The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Vman455

Looking at Chicago specifically, things like AC, lighting, and most of Chicago's transit are electric already. Changing the source of the electricity won't have any effect on their efficiency. Replacing all the buses and every car with electric will increase demand, not reduce it, as will a rising population. Replacing natural gas heat and water heaters with electric will, again, increase electric demand. There's no way moving away from fossil fuels entirely will decrease demand by more than half as they say it will, and if anything I would expect it to do the opposite.

ETA: In the ads at the bottom of this page, the image for this thread is a still from Mad Max 2. I find that amusing. Someone must have posted it a while back.

The upshot would be the potential for zero-carbon electrical power,if we're still interested in climate change.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

EVs won't overburden electrical production, and likely will help to smooth the difference between peak and off-peak load. This is because most will be charged overnight, when there is lowest demand.

The biggest problem will be with fast charging infrastructure. There's talk of 350 kW chargers in the near future. Typical household consumption is 1.2 kW, so plugging in an EV on one of these chargers will be like 290 houses suddenly appearing on the grid. Multiply that by the number of chargers in use, and you've got a real problem trying to keep energy production exactly at demand, which is required by the grid.

Some have been talking about infrastructure projects.
Tom Selleck says that the 30-million retired American homeowners have $6-Trillion in equity.Perhaps they could each throw a few bucks into a hat and bankroll some energy production.
It would be a lot of jobs.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Look what that accomplishes.
Everyone who needs or wants a vehicle gets ones, virtually all of these vehicles still burn gasoline or diesel. That's not green technology, it's just smaller pieces of machinery that uses marginally less fuel.
Germany and the EU are burning more coal then just a few years ago, your tax and redistribution of wealth ponzi scheme has failed and it was never designed to fix anything. It was just a feel good bandaid that was eventually going to fall off.

As far as I've seen since 1973,the only thing that can change an American's behavior is through the purse,either with a carrot,or a stick.
Perhaps all the Energy-Star incentives have gone by unnoticed.And Federal and State tax incentives for home solar,EVs, and such.
Public education might make a difference,but you'd have to get government out of bed with fossil fuels to have a chance with the boards of education.

[oil pan 4]

The ultimate carrot is cheap, stable nuclear power.
The stick is $150 bbl oil when it was cheap, tails about paying under $3 a gallon for liquid fuel and how it was theft.

Energy star and gov money for electric vehicles is more bottom up feelgoodism.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The ultimate carrot is cheap, stable nuclear power.
The stick is $150 bbl oil when it was cheap, tails about paying under $3 a gallon for liquid fuel and how it was theft.

Energy star and gov money for electric vehicles is more bottom up feelgoodism.

We're just gonna have to see where utility providers, investors want to put their money,and whether or not,the government wants to fast-track the permitting process.
I've wondered about the federal incentives,and if they could be a construed as a 'shadow' admission that tailpipes may not be the smartest thing we ever came up with,without ever publicly saying so.
We already subsidize a number of industries,so it appears that zero-carbon cars may be something of long-range interest to the feds.The Pentagon and intelligence apparatus appears to be,or so they say.

[aerohead]

I watched all of the David MacKay video today.
Not much to comment on.
Everything he says has merit only in the context/conditions of the 'current' situation.
If you can allow that some of the represented power load is 'negotiable',then there's room to explore other realities,and 'totals' might take on a different look.
If global climate change is important,people will pay attention,and be aware.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

some presently sold EVs already have greater 'CITY' range than many ICE automobiles,selling at a greater price.
Presently, there are also ICE automobiles which possess less 'HWY' range than some EVs currently on the market.
When the gen-II TESLA Roadster debuts,there will be even more ICE automobiles with less HWY range,selling at much higher prices,whose fuel will be more expensive for the same distance.
There appears to be an inflexion point looming in the near future (2025 has mentioned),at which time,ICE automobiles will no longer be able to economically compete,either in price,or performance with EVs.
I had no idea until I started doing the numbers.

That isn't generally true though, that EVs match the range of ICE counterparts. I've never driven a car that got less than 400 miles to a tank. The CX-5 is probably the shortest range car I've driven and it goes over 400 miles just barely.

All that is besides the point, as once an EV or any vehicle is capable of 200 miles of range, people want to take a break anyhow after 3 hours of driving. The problem isn't starting range, but the slowness in adding range on a longer trip. The Chevy Bolt can go 240 miles, but takes an hour charging to add 150 miles of range. It's like a gas pump starting off with a small stream to begin with, and as the tank approaches half full, slows to a tiny trickle, finally ending with dripping fuel into the tank.

Tesla's are faster, but we really need 200 kW charging before it becomes acceptable to the mainstream. That's about twice as fast as a Tesla, and 4x as fast as a Bolt.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

That isn't generally true though, that EVs match the range of ICE counterparts. I've never driven a car that got less than 400 miles to a tank. The CX-5 is probably the shortest range car I've driven and it goes over 400 miles just barely.

All that is besides the point, as once an EV or any vehicle is capable of 200 miles of range, people want to take a break anyhow after 3 hours of driving. The problem isn't starting range, but the slowness in adding range on a longer trip. The Chevy Bolt can go 240 miles, but takes an hour charging to add 150 miles of range. It's like a gas pump starting off with a small stream to begin with, and as the tank approaches half full, slows to a tiny trickle, finally ending with dripping fuel into the tank.

Tesla's are faster, but we really need 200 kW charging before it becomes acceptable to the mainstream. That's about twice as fast as a Tesla, and 4x as fast as a Bolt.

I was surprised that they surpass any at all.
CAR and DRIVER,on their coast-to-coast Tesla drive said that they'd grab a meal and be back on the road within 45-minutes,not trying for a full charge.
When my time comes for an EV,I'll be delighted to be inconvenienced with road trip charging.It's nice to get out of a car and move around.Now,more than ever.

[RedDevil]

The climate summit in Poland has finally ended...
https://www.apnews.com/d8b09f1023bb497e89c3d484978269e3

10 p.m.

Officials from around the world have agreed upon a set of rules to govern the 2015 Paris climate accord after two weeks of U.N. climate talks in Poland.

Michal Kurtyka, a Polish official chairing the talks in Katowice, gaveled the deal Saturday after diplomats and ministers from almost 200 countries approved.

The U.N. talks were meant to provide firm guidelines for countries on how to transparently report their greenhouse gas emissions and their efforts to reduce them.

Scientists say emissions of gases such as carbon dioxide need to drop sharply by 2030 to prevent potentially catastrophic global warming.

The meeting postponed decisions on pledging more ambitious action to fight global warming and on regulating the market for international carbon emissions trading.

So they agreed to tell each other how much they pollute, but not how to stop doing so.
Must be hard to agree on that. It's not like they live on the same planet or such.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

The climate summit in Poland has finally ended...
https://www.apnews.com/d8b09f1023bb497e89c3d484978269e3

So they agreed to tell each other how much they pollute, but not how to stop doing so.
Must be hard to agree on that. It's not like they live on the same planet or such.

It's kinda like Al Gore mentioned in his slide show:You've got Earth on one side of the balance scale,and those delicious gold bars on the other.