EVs are NOT the answer to save this planet!
 

I came across this video and I HATE how EVs are being pushed upon us to fix our climate crisis!

So what's your solution?

I could pick this apart forever, but I can't be arsed to be honest, so I'll just pick one of his "arguments' as an example:

"EVs are using 'dirty' fossil fuel sources for electricity, so are as dirty as petrol/diesel anyway" Not so, for at least two main reasons:

1) the energy efficiency/conversion costs to get this 'fuel' (EV or ICE) to the point of use is much worse for ICE fuel sources than for EVs (see other threads on this forum about that....) and

2) More and more electricity is sourced from clean energy - and increasingly at a cheaper price than the fossil fuel alternative, so this 'argument' from him is becoming more untrue every day.

Honestly, this really is not worth watching - or certainly not believing, if you have any sense.

I've not even watched it, as I feared it would be full of bull.

Tintin has summed up the big points there. The ICE conversion of fossil fuel to forward motion results in a wasteful creation of heat that is just dissipated into the atmosphere. This, for a start doesnt happen in a controlled power station environment, but yes, the power used to charge EV's might come from fossil fuel, but it absolutely has the potential to come from solar, wind, nuclear and many others, where an ICE never can.

But honestly, forget the planet saving stuff. I still love a V8, im not about to start hugging trees.

The brutal acceleration, lack of messy expensive servicing and not having to drive out of my way to go to a special shop to buy fuel for my car - Those are my top 3 reasons for driving an EV.

I don't have a solution. Why not create an alternative fuel that doesn't pollute?

So destroying the planet by mining for the materials needed for the EV batteries is good?

Article of environmental impact of a battery

No more destructive than any other form of mining - and an EV battery has useful second life use - which is not the case with a V8 ;)

I have some good news to share. There is an alternative fuel that doesn't pollute.
Sadly (from your perspective) that non polluting alternative fuel is electricity ;)

Electricity doesn't deliver the visceral joy of a bellowing ICE, but if loosing that leaves the world a cleaner place for our future generations, I think its a price worth paying.

Well there are synthetic fuels being developed and can almost be deemed carbon neutral as they aren't always releasing new carbon into the atmosphere.

https://synhelion.com/news/synthetic-fuels-explained#:~:text=What%20are%20synthetic%20fuels%3 F,used%20all%20around%20the%20world.

Not sure what the future will end up being but currently battery seems to be the focus, recycling these will be the key and making sure they can be.

Broken link? (for me, anyway..:rolleyes:)

The Tesla's latest 4680 structural battery packs are filled with foam, probably polyurethane. Really hard to dismantle and recycle by traditional means and to reuse bits of it and it would be very work intensive. Their idea for recycling is dip it in liquid nitrogen to cool down, stop chemical reactions and make it britlle, then put it in giant grinder to grind it it tiny pieces. Then use vibrating machine so that heavier particles go to bottom and lightest to the top, then separate and you get something similar to high quality mined ore.

F1 have/are developing bio fuels which will hopefully be a decent alternative. It will not just be for the cars but also aviation fuel for travelling and transporting stuff. Should eventually filter down to road cars

By which time such cars will no longer be allowed to be sold, so there will be no market for them.

All of the traditional ICE makers are (belatedly...) following Tesla's lead, and transitioning to EV only vehicle platforms. They're not going to then rebuild their supply chain and manufacturing base to support liquid bio fuels, so IMHO that's a non-starter.

I agree that EV's are not the answer to saving the planet, but maybe a part way step to slowing 'global warming' as when you look at the emissions they create (based on how the energy conversion is sourced - Coal, Nuclear, Wind, Solar) per mile travelled it is certainly a lot less (and possibly net zero) than an equivalent ICE vehicle.

Though safe in the knowledge of 'doing your bit' to meet the 'net zero' target, most people conveniently forget the environmental cost impacts on mining of precious, not so precious elements and the energy required to convert these to the sum of all the parts of the comfy EV motor that they are currently cocooned in. Same to be said for any manufactured vehicle whether EV or ICE. Want to save the planet? Walk.

At least you could say EV's have less of an environmental impact over a given time after manufacture compared to ICE. It would also be interesting to see how 'recyclable' an EV is over an ICE vehicle.

The hunt/development of alternative fuels for ICE based vehicles is still ongoing and still needs to be, and although some countries around the world have signed up to the 'Green Mission' there is still a lot of lip service paid to these goals. Whilst our myopic focus is on the UK or the 'West' not every country has the infrastructure or finances to drive this agenda now or possibly in the next ten years at least, look at some of the poorest nations of this world.

EV's are another 'cleaner' form of tootling along the highways and byways of the land. Be happy with that. As for me, I am happy that more and more people are switching to EV technology and more than happy to be pacing along with an EV in my V8 as my piety leads me to believe they are contributing to offsetting my impact on the environment. Smug smiles all round.:D:D:D:D:D

Revised link that works
 

Web link now demunged:

https://synhelion.com/news/synthetic-fuels-explained

There's really no need to save the Planet- it's not in danger- thankfully.

Some facts:
97% of Greenhouse gasses are natural- the Anthropogenic component is therefore 3%.
Of which the UK produces circa 1%. So, if the UK goes 'Net zero', the best reduction we could hope for is 1% of that 3% (0.03%). Not 1% of it all.

There's been practically no warming since 2000- despite what you read. Google it if you like.

There was a rapid rise-about 0.6-0.8C in the period 1975-2000, and this triggered the whole AGW thing- but it's stopped.

Of the observed 0.6-0.8C , nobody knows how much would have happened anyway, and how much was us. As we continue to emerge from an Ice age, some warming must be expected, so it may even ALL have been natural.

CO2 levels today are 440ppm. Plants die if it goes below 160ppm. Farmers keep greenhouses at 1200ppm- if they add even more CO2, plants do even better, but it gets expensive, so 1200ppm, 3 times todays level, is optimum.

Get an EV if you like- but I don't see us all getting one anytime soon- I'll be keeping me S8 (and Tiger).

Happy New Year, and don't let the alarmists worry you!:ROFL:

Links as evidential support to your statements above would make your post more credible - otherwise it's a bit like Trump saying he had nothing to hide with his tax returns ;)

As Tintin says, links to wherever you're getting your data will provide an opportunity to assess this issue for ourselves. Otherwise its just one person's word against (some very qualified) other person's words.

Earth is in danger of course: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-sun-wo...ion-years.html

I'm not trying to convince you guys, but things are as I posted.

There is no climate emergency, or anything like it- the whole eco-thing is like a new religion.

The things I pointed out are not at all controversial- it's just that most people who support the idea that we control the climate have literally no idea what they are talking about.

It has warmed a little, but not much.

It does that here.

I suppose saying nothing has changed since 2000, could do with backing up, so try this link.

https://www.google.com/search?client...+close+to+zero

I find it odd that even when someone provides a link to an official government website, it gets laughed at, because it doesn't go with the trend of "climate change/global warming" and mans destruction of the Earth. After all, government bodies always tell the truth... don't they!

Take two examples:
1. The current weather being experienced in the USA. A sure sign of man's interference in global weather! And yet they experienced something very similar in the 1970s.
2. The little ice age between the 14th and 19th centuries. A sure sign of man's interference! Are we supposed to them believe that we did something about it changed the weather.

Global weather patterns have been changing for thousands upon thousands of years, and will continue to do so. The only difference is that governments and the media continue this incessant fearmongering of doom and gloom, and a perfect example of this is the following list (not all weather related). It's not from an official government source, but all the sources are linked:

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-ye...erts-are-0-50/

Hmm, thanks Sean - a one minute Google search confirms that AEI is funded by the sorts of (mainly US...) corporate supporters who have a financial interest in debunking climate change, so I for one would take anything from them with a Very Large Pinch Of Salt. A bit like trusting anything that has Koch involved with it :(

tintin
I came across that website I linked to when I was trying to find out how much it has warmed since about 2000.
It caught my interest, but despite much clattering away at my keyboard, I've yet to discover the answer, although it is, I think practically zero.

I see I've not convinced you, so could you please try to find out how much it's warmed over the last 23 years or so- during which CO2 levels have continued increasing?

I don't mean vague platitudes like 'warmest July for decades' etc, but an actual number, in degrees.

Anyone know the answer?

Fair comment. And there are likely to be just as many who have a financial interest in pushing the climate change agenda, or for that matter, other agendas.

Google is your friend, I'm not interested in doing this for you, sorry...

No worries tin-tin, and Happy New Year to all.

I can tell you because I've googled it to death, that there is NO figure for it.

And the reason for that, is it hasn't warmed since 1998

You are, of course welcome to spend 2023 (or as long as you feel like it) worrying about AGW, paying extra taxes, gradually losing hard won freedoms- like in Oxford- but I think the penny is starting to drop, with some of us anyway.

Let's face it- if you hadn't been told about Global Warming, you'd have noticed nothing.

For my twopenneth worth. The climate is changing. It has done so for millennia out of hand. It will do untill the sun becomes a red giant and consumes all the inner planets.
It will be globally warmer and globally colder than it is now.

We should all be asking what are the plans to deal with the consequences of the changes that are going to happen.

One third of the worlds population lives on the coast or on rivers that, should all the ice melt, will be 65 meters below sea level.
If the gulf stream is driven south by an increase in fresh water melt from the polar ice cap, the climate in the UK will be the same as Northern Canada. Poler bears in Yorkshire anyone?
Just about all of the evidence presented by people and organisations with credibility is refuted by others with credibility.

As a fully paid up cynic; I note that a lot of people are getting rich out of climate change.

It's not how we stop change. We can't. We may slow it a bit, but it will change. It wil be how we deal with the change.

I've bought a house on a hill. :eek:

Well EV's are not the answer to save the planet. The whole increased growth strategy is doomed as population increases and everybody wants more. There are finite resources on earth, only way to survival is to get off this rock in long term but in short to mid-term we need to try and limit the damage while we develop technology to spread in space.

I take the whole CO2 and climate change thing with a pinch of salt. The climate has been changing and it will be changing on it's own all the time. Humans do have an input in it but a I am not sure how much. For all I know there could be another Ice age and everybody will be grateful we warmed up planet a bit so it's a bit less severe. With all the supercomputers and everything they cannot produce a reliable weather forecast couple of weeks in future so why would I believe they can get reliable forecast on global warming.

But forget CO2, there are other more certain things with burning fossil fuels like soot, particulate matter, NxOy, SxOy and other pollution. Even if you keep burning fossil fuels to generate electricity to charge your EV there is a difference in burning it in city centre with lot of population where all inhabitants inhale or moving it to power plant in middle of nowhere where it will get dispersed and diluted before reaching anybody. Yest, it's still pollution and it may affect wildlife but at least it's a stop gap measure . And yes, mining materials for EVs also cause pollution and damage and it is just a next step, it's not necessarily a solution.

You could say I am biased because I have bought Tesla myself but to be honest environmental concerns was a minor part of my decision. My next target car was C6 A6 diesel quattro estate for about £3-4k and when I started the search I would have never thought I will ever be buying a car for £30k+. But after 10+ months searching an widening my horizons I could not find a car that I would be happy with for the price I was prepared to pay. I went as high as £12k for A6 Allroad Biturbo. But then I started to put the whole ownership numbers together and realised that over 10 previous years I have spent about £30k in diesel for my £2200 A6 C5 diesel. And while I looked at different EVs including brand new ones the only choice for me at the end was Model S old enough to qualify for free supercharging. Back then electricity was still cheap and while I expected prices to go up I did not expect them to go up so quickly.

I mostly used free superchargers, free charging at Tesco or Rushden lakes and in 1st year of ownership doing £18k miles I saved about £4.8k in diesel costs and only paid about £60 when giving a little top up charge at home.

So while my decision to get Tesla was purely economical it does make me feel better about myself and hopefully for my kids when I drive in town or city centre by knowing that while I might have not have reduced total emissions or environmental damage , I still have improved it a tiny bit for some people.

Wise choice, but I did not quite go to top of hill. I avoided low local elevation to exclude flooding but I also stayed away from top of hills to avoid wind

great reading and very interesting comments, But
 

the only thing that bothers me and God forbid i do hope it never happens.

an electric car Motorway Pile Up.
were fires cant be put out and families burn to death in their electric cars.

sadly or not im starting to fancy an EV myself but im waitng for an alternative.

Happy New Year to yoy All. :mexicanwave:

Climate Change
 

Here's an interesting (to me) link on the interesting website dailysceptic.org:

"There's is no climate change emergency"

And another website that I find interesting to digest is expose-news.com.
They often like to provide a statistical analysis on official data, whilst backing up their claims, findings and opinions with links to official governmental and institutional sites.
A typical article on climate change psychology is here for example:

"Covid PsyOps Are Now Being Used for Climate Change"

I encourage anyone to read the many interesting articles on such sites to see what alternative views are out there. You may not believe them. They may not fit in with your view of the world. They may not even be true!
But no matter what you think about "climate change deniers", "anti-vaxxers", "conspiracy theorists" or any other term that has been woven into our vernacular to deliberately belittle others who oppose a governmental narrative, I encourage you to ask yourself the question "why aren't these topics/views/official data/statistics/scientific facts from experts etc. debated or challenged in detail on the sites, channels or newspapers that I use to form my own opinions?".
You may come to the conclusion that it's because it's all BS.
Or you may come to the conclusion that it's rather odd that you've not heard of such opinions in detail before. Like someone is keeping something from you.
Who knows how you interpret it. It's a rhetorical question anyway.

I've no interest in debating or trying to change anyone's opinion on climate change or any other of the divisive topics in today's society.
But I will say that after many years of looking at (what I believe to be) both sides of the fence, I'm confident that the majority of the population, with their reliance on the typical TV news and so-called newspapers, are blissfully unaware of what's really going on in the world. Just an opinion.

And I'm sorry to say that Google isn't your friend. And hasn't been for a very long time.
None of the major tech platforms are. Read about the Twitter Files (or maybe you haven't)?
During the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Sustainable Development Impact Meetings recently, the unelected globalists held a panel on “Tackling Disinformation” where participants from the UN, CNN, and Brown University discussed how to best control narratives.

Melissa Fleming, Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications at the United Nations, highlighted that the UN had partnered with several big tech companies, including TikTok and Google, to control COVID and climate narratives while claiming, “We own the science.”

“We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and the platforms themselves also do” — Melissa Fleming

See it, with opinion, here
Is that what you want when you search for something? Collusion to shape your thoughts?
Do you want to search for something or someone controversial only to be inundated with negative hit-pieces or so-called Fact Checkers trying to suspiciously debunk or obfuscate what you're trying to do a deep-dive on?
Or would you rather have the opportunity to make your own mind up on a topic where there's controversy and opposing views AND data from credible sources?

Please don't think that a quick trip to Wikipedia is going to allow you to get to the bottom of things either. You may find the same shenanigans going down over there. I've seen it with my own eyes when a healthy, positive article on a scientist turned toxic just before the tiny little padlock closed on the "edit button" at the top of the article.

"Trust No One" to coin a phrase from The X-Files (especially if they've received funding or a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Oops... I've let slip a personal opinion there).

Thanks Dean.
Two very interesting articles which, if nothing else, show that there is more than one viewpoint held by eminent scientists- and also that there is a big dollop of politics mixed in with the science.

One observation of my own is that the most strident supporters of 'the climate crisis/ emergency' tend to be those who know absolutely nothing about it.

Very nicely and calmly put Dean.
I welcome your input.
I'm just an ancient old fogey but remember during the Second World War we were taught at school that we were slowly recovering from the last Ice Age and the world would become a little warmer over the years but after peaking (way after my time remit) it would start to cool down again.
This is the life of our wonderful rock and will continue even after you have all passed into oblivion.
Honestly, I don't care anymore. I am just carrying on doing it my way.
Basically I love my A8, shame I can't really afford it.

An excellent post Dean. I'm glad someone else also shares my opinion of the MSM and big tech. The vast majority of people are content to accept whatever the MSM say, and wouldn't question the ethics of big tech. If the BBC said in the news every day repeatedly that the national animals of Scotland and Wales were real, people would believe them. In terms of big tech, even Zuckerberg admitted before Congress that their 'fact checks' were just 'their opinion'.

I've been watching some interesting videos on YouTube recently, and although not contentious in a global sense or involving the MSM or big tech, it shows just how controlling people are in their own areas on expertise and worthy of a mention here as an example of how man behaves.

The videos are about the architecture of ancient Egypt and one topic is how they fit into the timeline of civilisation. 'Civilisation' (a complex human society) is defined to have started around 4,000-3,000 BCE, with each ancient structure around the world fitting somewhere between that start date and the modern day. e.g. Egypt pyramids around 2,500 BCE, Newgrange around 3,200 BCE.

Then, in the early '90s, Gobekli Tepe was discovered and they have been excavating it ever since. The only issue for the 'experts' is that it dates back to around 9,500 BCE, which totally destroys their 'civilisation' thesis. Common sense would dictate that they reevaluate their definition but because this is what they've been preaching all these years, they refuse to admit that a 'civilised' society constructed it, and instead that it was constructed by 'hunter gatherers'.

Everyone had a right to an opinion. If it differs to your opinion, that doesn't make it wrong, it's just different. It might be 100% wrong, or then again, it could be 100% right. Here's a very simple statement: 1+1=10 It is both right and wrong, but only because you know why. If you don't know why, you have to rely on someone else to tell you why it is right/wrong... cue the MSM, big tech and the fact checkers.

I know why Sean, but I'm just an Old Fogey Nerd.

I bought a Leaf recently as needed a second car and the environment wasn't my main driver for the purchase of an electric car. There are other benefits which were much more appealing.

• Mechanically less to go wrong, especially as it'll be for short frequent journeys
• Cheaper tax
• Can be charged at home so no need to find a petrol station
• No local emissions for school run

On the fact there has been no warming since 2000. I looked this up and came across another site which shows that it depends where you start the trend from. Since 2000 there has been a linear trend but start further back and it shows the trend has been a steady increase.

I haven't looked into the bias of the website authors...

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...se%20to%20zero.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factchec...t-eight-years/

Not for me i'm afraid, 10 mins max to fill either of my cars...

https://forecourttrader.co.uk/latest...674874.article

:cheers: +++