Originally Posted by Vermilion Villager (Post 2276270)

The sulfur is a waste byproduct, and comes from… Wait for it....OIL REFINERIES!!!! Burning the sulfur to produce sulfuric acid is an exothermic reaction, allowing the plant to generate most of its own electricity.

Originally Posted by Pegasusprt (Post 2276289)

Why doesn't EV evolve naturally instead of being jam down our throats. I am also ****ed at subsidizing up to 50% on every EV.

Originally Posted by JRcorvette (Post 2275842)

NEWS FLASH
Global Warming does not exist and that’s a fact. Cars going to EV will not change anything at all as the modern cars do not even pollute very much.

Originally Posted by JRcorvette (Post 2275842)

NEWS FLASH
Global Warming does not exist and that’s a fact. Cars going to EV will not change anything at all as the modern cars do not even pollute very much.

Originally Posted by djlnc (Post 2275835)

Think of the range you could get if you hauled a small trailer with a couple hundred gallons of gas to keep those batteries charged!

Originally Posted by mtdjed (Post 2275784)

I had a dream that there will be an Electric Vehicle that solves the range of miles problem, lack of charging stations, time of charging etc. The truck will be scheduled for 2025 intro. It will get about 700 miles range without a need for stopping.

It will have its own generator to keep the battery charged. The generator is to be called a milage extender. Of course, generators require power to work. The uniqueness of his concept is that a readily available fuel, gasoline, will be used. It is planned that a small tank of gas will be stored on the vehicle. (Perhaps 27 Gal).

Wouldn't it be great if dreams like this could become reality? Close down the oil fields, no more global warning.

Alas, only a dream. Starts to sound like a complicated

We can only dream, BUT I'm sure the "Steve Jobs" out there will make it happen!

Originally Posted by Bay Kid (Post 2275815)

Such a shame. Closing down the oil fields will not stop global warming. Maybe stopping the controlled burning would help? Maybe more money? Maybe solar panels covering our corn fields? Maybe windmills full of oil over our waters will help, until they leak?

Originally Posted by revfiddle (Post 2276002)

I just remember to plug it in when I get home. I don't take any trips longer than 220 miles, so that's a non issue.

Originally Posted by Caymus (Post 2276004)

Going to need a lot more asphalt for road paving due to heavy EV batteries.

Originally Posted by Remembergoldenrule (Post 2276018)

Ok, what about where to put all the extra batteries when they die especially since don’t last as long, how manny trees will be cut down for factories, Electric car batteries are complex components containing many rare earth elements (REE), like lithium, nickel, cobalt, and graphite. As their name suggests, these materials are difficult to find and extract, requiring intensive mining and even some polluting processes to separate them from the soil. Let’s not forget these mineral mines are mostly controlled by China and child labor laws don’t apply. Some studies have shown that the manufacturing of a typical EV battery can result in higher carbon emissions compared to gasoline cars. This is due to the significant amount of energy required for the procurement of raw materials and the manufacturing process itself.
Extracting lithium from the brine is fairly straightforward and is done by evaporating the water to leave behind a lithium-rich solution.

Lithium mining’s environmental impact

Because of this evaporation process, lithium mining uses a large amount of groundwater that gets lost in the process. This can deprive local communities of drinking water and harms farming by reducing the water available for irrigation – especially given that most of the world’s lithium is extracted in arid regions with scarce water supplies in the first place.

On top of that, the remaining liquid left after lithium is extracted can contain toxic or radioactive elements and needs to be cleaned and stored before it can be released.
Manganese is usually mined in open pit mines, with around 80% of manganese production coming from South Africa. Australia, China, India, Ukraine, and Brazil also produce significant shares of the metal.

Manganese mining’s environmental impact

Because of its mining in open pits, manganese extraction can cause substantial air pollution, especially in dry areas where dust from mining can rise easily. Additionally, manganese can pollute the soil and water supply, including by introducing other chemical elements.
Let’s not forget all the employees replaced by automation in EV factories.
Also, don’t forget the EV charging stations use electricity which means electricity has to be produced and all the factors that go into that. Are you ready for more rolling brownouts and blackouts? Are you ok with all the environmental and other costs of more electric plants? Just thinking.

Originally Posted by huge-pigeons (Post 2276025)

There are probably 25% of so called scientists that are paid off to say whatever the payers want them to say. All of the scares these so called scientists have predicted during the last 100 years, with all of them saying we have a decade before we are wiped off the earth unless we do something, have all been debunked. How about the rising oceans because of the demise of all the glaciers?Isn’t Miami supposed to be under feet of water by now? These so-called scientists were predicting the villages would have ocean front property in a few years, they actually drew up maps depicting this scenario. Remember the hole in the ozone layer from decades ago? NOAA still says we have the hole over Antarctica and it won’t be fixed until the 2060’s. They also mention this hole is caused by natural means and is closing by natural means, this is why you don’t hear these so-called climatologists anymore because it’s been over a decade when doomsday was supposed to occur and nothing happened.

Originally Posted by Bwanajim (Post 2276029)

Not for me. The electrical grid in this country would need a major major overhaul. Right now the average city block could only support three or four home charging stations.
Damage to the environment and in poor countries were the minerals are mined for batteries is horrible.
What do you do with the batteries when they need replaced?
Look how expensive the batteries are.
And, uh, what creates electricity to charge the vehicle? It’s not gonna be solar or windmills, it’s going to be possible fuels, and it always will be.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2276357)

WELL, Miami is scheduled to be under water by about 2050.

Originally Posted by airstreamingypsy (Post 2276076)

For those who think there is no global warming....

Earth briefly passed a feared global warming milestone.

Average global temperatures were more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial times for the first time on Friday, data shows.

What it means: The climate is moving into uncharted territory after months of record warmth. A longer-term breach of this benchmark could have severe consequences.

I didn't know until reading this thread, that anyone still thinks GW is a hoax, I thought the debate was the cause, not the existence.

Originally Posted by Caymus (Post 2276126)

So, how much warmer does it need to get before the dinosaurs return?

Originally Posted by bigeasy (Post 2276039)

Honda generator. Runs 24 hours on a gallon of diesel fuel. Put this onboard.

Originally Posted by airstreamingypsy (Post 2276076)

For those who think there is no global warming....

Earth briefly passed a feared global warming milestone.

Average global temperatures were more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial times for the first time on Friday, data shows.

What it means: The climate is moving into uncharted territory after months of record warmth. A longer-term breach of this benchmark could have severe consequences.

I didn't know until reading this thread, that anyone still thinks GW is a hoax, I thought the debate was the cause, not the existence.

Originally Posted by TomSpasm (Post 2276067)

I always laugh to myself when someone starts moaning about all the pollution and environmental damage that mining for EV materals is going to cause. I've lived in 3 different places where the oil industry polluted the beaches. The east coast of Saudi Arabia, where Aramco would occasionally have a mishap. Santa Barbara, CA, where we needed to keep a bottle of baby oil at the door to wipe the tar off our feet after going to the beach (offshore rigs). And Madeira Beach, FL, where a tanker spill created an environmental disaster and made the beaches unusable for months. Bring on the EVs!

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2276364)

Denying a problem does NOT solve the problem. There we go again, "Nero is fiddling again and the earth is burning".

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2276359)

I love the "always will be" statements. I bet people said that about horses and buggies.

Originally Posted by Topspinmo (Post 2276370)

graph-from-scott-wing-620px.png | NOAA Climate.gov

And could not. Long ways to go looking at chart.

Originally Posted by Topspinmo (Post 2276373)

By this chart earth nowhere near it maximum average temperatures.

graph-from-scott-wing-620px.png | NOAA Climate.gov

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2276355)

The total weight is the same as with a HEAVY gas engine.

Originally Posted by rsimpson (Post 2276077)

You said this dream vehicle has a GAS TANK! and then you dream of Closing the Oil Fields - Where does the GAS come from in your dream?? Global Warming is a political scam, and millions are falling for it!

Originally Posted by Escape Artist (Post 2276227)

It already exists, it’s called a hybrid like a Prius. It’s a good common sense solution and compromise.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2276381)

Nice chart but maybe needs some context.

Apes and humans did not exist 50,000,000 years ago when the earth was much warmer. Apes and gorillas appeared somewhere around 10,000,000 years ago and humans around 550,000 years ago. It is impossible to tell from this graph just what the temperature was at 550,000 years ago but it was clearly well into the blue range.

So sure, the earth has been much warmer, but man wasn't around to see it. I'm all for trying new things but warming the earth to prehistoric temperatures just to see what will happen doesn't seem like a good idea.

Originally Posted by Topspinmo (Post 2276389)

https://www.climate.gov/sites/defaul...118-1400px.png

When you measure in hundreds last 100 years or so make chart look like we’re going to burn in hail….:o. And you can see the chart trending down.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2276381)

So sure, the earth has been much warmer, but man wasn't around to see it. I'm all for trying new things but warming the earth to prehistoric temperatures just to see what will happen doesn't seem like a good idea.

Originally Posted by Pugchief (Post 2276394)

If you acknowledge that the earth has been much warmer, and before humans inhabited it, what makes you certain that the current warming is anthropogenic rather than just part of a cycle?

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2276357)

WELL, Miami is scheduled to be under water by about 2050.

Originally Posted by mtdjed (Post 2276396)

Well, that certainly qualifies as extreme Hybebole.

The global average sea level has risen about 250 millimetres (9.8 in) since 1880. Between 1901 and 2018, the average global sea level rose by 15–25 cm (6–10 in), or an average of 1–2 mm per year. This rate accelerated to 4.62 mm/yr for the decade 2013–2022.

Let's say 5mm per year for 26 yrs. That is 130 mm by 2050, or a little over 5 inches. And that on the high side especially with the intro of EVs

If Miami is scheduled to be underwater by 2050, it must be sinking.

Don't tell us the Miami is going to be under water despite removing the cause.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2276409)

From the Climate.gov site. If you take the highest calculated rate (future could be worse than expected) and project to 2100 (73 years from now) you get about 7 feet of future sea level rise. Local rates may exceed the global rate. Along the Gulf of Mexico, like at Sarasota, sea level is supposed to be EXTRA BAD.
........That would be STEADY state sea level rise. Then when you take into consideration HIGH TIDES, storm surges, and Hurricanes, you have a very LARGE problem. By 2100 Sarasota could be washed away and Tampa could be a swamp.
.........Now, what if we add in population growth (or explosion) in the world. That means more cars, and large trucks operating. We can add more factories - therefore more pollution. Thus more HEAT reflected from the upper atmosphere.
.........Then, there is sure to be some more wars - maybe WW3 and more pollution given off.
..........The bottom line is that TODAY we need to build and BUY more EVs and E-golf carts and find some way to lower the projected world population numbers. Failure to do those things will SEVERELY hurt the next and future generations.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2276219)

From the article you linked:

Cook is careful to describe his 2013 study results as being based on “climate experts.” Political figures and the popular press are not so careful. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have repeatedly characterized it as 97% of scientists. Kerry has gone so far as to say that “97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible.” This is patently wrong, since the Cook study and others showed that the majority of papers take no position. One does not expect nuance in political speeches, and the authors of scientific papers cannot be held responsible for the statements of politicians and the media.

Given these results, it is clear that support among scientists for human-caused climate change is below 97%. Most studies including specialties other than climatologists find support in the range of 80% to 90%. The 97% consensus of scientists, when used without limitation to climate scientists, is false.

Which is what I wrote.

The author then goes on to say he disagrees with the methodology of the Cook study. I'm sure Cook and others disagree with his disagreement.

Originally Posted by Vermilion Villager (Post 2276273)

Haters gonna hate (The old foggies with one foot in the grave won't get that one either)
I got odds that says no one will counter your post!!!!

Originally Posted by Caymus (Post 2276383)

Did you just make that up?

Just a moment...

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2276422)

Thank you for helping make my point...

Originally Posted by mtdjed (Post 2276412)

I was using the highest actual rate and got 5" raise in 26 years, projected to 2100 would be about 15 inches.

Your doomsday projection must be assuming that all of the dollars spent TODAY for green energy does not work. If it did work, you would expect that the rate would be lower.

We are talking mm of sea raise per year i.e. 3mm a year for the last 100 plus years, not 1 inch plus per year .

Originally Posted by Pugchief (Post 2276394)

If you acknowledge that the earth has been much warmer, and before humans inhabited it, what makes you certain that the current warming is anthropogenic rather than just part of a cycle?