Do you already have an EV or plan to buy one in the next couple years?

I tend to go with the 97% of scientific experts who agree with the theory that man-made and man-caused factors are contributing to global climate change.

But if you guys want to go along with the 3% who have decided that the overwhelming majority are wrong, it’s free country.

But in terms of how your descendants think of you in 50-100 years my advice remains… don’t include how you feel about it in your memoirs.

I’d also remind you that the vast majority of both the scientific community as well as just plain folks believe the earth is round. But there are still holdouts that firmly believe it’s flat. I’ll side with the majority with that one too. Feel free to do otherwise.

2 Likes

Found this link for ya…. enjoy! :slightly_smiling_face:

Not even the same topic. It’s obvious you’re not interested in serious discussion.

Supposed logical fallacies that don’t take into account factual analysis of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere from pre-industrial times to the present are nice as philosophical arguments but probably don’t describe the motivations of scientifically derived theories. That CO2 and methane are still spewing into the atmosphere and the science behind earth and ocean temperatures rising are measurable events. What correlative explanations do you offer? Your philosophical arguments do not invalidate scientific explanations. It may not be true that majority of established scientists through careful analysis are necessarily piling on the bandwagon or following the leader. Couldn’t it be instead that examining the data leads to independent conclusions based on the scientific method. Do you have evidence that this is not the case? Philosophical straw arguments may try to contradict the scientific study of climate change which seems evident to even the casual observer of climactic events worldwide. But these philosophical arguments are directed at motivations and not the science. Correlations seem to bear out observable events and are corroborated by measurable atmospheric and ocean levels of ghg and rising temperatures compared to historical levels. Certainly global warming due to increased concentrations of ghg has merit as a correlation and the foremost conclusion for theory subject to continued analysis.

#Klimateguy… Most arguments challenging the position of 97% of the climate experts dwell on singular points of a single proposed discrepancy in a narrow scope of the matter.

A case in point is the one presented in post #21 of this thread where Roy Spencer hangs his hat on a single item; ie: Pacific Decadal Oscillation. And from that starting point makes assumptive statements like “most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself!” Building on the logic that the PDO has a large effect on added cloud formations which may account for observed increases in global warming.

For starters The PDO is a relatively small-scale phenomena when you’re considering global temps. It doesn’t make sense that the extra water vapor from it would have the effect he attributes to it. In addition, the increased melting of glaciers in the southern hemisphere and it’s effect on deep ocean currents is potentially a much more serious long-term threat to the planet’s atmospheric thermal stability.

1 Like

H200 Thanks for the reply. Just a small question about your water vapor observation and to make a left turn, would using fuel cells and hydrogen in millions of cars result in high levels of water vapor being produced and affecting environmental conditions? As a mainstream and alternate proposal for zero emissions, I wonder about hydrogen as a solution apart from the logistical and production problems.

#billinin
Did you read the article? Have you read ANY of the thousands of articles that dispute your guy’s position on the subject?

It’s easy to find “what ifs” in an attempt to poke holes in a consensus opinion or theory. The evidence of fossil fuel usage contributing to global warming grows every year while the evidence showing otherwise is virtually non-existent.

The scope of the climate change phenomena is so large and operates on such a massive time scale that most people have a problem appreciating it’s importance and inevitable impact on our only place to live as humans.

The only “what if” that matters is “what if they are right?” And the folks warning about our spoiling our only home seem more right than the nay sayers to me.

What have you got to lose?

Yes I get it…

My source reference good, your source reference bad.

The ones that fit an agenda narrative get the air time.

Take it up with Roy Spencer PhD

Air time is awarded to things that are newsworthy. Newsworthiness is a measure of how a thing attracts eyeballs and atypical things that do not fit the norm are the things that get published. That’s why the climate deniers get more, not less, than the airtime they merit.

If we were talking about a SOTUS decision my position would be represented by 8.73 justices and your’s would be supported by 0.27 justices.

And the case being decided would be whether or not our grandchildren’s kids would live or die.

LOL more flame throwing that no one can prove. No matter when it is climate destruction will always happen SOMETIME in the future. Like Jehovah Witness how many times does someone have to be wrong and still get to reset the date? If we would have only listened to AL Gore you and I would be typing on a pc today.

Those representatives get the the exposure and air time because they fit an agenda narrative. There are plenty of other climatologists like Dr Roy Spencer that don’t get airtime for their input. Like a laptop or email server that has evidence of criminal wrongdoing doesn’t get any publicity either… it didn’t protect a narrative.

1 Like

NOW I understand where you’re coming from. :roll_eyes:

2 Likes

I doubt that the relatively tiny amount of water vapor that hydrogen-fueled devices would add to the atmosphere could ever make a significant difference to the global warming equation.
ts would be so tiny as to not make a significant difference.

Water vapor is responsible for about 60% of the greenhouse effect and the atmosphere’s ability to hold water vapor is increased with higher temperatures. CO2 makes up less than one-half of one percent of the total atmosphere so a relatively tiny amount of man-made CO2 added to the atmosphere can be enough to act as a trigger or catalyst by heating the total atmosphere a degree or two and make the huge greenhouse heating capacity of the water vapor have a multiplying effect. Water vapor lasts just hours or days in the atmosphere, but CO2 sticks around for hundreds of years.

Adding some water vapor to our atmosphere vs adding CO2 from fossil fuels would be like the effect of adding one once ounce of water to an Olympic-sized swimming pool vs adding an ounce of water to a 12-ounce glass. It’s a huge difference.

I bought a Nissan Leaf in December and like it a lot. It’s range is a bit limited, so best for around town which is 99% of my driving. In the short-term, I’m planning on buying the new Prius hybrid for road trips, but eventually, will buy a 2nd EV with long range capacity and quick charge capability (something along the lines of the Kia EV6, but preferably smaller and more affordable).

I will probably not be buying an EV anytime soon, but my case may be different from most everyone (except for perhaps certain wide open states).

I live on the Big Island of Hawaii. We generate all our own electricity using a variety of sources (geo-thermal, fuel oil burning, wind power, wave power and so on). Energy is most expensive here. We cannot get cheaper power from ‘the grid’ and presently cannot run electricity between islands. Because our fuel oil must be brought in by sea AND the Jones Act effects costs.

The Jones Act is a century-old federal law that requires cargo between U.S. locations to be transported on ships built and flagged in the U.S. There are now less than 100 total Jones Act vessels in service (including the Matson and Pasha container ships that enjoy a duopoly on Hawaii’s cargo lifeline from the continental U.S.) and even less Jones Act fuel tankers all dedicated to other fuel transport routes, as opposed to plentiful international tanker capacity.

Our electric costs including tax on my residential bill adds up to 46.22 cents per KWH! My bill was $382.25 for 30 days at $12.74 per day everage. I rarely use the oven, we swapped out the water heater for a propane on-demand, the lights are almost all LED. We use no heaters or air conditioners (don’t need them).

Gasoline is still in the $4.64 to $5.00+ range.

As a state, Hawaii is moving quickly towards being energy independant by the year 2045.

So we have a few charging stations around this island. We are the size of the state of Conneticut (4,000 sq miles) with a population of 50 people per square mile, so rural. We have a road which circumnavigates the island and a road crossing across the island. That road has no gas or services and is 52 miles long and no gas stations near the entrance or exit of that road either. So finding Gasoline is interesting but a charging stations currently, even harder.

Some people suggest that over time, gas stations may also include charging stations, perhaps by putting solar on the roof of the structure. Interesting idea. We have both dry and wet sides of our island. Although there is still some sunlight filtering through, the wet side of the island (120 to 150 inches a year) certainly will have issues with solar power generating. Granted some of that rainfall is at night but still…

To augment power we can use wind power. We certainly have parts of the island that have constant wind and already have some wind power generation.

Regardless of whether the power comes from the sun or wind or geo-thermal or whatever, getting it to the public is also a challange. We have areas with both high voltage and residential power on the same power poles. They may also contain telephone, cable and fiber. This is because all poles are in solid rock and residential drops are far apart in many areas. Because of the single road in many places, these poles are suseptable to being hit by vehicles, rock falls, flooding and of course, lava flows. When a pole is down, it can take many hours to days to get it replaced. It can be a challenge to get to some locations and if that pole is near the only road, travel from one location to another may require a trip of 100 miles to bypass the issue, or just sit and wait.

So, yes, solar would be a great way for the public to charge their own vehicles, but the cost of installation and of the equipment may be too much for the public to bear when you then include the cost of the vehicle.

We have the lowest cost property taxes, but other taxes and costs far exceed other locations in most of the rest of the country. The cost of living is high and many companys and people here make their money from tourists. You can imagine that took a toll during COVID when we pretty much shut down all air and ship travel to the islands.

So, while nowhere on the mainland has all the same issues, I think we have most if not all the issues which might keep people here changing to EV’s. Other locations may have some of the above issues (distance to population centers, sublight or power production issues, etc) which tend t oeliminate the slam-dunk of quickly changing to EVs.

NOTE: Just after posting this I saw that expanding our Geo-thermal plant is moving ahead 5 years after the lava flow shut it down. Although that sounds great, the proposal is getting pushback from nearby residents who worry about the potential risk from future lava flows. (Within the past year even my house was threatened by lava and I live in a relatively safe area. However if the lava had flowed the opposite direction I would have had between 3 and 12 hours to leave my house! Lava flowing this direction would have cut off electricity to the lower 1/5 of the island I assume.

deleted comment

2 Likes

If your house has electricity you can install a charging station. Do you have AC, an electric oven, electric dryer? No different.

There’s absolutely no way it costs $20,000 to charge a tesla. A lot of misinformation here.

1 Like

Yes, this does not add up at all. For most chargers these days all you need is a 220 Volt outlet. Telsas get about 3-4 miles per kWh. If you drive 15000 miles per year, that’s 5,000 kWh at 3 miles per kWh. Where I live, it’s about $0.08 per kWh, or $400 per year for 5,000 kW, if I charge at home. if you’re in CA, it might be $0.25 per kWh, or $1200 per year. So, either he’s paying $4 per kWh (which nobody does), or he’s driving 750,000 miles per year. Neither is likely, or even possible for that matter.

Even lavarock in Hawaii pays only $0.46 per kWh.

And just for fun, to drive 750,000 miles per year you have to drive 85 mph every hour for the whole year.

post deleted by H200h

When Jane posted it was sent to my email inbox. I came here to comment to find she deleted her post. Not sure why, but most of what she said was incorrect.

Most Prius’s are not plug-ins and so have nothing to do with your electricity costs.