Here is another concern for EV proponents

[jcl]

Originally Posted by skyguyscott

Correct me if I am mistaken here, but I believe if you compare a typical ICE vehicle sitting in a huge traffic jam at idle and running A/C with a BEV doing the same, assuming they both start of with a full tank/battery, the ICE vehicle would run out of juice long before the BEV does because the ICE vehicle is expending energy running the engine. The BEV, however, is only running a compressor and fans for the A/C. I also assume if both are sitting still, there would be no need to run the windshield wipers.

I agree getting info off of Facebook is about as reliable as getting it from an unsolicited email. I think it also important to remember there is a vast disinformation campaign funded by Big Oil that has been ongoing since the 1980s (as recently reported in depth by PBS's Frontline) to sow doubt and confusion regarding climate change, even though their own scientists had come to the same conclusions regarding global warming decades ago.

Absolutely correct. Add to this that the EV is more likely to have more energy on board (due to home charging) at the start of the trip. And add also that modern EVs use heat pumps, which are far more efficient for heating and cooling.

Agree also that disinformation campaigns are rampant. Just like with the tobacco wars. Read yesterday how Russian troll farms are targeting US social media platforms, and using key words to identify those likely to believe their propaganda. Their entry point is often reportedly anti vax sentiment, and they use those targets and shift to climate change propaganda.

[field & stream]

This is a textbook quality example of self-interested propaganda. Be interesting to know the origin of this — no surprise that Bookface is spreading it.

[AlIslander]

Originally Posted by pjshier

While I can appreciate the sentiment based on a lot of the print and media stories that appear at the top of the stack, there are others:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24268-5

That's the real trick it seems: getting the straight story takes a LOT more reading and primary source work than it used to. The past articles indicating strong links have been reexamined as good scientific practice should, and found some "not so fast" elements.

Offered in the hope of introducing more information in the discussion. I am a fan of new tech - including EVs for the right mission.

I use solar power and a wind turbine (well, it just died... waiting on a new one). Just hoping even well-intended but narrowly informed zeal does not result in another Governor outlawing registration of ICE vehicles (though many tow vehicles appear to be exempt) in the near future. I remain confident bright minds will continue to expand our understanding of alternatives and expect several breakthroughs that may even have the EV seem anachronistic. No buggy whip pejoratives needed.

Gabriel Vecchi, the scientist who headed up the research in the article you referenced also offers some not-so-fast elements for his own paper. While that study offers evidence that the Atlantic hurricane season is not increasing in frequency, he says there is no question that hurricanes have become more deadly in many ways. Wind speed and frequency are not the only elements here, but there is the rise in sea temperature, the amount of rainfall and sea level rise. Vecchi's paper does not refute that global warming "has acted and will act to intensify hurricane activity”.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...hange-atlantic

This is offered in the hope of not leaving context to the wayside on this issue, from someone who drives a giant diesel guzzling truck and can't wait until EVs become practical.

[SeeMore]

A couple of facts to assist in digesting the thread.

1) The average cost to add a home charging station in 2021 was $1,200. Costs run from $400 to $1,700 depending on existing wire and power panel locations, and local electrician hourly rates (https://bit.ly/3vx6N9l). It is not as expensive as many believe. There are tax reduction incentives available in some locales. You don't need a Super Charging station at home. Beware the naysayers, wide spread home charging installations will become the norm as the EV conversion occurs.

2) Yes lithium carbonate costs have risen lately (up 436% over 24 months). However, lithium cost has been declining for years and a significant harvesting market is in the Ukraine where exports have been interrupted. The other large mining location is along the west coast of Africa. And, of course, China which all but closed up with Covid precautions. The pandemic has seriously hampered international shipping/supply chains (see cargo shipping @ www.marinetraffic.com/) which also drove costs up recently. Supply and demand fulfillment will improve. The Trading Economics forecast assumes a 4.2% lithium price/ton rise through the remainder of 2022.

[Ephraim]

I don't have an issue with EV vehicles. I just have an issue with government mandates. They almost always make things worse in their rush to do what is politically acceptable at the moment.

Case in point - CFLs.

Incandescent bulbs will always have their place, but the government got ahead of itself by mandating the switch to CFLs. LEDs were just on the horizon, but not yet ready for mass consumption. As a result, the masses were saddled with ugly and visually unappealing CFLs when if the govt had just let industry take it's course, we would have had LEDs years earlier because that is where the industry was headed.

EVs will have their place and so will petroleum powered vehicles. Until some currently unknown technology breakthrough on energy storage, EVs will not be able to replace a significant portion of current vehicle usage. Government mandates will only hurt those they govern.

[SeeMore]

Petroleum fuel prices haven't exactly been stable lately either: check the chart:
https://bit.ly/3vqhEli

How much of the recent 'Russian War" driven price increase will be reduced as summer arrives?

[mikeinca]

When I first saw the OP's post referencing a Facebook article on EV concerns (of all the information sources ) I thought to have a few things to say on the subject. Fortunately, all of the relevant points I would have made have already been touched on.

Now, to just sit back and wait for someone to close down the thread and discussion in an OFF TOPIC forum, as happened with the last OFF TOPIC forum thread related to this subject, because it has a few political overtones and isn't focused on Airstreams.

Let's do be nice to each other, however.

[WellSaid11]

and then there is the 900 pound chunk of toxic waste to also deal with as well.

https://www.ocregister.com/2022/01/2...eries-get-old/

CA will mandate something to “address” it, not fund the mandate and pass the cost onto the consumer and manufacturer without a tax break. Yay!

[OrangeCrush]

You guys are overthinking it. Just take a generator

[Dennis C]

Wait… what? People overthinking things on these forums? Say it ain’t so!!!

Maybe we should get back to a healthy 1/2 ton vs. 3/4 ton tow vehicle debate!

[OrangeCrush]

Please, noooooo. My bad. This thread is just fine as is!

[jcl]

Originally Posted by AlIslander

Gabriel Vecchi, the scientist who headed up the research in the article you referenced also offers some not-so-fast elements for his own paper. While that study offers evidence that the Atlantic hurricane season is not increasing in frequency, he says there is no question that hurricanes have become more deadly in many ways. Wind speed and frequency are not the only elements here, but there is the rise in sea temperature, the amount of rainfall and sea level rise. Vecchi's paper does not refute that global warming "has acted and will act to intensify hurricane activity”.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...hange-atlantic

This is offered in the hope of not leaving context to the wayside on this issue, from someone who drives a giant diesel guzzling truck and can't wait until EVs become practical.

Thank you for posting this.

I wondered why the point that hurricanes were were becoming more destructive as the climate changes was being countered with a claim that they are not becoming more frequent.

Two different things. And both can be true.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by Ephraim

I don't have an issue with EV vehicles. I just have an issue with government mandates. They almost always make things worse in their rush to do what is politically acceptable at the moment.

Case in point - CFLs.

Incandescent bulbs will always have their place, but the government got ahead of itself by mandating the switch to CFLs. LEDs were just on the horizon, but not yet ready for mass consumption. As a result, the masses were saddled with ugly and visually unappealing CFLs when if the govt had just let industry take it's course, we would have had LEDs years earlier because that is where the industry was headed.

EVs will have their place and so will petroleum powered vehicles. Until some currently unknown technology breakthrough on energy storage, EVs will not be able to replace a significant portion of current vehicle usage. Government mandates will only hurt those they govern.

Your government mandated a switch to CFLs?

https://www.epa.gov/mercury/how-ener...ts-light-bulbs

The law was more technology neutral, despite the claims of some politicians. Some suggest we got LEDs because of the Energy Independence and Security Act

[jcl]

Originally Posted by mikeinca

When I first saw the OP's post referencing a Facebook article on EV concerns (of all the information sources ) I thought to have a few things to say on the subject. Fortunately, all of the relevant points I would have made have already been touched on.

Now, to just sit back and wait for someone to close down the thread and discussion in an OFF TOPIC forum, as happened with the last OFF TOPIC forum thread related to this subject, because it has a few political overtones and isn't focused on Airstreams.

Let's do be nice to each other, however.

Spot on.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by Ephraim

I don't have an issue with EV vehicles. I just have an issue with government mandates. They almost always make things worse in their rush to do what is politically acceptable at the moment.

Case in point - CFLs.

How about the CFC mandate?

And the DDT mandate?

And the PCB mandate?

And the lead paint mandate?

And the asbestos mandate?

And the unleaded gas mandate?

[pjshier]

Originally Posted by jcl

Thank you for posting this.

I wondered why the point that hurricanes were were becoming more destructive as the climate changes was being countered with a claim that they are not becoming more frequent.

Two different things. And both can be true.

Hence the post. The original assertion was about the intensity of the hurricane seasons. The popular press tends to headline "More and Worse Hurricanes" with implications the cause is all carbon, and regulatory action of all kinds is therefore justified.

Here is an interesting quote from the study: (Atlantic Hurricanes = HU, Major Hurricanes = MH, North Atlantic = NA) Underlines for emphasis mine.

"We find here that, once we include a correction for undercounts in the pre-satellite era basin-wide NA HU and MH frequency, there are no significant increases in either basin-wide HU or MH frequency, or in the MH/HU ratio for the Atlantic basin between 1878 and 2019 (when the U.S. Signal Corps started tracking NA HUs35). We suggest that the modestly significant 1851–2019 increase in basin-wide MH frequency and MH/HU ratio that remains after including the HU and MH adjustment reflects data inhomogeneity that our adjustment is unable to correct—rather than an actual increase in these quantities. The homogenized basin-wide HU and MH record does not show strong evidence of a century-scale increase in either MH frequency or MH/HU ratio associated with the century-scale, greenhouse-gas-induced warming of the planet. For example, the temporal evolution of the global mean temperature is not closely reflected in the temporal evolution of adjusted MH/HU ratio shown in Fig. 4.

Does this work provide evidence against the hypothesis that greenhouse-gas-induced warming may lead to an intensification of North Atlantic HUs? Not necessarily."

That was the part I found interesting, in the context of the "seasons." Note I included the caveat - "not necessarily" in all fairness to the discussion.

[Ephraim]

Originally Posted by jcl

How about the CFC mandate?

And the DDT mandate?

And the PCB mandate?

And the lead paint mandate?

And the asbestos mandate?

And the unleaded gas mandate?

And in every one of those cases there are major issues. (Such as the MTBE issue derived through the series of mandates that became the unleaded gas issue)

One needs to remember that people will willingly shift when it becomes advantageous to do so. Mandating ALWAYS hurts people. People would migrate towards LEDs just because of the cost factor but the CFL mandates just slowed that down. People WILL adopt EVs when it is financially advantageous to do so but taking Pete’s advice and forcing a family to buy an EV when they can barely put food on the table is just mean spirited and uncaring. But hey “let them eat cake” I guess.

[vintage6t]

Originally Posted by Ephraim

People WILL adopt EVs when it is financially advantageous to do so but taking Pete’s advice and forcing a family to buy an EV when they can barely put food on the table is just mean spirited and uncaring. But hey “let them eat cake” I guess.

I'm guessing that people who can barely afford to put food on the table aren't out buying new cars of any kind, EV or other, period. EV mandates are probably the least of their concerns.

[richard5933]

Originally Posted by Ephraim

And in every one of those cases there are major issues. (Such as the MTBE issue derived through the series of mandates that became the unleaded gas issue)

One needs to remember that people will willingly shift when it becomes advantageous to do so. Mandating ALWAYS hurts people. People would migrate towards LEDs just because of the cost factor but the CFL mandates just slowed that down. People WILL adopt EVs when it is financially advantageous to do so but taking Pete’s advice and forcing a family to buy an EV when they can barely put food on the table is just mean spirited and uncaring. But hey “let them eat cake” I guess.

Going to have to differ with you on the propensity of people to shift without mandates - especially when the shift will cost more, even if in the short run.

Recent history is rife with examples of companies and individuals sticking to a plan long after that plan was the more efficient way of doing something. Why? They were used to it and it was comfortable.

People (and therefore companies) don't like change and will fight it, even when the change is in their best interests. Sometimes a kick in the seat of the pants is necessary.

[skyguyscott]

Originally Posted by Ephraim

One needs to remember that people will willingly shift when it becomes advantageous to do so. Mandating ALWAYS hurts people.

I agree that those who lack resources should always be taken into consideration when crafting legislation.

When I was a young libertarian, enamored with the "free marketplace of Ideas," my world view was that everyone wanted a better, more efficient world to live in.

But what do you do when you discover there are peddlers of poison who profit from their production and purchase, and who purposefully saturate the public square with deceitful lies, bribe corrupt politicians, bully those who proclaim the truth, and pose a danger to the public?