Can't fix stupid

Forum Sponsor
Gas vehicle range isn't limited and Americans worry about needing stuff and being prepared.

Guns because they might need them.

V-8's because they might need them.

A 30 mile commute in an EV is OK because it doesn't waste energy idling but a lot of people south of the border drive wide open spaces, not GTA distances.
 
The distribution of commuting distances in the vehicle population in the USA is reasonably well known. Most (again: MOST - not all) people's daily usage is within what current EVs can provide. Chevrolet's choice of 200 mi range for the Bolt is based on sound research ... that's where most (not all) people start to be less worried about range. The average car does 12,000 - 15,000 miles per year ... if it ONLY goes back and forth from work (commuting ONLY), that's 48 - 60 miles per work day. If it is used at all on the weekends then the usage during the week is less than that. If usage is evenly split over 365 days it's about 33 - 41 miles per day. The high-mileage outliers (like myself) mean most cars are driven less than this and a smaller number are driven much more ...

My own usage pattern is an outlier because I go to a different job site every day and sometimes two or three. I've kept track, and it is about twice per month where I will go more than 200 mi (320 km) in one day and most of those only slightly exceed it - I would need a "splash" from a public charging station, not a full recharge, to get home. I have a customer in St Thomas who is on the outer limit of that range for a return trip ... but they have a charging station! My sister's place in Lindsay is also on the outer limit for doing a return trip without a recharge ... but a top-off from an extension cord while I'm visiting would be sufficient. It's really only the occasional Toronto-Windsor trip that is a problem and that only happens a couple times per year. My long-term average is about 160 km per workday.
 
Full on EV's will struggle to gain any real foot hold due to a combination of range and convenience limitations, regardless of charging station installation. You mentioned in another post something like a couple hundred thousand tesla's being pre-order. Care to speculate on how many of those supplement the vehicle that can be fueled up on a whim and travel as far as needed without limitation. As I said before, I can envision hydrogen possibly replacing fossil fuels one day, largely because it will potentially do everything fossil fuel does now.

As a small example of the stuff that runs through my head.... say I forget to plug in my EV after a hard days work; like I often forget to charge my phone; or get gas when I should. Right now, I can pop over to the local petrol dispenser and be on my way in a couple mins; or charge my phone on the way into work. No fuss. You couldn't do that with a full on EV, nor do I think the charge tech can ever be quick enough to service my scatter brain self. So do we keep spare batteries as an alternative? At a min 500-600V I doubt the manufacturer's are going to be jumping over each other to make them user serviceable.... Alternatively, when I think of Hydrogen based tech, I think "oh I'll just pop over to the local hydrogen dispenser and be on my way" .. just seems a much more realistic alternative for the average user to me.

Anyway, we're way off topic and I really don't think we're disagreeing on much regardless. To your original point which I completely agree with, I AM all for reducing petroleum dependency; just not on the back of catastrophic climate dogma.
 
Very often our technical solutions just tend to shift the problem down the road to in front of someone else's house.

Look at battery technology. My first battery powered drill 40ish years ago would barely stir coffee. My new one will sprain your wrist. However there are future disposal costs and risks.

I believe the City of Toronto has a pipeline into the lake to take advantage of geo thermal energy. If more places do this and the lake temperature rises what does it do to the aquaculture? Do we end up with algae blooms and undrinkable water?

DDT was hailed as a savior insecticide when invented. Not now.

The real answer to our "Stuff" problems is to have less "Stuff. That would destroy our economic system.
 
It's true. Our entire economy is based on building more, expanding, replacing old with new. We don't know how to deal with stagnation. Look at Japan and that's only the beginning.
 
Not surprising. You know your in trouble as a Liberal when the CBC doesn't even have your back
 
There is no question things need to change, but in gov't fashion they pick visible things that would be easy and provide less resistance. Im fairly confident the never ending construction equipment building tract houses around here bealch more untreated diesel exhaust in an 8hr shift than my Etested car could in 2 yrs and the agro equipment has no diesel scrubbers. But they are 'off road' so ignored.
Telling 2/3rds of the provincial home owners, your going to be forced to retrofit may have been the stupidist release yet.
 
crankcall said:
There is no question things need to change, but in gov't fashion they pick visible things that would be easy and provide less resistance. Im fairly confident the never ending construction equipment building tract houses around here bealch more untreated diesel exhaust in an 8hr shift than my Etested car could in 2 yrs and the agro equipment has no diesel scrubbers. But they are 'off road' so ignored.
Telling 2/3rds of the provincial home owners, your going to be forced to retrofit may have been the stupidist release yet.
Click to expand...

On the subject of never-ending building in the face of supposed greener needs, here in Hamilton we're getting ready to spend $1 billion plus of tax payer money to build an LRT on an 11km stretch through the core of the city under the assumption that people will leave their cars to take the train. At the same time, Waterdown, Ancaster, and especially Binbrook are exponentially expanding year over year on the backs of building permits issued by the same council pushing to get people out of their cars. With no parking planned at either LRT terminus, and in the case of binbrook, a 20km+ trip to the eastern LRT terminal, currently a 40min+ trip by bus, including a transfer just to catch the LRT; good luck

I know this rant probably deserves it's own thread, but if the title fits...
 
Neil_V said:
On the subject of never-ending building in the face of supposed greener needs, here in Hamilton we're getting ready to spend $1 billion plus of tax payer money to build an LRT on an 11km stretch through the core of the city under the assumption that people will leave their cars to take the train. At the same time, Waterdown, Ancaster, and especially Binbrook are exponentially expanding year over year on the backs of building permits issued by the same council pushing to get people out of their cars. With no parking planned at either LRT terminus, and in the case of binbrook, a 20km+ trip to the eastern LRT terminal, currently a 40min+ trip by bus, including a transfer just to catch the LRT; good luck

I know this rant probably deserves it's own thread, but if the title fits...
Click to expand...

Sing with me " Tax and spend....Tax and spend"....

"Hello, I'm from the gubment and I'm here to help you"
 
Snobike Mike said:
Sing with me " Tax and spend....Tax and spend"....

"Hello, I'm from the gubment and I'm here to help you"
Click to expand...

Yup. Save the planet is secondary to growing government 'relevance' and control. Nevermind the simply flawed Cap & Trade economic presumptions. Wynne and the Liberals are estimating 1.9 billion per year via Cap & Trade auctions; one only needs to look to Cali to see where grand assumption may land us.... On the up side, maybe the money for LRT Hamilton doesn't turn up. One can hope :)

The latest auction in California’s cap-and-trade market for greenhouse gases fell sharply below expectations, as buyers purchased just 2% of the carbon credits whose sale funds a variety of state programs -- notably, the proposed high-speed rail project.

The reason is unclear, but state officials and outside experts pointed to several possible causes: less need for the credits, pending litigation that may overturn the entire system and volatility spawned by speculators in a secondary trading market.
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-cap-trade-20160525-snap-story.html
Click to expand...

On the bit about "Secondary trading market", I read an interesting piece a while back regarding ExxonMobil and their SUPPORT for Cap&Trade; Seems they see billions to be made as 'carbon speculators'
 
Government: The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. They can't resist the lure of additional tax revenues.

I live in another area of exploding residential development. I shouldn't really make all that much noise; my house is on what was farmland up until about 14 years ago.

The situation is eventually self-correcting. Pave over and build lawns over all the farmland, then there's no land to grow food, then all the people die, then nature resets back to square one and starts over :-)
 
Brian P said:
Government: The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. They can't resist the lure of additional tax revenues.

I live in another area of exploding residential development. I shouldn't really make all that much noise; my house is on what was farmland up until about 14 years ago.

The situation is eventually self-correcting. Pave over and build lawns over all the farmland, then there's no land to grow food, then all the people die, then nature resets back to square one and starts over :-)
Click to expand...

Small corn (pun intended) when compared to the impact of ethanol production on the global food market. Last check 40% of US corn crops are now used for ethanol; that's 15% globally... Starvation, particularly for the unfortunate souls in the developing world, will come by way of aggressive global climate policy. Again, what's the true motivation?
 
Neil_V said:
Small corn (pun intended) when compared to the impact of ethanol production on the global food market. Last check 40% of US corn crops are now used for ethanol; that's 15% globally... Starvation, particularly for the unfortunate souls in the developing world, will come by way of aggressive global climate policy. Again, what's the true motivation?
Click to expand...

Back to high school chemistry... Ethanol contains two carbon atoms and when you burn it it produces carbon dioxide just like a fossil fuel. Ethanol production is not about global warming because it produces a green house gas. Alcohols are hydrogen, carbon and oxygen...hydrocarbons are hydrogen and carbon (no oxygen atom).

It burns "cleaner" and does not produce some of the other nasty smog gasses that gasoline does--totally different thing.
 
Ethanol recycles the co2 from the atmosphere. When the corn grows it sucks the co2 from the atmosphere. Fossil doesn't do that
 
backmarkerducati said:
Back to high school chemistry... Ethanol contains two carbon atoms and when you burn it it produces carbon dioxide just like a fossil fuel. Ethanol production is not about global warming because it produces a green house gas. Alcohols are hydrogen, carbon and oxygen...hydrocarbons are hydrogen and carbon (no oxygen atom).

It burns "cleaner" and does not produce some of the other nasty smog gasses that gasoline does--totally different thing.
Click to expand...

Living up to the Ducati owner stereotypical sense of superiority? :confused: No need to be a dick about it.. Truth is EPA representatives cite 'carbon reduction' as a reason to push bio fuels on a regular basis.. took me all of 3 secs on google to find a comment. Don't let reason cloud the reality in which these wack jobs operate; now, back to Geo-Politics 101 for you :rolleyes:

Janet McCabe, the acting assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, called the biofuels industry “an incredible American success story,” saying it was cutting carbon pollution and oil imports while boosting jobs.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/feds-push-more-ethanol-into-gasoline-but-will-164706945.html
Click to expand...

I'd find more but to be frank, I don't need to
 
RockerGuy said:
Ethanol recycles the co2 from the atmosphere. When the corn grows it sucks the co2 from the atmosphere. Fossil doesn't do that
Click to expand...

Problem is that growing, harvesting, fermenting, and distilling corn is energy intensive. Fossil fuel burned in doing so offsets the carbon taken from the atmosphere. It's close enough to be arguable whether there is any CO2 reduction. Guarantees employment though... That's what is really behind it.
 
Brian P said:
Problem is that growing, harvesting, fermenting, and distilling corn is energy intensive. Fossil fuel burned in doing so offsets the carbon taken from the atmosphere. It's close enough to be arguable whether there is any CO2 reduction. Guarantees employment though... That's what is really behind it.
Click to expand...
I would admit there is no reduction but it might be neutral. If you have some data for me to look at, I'm all ears.

However I still think biodiesel is the way of the future. Easy to harvest & we already have engines that can use them efficiently
 
Like with most things these days ... you will have to choose a side you believe. There's data and plenty of it if you look long enough, but you have to carefully watch who financed these studies. There's no independent way of doing it ... the people in that group stopped caring long time ago, so it's either hard core against or for ... the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Relatively clean grid and EV is the way to go. Yes, it's been costing us an arm and a leg in hydro rates, but the only other alternative is really not that great. I am not sure.

The ethanol kind of stinks like the hydrogen movement ... LOL ... it's a dead end, they know it, yet it keeps hanging around ... why? Because it can ...
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom