Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

Are EV's the Future...or not?

1 reading
16K views 214 replies 31 participants last post by  donald  
#1 ·
#3 ·
I've only scan read it - usual mixture of truths and untruths. The likely scenario is that once battery costs reach the tipping point then the ICE will become a dodo, because the cost of the kit required to clean up the emissions to an acceptable level will be rising pushing the powertrain cost up, once the volumes start to drop the component prices will rise as suppliers start to fall away, and the complexity will become a killer. The industry has an incredible amount of inertia to overcome due to the volumes and the incumbent powertrain experience, but these look set to become a millstone in the not very distant future. Only my viewpoint of course and since I have thirty years experience of working in the automotive industry I'm one of the people who's opinion is likely to be inaccurate!
 
#4 · (Edited)
I'm sorry - in what possible way does the title of this thread relate to this news item?

One of the things the article correctly points out is that even if EVs accounted for all the additional vehicles being sold, i.e. the growth of the global fleet, which as it happens they are not yet anywhere near, then obviously you are not reducing the demand for oil (which is what that article is actually about).

It is entirely possible that EVs have a great future and that oil sales continue unabated. In fact, there is a more than fair chance this will be the case. The reason is very very simple, which people seem to keep forgetting; the free market!

If the demand for oil drops, the price will be dropped so the producers can keep selling the volume. For a long time to come, that is to say until oil companies start making a financial loss, the volume of oil will continue, if not grow.

It is ALSO entirely possible that both EVs have a crap future and that also the volume of oil is impacted. This could come about if all the gov incentives/taxes/duties end up in a situation where very efficient ICE run off low taxed fuel.

It is ALSO possible that EVs boom and oil dies, or that oil booms and EVs die.

Therefore, the subject matter of the item linked to is completely independent of the thread title

There is a significance to this, and I do not at all mean to single out Electric Blue on this. It is human nature to get defensive on a topic when one thinks it is impacting a special interest of theirs. This is disappointing in several ways because there is no reason for oil and electricity to be seen as polar opposites.

Just to make this point totally, utterly, super whiter than white crystal clear; One is an energy source, the other is an energy vector. There cannot BE any impact on one to the other.

It is for us clever humans to figure out the best balance for on-board motive energy. This is not a competition, and I wish both the press and EV enthusiasts would stop confusing these things, and over-hyping the debates one way or the other.

The article is basically correct, incidentally, and nor does it suggest EVs have no future.
 
#7 ·
I have no special interest, I believe there is a place for all forms of motive power. I don't believe there will be a mass dying of ICE cars. I don't buy a lot of the environmental lobbies arguments either. For me the Science is not yet settled

These article & these Forums help inform debate & hopefully stimulate conversation.

This one has.
 
#6 · (Edited)
I'll take that just as a question, as I am not sure it has anything to do with either the thread title or the news item, that I can see (please draw the link, if I am missing it).

AFAIK, ball-park figures as close as is meaningful to get to, total oil use for transport is around 50%, 10% is container/freight/oil shipping, and 2/3rds of the remainder is road freight, so that makes it around 40% for all road transport and 12% or so for passenger cars and light vans.

As I have often said before, if we were serious about cutting CO2 then the place to put batteries is to add 50kWh or so to PHEV commercial vehicles that can offset 50kWh worth of fuel every day, if not twice a day. This would beat the crap out of putting 50kWh into a passenger car, in terms of the CO2 saving.

As the article says at one point, electric passenger cars is not very efficient in terms of $ per CO2 reduction.

If you REALLY wanted to save CO2 then this could be achieved by making these >100,000 tonne super-freighters nuclear powered, like US aircraft carriers. That could kill 10% of all oil consumption. The problem with this is putting nuclear reactors into the public sector.

The truth is that any manipulation of the energy vectors in the global network of energy will lead to political outcomes with potentially dangerous ramifications. Sticking a whole power station inside a super-freighter is a much better use of $/CO2-saving than building a new power station on land to run a few 10,000's of passenger cars.

(edit, having reviewed data, I have adjusted some of the numbers here from my first post)

FWIW - I see that the larger super freighters now burn 100,000 gallons of fuel each day at sea. If the average car mileage is 30 miles/day, as EV enthusiasts are keen to point out, one freighter is equivalent to around 100,000 cars. That'd need around 1,000,000 kWh if it were through EV passenger car equivalent, so that'd be 50MW or so of a power station's output, spread over a day continuous, for each freighter steaming around today.
 
#8 ·
The science is settled. Only Tony Abbott questions that, and he's a failed politician and failed boxer, not a climatologist. However it's not environmental realities that will sink ICE cars. It's complexity. Like camera/imaging film and their cameras, ICEs are fantastically complex precision instruments with innumerable finely engineered moving parts that would be almost unthinkable in any other mass market consumer product. In an era when the only way the lay person could record images was on film, the sheer economies of scale meant these chemical and engineering wonders were incredibly cheap and abundant. However, as soon as a cheaper, simpler solution presented itself, the decline was swift and irreversible. Film isn't dead, but it's definitely a niche sector and it will never again be truly mainstream. ICEs will likely face the same utlimate scenario. They won't disappear entirely, but they won't survive as a mainstream option, as EVs are simpler to build and operate - and ultimately cheaper.
 
#9 ·
The science is settled.
Only politicians and scientists with a political (/financial) agenda would say that.

'Science' can never be settled, else it wouldn't be science.

Personally I would say it as being "the politics is settled" ......
 
#10 ·
I couldn't agree more about science. It's just a way of updating the way we understand stuff.

I don't think the politics are settled though. Ten years ago, when western economies were booming, it was easy to talk about "saving the planet". These days, politicians in the UK talk about roadside pollution levels, which isn't quite as grandiose. And I suspect they only talk about pollution because they won't be able to say in the future that they didn't know it was dangerous.

Here's hoping we can return to a budget surplus and face up to some of the bigger issues again.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 
#11 ·
The science is settled. Only Tony Abbott questions that, and he's a failed politician and failed boxer, not a climatologist. However it's not environmental realities that will sink ICE cars. It's complexity. Like camera/imaging film and their cameras, ICEs are fantastically complex precision instruments with innumerable finely engineered moving parts that would be almost unthinkable in any other mass market consumer product. In an era when the only way the lay person could record images was on film, the sheer economies of scale meant these chemical and engineering wonders were incredibly cheap and abundant. However, as soon as a cheaper, simpler solution presented itself, the decline was swift and irreversible. Film isn't dead, but it's definitely a niche sector and it will never again be truly mainstream. ICEs will likely face the same utlimate scenario. They won't disappear entirely, but they won't survive as a mainstream option, as EVs are simpler to build and operate - and ultimately cheaper.
I believe that a revolution in personal mobility will change habits far more than an obstinate fantasy that the Science is settled.

I am not aware of the Boxer you mention but in 1992 Francis Fukuyama declared The End of History, that was equally premature.
 
#14 ·
Yes I think they're the future. I just think 'future' is longer than we want. There's loads of infrastructure to replace and people to train. I think that's at least a 20 year job.

There'll be stuff before then, but it'll become obsolete faster than **** replies to posts about brexit.

If cars become more like computers they'll adopt some computer traits - frequent replacement / upgrade, annoying bugs, dodgy releases, security problems, privacy concerns, etc.
 
#18 ·
People keep trotting out the '97% consensus' and 'settled science' lines over climate which were implanted in their brains many years ago. Neither of those propaganda items are correct. The first has been comprehensively debunked years ago and the second is clearly not scientific. All science is capable of adjustment if new information is discovered and any real scientist is willing to change their mind once that is proven to be accurate.

The issue right now is that due to the political interference in the science, major decisions are being made on a flawed concept. A lot of that impinges on us as motorists. That alone can influence which way a Gov't wants to move car ownership.

At the moment this is working in favour of EV growth as fossil fuel is seen by the flawed data to be potentially responsible for the end of the world. So the Gov't takes measures to encourage less oil to be burned. As long as the perception by Gov'ts is that we are all doomed if CO2 is released then they will continue to push EV's. That will have a far larger influence of whether EV's are the future than any other factor involved.
 
#23 ·
They are the future of course...was that the question?

Well actually if you want my idea of the actual future it's at best starvation and massive loss of life, war, anarchy, and at worst extinction of the human race entirely. Neither of these look very EVish because dead people don't drive cars.

That's my depressing thought for the day.
Ummmm. So your in the hydrogen fuel cell camp?
 
#26 ·
Surely EV cars are the future. This is not due to climate change be it true or false. It will happen because of pollution from ice cars. In addition it will happen because of car automation emerging.
To me the only question is the timeframe. I believe it will happen very rapidly, taking off at a high rate during the 2020s.
Many ice supporters are in self denial on the issue I feel.
With battery improvement happening very quickly, range will soon pass the tipping point of 250 plus miles, making them much more acceptable.
 
#28 ·
Surely EV cars are the future. This is not due to climate change be it true or false. It will happen because of pollution from ice cars. In addition it will happen because of car automation emerging.
To me the only question is the timeframe. I believe it will happen very rapidly, taking off at a high rate during the 2020s.
Many ice supporters are in self denial on the issue I feel.
With battery improvement happening very quickly, range will soon pass the tipping point of 250 plus miles, making them much more acceptable.

I actually agree with this. Remember smart phones? Nobody had them except nerds, and everybody was taking the pee, then suddenly everybody had one. Within like, 2 years maybe less.
I feel like we're on the verge of that scenario. I used to see maybe one leaf here and there, but recently I will see two or three sometimes on a 5 mile journey.
 
#31 ·
I would have thought that the bean-counters at the major manufacturers would prefer us to burn fuel than use EVs because it throws all their hard earned knowledge and business processes up in the air.
You might well be right, but I hadn't accommodated accountants in the set of people I was thinking about...

I do not believe there is an ounce of any intelligent, thinking person that does not want to achieve exactly the same result ....
:D

But in truth there are a number of facets to this situation that are less than clear in terms of achieving the optimum efficient outcome. You are dead right that there is a momentum of learning and knowledge behind ICE that is not trivial to pass over quickly. In fact, as my many other posts on the subject have attempted to describe, right now I doubt EVs are more efficient than ICE in their overall life-cycles, and part of that is the much greater manufacturing effort and much more limited supply chain and maintenance experience leading to unacceptable risks and delays in vehicle availability for some people.Many have turned their backs on EVs, at least for the time being, because of their terrible experiences with them.

So overall I see the move at the moment not as a slam-dunk 'problem solved', it is more 'new solution to being efficient.. in progress'. I think EVs are probably where they deserve to be right now, but it will be a quick ramp up to generally evolved product, as many folks believe. But it won't instantly push out ICE, that will take many decades.

We are on a trajectory to the future, and EVs are part of that. So is oil.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Duncan23
#32 ·
Well that is patently untrue, and in any case they've got the internet. The media seems to demand 'balance' whenever climate change is discussed and troop out a complete loon to put the denier case.



Funnily enough, I've followed up the links you've posted and found them to be mainly written by people with no credibility whatsoever and not by serious climate scientists - see the previous exchanges on the issue. No matter what issue you want to discuss, you'll find an 'expert' who disagrees - vaccination is a recent good example. What matters is what the bulk of the scientists tell us, because there is a consensus - and it clearly indicates that taking very serious action is a wise move and that the consequences of not doing so are likely to be catastrophic. In addition, the actions we need to take are of long term benefit too - in that they give us cheaper energy and independence from the likes of the Saudis and the Russians.
You claim that its untrue that some scientists are unable to get their message over. Have you asked them ? Have you watched the many videos in alternative media where they complain bitterly about that? And to claim that the mainstream media seeks balance on this is provably false by their very same failure to allow those complaining of being sidelined to present their own evidence. And as the general public prefer to watch entertainment TV that evidence is never seen.

You then go on to denigrate numerous emeritus professors who are in the position of being able to speak out as they no longer rely on toeing the party line in order to keep their tenure. And guess what weapon is used by the establishment to silence such dissent ? Smears and innuendo about senility to undermine their credibility. That enables you to write things like "written by people with no credibility whatsoever and not by serious climate scientists" . You accept the official line and discard the alternative without actually checking the subject fully.

Then compound that by once again pushing that consensus myth. There is no consensus. The 97% consensus claim has been so thoroughly debunked that it is now embarrassing to read people still clinging to that as a reason to ignore the huge amount of evidence - real hard world evidence - that the models that predicted doom and gloom 20 years ago have proved to be totally inaccurate in the real world.

I actually agree that moving to renewables and dependence on other dodgy regimes is a wise way forward. I just don't think that the way this is being sold to the public is correct. We need less particulates. We need to burn less oil. But scaring the population and shutting down scientists who know that the CO2 claims are false in order to achieve what we would accept anyway is bizarre.
 
#33 ·
What's the real situation with the funding of climate change skepticism?

It's easy to find articles like these:
"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort
ExxonMobil: New Disclosures Show Oil Giant Still Funding Climate Science Denial Groups
Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine
Koch Brothers Continue to Fund Climate Change Denial Machine, Spend $21M to Defend Exxon
Global Warming Skeptic Organizations

On the face of it, there appears to be plenty of funding for skepticism, but you clearly think there's something else going on. What is it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#38 ·
We're not all going to die because of climate change, the "hole in the ozone layer" will kill us first - oh, wait, that seems to have been mended by selling a different type of fridge !! - it is now impossible to know the truth about anything, there are just far too many vested interests not just on both sides, but on lots of versions of those sides. If you want to get a feeling for reality, follow the money
 
#41 ·
EV's are part of the future, they have been with us since the horseless carriage was first invented and if the ICE hadn't been developed all cars would have probably been electric or steam now.

Image
I think that this is the key point. And that 'part' will increase to the point where it finds it's own level. I can see that increase become a rapid growth to reach that level too. Probably much like now where EV's are mostly used for local commutes and domestic travel. But many more people able to make that work. And just as now, anyone needing to travel well away from home on a daily basis will use a car with a built in 500 miles range. What may change is the present need to have two cars to cover odd away days. In future people may be persuaded to just own one car and use that domestic EV for the odd longer trip once they see a reliable infrastructure at 50 mile intervals. But overall, as you say, EV's will be part of the future - not the entire future.
 
#44 ·
Name calling doesn't move the debate forward & weakens an argument.
It is well justified - Nigel Lawson has been trooped out on a number of occasions and he knows absolutely nothing about it. But he claims to do. Many of these people - typically journalists - are already well known as holding fringe views on a whole number of issues. But, to maintain 'balance' in the media, they have to find someone - and, when you can't find a credible scientist, that inevitably means fielding someone with fringe views. Sadly, unless they check, the public can't know.

We'd be better with Nigella commenting - she may know nothing about it but at least she looks good.
 
#47 ·
To be honest I'm staggered that we are still debating climate change. Sure theories can never be proven 100% but that is no reason to ignore it.
What we do know is this based on actual measurements so unless you are saying the people taking these measurements are lying are facts.
The earth's temperature is going up.
Our oceans have absorbed a lot of heat and are warming.
CO2 emissions are rising.
We know that CO2 and Methane are greenhouse gases.
We know that less ice, melting of permafrost and more forest fires will act as positive feedback mechanisms increasing the greenhouse gas emissions and temperatures that go with it.
We know that burning fossil fuels is releasing carbon stored over millions of years.

Now you may want to bury your heads in the sand and say. Well it might not be true science sometimes gets it wrong but as far as I can see that is a pretty irresponsible and risky position to take. There may be negative feedback loops we haven't considered and you may end up being right but I would rather not risk humanity in a hunch.

Actually as a civilisation we are more than capable of living well without fossil fuels etc. They are going to run out anyway at some point so I really see no reason why we should not move as quickly as we can away from them. We have the technology and innovation now. Let's just get on with it and accept that not doing so is at best risky, at worst completely wreck less and irresponsible.
 
#49 ·
To be honest I'm staggered that we are still debating climate change.
It's because many scientists resent being labelled as 'deniers' and told that the science is settled, and not open to debate. You seem to agree that all debate must end. Being staggered that scientists wish to question the data is an odd position to take. I would have thought that a rational stance would be to examine their claims and be in a position to make an informed decision rather than be staggered that they want to explain it to you.

We all agree that the earth is warming again. The key word is 'again'. The planet has been colder, and warmer, in its past. At present it is warming. There is nothing sinister in that and in fact the temperature has been remarkably stable for as far as records go back. The issue is over the scare stories that man made CO2 is entirely responsible for the warming this time around. There is a huge amount of data to show that natural global warming causes CO2 rise, and not the other way round. Being told that scientists are not allowed to say that and that the science is settled - debate is over - isn't helpful.

All climate models over the last 20 years have been shown to be woefully inaccurate. And serious political decisions were taken based on those models predictions. The climate simply refuses to play the modellers game and stubbornly goes on it's way not warming as required. They even tried to go back to the original models knowing the results now and to tweak the parameters to learn where they went wrong. Every time they micro managed any one parameter it produced an unexpected consequence somewhere else and they were unable to make any changes to cause the model to replicate what actually happened. Eventually they gave up - saying the system was far too chaotic for a model to predict outcomes beyond a month. Despite this admission they are still paid millions to model the future and the Gov't still uses those known unreliable models to make future policy. Despite this they still chant the mantra that the science is settled and that all debate is over.

Now you may want to bury your heads in the sand and say. Well it might not be true science sometimes gets it wrong but as far as I can see that is a pretty irresponsible and risky position to take. There may be negative feedback loops we haven't considered and you may end up being right but I would rather not risk humanity in a hunch.
That stance is a very common one. Much like the religious one known as 'Pascal's Wager'. Basically where an athiest on his deathbed suddenly repents - just in case. He sees no downside to it. The risk of repenting and compromising his entire life's convictions are minimal and - who knows.

The problem is that the draconian measures being taken by governments - just in case - are very damaging to areas of the world where they desperately need energy to claw themselves out of their third world life. And it also enables a few to become very rich by their carbon trading schemes. Look up how much that highly vocal scare merchant Al Gore has made from such schemes.

Actually as a civilisation we are more than capable of living well without fossil fuels etc. They are going to run out anyway at some point so I really see no reason why we should not move as quickly as we can away from them. We have the technology and innovation now. Let's just get on with it and accept that not doing so is at best risky, at worst completely reckless and irresponsible.
I agree with much of this. I see no downside to a strategic move away from fossil fuel as much as possible - certainly for passenger transport. But as most is used for other essential services it will prove to be massively damaging to try to cut back from those. This will be a long term plan - many decades. Your last sentence is where I take issue.
 
#48 ·
Going back to the question I firmly believe EVs are the future. There is pressure on fossil fuel vehicles from multiple directions, including potential peak oil and reducing availability leading to increasing prices, greater awareness of the damage from EV emissions to human health, global warming etc.

People still need to travel and still want personal transport, so the car remains a core transport mechanisms. Hydrogen fuel cells have been explored but the costs are too great and the infrastructure challenges enormous (you think you've got problems with public charging, at least you can fill up at home!). So the industry will throw it's might behind the only viable alternative to ICE, which is the electric motor. Range is not so great now but with significant investment in battery technology range will increase and in 10 years time EVs with range over 300 miles will be common and affordable, with ultra rapid charging in less than 10 minutes available.

So where will the electricity come from I hear you cry? Well, at the moment a combination of fossil fuels, nuclear and renewable, but I see this moving more and more to renewables over time. There is no reason why with the right investment we cannot be fully renewable in say 30 years time.

So for me EVs are most definitely the future, I'm supporting them now (B250e, Outlander PHEV) and will continue to do so.
 
#50 ·
Well, at the moment a combination of fossil fuels, nuclear and renewable, but I see this moving more and more to renewables over time. There is no reason why with the right investment we cannot be fully renewable in say 30 years time. So for me EVs are most definitely the future, I'm supporting them now (B250e, Outlander PHEV) and will continue to do so.
I agree with this. Pretty soon the benefits of EV's will be seen by many people in the prime market of commutes up to 75 miles per day. With the ability to charge at home this will soon become a no brainer. I am less optimistic about a larger market than this though - absent some huge changes in the away from home charging infrastructure.

The thread title is too black and white. EV's will be a large part of the near future for sure but not a total take over.
 
#52 ·
The most urgent problem holding back EVs is the lack of a good charging structure. We need the government which is high on rhetoric, but low on action, to get this moving, with many more charging stations at destinations and en route. We need the systems already installed to be well maintained which is not the case now. We need simple easy payments for charging in place using debit cards, or pre-charged cards as soon as possible.
The EV Revolution is about to happen anyway, but government action could really enhance the smoothness and speed.
 
#54 ·
Due to the governments laissez faire attitude the charging network in this country is going to end up a dogs dinner with so many different schemes your probably going to have to do a course to understand it all oh and buy an up to date smartphone:mad:

The government needs to legislate so we end up with the charging network we want instead of the charging network the providers think we want.

Oh and they need to stop OLEV from throwing money at councils so they can use the chargers to subsidise their costs, they shouldn't be able to put a Rapid in their car park and they must definitely be available 24/7 and not cost an arm and a leg as that is getting the EV owners to further subsidise their budgets.

Come on Michael Gove grow a pair and get this sorted NOW.
 
#56 ·
The only funding that climate science centres receive is from public funds allocated by the Gov't. If they go native and suggest that perhaps the case is being overstated that funding is withdrawn. That is a fact discussed and explained by numerous emeritus professors once they are free to say such things.

The Koch brothers do not replace those funds while those climate science professors are in post and have access to all the facilities. The vested interest funds are used for political lobbying. You assume that the deep pockets of industry makes funding available to universities to fund alternative research. It doesn't. It is almost entirely used to fund propaganda to influence politicians.

Donald's point was that you automatically assume that there is huge funding to 'heretic' climate experts but handwave away the inherent funding to Gov't influenced centres as if that isn't a factor.

In effect scientists like Dr Curry, and there are dozens like her, state clearly that funding is withdrawn and not replaced by other vested interests.

And by the way, your use of 'hysterical' is itself hysterical. I see no evidence of Donald being so emotional. His post was a sober observation of the way people are able to spin events. But that tactic is just another example of the way anyone daring to question the official line is denigrated. Even the term 'climate denier' was deliberately coined to suggest a link to another distasteful topic.
I'm not making any assumptions about sceptic funding, what it is used for and whether it is huge or not. Neither am I handwaving away government funding. I said I found lots of stories about sceptic funding existing and asked for more information.

I used the word hysterical because @donald wrote a paragraph of three sentences, all of which we're questions, two of which were ridiculous, and the third one was a mix of italics and CAPITALS.

The next paragraph challenged a claim I hadn't made.

Sounds pretty hysterical to me.

Here's @donald post, because you might not have actually read it:
"What's the situation with funding the denial of naturally occurring climate change? All fully funded by Government? Is it your claim that Government have NO political agenda?

How can you rationally claim that there is funding on one side of the debate by people with vested interests, but there is none on the other?"

The question is how to channel influence to people who have balanced views away from zealots at either end of the scale. For example, if a group tries to compensate for the urban heat effect, two groups might challenge it:

Group 1 says "we have different data", or "we've interpreted the data differently" and "we think you've overestimated the effect".

Group 2 says "you've fiddled the data" or "this is the biggest hoax in history", or "you've bullied people into agreeing with this".

I know which group I'd listen to.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 
#57 ·
Group 1 says "we have different data", or "we've interpreted the data differently" and "we think you've overestimated the effect". Group 2 says "you've fiddled the data" or "this is the biggest hoax in history".
Both groups are saying the same thing - just in different ways. And when the first group is totally ignored and can't get its message out to the general public then the second group are forced to become more strident. You say that you know which group you will listen to - but don't listen to either.

Anyhoo --- I still think that EV's are going to be a big part of the future, and that even though Gov'ts worldwide are overestimating this situation, the measures they are taking are moves in the right direction for particulates reduction. Which is actually the problem, and not making futile King Canute impressions to try to influence the globe's climate.
 
#61 ·
What you have just stated is that the 'evidence' given to you is sufficient to allow you take a position. And go on to add that the fear of not accepting that is also a factor in your decision. The problem is that the 'evidence' on which you base your opinion is subject to much debate. That evidence is hotly disputed by many climate scientists. But they are labelled 'deniers' and shunned by their profession. They are unable to obtain funding for their facilities as their views run contrary to what is desired by the politics involved. That doesn't mean that their views are incorrect. Just that they are not able to even air them in mainstream media.

Even a cursory amount of research will show that the 'evidence' on which you rely is deeply flawed. Coupled with the fear campaign it is no wonder that many people concur with your own opinion. The argument that says " what if you are wrong' is also powerful. That triple whammy causes many people to go along with the Gov't tax takes. But it doesn't mean that it is right. And having looked very closely into this whole subject I am not sure that it is right either. But, as I say, at present it is causing a move way from oil for car transport and as such I won't argue against it. But not because it may save the planet. Because it will reduce particulates in the air we breath which is a welcome benefit.
I have no time for the general fear agenda that the politics of the day seems to thrive. However carbon taxation does provide a convenient way to tax given its corollary to pollution; some individuals / organisations will always seek to benefit their own ends in some way or another by lobbying policy.

Deniers of whatever you want to call it perhaps need to separate their arguments to be heard, from those who clearly (or not so clearly) have an agenda.

Notwithstanding if the net result is more EVs on the road, more efficient use of hydrocarbons rather than burning the stuff and improved air quality; bring it on.
 
#63 ·
It's because many scientists resent being labelled as 'deniers' and told that the science is settled, and not open to debate. You seem to agree that all debate must end. Being staggered that scientists wish to question the data is an odd position to take. I would have thought that a rational stance would be to examine their claims and be in a position to make an informed decision rather than be staggered that they want to explain it to you.

We all agree that the earth is warming again. The key word is 'again'. The planet has been colder, and warmer, in its past. At present it is warming. There is nothing sinister in that and in fact the temperature has been remarkably stable for as far as records go back. The issue is over the scare stories that man made CO2 is entirely responsible for the warming this time around. There is a huge amount of data to show that natural global warming causes CO2 rise, and not the other way round. Being told that scientists are not allowed to say that and that the science is settled - debate is over - isn't helpful.

All climate models over the last 20 years have been shown to be woefully inaccurate. And serious political decisions were taken based on those models predictions. The climate simply refuses to play the modellers game and stubbornly goes on it's way not warming as required. They even tried to go back to the original models knowing the results now and to tweak the parameters to learn where they went wrong. Every time they micro managed any one parameter it produced an unexpected consequence somewhere else and they were unable to make any changes to cause the model to replicate what actually happened. Eventually they gave up - saying the system was far too chaotic for a model to predict outcomes beyond a month. Despite this admission they are still paid millions to model the future and the Gov't still uses those known unreliable models to make future policy. Despite this they still chant the mantra that the science is settled and that all debate is over.



That stance is a very common one. Much like the religious one known as 'Pascal's Wager'. Basically where an athiest on his deathbed suddenly repents - just in case. He sees no downside to it. The risk of repenting and compromising his entire life's convictions are minimal and - who knows.

The problem is that the draconian measures being taken by governments - just in case - are very damaging to areas of the world where they desperately need energy to claw themselves out of their third world life. And it also enables a few to become very rich by their carbon trading schemes. Look up how much that highly vocal scare merchant Al Gore has made from such schemes.



I agree with much of this. I see no downside to a strategic move away from fossil fuel as much as possible - certainly for passenger transport. But as most is used for other essential services it will prove to be massively damaging to try to cut back from those. This will be a long term plan - many decades. Your last sentence is where I take issue.
I'm not sure I get your point. I agree that science should always be challenging itself. I don't know where you are getting your information but you are acting as if science backs your stance rather than the likelihood of catastrophic climate change.The overwhelming majority of scientific research and observed trends supports the likelihood of human induced climate change. Of course this should be challenged but to date there is not any strong evidence that this is not the case. I respect your opinion and I'm more than happy for you to continue your quest to try and disprove recognised climate change theory. However, I would rather you didn't risk the future of my children and grandchildren as well as the future of humanity just because you believe that one day we may find strong evidence that climate change is not linked to human activity.


DlTo be honest I'm staggered that we are still debating climate change. Sure theories can never be proven 100% but that is no reason to ignore it.
What we do know is this based on actual measurements so unless you are saying the people taking these measurements are lying are facts.
The earth's temperature is going up.
Our oceans have absorbed a lot of heat and are warming.
CO2 emissions are rising.
We know that CO2 and Methane are greenhouse gases.
We know that less ice, melting of permafrost and more forest fires will act as positive feedback mechanisms increasing the greenhouse gas emissions and temperatures that go with it.
We know that burning fossil fuels is releasing carbon stored over millions of years.

Now you may want to bury your heads in the sand I say. Well it might not be true science sometimes gets it wrong but as far as I can see that is a pretty irresponsible and risky position to take. There may be negative feedback loops we haven't considered and you may end up being right but I would rather not risk humanity in a hunch.

Actually as a civilisation we are more than capable of living well without fossil fuels etc. They are going to run out anyway at some point so I really see no reason why we should not move as quickly as we can away from them. We have the technology and innovation now. Let's just get on with it and accept that not doing so is at best risky, at worst completely wreck less and irresponsible.
It's because many scientists resent being labelled as 'deniers' and told that the science is settled, and not open to debate. You seem to agree that all debate must end. Being staggered that scientists wish to question the data is an odd position to take. I would have thought that a rational stance would be to examine their claims and be in a position to make an informed decision rather than be staggered that they want to explain it to you.

We all agree that the earth is warming again. The key word is 'again'. The planet has been colder, and warmer, in its past. At present it is warming. There is nothing sinister in that and in fact the temperature has been remarkably stable for as far as records go back. The issue is over the scare stories that man made CO2 is entirely responsible for the warming this time around. There is a huge amount of data to show that natural global warming causes CO2 rise, and not the other way round. Being told that scientists are not allowed to say that and that the science is settled - debate is over - isn't helpful.

All climate models over the last 20 years have been shown to be woefully inaccurate. And serious political decisions were taken based on those models predictions. The climate simply refuses to play the modellers game and stubbornly goes on it's way not warming as required. They even tried to go back to the original models knowing the results now and to tweak the parameters to learn where they went wrong. Every time they micro managed any one parameter it produced an unexpected consequence somewhere else and they were unable to make any changes to cause the model to replicate what actually happened. Eventually they gave up - saying the system was far too chaotic for a model to predict outcomes beyond a month. Despite this admission they are still paid millions to model the future and the Gov't still uses those known unreliable models to make future policy. Despite this they still chant the mantra that the science is settled and that all debate is over.



That stance is a very common one. Much like the religious one known as 'Pascal's Wager'. Basically where an athiest on his deathbed suddenly repents - just in case. He sees no downside to it. The risk of repenting and compromising his entire life's convictions are minimal and - who knows.

The problem is that the draconian measures being taken by governments - just in case - are very damaging to areas of the world where they desperately need energy to claw themselves out of their third world life. And it also enables a few to become very rich by their carbon trading schemes. Look up how much that highly vocal scare merchant Al Gore has made from such schemes.



I agree with much of this. I see no downside to a strategic move away from fossil fuel as much as possible - certainly for passenger transport. But as most is used for other essential services it will prove to be massively damaging to try to cut back from those. This will be a long term plan - many decades. Your last sentence is where I take issue.
 
#64 ·
My point is that you have been swept along by that fear induced threat to your children into acceptance of what you say is " an overwhelming majority of scientific research". Such a situation is mostly what Orwell called 'groupthink'. If you took the time to research fully you would find that such a claim dates back to a totally discredited report that 97% of climate scientists had reached a consensus. That consensus does not exist. Many scientists who were listed as part of that claimed consensus have angrily demanded that their names be removed from that list.

When the data leading to that report is properly analysed it shows a tiny number of scientists who think that humans are responsible for anything other than a miniscule contribution to climate change. This has nothing at all to do with my opinion and whether you respect that or not. The science on the claim that humans are directly responsible for climate change is far from settled as you are told by your Gov't. And fortunately we are now 20 years into the predictions of climate catastrophe and the globe refuses to comply. You will be aware that over those 20 years they have changed their stance from 'Global Warming' - to - 'Climate Change', and later have had to invent a new term called 'The Pause' in an attempt to explain why the Planet refuses to match the predictions.

We do not need to wait until "that one day we may find strong evidence that climate change is not linked to human activity". We already have that data. It is available for you to see yourself if you care to look rather than just accept what you have been told.
 
#65 ·
I am late into this debate and have skimmed the last three pages.
my view is that EV's are very much here to stay and their sales will very shortly rise exponentially.

There are a number of reasons for this.
One is that EV's do not poison the air in cities. They are ideally suited for cities as commuters are generally covering less than 20 miles a day and the electric motor is perfect for stop go driving.

They require far less servicing, especially if servicing is designed out which it is not happening at the moment to keep dealers happy. Tesla I think lead the way here.

EV's are so smooth and quiet.

Lets shout this from the roof tops and put Top Gear down. EV's are fun fun fun to drive! The most basic EV is a hot hatch at the lights.
Forget the years of negativity regarding "range anxiety".
We now have the range and can anyone tell me the last time a battery pack actually needed replacing?

A set of solar panels on a house roof can easily supply enough power for a couple of EV's. Are we really going to run out of electrons?

Compare all the above with the latest diesels. They have three or four exhaust gas treatment systems which require numerous sensors, pumps and support electronics. That is after the sensors and mechanics on the engine with regular servicing mandatory.
Diesels pollute far more when the temperature is anything below 17C. Very often in temperate climates.
Compare that with an EV which has a battery pack, inverter and motor needing no oil or filter changes and charged overnight when renewable wind energy is more prevalent.
The latest petrol engines are not much better.
Tesla are looking at their cars reaching 1,000,000 with only three or four battery pack replacements. That is with the present technology.

Yes, EV's are the future and closer than many including government realise.
 
#66 ·
Lets not get wrapped up in all this pollution/economics/tehnical arguments - of course EV's are the future, we're running out of oil remember, and when the ozone layer hole lets all the sun in, the UV is going to kill us all anyway; why does anyone believe anything scientists and governments tell us about anything FFS - but EV's are I believe just a natural progression of technology, and especially when self driving etc and car sharing is taken into account, so yes most definately the future, even if actually not for a while yet