Green Energy/Climate Change/Sustainability

Quote by ElCoco

I’m not sure what revolution Ford’s EV battery plant was supposed to start, but it’s a step back for US EV efforts. (embedded links!)

Future of $3.5 billion factory uncertain after Ford pauses revolutionary project: ‘There are a number of considerations’

Battery technology is changing fast, using different materials, designs, and chemistry. By the time they get the product to market, it will likely be obsolete. Development of the new solid-state and non-lithium battery tech will be a game-changer, and will require massive re-investment by many of the auto makers as it moves along the next 10-15 years. Right now it's all about getting the free "green energy" money and tax credits flying around.

Quote by Magical_felix

Go to a mall or an amusement park in America then tell me if you think more bike lanes or a bicycle highway would work here.

Be serious.

Bicycle highways probably not. Biker lanes might, in the end, but it would probably require a culture shift. The thing is that more people will probably use their bikes if it's safer/easier to get around on a bike. And the more people who use a bike, the more people will get used to the idea. It's not something that you can just switch on. A bicycle culture has to grow, and it can use some stimulation. Bike lanes can be part of that.

Quote by noll

Bike lanes...

There are bike lanes here. Part of the problem in the US, though, is the way that towns have been designed - that is, for cars. Most Americans have to travel miles just to pick up things like milk or bread (not to mention MF's gallons of mayo). It's not a simple matter of diverting some of the roadways to bike traffic. We need better cities and urban planning in general to make bicycle transportation even remotely feasible (and that's before you even begin to address cultural resistance and backlash).

Quote by Just_A_Guy_You_Know

There are bike lanes here. Part of the problem in the US, though, is the way that towns have been designed - that is, for cars. Most Americans have to travel miles just to pick up things like milk or bread (not to mention MF's gallons of mayo). It's not a simple matter of diverting some of the roadways to bike traffic. We need better cities and urban planning in general to make bicycle transportation even remotely feasible (and that's before you even begin to address cultural resistance and backlash).

When Maui was on fire part of the right wing’s conspiracy theory was that it was to make way to build a woke walkable city… walking is woke.

Quote by Just_A_Guy_You_Know

There are bike lanes here. Part of the problem in the US, though, is the way that towns have been designed - that is, for cars. Most Americans have to travel miles just to pick up things like milk or bread (not to mention MF's gallons of mayo). It's not a simple matter of diverting some of the roadways to bike traffic. We need better cities and urban planning in general to make bicycle transportation even remotely feasible (and that's before you even begin to address cultural resistance and backlash).

True, but you've got to start somewhere. Merely pointing to the hurdles will certainly not make it happen, and postponing the start of any transition will only make it harder in the end.
Perhaps you'd have to start in new parts of town. Making sure people can easily get to public transport hubs and local shopping areas on their bike.

Quote by Chryses

Statistics Norway, the government agency that produces official statistics for that country, released a report last month titled “To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?” The report concludes:

 In other words, the results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2.

It's worth noting that this isn't a report. It's not an article. It's not a publication. It's a discussion paper (different level of credibility in the world of research) that hasn't even been peer reviewed (which again, if your findings aren't peer-reviewed, they're worthless and are not credible). Neither of the authors have PhDs. One of them is an engineer, and the other, while affiliated with the National Bureau of Statistics, the research director at said bureau has stated that the conclusions reached in this discussion paper do not reflect the bureau's views on climate change. This isn't even a scientific manuscript.

Now let's get into this discussion. The authors regurgitate several points from "The Cold Sun" written by Fritz Vahrenholt, a German ex-politician, in 2012. In said book, he posited that the solar cycle determines the climate of the planet. The book was debunked due to a biased presentation of the included literature, which was misquoted by Vahrenholt. He infamously predicted/concluded in his book that global temperatures would plummet in 2020 and continue to do so. Which we all know isn't the case. The authors in the discussion you've included above disingenuously excluded this while centering Vahrenholt's work in their discussion. Even their title question is "To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?" yet their statistical model doesn't even include any data related to greenhouse gases, lol.

More info found here. Before this information is dismissed as being just a blog post, keep in mind that because the original work posted is a non-peer-reviewed discussion paper, the blog post is actually more credible. Again, lol.

Quote by Dani

It's worth noting that this isn't a report. It's not an article. It's not a publication. It's a discussion paper (different level of credibility in the world of research) that hasn't even been peer reviewed (which again, if your findings aren't peer-reviewed, they're worthless and are not credible). Neither of the authors have PhDs. One of them is an engineer, and the other, while affiliated with the National Bureau of Statistics, the research director at said bureau has stated that the conclusions reached in this discussion paper do not reflect the bureau's views on climate change. This isn't even a scientific manuscript.

Now let's get into this discussion. The authors regurgitate several points from "The Cold Sun" written by Fritz Vahrenholt, a German ex-politician, in 2012. In said book, he posited that the solar cycle determines the climate of the planet. The book was debunked due to a biased presentation of the included literature, which was misquoted by Vahrenholt. He infamously predicted/concluded in his book that global temperatures would plummet in 2020 and continue to do so. Which we all know isn't the case. The authors in the discussion you've included above disingenuously excluded this while centering Vahrenholt's work in their discussion. Even their title question is "To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?" yet their statistical model doesn't even include any data related to greenhouse gases, lol.

More info found here. Before this information is dismissed as being just a blog post, keep in mind that because the original work posted is a non-peer-reviewed discussion paper, the blog post is actually more credible. Again, lol.

There are few things sexier than someone who reads the paper and checks the research.

Quote by Chryses

Some people react strongly to contradictory reports.

This statement would hold true if I were reacting to a report (or if I were reacting at all since disputing content with facts isn’t the same as reacting). But since it was a non-credible discussion paper, your point, much like the poorly-researched and intentionally misleading discussion you introduced to this conversation, is moot.

With this all being said, I accept that since facts are not on your side, you’ve lowered yourself to diminishing my fact-based response to a mere reaction. Pathetic, but par for the course for the likes of you. Cheers.

Quote by Chryses

That is unnecessary. If the data and the analysis are valid, there is no need for a provocative title. Let the thing speak for itself. Note that the criticism has focused on people and social conventions, not the data or the analysis.

edited

Nah, there was criticism of the data as well. What’s notable is titling a discussion paper “To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?” and then not including any data about greenhouse gas emissions in the statistical model…you know, the standard by which data is collected and analyzed.

Quote by Chryses

That is unnecessary. If the data and the analysis are valid, there is no need for a provocative title. Let the thing speak for itself. Note that the criticism has focused on people and social conventions, not the data or the analysis.

edited

Can’t argue against facts when facts aren’t presented. Although the source of the discussion piece was thoroughly disemboweled in this discussion already. Considering how you have yet to even talk about or examine the data with what you’ve said, once again you’ve proven your debate skills are various flavors of ‘nuh-uh’. My eight year old does a better job of supporting his position than you.

Quote by Chryses

That is unnecessary. If the data and the analysis are valid, there is no need for a provocative title. Let the thing speak for itself. Note that the criticism has focused on people and social conventions, not the data or the analysis.

edited

Data and analysis? Did you post any?

Quote by Chryses

The BBC recently posted a thoughtful article about why the U.S. has been slow to adopt EVs. For those who are interested, I think you will find it is worth the time to read.

Three big reasons Americans haven’t rapidly adopted EVs

Article fails to address the massive propaganda campaigns spanning decades paid for by the automotive and oil industries.

I’ve seen plenty of people on this thread who are still taken in by the lies and misinformation used to downplay the climate chaos that we are experiencing.

Americans depend on automobiles for high mileage travel, long distances, and durability. So, once auto manufacturers provide much improved EVs that meet those demands, and at affordable prices, the product will becone popular.

So far, EVs suck at that. While they're good for urban use, they have yet need to meet the distance and years of durability needs. Also, charging infrastructure must be implemented for long distance rural travel. It is a long way between cities in the USA.

Plus, battery renewability abd storage is currently inadequate.

So, Americans are waiting for improved versions at better prices. Once that happens, EVs will sell like crazy.

I do enjoy riding around my property in my battery powered golf cart.

Quote by Buz

Americans depend on automobiles for high mileage travel, long distances, and durability. So, once auto manufacturers provide much improved EVs that meet those demands, and at affordable prices, the product will becone popular.

So far, EVs suck at that. While they're good for urban use, they have yet need to meet the distance and years of durability needs. Also, charging infrastructure must be implemented for long distance rural travel. It is a long way between cities in the USA.

Plus, battery renewability abd storage is currently inadequate.

So, Americans are waiting for improved versions at better prices. Once that happens, EVs will sell like crazy.

I do enjoy riding around my property in my battery powered golf cart.

They're pretty popular in Norway, a country where cities are also far apart.

Quote by noll

They're pretty popular in Norway, a country where cities are also far apart.

Are you having a laugh?

Quote by Magical_felix

Are you having a laugh?

LOL, now I am 😄 I didn't say Norway was as big as the US, just that its cities tend to be far apart too.

Like, put Norway over the East Coast and then compare how many US cities it covers with the number of cities there are in Norway. Or better (as in fairer): put Norway's southern tip somewhere on the East Coast and point its northern tip towards the Midwest and do the comparison.

Quote by ElCoco

So far, no good. The world briefly smashed through the 2-degree warming limit for the first time The current approach continues to fail.

Do you have any ideas for an alternative approach? Any viable suggestions? Any stray thoughts wafting through that breezy cranium of yours? Or are you some mindless propaganda-bot only capable of making stupidly obvious statements and reposting links without adding anything to them? So many of your posts here are like beach balls: entirely pointless and totally hollow. If you feel the need to clutter up this forum, is it too much to ask for a little actual thought in the Think Tank?

Quote by Just_A_Guy_You_Know

Do you have any ideas for an alternative approach? Any viable suggestions? Any stray thoughts wafting through that breezy cranium of yours? Or are you some mindless propaganda-bot only capable of making stupidly obvious statements and reposting links without adding anything to them? So many of your posts here are like beach balls: entirely pointless and totally hollow. If you feel the need to clutter up this forum, is it too much to ask for a little actual thought in the Think Tank?

He likes being ambiguously right wing and claiming he isn't to be annoying and get attention. He's been like that for years. Not allowed to call him an idiot and watch him explode anymore so now you get this... Him just posting his links and a vague troll comment.

Quote by Magical_felix
Not allowed to call him an idiot and watch him explode anymore so now you get this... Him just posting his links and a vague troll comment.

I'm gonna regret saying this (because you make me regret most things where you're concerned), but you actually can call him or anyone for that matter (and vice versa) an idiot in the Think Tank. It just has to be on topic, and also show some fucking restraint because you take shit way too far sometimes Jack, you fucking asshole. /end rant

If one wants their sensibilities protected, they should venture into another part of the forums.

Quote by Ironic
People can’t do that now without being wrongly called a climate denier.

As evidenced by?

Saying policies to correct/prevent the damages caused by climate change haven't been effective isn't the same as being a climate denier, and you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find any rational human beings who believe otherwise.

There are, however, people who imply that efforts to address climate change are ineffective because climate change isn't real. They do so in the forums by repeatedly post links about such failed policies and other anomalies to bolster these implications instead of stating their actual stance on climate change. Because they're cowards.

Quote by Ironic

The "no pics didn't happen" defense. I've been around long enough to have read the accusations. I've been around long enough to read the accusations.

You're not talking about me then, for you know I've never said or suggested climate change isn't real.

It's true the current policies have been and are ineffective.

Exactly. No evidence. I thought as much. However, this is pretty rich coming from you, someone who constantly demands evidence when your "stance" is challenged, and then runs away when someone provides it. LOL.

As to your second sentence, "If it don't apply, let it fly." As to your third sentence, there's more nuance to it than that. They have the power to be effective, however most of them require the biggest contributors to climate change to relinquish their greed, and politicians with a backbone.

Quote by Ironic

You complain when the evidence is provided in links and complain when it isn't

You quoted my post. You replied to me.

Say whatever you want; the current policies have been and are ineffective.

Nah. I only dislike links submitted with little to no context because people are too afraid to say things with their chests, no less in such a low-stakes environment such as a forum on a sex site. Especially when said links are less than reputable, and aren't honest enough to state why the policies are ineffective (as it pertains to climate change).

I replied to you, I spoke in general. Again, if it doesn't apply to you, by all means dismiss it.

I do say what I want, which is that current climate change policies are ineffective due to corporate greed and the politicians they own. You can ignore nuance all you want, because I know doing so is required for someone who thinks like you, and I accept this. We can end this conversation now. We both know you don't have the range. Cheers.

Quote by noll

LOL, now I am 😄 I didn't say Norway was as big as the US, just that its cities tend to be far apart too.

Like, put Norway over the East Coast and then compare how many US cities it covers with the number of cities there are in Norway. Or better (as in fairer): put Norway's southern tip somewhere on the East Coast and point its northern tip towards the Midwest and do the comparison.

How many Norways can you fit into the Lower 48. How many would fit in Alaska (not shown).

As for EVs, we'll see much progress in the next 10 years in their development. The prices should become more affordable, and there will be a major development across the USA and Canada in charging stations.

But l hope you all do know that China is the major polluter, as well as developing third world countries and Russia.

Japan got a late start toward green-clean, but is well on its way now. Just a few years ago US merchant seaman would see massive amounts if plastic in the ocean as they approached Japan's coasts. That is now cleaned up, but still a horrendous problem in southeast Asia, the coast of China, and in the lndian ocean.

Quote by Buz

How many Norways can you fit into the Lower 48. How many would fit in Alaska (not shown).

How many Americans drive all over the Lower 48 or Alaska so regularly that they base their choice for a certain car on that?
It's not about how big a country is, it's about what are people's regular driving distances.

But l hope you all do know that China is the major polluter, as well as developing third world countries and Russia.

The US was the second biggest polluter regarding CO2 world wide in 2022, and the biggest by far historically. 12.6% of global CO2 emissions in 2022 were from the US, which has 'only' 4.1% of the world's population. That's more than a factor 3.

34.9% of global CO2 emissions in 2022 where China's, the biggest polluter in that regard, which has 17.5% of the world's population (factor 2).

India: 7% of global CO2 emissions, 17.2% of global population (factor 0.4).

EU: 7.3% of global CO2 emissions, 5.6% of global population (factor 1.3).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population
Population EU (448,387,872): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union

Japan got a late start toward green-clean, but is well on its way now. Just a few years ago US merchant seaman would see massive amounts if plastic in the ocean as they approached Japan's coasts. That is now cleaned up, but still a horrendous problem in southeast Asia, the coast of China, and in the lndian ocean.

Plastic soup is a big problem, but I'm not sure how it relates to green or non-green energy.

Quote by Chryses

The greenhouse effect is caused by the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (ppm), not its country of origin or its "emission intensity/carbon intensity" (the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions produced to gross domestic product).

edited

Duh

Quote by noll

Plastic soup is a big problem, but I'm not sure how it relates to green or non-green energy.

Through its' manufacture and detrimental impact on the planet. Have you ever thought of how many plastic components are used in the production of energy, and products that use energy? As carbon dioxide is a major earth pollutant, it is accompanied by plastic production and waste, of which a major component is oil.

Quote by Buz

Through its' manufacture and detrimental impact on the planet. Have you ever thought of how many plastic components are used in the production of energy, and products that use energy? As carbon dioxide is a major earth pollutant, it is accompanied by plastic production and waste, of which a major component is oil.

Do you have evidence that green energy involves less plastics than non-green energy? Because the fact that both plastics and fossil fuels are made of oil by itself doesn't automatically make plastic soup specifically related to the discussion about green energy.

Quote by ElCoco

Building EVs consumes so much more resources than ICE cars that they're only better for the environment than ICE cars if the EVs are driven more than 50,000 miles. If you'd like to learn more, message me for the links.

That may be an interesting fact for an individual EV owner, but not so much for knowing whether EVs are better for the environment in general.

Like what percentage of cars are not driven beyond 50k miles? And what would the average mileage have to be for EVs in general to be better for the environment?

Quote by noll

Do you have evidence that green energy involves less plastics than non-green energy? Because the fact that both plastics and fossil fuels are made of oil by itself doesn't automatically make plastic soup specifically related to the discussion about green energy.

Noll, what in the HELL are you talking about? I NEVER said either green or fossil fuel used more plastics. Sometimes you act like a duck just to be a duck. You'd argue with a fence post.

Both sources use plastic. Try and imagine electrical wiring and batteries without plastic wrap and encasements...

And the amount of plastics used in both EV engines and petro engines, as well as the vehicles themselves. Purchase a Tesla! It is easily one of the most plastic automobiles made.

Check out your phone and/or computer for how much plastic is involved as well as rare elements. Geez!

Quote by Buz

Noll, what in the HELL are you talking about? I NEVER said either green or fossil fuel used more plastics. Sometimes you act like a duck just to be a duck. You'd argue with a fence post.

Both sources use plastic. Try and imagine electrical wiring and batteries without plastic wrap and encasements...

And the amount of plastics used in both EV engines and petro engines, as well as the vehicles themselves. Purchase a Tesla! It is easily one of the most plastic automobiles made.

Check out your phone and/or computer for how much plastic is involved as well as rare elements. Geez!

No, you didn't say that indeed, and I never said you did. You brought up plastics in a discussion about energy related pollution, which seemed to suggest that you were saying that the amount of pollution by plastics is related to what type of energy we use. So that's why I asked.

If that's not what you were suggesting, as seems to be the case, then I wonder why you brought up plastics in the first place. So let me return the question: Buz, what the HELL were you talking about? I explained my reason, maybe you can explain yours.