrol and diesel cars and motorbikes by 2030

California will ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035

 
Dan64 said:
Steve, your not doing it again are you? Imagine that.
Click to expand...
The only thing I don't have to imagine is you're a supposedly grown man acting like a internet troll trying to start trouble. Again.
It just never ceases to amaze me how some ( and your not alone) can dish it out but carry on when confronted with the big lie.
 
Last edited:
Billccm said:
Efficiency and conservation should always be used regardless of politics and theories. Waste helps no one and being responsible is respectable.
Which I say again I hope those passionate here about greenhouse gas emissions are doing their part and driving a hybrid car daily.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, they're mostly hypocrites, lemmings
don't do what they preach, just tell others to
 
Cojohnso1 said:
LMAO. Financialpost.com? Yup. Right up there with the US wildlife organization? I don't know who to believe? We now know the BS that you believe? Let's ignore the sciencist on the ground. Running around on the ice taking measurements for a financial blog writer?
Click to expand...
Good grief. Hold your breath and save the earth. We go threw this domes day crap every 15 to 20 years and we are still here.
 
mopar 3 B said:
Good grief. Hold your breath and save the earth. We go threw this domes day crap every 15 to 20 years and we are still here.
Click to expand...

In 1972. DDT was banned. After science and CDC published its findings on the dangers of that pesticide. Chief cause of the crippling population drop of birds of prey. Affecting American Bald Eagle the most. (Due to the birds heavy fish diet.) One side was very much against this. Announcing as Government over reach. The majority of lawmakers and adults ignored the naysayers and past ban on DDT. As know today? The decision worked.

In 1978. Scientific community warned EPA of the dangers of Halocarbons (CFCs) in aerosol products to the ozone layer. The US was by far the largest consumer of these products. Then once again, the adults and law makers took the side of science and banned CFCs in commercial products. Though we still have ozone depleting chemicals primarily from fossil fuel consumption. The ban did have significant impact on arresting the concern. Ignoring that same crowd screaming about their rights.

In 1993. EPA began Sulfer reduction program to primarily diesel consuming industry to combat what was called "Acid Rain." Sulfer when burned in combustion escapes in exhaust. Bonds with O2 to form Sulfus dioxide. This dioxide collects in water vaper lowering PH levels to make the subsequential rain more acidic. This causes most of its problems in lakes and streams. By 2006. Sulfur was significantly reduced in these emissions. With real measurable improvements. Again. The adults here had to over come even heavier opposition that is still argued today.

These are just 3 examples where science was correct. And we know what side was wrong. So my question? Why in God's name should any reasonable minded adult listen to that side's lack of evidence, facts, studies, discoveries? I'm sorry the science and news make you sad? It makes me sad too.
 
Cojohnso1 said:
Not sure what is meant? There is chatter from some scientific studies that suggest we are past the point of no return. Even if we got to 0 additional CO admission. (This doesn't mean no CO admission. It means back down below 3 ppm that the earth atmosphere can accommodate.) Our activities are not the primary cause of greenhouse gas. We are the straw that is breaking the camel's back. What does this mean for the future? If we do nothing? We are going to lose the ice caps in the next 100 years. What does that all mean in damage? Well that opinion varies widely.

The worst predictions is that the planet will experience runaway greenhouse gas emissions. Primarily of the permafrost melt from the artic regions. The methane trapped from centuries/millenia of decaying plant and animal life is more than enough to saturate the atmosphere. Thus resemble a climate more like Venus. (Obviously less extreme due to we are much farther away from the sun) But enough to end all complex lifeforms currently on our planet. This "Worse case scenario" is why many in the scientific community is calling it a "Climate Crisis."

The Numbers are there for a global catastrophe. There is enough methane for this to happen. Russian scientists are already believing it's begun. (Russia holds the largest of these frozen trapped methane regions. Canada is 2nd.)

It's ironic. That the trapped frozen methane is actually future fossil fuel. Not yet in Coal, Oil form for millions of more years. And it's the burning of fossil fuels that has triggered the disruption of distant natural future fossil fuel development.

If we were for moment entertain this worse case scenario as actual inevitability? Does this mean there is nothing that can be done? I don't believe so. So far we have only begun to address the causing activities. We have not discussed much about mediation. It would not be that technically difficult to block sunlight (I'm guessing primarily at the polar regions. And would only need to be fractional.) To offset the rise in global temperatures. Not as a cure. But to buy the planet time to heal.

Much of the science says we are not at this point. And that the planet is more resilient. The Covid shutdowns did illustrate how fast pollution numbers can drop. But never the less. There is more than enough data to warrant concerns.
Click to expand...

X 61.jpg
 
Diverted?
It appears that you are seeing things that are not there. Read the meme again.
 
Kern Dog said:
Diverted?
It appears that you are seeing things that are not there. Read the meme again.
Click to expand...
WE KILLED ONE OF THE GREAT LAKES! That's not disastrous? Is it only if it effects you directly?

The lake has come back. (I wouldn't eat anything out of it.) But I believe they are saying limited consumption ok not harmful. (Not the greatest sales pitch. But better than DEAD!)
 
Last edited:
Cojohnso1 said:
How many have been diverted? I remember when lake Erie was dead. And used to catch on fire? That was an embarrassing time.
Click to expand...
Your response did not match the text of the meme.
If I posted a meme of a duck, you then responded that pickles taste better to you than chocolate.
Again....you are confused.
 
Kern Dog said:
Your response did not match the text of the meme.
If I posted a meme of a duck, you then responded that pickles taste better to you than chocolate.
Again....you are confused.
Click to expand...
If a meme is all you got? Really? Oh well. I tried.
 
I was making a point that doomsayers like you have a really bad track record and then.... You post a completely unrelated response.
Diverted means to alter a course. I never mentioned that. The meme never mentioned that.
Add another to the IGNORE list.
Christ, people....I have no problem with an opposing view but it makes no sense to me to see any car guy that advocates for the elimination of classic cars, push for the integration of an all electric car society or anything that threatens our hobby. The argument from supposed classic car owners is even less important to me when said arguments are written in a manner that is convoluted or simply makes no sense.
 
Kern Dog said:
I was making a point that doomsayers like you have a really bad track record and then.... You post a completely unrelated response.
Diverted means to alter a course. I never mentioned that. The meme never mentioned that.
Add another to the IGNORE list.
Christ, people....I have no problem with an opposing view but it makes no sense to me to see any car guy that advocates for the elimination of classic cars, push for the integration of an all electric car society or anything that threatens our hobby. The argument from supposed classic car owners is even less important to me when said arguments are written in a manner that is convoluted or simply makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Because maybe there are bigger issues than my personal wants? But that's me. And you will not understand.
 
I find it interesting that there are those who say that the internal combustion engine is outdated & needs to be replaced with electric, but only for automobiles. Trains, planes, ships, and everything else that's powered by dreaded internal combustion engine seem to be left out of the conversation. Why is that?
 
Cojohnso1 said:
Because maybe there are bigger issues than my personal wants? But that's me. And you will not understand.
Click to expand...
Cojohnso1, serious question , if the environment is your main concern ( and it's a pretty big concern as it should be) please explain to folks like myself that are not opposed to availability electric vehicles ,only the mandate of electric vehicles your concerns for the environmental impact that the production, meaning strip mining,of battery production and disposal of spent batteries( what's the plan for them?). Also any thoughts on the impact of the environment to produce the added power needed to "fuel" these vehicles . We can't blindly say electric is cleaner than gas until these things are addressed ?. To not look past the immediate face value "electric is obviously cleaner than gas" which is being sold to the public without looking behind the scenes is moronic.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Bee1971
Street Racing - NFL Style
Replies
2
Views
289
eldubb440
eldubb440
AR67GTX
Dead EVs piling up everywhere in the freeze
Replies
18
Views
981
Budnicks
Budnicks
Kern Dog
Projects you have on the list but just can't get started....
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
Kern Dog
Kern Dog
AR67GTX
How crazy is this?
Replies
1
Views
453
moparedtn
moparedtn
B
Over charging/no charge batter 68 roadrunner
Replies
15
Views
773
Nacho-RT74
Nacho-RT74
Auto Transport Service
Back
Top