Electric cars.

The Homebrew Forum

Help Support The Homebrew Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
No bias here. It is a genuine point . Until Electric is green then it is not green. Evs help bit are not the answer. Not until renewables ex nuclear are enough or evs are self generating. Sone ev users, not all,are so nasty in discussions like this.

I have an ev myself but i feel it takes lots more than that.

Please lets not be so accusery. It belittles us and is lazy debate

Justin - please don't try and suggest that one side of the debate is holier than thou whilst the others are slinging rocks from the mud. It doesn't matter what the topic is (EVs, politics, climate change, etc.) both sides are equally capable of playing dirty.

For what it's worth, I've tried my best to keep the discussion civil and apologise to anyone if they feel I've targeted them with any aggression.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but in a fair debate it has to be based on facts or at the very least logical reasoning. If people post misleading or false information then others have every right to challenge it. Then anyone else reading can make an informed decision of their own.
 
Last edited:
Hydrogen is the solution unfortunately it'll be many years before we see that readily available

This posted earlier in the thread shows that EV is a better alternative to Internal Combustion Engines cars while we wait many years for hydrogen.


1672497857232.png
 
Hydrogen is the solution unfortunately it'll be many years before we see that readily available
I probably mentioned it earlier in the thread but my view is that the future will see a mix of technologies based on the application.

There will be some hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, some EVs, some ICE vehicles running on synthetic fuels and quite probably some other technology we're not even aware of yet.

One of those may ultimately win out in the long run, a bit like how we've now (largely) abandoned cassettes and CDs in favour of streaming. However, it's very difficult to forecast how technology will evolve beyond the next 5-10 years and therefore, which stands the best chance of longevity.
 
No bias here. It is a genuine point . Until Electric is green then it is not green. Evs help bit are not the answer. Not until renewables ex nuclear are enough or evs are self generating. Sone ev users, not all,are so nasty in discussions like this.

I have an ev myself but i feel it takes lots more than that.

Please lets not be so accusery. It belittles us and is lazy debate

You've had it shown to you in several occasions in this thread that electricity generation can and is green for many who choose to buy an EV. You then disappear for a few pages and come back with the same drivel.
 
It's not purely a moral choice that's driving up electric vehicle ownership is it though. A large part of it is down to an expectation of lower running costs surely. Coupled with new fossil fuel ICEs coming to an end in the next decade.
 
Just because a headline says 'EVs are bad', it doesn't mean it is true.

Totally agree.

How electric is derived to charge ev's has a major impact on co2. If you are a less co2 is good kinda person.

Different parts of the world have different circumstances. Sun / Wind availability and then the question of how to store that energy.

I hope I've bought my last car - Suzuki vitara 1.4 Turbo petrol. Electric was too expensive and the infrastructure available was not sufficient for my requirements.

If I had more a larger roof and space for a nice big battery it might just be worth it.

Clearly IF there is a sea change in battery energy density/performance/cost I would reconsider. I'd imagine I have a good 10 years out of my current car by which time I may no longer be bothered/able to replace it.
 
Hydrogen is the solution unfortunately it'll be many years before we see that readily available
This posted earlier in the thread shows that EV is a better alternative to Internal Combustion Engines cars while we wait many years for hydrogen.
1672503570381.png

All these stats about reducing greenhouse gases are not solving anything. CO2 causing climate change is a manufactured problem, we are being enforced to fund a solution to a problem that doesn't exist but has been created by a billionaire hypocritical elite for the purposes of enriching themselves at tax payers expense!
 
All these stats about reducing greenhouse gases are not solving anything. CO2 causing climate change is a manufactured problem, we are being enforced to fund a solution to a problem that doesn't exist but has been created by a billionaire hypocritical elite for the purposes of enriching themselves at tax payers expense!

https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproj...9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw==#link-3f71c155
Hopefully that link goes to the correct part of the article...

Out of genuine interest, which part of what is described there do you specifically disagree with? To me it looks like a fairly sound scientific analysis of why greenhouse gases contribute to climate change.
 
All these stats about reducing greenhouse gases are not solving anything. CO2 causing climate change is a manufactured problem,

We need cars as most of us don't have an alternative means of transport if driving an EV reduces the amount of CO2 we produce by a significant amount it has to be a good thing while we wait for something better.

For example, a typical medium sized family car will create around 24 tonnes of CO2 during its life cycle
https://www.zemo.org.uk/assets/workingdocuments/MC-P-11-15a Lifecycle emissions report.pdf
 
Last edited:
Hopefully that link goes to the correct part of the article...


Thanks, an interesting read -

Here’s how it works: the planet’s temperature is basically a function of the energy the Earth absorbs from the sun (which heats it up) and the energy Earth emits to space as infrared radiation (which cools it down). Because of their molecular structure, greenhouse gases temporarily absorb some of that outgoing infrared radiation and then re-emit it in all directions, sending some of that energy back toward the surface and heating the planet. Scientists have understood this process since the 1850s.

Greenhouse gas concentrations have varied naturally in the past. Over millions of years, atmospheric CO2 levels have changed depending on how much of the gas volcanoes belched into the air and how much got removed through geologic processes. On time scales of hundreds to thousands of years, concentrations have changed as carbon has cycled between the ocean, soil and air.

Today, however, we are the ones causing CO2 levels to increase at an unprecedented pace by taking ancient carbon from geologic deposits of fossil fuels and putting it into the atmosphere when we burn them. Since 1750, carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by almost 50 percent. Methane and nitrous oxide, other important anthropogenic greenhouse gases that are released mainly by agricultural activities, have also spiked over the last 250 years.

We know based on the physics described above that this should cause the climate to warm. We also see certain telltale “fingerprints” of greenhouse warming. For example, nights are warming even faster than days because greenhouse gases don’t go away when the sun sets. And upper layers of the atmosphere have actually cooled, because more energy is being trapped by greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere.


We also know that we are the cause of rising greenhouse gas concentrations — and not just because we can measure the CO2 coming out of tailpipes and smokestacks. We can see it in the chemical signature of the carbon in CO2.

Carbon comes in three different masses: 12, 13 and 14. Things made of organic matter (including fossil fuels) tend to have relatively less carbon-13. Volcanoes tend to produce CO2 with relatively more carbon-13. And over the last century, the carbon in atmospheric CO2 has gotten lighter, pointing to an organic source.

We can tell it’s old organic matter by looking for carbon-14, which is radioactive and decays over time. Fossil fuels are too ancient to have any carbon-14 left in them, so if they were behind rising CO2 levels, you would expect the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere to drop, which is exactly what the data show.

It’s important to note that water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, it does not cause warming; instead it responds to it. That’s because warmer air holds more moisture, which creates a snowball effect in which human-caused warming allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapor and further amplifies climate change. This so-called feedback cycle has doubled the warming caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
 
Last edited:
Completely agree with what chippy says, it's physics plain and simple and anyone that thinks their 'opinion' has the same validity as the facts is an idiot.

But I still won't sell my v8 powered Volvo XC90...
Cos it's brill and sounds mega

The XC90 is a beautiful car.
 
But I still won't sell my v8 powered Volvo XC90...
Cos it's brill and sounds mega

I always wanted one of these but they are silly money, not economical and not very comfortable compared to a car, definitely a great second vehicle.


1672570516950.png
 
Last edited:
https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproj...9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw==#link-3f71c155
Hopefully that link goes to the correct part of the article...

Out of genuine interest, which part of what is described there do you specifically disagree with? To me it looks like a fairly sound scientific analysis of why greenhouse gases contribute to climate change.
Thanks for the article, I am aware of the points raised, I don't have the time to specifically answer each point, but to provide a flavour of why I am sceptical of these sorts of articles - read on:

Because there is no consensus agreement on 'the science' outside of governments, government sponsored organisations and global institutions (and by default mainstream media), then alternative media provides the source of balance, the antithesis to the mainstream consensus. From this balance can critical thinking be applied and an objective viewpoint formed.

There are many mainstream and alternative sources I have critically listened to over a number of years, some appear wacky (on both sides of the debate) with little in the way of supporting evidence and others appear to be well informed and well sourced.

To people who are fully embedded into mainstream thinking (this is a deep and complex subject in itself) any alternative source of information will feel edgy and a challenge to their paradigm. Any source of information I present to counter a New York Times article will fall into this category.

The best alternative response I feel I can provide that provides fully sourced material is The Corbett Report, the investigative journalist James Corbett's presentation style is humorous and his information is fully sourced in the show notes for those that want to delve deeper. As I've mentioned in a previous post he has a large back catalogue stretching back over a decade covering not just climate change but a whole range of geopolitical subjects which make for interesting listening.

From his array of climate change reports, maybe the manipulated data one is a good start, but there are many others that you could start with:

https://www.corbettreport.com/big-brother-science-temperature-adjustments-and-climate-change/
and a search on the website for climate change lists at least a page worth of reports:

https://www.corbettreport.com/?s=climate+change
 
Lets take this back 316 posts - (post #1 below)

The discussion started with a suggestion that we don't have enough electricity keep all the new EV's that are now being sold charged, as this thread has proved we have enough now and will have in the future the lights are not going to go out!


People just don’t think about, or care about consequences, bit like people running about buying electric cars and wondering why we haven’t got enough electric left 🤷‍♂️
Myth. Most EV charging is done off peak.
Polcho - On peak, off peak, when it’s gone it’s gone. When the lights go out it will be time to reflect on the wisdom of all this.
 
Fascinating debate on electric cars

Science done properly is the least incorrect understanding of our world. Like Newton was 'less wrong' than the previous theory until the next 'even less incorrect' theory came along courtesy of Mr. Einstein. We are reducing the uncertainty over time. Like the response to covid changed some of the change was due to improved data but some was due to politics.

I recall that the UK alcohol advisory committee didn't have the data it needed to set a limit on safe drinking. The argument is you can't say we don't know and then have an epidemic of future liver failure, so they came up with a guess that became advice. Just like 5 a day for fruit and veg where the data showed it should be 10 a day. how many stop when they get to 5 and think they're all sorted?

These are 2 examples of why I am suspicious of what narratives are out there. They are bad science masquerading as proper science and well most people don't even notice or care.

At least the chair of the Alcohol advisory committee resigned in protest - so there are good principled people still around and being honest.

co2 is great for plants, and well we're being told to eat more plants. climate is very complex how arrogant it is for us as a species to believe we are the first to crack it.

I always try to remember that if the human brain was simple enough to understand, we'd be to simple to understand it.
 
Science done properly is the least incorrect understanding of our world. Like Newton was 'less wrong' than the previous theory until the next 'even less incorrect' theory came along courtesy of Mr. Einstein. We are reducing the uncertainty over time. Like the response to covid changed some of the change was due to improved data but some was due to politics.

I recall that the UK alcohol advisory committee didn't have the data it needed to set a limit on safe drinking. The argument is you can't say we don't know and then have an epidemic of future liver failure, so they came up with a guess that became advice. Just like 5 a day for fruit and veg where the data showed it should be 10 a day. how many stop when they get to 5 and think they're all sorted?

These are 2 examples of why I am suspicious of what narratives are out there. They are bad science masquerading as proper science and well most people don't even notice or care.
You chose poor examples. For nearly everything we do Newtonian mechanics is still valid. We will never use quantum mechanics to crack a nut.
Medicine is an inexact science. Some people can take their drink, others can't. Can I drink 5 a day of dad_of_jon's ale or 10 Heinekens?
 
Last edited:
This is a good watch, and the main reason i don't want one

I stopped watching at the point he says if the other 5 houses in his estate were to get 7kw wall chargers it would put a huge demand on the supply to his house :rolleyes:

To discuss his other points, obviously charging from home is the best solution but the problem with videos like this is they never discuss the options you will soon have (see below) if you don't have home charging, the vast majority of us wont charge our cars like we do out phones we will charge as its needed not every day, i could probably get a fortnights motoring out of a single charge if i wasn't making any journeys i don't normally make and i imagine the vast majority of us are in the same boat.

Drivers who do huge mileages obviously wont be thinking of buying an EV until the range increases significantly.

 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top