It is NOT positive that animal and plant species are dying due to Global Warming. Last summers KILLER hurricanes hitting Florida were NOT very positive. It is NOT positive that there is very little monetary encouragement to buy an E-vehicle even though American car manufacturers see a large NEED by 2030.

Thanks for a VERY informative post. Statements like that need to be repeated. Group understanding WILL eventually happen.

My sentiments exactly.

Well, global wealth distribution is a factor in Global Warming. 3rd world countries are producing a limited amount o CO2 pollution because, OBVIOUSLY, they can NOT afford automobiles with their infernal combustion engines. They don't pay people to cut their grass with noise and CO2-polluting engines. They use donkeys instead of polluting farm tractors. And they use row and sail boats not 100 ft long SPORT yachts.

Doesn't matter. What matters is that there is no "man-made" climate change. If you truly believe that to be true, then tell me ... how much has "man-made" CO2 warmed the earth last year?

Do you actually understand what you are on about?
'cos I lost it in the translation from gobbledygook!

Haha! YOU used the quote to support YOUR assertion of no climate change yet the person YOU quoted will tell you that YOUR position is unethical and unacceptable. And just like that, it doesn't matter. (very similar to how the data you champion contradicts the trend you assert)

A scientist will tell you there is no way to attribute a one-year change to anything; there are simply too many factors to say this much came from solar activity, this much came from volcanic activity, this much came from CO2, etc. Someone who understood weather and climate and climate change would never pose such a question.... yet you do.

If you truly believe that "man" is causing global warming, then tell me ... how much did "man-made" CO2 warm the earth last year? Great is not willing to say -- can you?

Suggest you read the reply you are quoting.

Who is Great?

NEED?

You spelled "BEING FORCED TO MANUFACTURE" wrong...

You first...

And he's back! Playing all the hits!

It's like dueling wits of two unarmed people.

Anyone can pick and choose certain events to support their beliefs. Forgot to mention major hurricanes which have hit since 1992, 26 inches of rain in Fort Lauderdale in <24 hours, 800+ inches of snow in California and Utah, drought affecting SW USA. Was in S. Florida for the measureble snow. Literally had to squint in order to see that snow.

How much? Last year it was enough to set a record for Gulf temperatures. And enough to cause a killer hurricane Ian to hit Florida last summer.

You mean like picking and choosing just the hurricanes that happen to make landfall?

60% of the Atlantic Hurricanes never do...

There has been no significant statistical increase in the number of hurricanes in the past 170 years...

US hurricane landfalls

You know that "man made" CO2 caused that? Impressive...

[QUOTE=sounding;2208009]I guess I don't understand the graphic.

It's obvious that once the energy is in the battery, the electric car is way more efficient. But that energy has to come from somewhere and then there are losses getting it into the battery.

Of course, there are costs of getting the gas from the ground into the ICE car as well.

And the costs of manufacturing the car, battery, and disposal for both cars. Maybe some other factors I'm not aware of (probably!)

Looking at the big picture....is the electric car still "better"? I'm not trying to argue. I just think this information is critical to have before generating an opinion. Has anybody run the numbers and not fudged the hell out of them?

Joe

The graphic shows where energy is "wasted" in both gas and electric vehicles. Some of this is the same - both types of vehicles have auxiliary electrical losses. Some of the losses are specific to the type - electric vehicles have losses in charging the battery while gas engines waste a lot of energy as heat. Overall, there are more losses in gasoline vehicles. According to the chart:

Gasoline vehicles: 12% - 30% efficient
Electric vehicles: 77% - 100% efficient

So let's say a power plant burns gasoline to make electricity. There will certainly be some loss generating that electricity and transporting it to your home. Once there, more than 77% of the energy is efficiently used for moving the vehicle and less than 23% is lost due to inefficiencies.

In order for the two vehicles to be equivalent, in order for them to use the same amount of gasoline, the gasoline powered electrical plant would need to be only 30% efficient. I don't know how efficient power plants are but I assume it is more than 30%.

But let's say the power plant is only 30% efficient and the same amount of gas is used to move both electric vehicles and gas vehicles a certain distance. I know that at $3/gal my gas cart costs six times as much per mile as my electric cart. Does this mean the electric company pays only $0.50/gal for the gas it uses to generate electricity? Probably not.

If the power company can generate electricity at 1/6 the cost of gasoline then some combination of these must be true:
1. The electric company is charged less for gas than I am.
2 The electrical plants are more than 30% efficient so less gas is used to generate the electricity my electric cart requires for the same distance
3. Electricity is generated from more than just gasoline so less gas is used to generate the electricity my electric cart requires for the same distance.

I suspect it is a combination of all three but that #3 is the primary reason. But in any case, I know that running my electric cart is less expensive and if either #2 or #3 are true then I am also using less gas for that electric cart.

Automobiles are different than golf carts and I am only one person but hopefully the savings are even more in automobiles multiplied by thousands of owners.

I was in Miami in 77 for that snow.

Good thing CO2 is causing hurricanes to decrease. We need more CO2.

Oh, like those "scientists" that assured us that COVID came from bats at a meat market? Science is not exact, and that is why scientists are constantly studying, researching, comparing, etc.

Exactly how are these 80% and 20% numbers arrived at. What does that even mean?

No individual or company is being forced to manufacture anything. You make this sound like a slave state, which it is not. But, companies that have their eyes on the future will certainly upgrade, improve, and add to their list of offerings, as well as eliminating older, less efficient products and technology.

Due to new milage regulations in CAFE standards.

The same type of thing that spawned the growth of the SUVs and Minivans...

They are not considered "cars", so they didn't count towards the MPG requirements set by the Feds...

The car companies produced thousands of "economy cars" that no one wanted. But they had to be produced to counter the higher MPG cars that were actually being sold...

If one chooses to compete, one must be competitive.
But one may always choose not to compete.

I wasn't talking about being competitive with other companies.

I was talking about stacking the deck against the auto companies...

Just as certain states are doing now by requiring a certain percentage of cars sold by 2030 to be EVs... And by ending gasoline only new car sales by 2035...

The Feds are talking about making that a national mandate...

A "civil discourse" club sounds really interesting if truly "civil" !

"Stacking the deck", or gvt mandates, laws prohibiting dangerous or harmful things are required to protect or serve the best interest of the general public.
Although there are many who argue against any regulation, the reality is that, like the chihuahua string against his leash (gvt mandates and laws, etc) trying to get to that hungry, angry Doberman, he is ignorant of the fact that his owner is saving his very life.
The old mantra of, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", makes a nice sound bite and propaganda for holding on to old technology. But old tech is broken by the shear fact it is old and out moded and no longer the best available. Behold! "New and Improved"! Better in all quarters, and getting better all the time.
Just like buggies whips weren't broken. They just outlive their general usefulness, unless you are Amish and stuck in a time warp. The general use for the IC engine is going slowly by the wayside. Put down my flint knife and get one of steel. Trade bow and arrow for a rifle.

Did you grow up in an ultra rich area? In many many places economy cars was the only car any entry level people could afford, especially with the lower gas mileage of these vehicles. The fact that anyone thinks this is a conspiracy theory is laughable.

It's not me saying that. It was the car companies... They know what people want to buy better than the government does...

Every other post seems to be more in line with EV discussion. Of course, now that inflation and gov influence, the price of vehicles and fuel has risen substantially. Everyone seems more intent on proving how efficient EVs are, than facing the real fact that the average Joe cannot afford them. No, a tax credit doesn't do it for those that hardly pay taxes to begin with. On top of that, it still takes too long to charge the batteries sufficient to get from one place to another without taking three times as long (or more). If everyone had an EV then lines at charging stations would be down the street. Of course, another reason/excuse for some to work from home would probably be appreciated, I'm sure. Personally, I find the air quality today much better than it was when I was a child. Sure, that's mostly due to more efficient combustion engines as well as pollution control devices. Battery powered autos were invented in the 1800's and still haven't quite made the big time. Why not? Because of oil companies? OK, I'll give you that. But, that's another reason to think seriously about where we are going to get the elements to produce batteries. Are we going to give China more control? EVs are nice toys for those that have the extra, throw away money. Not so much for the blue collar worker that can barely make their rent payment.
Worried about "warming?" I moved South because it IS warmer. I had no intention on waiting for it to get warmer up North. I am sure I will be long gone before the weather changes enough that I would notice it, other than the normal seasonal cycles. I am sure that man will destroy itself way before the air and temperature quality becomes extreme enough to have any real life changing effect.
Don't tell me how efficient battery power is, because I have replaced (expensively) quite a few batteries (including lithium) in the past few years that I have been using battery powered lawn/landscaping tools and golf cart. My preference for longevity would be fossil fuel powered tools, now looking back.

Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. Maybe it's a drop in the bucket compared to the resiliency of our planet. Maybe it's more raw material for plants to make oxygen and glucose. Maybe it's going to delay the start of the next period of northern hemisphere glaciation. I don't know, neither do you, and neither do the so called expert climatologists, other than we can rest assured what they will say since 90% are on the government payroll in one way or another.

Just one question----Who in their right mind believes the NY Times???? :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl: It's the equivalent of Pravda during the cold war.

What the "scientists" are telling us is that they either directly work for the government, get research grants funded by the government, or need tenure from their university which is subsidized by the government. For whatever reason, the agenda is to promote the myth of anthropogenic climate change. Actually, the reason is most likely the same as it always is----$$$$$. During the 60's , the big bucks were from escalating the war in Vietnam---Boeing, General Dynamics, Bell Helicopter and Haliburton made a killing. I suspect the new frontier is "green economy"---after all, the plan is to spend 100 TRILLION dollars over the next 50 years to combat "climate change". Who will benefit??? Who is already invested??? Can anyone spell Solyndra?????? And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Meanwhile, the "scientists" are going to continue to be the stooges for the powers that be, since to go against "the agenda" is committing professional suicide.

You watch too much faux news who just settled with Dominion for $787.5 billion for lying.

The only faux news I see is the NY Times, WAPO, and their minions

As you say, "MAYBE". But not positivel.