Interesting Articles Relating to EVs

[user 22017]

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, shit 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

You can't lump all who work in environmentalism together. Not all NGOs would be considered tree huggers. Not all tree huggers believe in prescribed burning.

Example:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-forests-protect-themselves/

 

[Gr8ful]

Good article & I agree that old growth forests shouldn't be logged & this one is not a fire hazard. I don't believe in clear cutting but do believe in forest management. This guy from the article is right. “They say they’ll log this old-growth forest—this wet, green rainforest—to create fire resilience,” Bass says, “but these trees are already fire-resilient. This larch, for example, is not only meant to survive fire; it’s meant to prosper from it. These attributes, the species diversity here, the structural diversity of the forest—they need to be studied, not clear-cut.

 

[wanderlust]

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

I do try to listen to the science, and I thought I am on your side - for the prescribed burns.

Did I yelled? was it intended for someone else? Confused...

 

[Happy Camper]

I do try to listen to the science, and I thought I am on your side - for the prescribed burns.

Did I yelled? was it intended for someone else? Confused...

It wasn't aimed at anyone in particular within this discussion.

I love science. But as I have mentioned before, I don't take science as gospel, but as more information to process on the whole. Because science is a journey, not a destination.

There are other who will quote the science to back their views. And I'm on with that, as long as we know we're on a journey and so far this is where it seems to be heading with the information we have. That's cool.

But some use science as a reason to act in normally unreasonable manners. Because they truly believe in the science. Not cool.

But when confronted by science that is inconvenient, most shrug it off and get back to their own talking points. Whether it's science that's opposing their views, or unrelated, it happens.

Again. I love science. Always have, and always will.

But if science is what you hang your hat on in one area, shouldn't science in other areas be equally as important? It stands to reason it should be. But more often than not, it's not the case. It just gets frustrating.

 

[wanderlust]

Not all tree huggers believe in prescribed burning.

I started to read that article, lots of flavor text but I gave up because no idea what it was trying to say or conclude.

Logging old forest removes biggest old trees. It is different from prescribed burns, whish PREERVES mature old trees and burns small undergrowth.

Also, "scientist say " that "old" forest (before white settlers) was not completely wild - not as wild as it was 40KY ago, before humans. For thousands of years, native tribes did prescribed burns to simplify and enhance the hunting.

Do I assume it right that you are not a fan of prescribed burning? How do you propose to deal with the devastating forest fires? As the article at #278 says, devastating forest fires are a result of too many mature trees too close to each other, resulting in fire jumping from one crown to another, instead of burning just undergrowth

 

[Gr8ful]

Back to EVs, from the WSJ

Biden’s EV Mandate Blows Its Cover​

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-electric-vehicle-mandate-gas-powered-cars-2032-epa-c2a72414

 

[tx2sturgis]

Back to EVs, from the WSJ

Biden’s EV Mandate Blows Its Cover​

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-electric-vehicle-mandate-gas-powered-cars-2032-epa-c2a72414

I found that page to be behind a paywall. The browser I use can get past many of these paywalls, but not all of our readers will be able to see Wall Street Journal web pages.

The gist is that EVs are favored by the EPA over gas-powered vehicles in the next several years.

 

[Happy Camper]

Due to major pushback, and actual realities, they changed the text.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-future-of-driving-in-the-u-s-is-electric-sort-of/

 

[Gr8ful]

Here's the main part of the article.
Biden officials are stressing that the new auto greenhouse gas emissions standards they rolled out on Wednesday aren’t an electric-vehicle mandate. But the liberal press and climate lobby don’t buy it, and neither should Americans.
Joe Biden Rolls Out His EV Mandate for America
The Environmental Protection Agency somewhat eased CO2 emissions requirements through 2030 from its proposal last spring while maintaining essentially the same end-point for 2032. That means gas-powered cars can make up no more than 30% of auto sales by 2032. Make no mistake: This is a coerced phase-out of gas-powered cars.
Auto makers lauded the Administration for “moderating the pace of EV adoption” in “the next few (very critical) years of the EV transition” while calling its targets “still a stretch.” The Administration has taken auto companies hostage, threatening to cause financial carnage across the industry with its EV mandate. CEOs are grateful for the delay in execution.
EVs made up less than 8% of new auto sales last year, and more than half were Teslas. They accounted for less than 4% of
General Motors
and Ford sales. Foreign luxury auto makers such as
BMW
(12.5%), Mercedes (11.4%) and
Porsche
(10%) will have an easier time meeting the Biden mandates because their affluent customers can more easily afford EVs.

Maybe because I run Adblock, Adblock plus or Privacy Badger (all free but I donate $10 per year each) there is no paywall for me. I leave a you tube window or two open & don't get ads unless they're built into the video. I just use a chrome book.

 

[Happy Camper]

As mentioned in the article I posted above, the text of the EPA rolling was change last minute. The result is that it's likely going to push auto maker into plug in hybrids to bridge the gap. Then it pushes harder the last could years towards EV.

The reasoning is consumers won't just flock to EVs because the government says so. They will buy EVs when it makes sense for them to do so.

So it's up to the government to push to get all those billions they spent to become actual chargers. And automakers to sell cheaper and more compelling EVs so the masses are willing to buy.

There's more. But I'll let you guys read the article.

 

[user 22017]

I started to read that article, lots of flavor text but I gave up because no idea what it was trying to say or conclude.

Logging old forest removes biggest old trees. It is different from prescribed burns, whish PREERVES mature old trees and burns small undergrowth.

Also, "scientist say " that "old" forest (before white settlers) was not completely wild - not as wild as it was 40KY ago, before humans. For thousands of years, native tribes did prescribed burns to simplify and enhance the hunting.

Do I assume it right that you are not a fan of prescribed burning? How do you propose to deal with the devastating forest fires? As the article at #278 says, devastating forest fires are a result of too many mature trees too close to each other, resulting in fire jumping from one crown to another, instead of burning just undergrowth

I don't know enough about the subject to have an informed opinion. My point is that it doesn't help in discussions to generalize and stereotype. People who work on environmental issues run the gamut from pro-big business to lefties. With many different beliefs. Calling someone a treehugger is misleading. That's all .

 

[Gr8ful]

Carla, How is "Tree Hugger" misleading? I'm a tree hugger as I love & respect trees & forest. It's like calling someone an "Animal Lover" it could cover the whole spectrum of people, good, bad, right or wrong.

Tree hugger - Definition, Meaning & SynonymsVocabulary.com
https://www.vocabulary.com › dictionary​

type of: conservationist, environmentalist. someone who works to protect the environment from destruction or pollution.

 

[LargeMarge]

...Bass says, “but these trees are already fire-resilient. This larch, for example, is not only meant to survive fire; it’s meant to prosper from it. These attributes, the species diversity here, the structural diversity of the forest—they need to be studied not clear-cut.

.
a)
Flying over Oregon doing surveys, I see a checker-board pattern -- clear-cuts between GMO* mono-culture crops... 'stump-farm' plantations.
The forest is gone, replaced by rows of quick-grow "simulated tree-like" crops, engineered to withstand millions of gallons of Round-Up to eliminate any competition in the plantation.
.
Apparently, somebody had the idea to remove all the decomposable** material, truck it to a BioMass Burner, then burn it to produce a split-second of electricity.
That electric travels through massive cables to homes, businesses, and electric-vehicle chargers.
.
Those trees took decades to reach the size required by those BioMass Burners.
Then, gone in a split second.
.
On the 'plus' side and in their defense, petroleum-based defoliants absorbed by the "trees" probably produce a faster burn.
.
.
My Final Thought:
A forest is a living thing.
It has a sentience, and is quite capable of deciding to evolve fire-resistant components.
And after that, after the forest says "No more!", those BioMass Burners are out of the electric business.
.
Does the [alleged] sentience of our species of the past few years supersede all the eons of accumulated wisdom by our rooted brethren?
.
.
footnotes:
* Genetic Modified Organisms, plants engineered in laboratories for a short-term singular purpose.
Long-term diversity is intentionally hybrid out of them.
.
** Decomposable material provides the foundation for successive generations to thrive.
Without compost, plants extract nutrition from soil in diminishing amounts.
Inevitably, soil turns to dirt, dirt returns to sand.
.
.
b)
Forests have no need for humans.
Humans desperately need forests.

 

[wanderlust]

I don't know enough about the subject to have an informed opinion.

Myself, I spend LOT of time (not PhD level, but many hours of reading) to research the issue and to form reasonably informed opinion. While I understand the constitutionally protected right of all people to have an opinion, even if it is not informed on much study.

My point is that it doesn't help in discussions to generalize and stereotype.

The ONLY way to streamline the discussion and not get bogged in minor irrelevant details is to generalize. If some solution works for 95% of the cases, should we reject it, because it does not work for the 5%?

So sometimes the generalization helps. And I agree that not always.

People who work on environmental issues run the gamut from pro-big business to lefties. With many different beliefs. Calling someone a treehugger is misleading. That's all .

I did not called YOU a tree hugger. If I did, and it is offensive to you, I apologize for that.

I asked you about your opinion about prescribed burning - so your answer is "No opinion", do I have it right?

Also, I am concerned about the environment, want to protect trees and forests. So I have no problem if someone calls me a tree hugger.
One of the way to protect the forests in West (which are adapted to fires) is to do prescribed burns. Forests in Europe do not need that.

I want to protect the nature, but I realize that humans WILL make irreversible changes in the climate, sad, hopefully we will not die out as advanced civilization. The danger is present, as I mentioned before in Fermi's paradox.

 

[wanderlust]

back to EV:

Many interesting links to EV vans, like
- VW ID.Buzz fully electric hippie-wagon. Getting ready for Europe, expected price around $60K. VW does not expect USA will be interested, not manly enough?
- https://www.canoo.com/canoo/ - delivery EV minivan
- Rivian plans to release EV delivery van developed for Amazon to common public

 

[tx2sturgis]

Since our own government shows greenhouse emissions percentages at 38% for transportation and 33% for electric power generation, it seems to me that if we were able to reduce one by increasing the other one, we have not really gotten ahead of the problem.

If we start putting more EVs on the road, they will be using mostly electric power that's created by burning of fossil fuels so it's hard to see any real benefit from an environmental point of view.

Or so it seems to me.




(source: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58861)

 

[Happy Camper]

Because they anticipate generating more power from renewables. And no, they don't take into account many things relating to renewables, such as needing battery backup and the impact of those.

As long as you can squeeze it into a narrative that people will accept, reality doesn't always matter as much.

When the new nuclear mini plants comes online it'll definitely help. As the energy storage for nighttime or low wind times won't matter as much.

 

[rruff]

Since our own government shows greenhouse emissions percentages at 38% for transportation and 33% for electric power generation, it seems to me that if we were able to reduce one by increasing the other one, we have not really gotten ahead of the problem.

You need to compare those by the amount of energy, not just the raw number. Maybe you can find that? But I suspect there isn't much savings since our electricity is mostly produced using fossil fuels. That will slowly change, though.

I've long been saying that tiny, simple, light vehicles have so much goodness in high density areas... which is where most people live. Just need to make it safe to use them... and I think if the Dutch can get along with frickin' bicycles, we can find a way to do that.

 

[rruff]

When the new nuclear mini plants comes online it'll definitely help. As the energy storage for nighttime or low wind times won't matter as much.

I've always heard that nuclear plants are good for base load, not good for variable load. They are better than solar or wind though, for sure. Probably a mix of solar, wind, nuclear, and battery would do ok.

 

[tx2sturgis]

Another graphic that shows the scale of trying to power all vehicles with electricity:





I think the solution 'down the road' will be a blending of technologies, as we are doing now.

(source: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ATRI-BEV-infrastructure-energy-requirements-report/638408/ )