Your experience with all-electric vans

[Gr8ful]

I see many coal mines being bought by china & moving the coal to china so it's going to use diesel to truck or train it to the coast then much more diesel to ship it to china to be burned to make electric which will pollute our world worse than if we burned the coal here. China & India are building coal fire plants at record paces so if we or them use electric cars with electric made from coal probably without scrubbers like we have here, how is this going to do any good?

 

[tx2sturgis]

'all-electric vehicles' can be loosely translated in the USA to mean 'natural gas, coal, and nuclear powered vehicles'

Might as well burn gasoline or diesel at the point of use.

 

[Happy Camper]

It's the ultimate definition of the saying "Six of one, half a dozen of the other".

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

 

[user 22017]

Why nitpick fuel math while ignoring everything else when considering if EVs would be better than ICEs?

Another thing that is rarely mentioned in these discussions is the need to drive less often. Or not drive at all and use mass transit. Many nomads are already doing this by staying in one location for months. Thumbs up to them.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

It annoys me that we listen to climate "scientists" who claim that we are in crisis, fly private jets to exotic locations to party and discuss how they can panic us into doing what they say (but not what they do).

EVs are the same. EVans are available. If one believes that ICE are destroying the planet, scrap yours and get an EV. Otherwise you are not living what you are preaching.

Nobody said saving the planet would be cheap or easy.

 

[Happy Camper]

Nobody said saving the planet would be cheap or easy.

Or realistic. Or needed. The planet will be here when all the roads are gone.

 

[RonDean]

If they don't know everything that is changing the climate, I'd really prefer then not to call it settled science.

Maybe educated scientific guesses based on research. While adjusting our understanding as we learn more. That seems a bit more honest. I like EVs and most tech advances. But not forced changes based on limited knowledge.

https://www.wired.com/story/a-revelation-about-trees-is-messing-with-climate-calculations/

There is NEVER "settled science." There is only what we can predict based on the accumulation of knowledge at the present time. The scientific method demands that scientists constantly try to disprove whatever it is that we think we know. However, there is an accumulation of predictability that leads us to believe one thesis over another. Climate change and/or global warming and the impact of pollution is getting pretty darned close to this.

 

[Happy Camper]

There is NEVER "settled science." There is only what we can predict based on the accumulation of knowledge at the present time. The scientific method demands that scientists constantly try to disprove whatever it is that we think we know. However, there is an accumulation of predictability that leads us to believe one thesis over another. Climate change and/or global warming and the impact of pollution is getting pretty darned close to this.

I'm not saying we don't need to treat our environment better. We do. But saying with relative certainty that we are the cause of the problem we think we have is flawed. When you're using bad models to determine the outcome based on assumptions and working backwards to make the model fit, that's not the correct way to do it.

Read the article, and you'll understand something I've been saying for many years. If the data is limited and the models are hopefully getting it close to accurate, that's not enough to make drastic changes worldwide.

Here a quote from the article:
"By quantifying how trees make clouds, scientists could better predict the climate’s future—and past. Industrial emissions reduce some warming through radiative forcing, since sulfur aerosols can create reflective clouds. But if biogenic aerosols were more abundant than expected before industrialization, then the contributions from industry matter less."

Cars are part of industry in this case. Not saying we can't produce better engines with very low emissions. We should if we can.

But there's a decent chance that once the input is correct and the models are accurate, we might be better off than we thought we were. And have no basis for a "climate crisis" in the sense it's been presented thus far.

 

[Gr8ful]

More lithium batteries catch fire giving off toxic fumes.

 

[LargeMarge]

Why nitpick...
Internal combustion engines (ICEs)—gas or diesel—represent one of today’s most significant environmental threats....

... more exactly.
* Greenhouse gas...
* Health Issues...
* Particulate... pose severe environmental (e.g., ground-level ozone) and health risks...

... Every year, U.S. oil and gas companies set fire to billions...

.
a -- nit-picking is a fun hobby?
.
b -- I think "today's most significant environmental threats" are c*mm*n*sts, their censorship, their authoritarian tendencies.
After enough of 'those people' get control, I think we can say goodbye to travel, informed consent, and the need for forums such as VanLiving.
Folks like me will be first against the wall, so 'yes', I take it personal.
.
Unless I agree to CubicleLiving and EatBugsLiving, but that seems unlikely.
.
c -- is 'more exactly' exactlier than regular exact?
.
d -- three bullet-points of second-hand information.
Three examples of sponsors telling researchers:
* "These are the results we want your research to prove."?
.
e -- those petroleum companies are controlled by stock-holders, some are widows and some are elderly, some are investments of forum operators.
If those managers-by-proxy would agree to a reduced dividend (aka 'less income') I think you could petition them...
... instead of getting all worked-up at campers and other folks just wanting to be left alone.
.
f -- does the thread title ask for experience, not theories?
[I know, I know, more of my nit-picking.
All-in-all, though, it's one of my most rewarding hobbies...]

 

[RonDean]

Like so many other "controversial" issues I can see this is going nowhere and we are all pretty much stuck in our respective lanes. There are many folks that are not moved by the accumulated scientific consensus on this subject. As long is there is a single question or a single possibility that we might have left something out, they will believe there is no reason to change. Pick the subject, smoking-leaded gas-etc.- and there will always be some with that thinking.

For myself, I do not accept there is not "enough" downside to fossil fuels to make us change our behavior. I accept what the vast majority of climate scientists say about the impact of using ICEs. As soon as I can find an affordable cleaner option I will take it. Even if it means a sooner halt to my wandering.

Has science always gotten it right? Nope! But, science has a better track record than any other working methodology.

 

[Happy Camper]

But there is actual science and scientists that don't agree. But if you can't get funding because climate change is where the money is, you move in that direction. Scientists have to eat too.

I'm absolutely into science. We do need to do better on many fronts. I'm just saying something isn't everything. And everything isn't something.

 

[LargeMarge]

For two days, we read through all the posts on this thread, including the Originating Post.
.
Eventually, everybody here on the farm got convinced that Originating Post was AI generated (and 'yes', I was snookered by my passionate need to Prove! I! Am! Right! [blushes in humiliation]).
.
Accordingly, I expect this entire thread to be archived for future generations of AI amusement.
I know I would...

 

[RonDean]

But there is actual science and scientists that don't agree. But if you can't get funding because climate change is where the money is, you move in that direction. Scientists have to eat too.

I'm absolutely into science. We do need to do better on many fronts. I'm just saying something isn't everything. And everything isn't something.

The vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change... Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns, mainly caused by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels.
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change
The peer-reviewed study, published in the scientific journal Nature on Wednesday, found that 90% of coal must remain unextracted and nearly 60% of oil and fossil methane gas must stay underground to have even a 50% chance of keeping global temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/09/cli...uels-need-to-stay-underground-study-says.html
Oil, gas, and coal companies share an outsized responsibility for the climate crisis...Instead of acknowledging the harmful effects of their products and committing to swift and deep reductions in global warming emissions, many of the world's largest fossil fuel companies have knowingly deceived the public about the climate science and policy—and they continue to do so today.
https://www.ucsusa.org/climate/accountability
Despite 97 per cent of scientists agreeing on anthropogenic global warming, the remaining 3 per cent play a critical role in keeping the debate about climate consensus alive.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...-contrarians/A4664E239F0774A37C20FE03689B34DD
I could go on, but the evidence seems clear that somewhere around 97% of scientists agree and only 3% do not. The data also reveal most contrarians to be aged sixty-five or older. (For whatever that's worth or meaningful.) But I think I'll place my chips on the 97% and not the 3%.

 

[RonDean]

Oh, before I forget... Us driving ICEs are certainly NOT the only driver of global warming. Shipping produce around the world (as Spiff pointed out) instead of us eating produce that is grown in season where we actually live is also a factor. Raising an overabundance of meat animals and the methods we use to do it is a huge factor. Etc, etc, etc...

That why I try to shop in local farmers markets and am a vegetarian. I do not advocate this for everyone. I only mention it to show I am doing my best to walk the walk my talk should require. And as soon as I can I'll go EV or stop traveling altogether.

 

[Happy Camper]

So according to the information you presented we need to do everything humanly possible to stop this from happening.

I assume we'll be going to war with the most polluting countries that won't stop for any reason. I mean, is that important right?

My paying $15 a gallon next year isn't actually helping the problem since I can't change what others are doing. Of course, we could always make a strongly worded statement that will be ignored. But hey, we can still be punitive to our own and take the moral high ground.

If it's actually that important wouldn't we do more than beat up our own while others are going to kill the earth? Or maybe it's not politically expedient to actual save the earth. Hmm.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-...Fossil-Fuel-Phase-Out-Is-Unrealistic.amp.html

 

[RonDean]

So according to the information you presented we need to do everything humanly possible to stop this from happening.

I assume we'll be going to war with the most polluting countries that won't stop for any reason. I mean, is that important right?

My paying $15 a gallon next year isn't actually helping the problem since I can't change what others are doing. Of course, we could always make a strongly worded statement that will be ignored. But hey, we can still be punitive to our own and take the moral high ground.

If it's actually that important wouldn't we do more than beat up our own while others are going to kill the earth? Or maybe it's not politically expedient to actual save the earth. Hmm.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-...Fossil-Fuel-Phase-Out-Is-Unrealistic.amp.html

The info I provided only explains the situation. It does not advocate declaring war - as you well know. There are many things going on in the world I personally disagree with and I do not advocate war or even laws for those either. Especially those that cannot be enforced. I DO advocate education and persuasion. Which is what I attempt to do here.

Pew Research shows... "Two-thirds of U.S. adults say the country should prioritize developing renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, over expanding the production of oil, coal and natural gas, according to a survey conducted in June 2023... In a previous Center survey conducted in 2022, nearly the same share of Americans (69%) favored the U.S. taking steps to become carbon neutral by 2050" "There are important differences by age within the GOP. Two-thirds of Republicans under age 30 (67%) prioritize the development of alternative energy sources. By contrast, 75% of Republicans ages 65 and older prioritize expanding the production of oil, coal and natural gas." https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...says-about-americans-views-of-climate-change/

I think that shows education and persuasion IS working. Just not fast enough.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

..... Thinking of buying my first van ..... All-electric models are very appealing but I have many concerns about practicality .....

I don't personally own one but of the people I know (6) that have an EV or PHEV:

All are second vehicles.​

All are charged overnight at home.​

All are used for commuting and shopping trips.​

Longer trips (100+ miles) are taken in an ICE vehicle.​

All are early technology adopters.​

Friend tried plowing snow with his Ford Lighting; lasted an hour. All his ICE trucks go 8 hours between refill.

..... More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans .....

Since you are enamored by peer reviewed papers, here are some conclusions from peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals during my adulthood:
1970's:

Ice age by 2000​

Oil depleted in 20 years.​

Space satellites show new ice age coming.​

Scientific consensus: planet cooling, famines imminent.​

No end in sight for cooling trend.​

1980's:

Maldive Islands underwater by 2018.​

Peak oil in 2020.​

Global warming and rising sea levels will wipe entire nations off map by 2000.​

1990's:

We have 5 to 10 years to save the rainforests.​

Peak oil (again) by 2020.​

Himalayan glaciers will be gone in 10 years.​

2000's:

Snow will soon be a thing of the past.​

Famine in 10 years if we don't give up eating fish, meat, dairy.​

Manhattan underwater by 2015.​

Arctic ice free by 2013.​

Obama has 2 years to save the planet.​

I stopped paying attention during the Obama presidency.

 

[tx2sturgis]

Saving the planet is always a 'moving target' and apparently pays the scientists a nice salary to figure it out.