Interesting Articles Relating to EVs

[bullfrog !]

Videos are like the Bible, everybody has their own interpretation. What about my comments makes you think I didn’t watch it. I actually watched it more than once! I thought it did a good job of describing the situation but my point is the situation was known to exist many years ago and those that could have done something about it didn’t because it would have not been as profitable. There is a price to pay for not changing the way you do things once you know what you are doing is creating major environmental problems as well. These two conditions have resulted in a rushed emergency attempt to try to solve the problem of keeping our environment livable.
Many years ago people saw the environmental problem and attempted to start researching and developing ways to see the problem and deal with it. Big oil and vehicle corporations convinced people that there were no problems and bigger, more powerful internal combustion engines was what everyone needed.
I guess you think I can afford to continue to use a large truck to take one person 226 miles one way to town for doctor visits or tow a heavy camper trailer several hundred miles a few times a month just so I can live “ cheaply “ while in addition adding to the problem of deteriorating our environment. You really think we can continue to use a limited resource and it will not get too expensive for the average person living in rural or remote to afford? Why do you think poor people in remote areas ride on top trains, crowd into old school buses, ride small motorcycles and scooters or walk in other countries and on the reservations in this country. Ever wonder why there are so many basic pickup trucks on the wide open road on the reservation going 50 MPH? It’s because they get the best fuel mileage and they might just make it to town with the money they have. Everything about the way we use transportation in this country has needed to be improved for a long time in my opinion. Being open minded to change over time is difficult enough but being forced to change over relatively short time is painful but in this case necessary and hopefully not too late. The large oil and vehicle corporations told the American public what they wanted us to believe and we wanted to believe it so it was easy to spend our way into this problem we now have.

 

[Gr8ful]

I'm sorry BF, in the 1st line I wrongly thought you meant common working people. If you remember we had many in the white house & government with links to big oil. I hate any kind of waste like all these so called climate people flying to Europe each in a private jet, what liars & hypocrites. We've come a long way in cleaning up pollution in America during my lifetime but most of it was giving our jobs to china who openly pollutes the ships it back on the biggest polluters of all, huge container ships. Everybody loves Walmart but me, I hate em & everyone that supports them hurts the environment plain & simple by supporting them but they won't admit it. It's ALL about the money whether it's politicians or Walmart shoppers. EVs are just not ready or we'd ALL want one & they wouldn't have to force them on people. They may be ready in 10 years with new battery tech, big maybe! I think they'll find a better way. I posted a Mother Earth news methane article. I couldn't find the 43 year old article I was looking for about a small farm in England that ran everything on a simple methane practice they had used for years. There's a landfill about 30 miles away. They supply a subdivision with electricity from methane. We've had the answers but big business & government didn't want to change till now when they can cash in on "The Green New Deal" while America's working middle class goes away!

 

[wanderlust]

There is plenty of blame to go around, big oil lobbying for more subsidies, outsourcing jobs to Chime in vain hope to make it democratic and capitalistic, and yes climate people flying in private jets to Davos. And also not starting to change the habits decades ago when it would be cheaper.

Somewhere I read about our way to calculate the price of fossil fuels based on the cost of extracting them, and comparing it to calculate the cost of mortgage of your house from the uber drive to the bank you used to sign it. Because in the cost of fossil fuels, there is no price for externalities. For moving people when ocean will rise. For climate refugees, etc.

EU is trying to change the calculations by accounting for the carbon used to manufacture and transport stuff from China. So manufacturing locally makes economical sense again. But it requires the carbon tax, and it is VERY hard pill to swallow for many politicians. Some made careers fighting against it, and some fighting for it. So we hardly can have calm debates on the facts, because for or against is a signal for tribal identity, for or against the tribe.

Our grandchildren would have hard time to understand how stubborn and short-sighted were our politics.

As some classic said, it is very hard to explain something to a person whose livelihood depends on NOT understanding it.

Or as my son said to me, when I was complaining about the huge future cost of managing climate changes: "Don't worry, dad, we will charge it on your social security"

 

[bullfrog !]

When I was in college some 40 years ago in Arkansas many of us worked on improving building methods and farming methods to be more energy efficient. I dreamed of owning an enclosed 3 wheeled leaning two seater vehicle powered by a fuel efficient small displacement engine and a house built with a 2” x 6” framing on 4’ centers (used the same amount of wood with triple the insulation. I visited a dairy farm with a chain driven barn floor scraper that deposited cow manure into a vat that was pumped to a methane generator that powered the entire milking facility, lots of room for improvement but it worked. The UK, Japan and many other countries were legislating smaller vehicles but we in our prosperity were building bigger and better using not only our resources but fighting to get other countries resources as well. It really went against my upbringing as we always had to do the best we could with what we had and were taught never to depend on or accept any outside help. To this day I still hold a grudge against big coal and lumber companies. What they were allowed to do to my home place and people in Kentucky by the government was a painful lesson. I’m afraid the whole world is in for that same lesson if we don’t make our governments work to better the environment and people’s lives. Allowing for profit corporations to determine the world we live in is a big mistake in my opinion. The future appears to be at this point EVs and converting large trucking to that has begun as our government is presently building a network of charging stations across major trucking routes hopefully cutting emissions by as much as 25% but yes the transition will require many changes as it develops.

 

[Gr8ful]

Sorry if this is off topic. We have more forest now than in 1907.Forest are sustainable not like oil or minerals used in ICs & EVs. Roads in the western forest were built & paid for by timber companies. Below is from cfa.pub.gov Go there for charts, graphs & more info. Thanks!
From 1907 to 2017, forest land nationwide increased by almost 25 million acres (Exhibit 1). The smallest extent, 721 million acres, occurred in 1920. By 1963, forest land rose to 753 million acres, but then fell to 733 million acres in 1987. Forest extent then steadily increased to 766 million acres by 2012 before declining slightly to 765 million acres in 2017. There are variations in trends in forest cover among the different EPA Regions. For example, between 1907 and 2017, forest land declined by roughly 12 million acres in Region 9. Over the same period, forest land increased by 14 million acres in Region 3.

 

[Happy Camper]

I often wonder if the environmentalists and climate people ever get together and try to figure out the best way to manage things.

For example. Logging has been restricted in many areas to "protect" certain species. Responsibly cutting back areas of trees and forests has been severely reduced for a few decades.

Now we get amazingly large fires that are extremely hard to put out. Not in small part because the trees are too dense, causing hotter fires that are more difficult to reach and extinguish.

The fires wipe out more animals that were supposed to be protected. They take more resources to fight. The loss of life, homes, and income, among other things, is devastating. The fires also release overwhelming amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

"Wildfires are fuelled, in part, by climate change. But they also change the climate, emitting around 5.3bn tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere in 2022 – more than any country contributed from fossil-fuel burning that year, except China."

How about we make a hard decision and say we need to reduce some tree density and make it harder for these fires to grow to these sizes. Spend the resources and money and get it done. Accept that the bird or frog or whatever animal that is endangered might possibly go extinct. It's a very sad possibility. But it might be necessary to control or contain the massive release of CO2, as well as the many catastrophic results of these fires.

So these fires are bad for the environment and the climate. And the investment needed would be high. But it would be more effective than changing everyone in the US to EVs in combating the release of CO2 in our country.

Seems simple, right? Couldn't we do both and be even farther ahead? After all, isn't it a crisis? We're all gonna die! Danger danger Will Robinson!!

Nope. Because there's too much money and power in the lobbying not to do it. Even the climate activists won't fight that fight in a real way.

 

[Gr8ful]

I totally agree. If you thin a forest & take out the bad trees the ones left will shoot up fast & make a good canopy with little to no brush or tinder on the forest floor making wildfires much less likely. Nature has a way to deal with called forest fires. I was the lumber buyer when the spotted owl lie shut down logging in the pacific northwest putting many people out of work & causing me to buy from Canada. They claimed spotted owls only lived in old growth timber but when they were found in newer growth timber the tree huggers claimed it couldn't be real spotted owls. What a crock & outright lie! They're birds for goodness sake, they don't care. We had the same thing here when tying I-196 to I-94. They found a rare butterfly & held up the last few miles for decades. Politicians just want PAC Money & votes & is why we need term limits on every elected office & common sense which is very uncommon anymore. If we did as you suggested everyone would win. Less fires, cheaper insurance, less pollution, more time to perfect EVs while slowly easing off ICEs. It's a Win for all IMHO.

 

[LargeMarge]

^^^In my opinion because people were encouraged to form bad transportation habits and continue to do so even after big oil companies realized they were destroying the environment they should be paying to correct the problem they helped cause. Changing to EVs should transition by using smaller hybrids, improving public transportation systems and creating services like rentals to allow the general public to adapt. Unfortunately it necessary to now to speed up the process which is and will be painful for most especially overloaded full time nomads when fuel prices are forced up to limit their use.

.
'People were and are encouraged, they should pay to correct the problem they caused'?
Did I read that right?
.
Improve 'government' transportation, how?
Armor-plate surrounding the bus-stop?
Return to lead-acid batteries so 'all-electric' busses stop exploding in flames?
.
'fuel prices are forced to limit their use'?
.
I mean nothing by this, but what is your first language?

 

[bullfrog !]

^^^experience, common sense and overall making things work better for everyone to enjoy! Lol!!! Fix it before it fails! Green energy sources are actually getting cheaper than coal I believe, are we still selling coal to China? By the way you misquoted me, maybe read a little slower while getting emotional, seems to help me. By the way my first language when spoken in my native tongue is seldom understandable to anyone raised outside our little hollow in Eastern Kentucky. We get poorer and meaner the further you go down the hollow, I was raised in the last cabin on the right if you know what I mean.

 

[Gr8ful]

A basic 4 seat home built around town EV. Skip to the middle to miss the build part.

 

[Happy Camper]

Another cool article. This one is a bit longer term, but I'm very hopeful for it to become viable in a real way.

https://www.geekwire.com/2024/just-...eing-the-first-next-gen-nuclear-plant-in-u-s/

 

[tx2sturgis]

That homemade electric car, with the open floor and the overhead canopy, reminds me of this!

 

[Gr8ful]

WILDFIRES & CONTAINER SHIPS BOTH POLLUTE WORSE THAN CARS!
So get rid of the misguided "tree huggers" & the Walmart buyers (everything from china on huge container ships) stop buying from china & bring jobs back to the U.S.
I'm an environmentalist with common sense.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/envir...20-wildfire-emissions-akin-to-24-million-cars
Keep in mind the cars in the below article are diesel cars so it will me many more gas cars. https://www.cadmatic.com/en/resources/articles/does-one-ship-pollute-as-much-as-50-million-cars/#:~:text=One large container ship at,million diesel-burning cars.”
How many container ships are there in the world?
There are approximately 50,000 to 60,000 cargo ships in the world. The exact number is constantly changing as new ships are built and old ones are decommissioned. Cargo ships can be categorized into several main types based on their design, size, and the kind of cargo they carry.Mar 27, 2023

 

[wanderlust]

If you follow Peter Zeihan, he says that the economic of China will collapse within a decade. Demographics and bad loans are some reasons. Nearshoring the manufacturing to Mexico and South America is another. Would be smart go help it by accounting for the carbon used to manufacture and move the stuff, like EU proposed. But it is too close for the "carbon tax" for some people in USA.

No need to fight tree huggers. Make right economic incentives and tax the activity you want less of.

 

[RonDean]

I often wonder if the environmentalists and climate people ever get together and try to figure out the best way to manage things.

For example. Logging has been restricted in many areas to "protect" certain species. Responsibly cutting back areas of trees and forests has been severely reduced for a few decades.

Now we get amazingly large fires that are extremely hard to put out. Not in small part because the trees are too dense, causing hotter fires that are more difficult to reach and extinguish.

The fires wipe out more animals that were supposed to be protected. They take more resources to fight. The loss of life, homes, and income, among other things, is devastating. The fires also release overwhelming amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

"Wildfires are fuelled, in part, by climate change. But they also change the climate, emitting around 5.3bn tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere in 2022 – more than any country contributed from fossil-fuel burning that year, except China."

How about we make a hard decision and say we need to reduce some tree density and make it harder for these fires to grow to these sizes. Spend the resources and money and get it done. Accept that the bird or frog or whatever animal that is endangered might possibly go extinct. It's a very sad possibility. But it might be necessary to control or contain the massive release of CO2, as well as the many catastrophic results of these fires.

So these fires are bad for the environment and the climate. And the investment needed would be high. But it would be more effective than changing everyone in the US to EVs in combating the release of CO2 in our country.

Seems simple, right? Couldn't we do both and be even farther ahead? After all, isn't it a crisis? We're all gonna die! Danger danger Will Robinson!!

Nope. Because there's too much money and power in the lobbying not to do it. Even the climate activists won't fight that fight in a real way.

On the forest thing... climate change = more forest fires. But that is not the whole story. A Tree Plantation is not the same thing as an actual forest that contains different types and ages of trees. When we clear-cut and then replant all the new trees at the same point in time we create a tree "crop" that is ripe for forest fires. No natural meadows providing fire breaks and no staggered tree type and height to discourage the spread of fires. Today's tree harvesting methods are more profitable only until they burn. Some underbrush provides habitat but others only kindling and few people that go into the forest are "schooled" on the difference.

 

[Gr8ful]

Most timber logged are now private & you'd an ***** to clear cut. The several times I did it were set to cut on a 10 year cycle & take the bad trees out & you end up with Great Forest & clean forest floors. The problem in California is noe one want's to manage the forest, just leave it alone so nature takes it's course & it burns producing all that pollution. The cycle just continues & EVs won't stop STUPID!

 

[Happy Camper]

On the forest thing... climate change = more forest fires. But that is not the whole story. A Tree Plantation is not the same thing as an actual forest that contains different types and ages of trees. When we clear-cut and then replant all the new trees at the same point in time we create a tree "crop" that is ripe for forest fires. No natural meadows providing fire breaks and no staggered tree type and height to discourage the spread of fires. Today's tree harvesting methods are more profitable only until they burn. Some underbrush provides habitat but others only kindling and few people that go into the forest are "schooled" on the difference.

I don't think you quite understood what I was referring to.

And regarding climate change equaling more forest fires. We've always had forest fires. And they never got this large. And climate change people would have us believe it's mostly due to climate change, naturally.

My question is how exactly? Doesn't fires don't care if the earth is 3 degrees warmer when they are blazing away. They just want fuel, which is what I was referring to.

And I wasn't referring to standard tree crops. I was talking about clearing some of the thick growth to inhibit crazy fires. Similar to what native Americans did centuries ago.

But we're too smart for that, and can save the upside down yellow bellied snail. So let's let it grow dense. It's better for the snails, or whatever it might be.

 

[Happy Camper]

Here's an article that gets better into it with explanations and pictures as well. Very informative, and hopefully they ramp this up.

https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-...ashington/what-trees-know-fire-forest-health/

 

[wanderlust]

Very good article. One problem is, that such forest management REQUIRES fires (prescribed burns). And "tree huggers" who did not learned of the importance of fire in these lands refuse to allow it, using many reasons, including air pollution. So we cannot have managed fires, and unmanaged - well, **** happens, so...

I know Nature Conservancy, they buy land to protect it as science says should be done. I was a frequent visitor to one of their private parks - private, but open to public for free

 

[Happy Camper]

It just bothers me that everyone yells that we should listen to the science. But only some of it?