Climate Impacts - No extremism will be tolerated!

[DevSecOps]

I don't think that would help even a little bit.

Does anyone worry about smog anymore? Smog was a big deal 50 years ago, but air quality has improved substantially since then (in the first world).

I think you're missing @Mach1E point. The message he's trying to convey, which I didn't respond to because it's what I would consider political or bias, is that "Climate Change" is a politically charged subject. So, changing the language, regardless of the language, would help prevent the politicization of the subject.

I'm not sure that Smog is appropriate either because smog is mainly composed of nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, ozone, and smoke. While I would agree that it's related to greenhouse emissions I don't think that's the point of this topic.

The right answer is always one of the extremes...

So be intolerant at your own risk.

I created this topic to explore facts, based on scientific data. The reason that I'm asking people to avoid the use of political extremes is because there's no factual data in extremism. It's hyperbole meant to push an agenda.

Thus, what bothers me about political narratives is the hatred for either BEVs or ICE vehicles (depending on which side you're on). I own both, and I'm happy owning both and I will continue to own both. The evidence that I've seen doesn't lead me to believe that EVs are the answer to climate change or that they emit less emissions than, especially, hybrid. I don't listen and believe what the government says because there's always motive.

As I've said previously, 15 years ago electricity was bad. We were given CFL bulbs almost for free to replace incandescents because we were told that electricity was causing global warming and climate change. This also ushered in the era of solar. Now we are being told that electricity is good. I equate it to the food pyramid. Once we were told that we should consume a ton of carbs by our government and now we know it's been a leading cause of obesity.

So all that being said, why aren't we all pushing efuel, transient plasma ignition and turbines, like Omega 1? There's no bias or extremism in critical thinking. The more people who can keep an open mind, trust but verify and ignore the extremism all the better.

What's the hurt in removing harmful gasses regardless if you believe it causes climate change? For those who are on the extreme "climate change path", why don't they actually push technology and innovations that are far better than EVs? There's too much brainwashing on both sides and it's time to wake up and look at facts.

Sponsored

 

[phil]

So, changing the language, regardless of the language, would help prevent the politicization of the subject.

I get it, but don't agree. Political conflict is inevitable on any significant economic issue. No matter how you frame it, people's interests are at stake, and they will act accordingly. It cannot be otherwise.

The reason that I'm asking people to avoid the use of political extremes is because there's no factual data in extremism.

My point is that there are no actual data in moderation, either. Moderation is often expedient, but it is rarely correct, or "factual". Thus, banning extremism and enforcing moderation is a fool's errand.

I, too, own both types of cars, and I appreciate both my EV and my ICEV. I wish you good luck with your undertaking here, but I have little to contribute to such an enormously complex issue, and doubt you will get very far on a car forum. Impacts per mile are only the tip of the iceberg here - the carbon impacts of the manufacturing and disposal processes can dwarf the operating impacts and are notoriously difficult to quantify. And even a good understanding of all the impacts is likely to change nothing.

I am under no illusions that I am saving the planet by driving an electric car. I just enjoy it while I can.

 

[Mach1E]

I think you're missing @Mach1E point. The message he's trying to convey, which I didn't respond to because it's what I would consider political or bias, is that "Climate Change" is a politically charged subject. So, changing the language, regardless of the language, would help prevent the politicization of the subject.

I'm not sure that Smog is appropriate either because smog is mainly composed of nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, ozone, and smoke. While I would agree that it's related to greenhouse emissions I don't think that's the point of this topic.



I created this topic to explore facts, based on scientific data. The reason that I'm asking people to avoid the use of political extremes is because there's no factual data in extremism. It's hyperbole meant to push an agenda.

Thus, what bothers me about political narratives is the hatred for either BEVs or ICE vehicles (depending on which side you're on). I own both, and I'm happy owning both and I will continue to own both. The evidence that I've seen doesn't lead me to believe that EVs are the answer to climate change or that they emit less emissions than, especially, hybrid. I don't listen and believe what the government says because there's always motive.

As I've said previously, 15 years ago electricity was bad. We were given CFL bulbs almost for free to replace incandescents because we were told that electricity was causing global warming and climate change. This also ushered in the era of solar. Now we are being told that electricity is good. I equate it to the food pyramid. Once we were told that we should consume a ton of carbs by our government and now we know it's been a leading cause of obesity.

So all that being said, why aren't we all pushing efuel, transient plasma ignition and turbines, like Omega 1? There's no bias or extremism in critical thinking. The more people who can keep an open mind, trust but verify and ignore the extremism all the better.

What's the hurt in removing harmful gasses regardless if you believe it causes climate change? For those who are on the extreme "climate change path", why don't they actually push technology and innovations that are far better than EVs? There's too much brainwashing on both sides and it's time to wake up and look at facts.

Yup, that’s what I’m getting at.

It’s also why this thread has struggled to gain traction.

You basically said: “let’s discuss an extremely politically charged topic…….. but no politics!”

If that’s really the goal, you have to change the narrative and get very creative trying to figure out ways to accomplish the same goal without “triggering” an immediate “no” from the opposition.

Examples:

Option 1: pass a law that takes away the gas burning muscle cars (2030 West coast of the US)

Option 2: make electric muscle cars faster and better than the gas ones and convert gear heads like myself. (Sold an 13 mpg Chevy SS for a GTPE).

Same result, different strategy. And the car dealership didn’t have to convince me of some moral/social/environmental conversation. Wasn’t even in the sales pitch.

Back to the topic at hand:

Are you including the following in your calculations?:

manufacturing impact
Vehicle lifespan
Raw materials (mining etc)
For BEV- charging at home vs DC
Geography- how the electricity is created where you live
Geography- average commute and how bad traffic is where you live

So many variables to consider.

Not an easy solution for most but things that would have a bigger impact than buying a BEV:

car pool- cuts things in 1/2, 1/3 etc
Move closer to work
Move out of the city- less traffic, shorter commute
Work from home

You asked the question: Are BEVs the solution…… the answer is: everything helps.

 

[Mach-Lee]

What I've always found astonishing is that it's almost impossible to find g/mi numbers for gas/ICE vehicles. Why aren't these numbers published like the EV numbers are? My guess is because if you look at the ones published by some of the mfgs you'll see that higher mpg vehicles can achieve 50g/mi in emissions (cited). Of course there's other impacts such as refinement and drilling etc that one could argue and boiling a number down to a gallon seems hard to find. Additionally, since we derive NG and LPG from refinement how much of the refinement GHG actually account for the per gallon of gasoline number? I would love for someone who has that data to present it in a non-biased way. I think education and truth behind the data is fascinating.

8.78 kg of CO2 per gallon of gasoline is emitted (source). So you could do your own math with the fuel economy. FuelEconomy.gov also lists grams of CO2 per mile for most cars.

If you click the Calculate Emissions link then and enter your zip code it will show you your CO2 per mile with your local electricity mix (seems based off regional operator data spanning multiple states). Your total Todd would be 110 g/mi, so about 4x better than the Escape. This doesn't account for CO2 emissions from production from what I can tell, which are much higher for EVs. So there's this idea of a "carbon break-even point" when the total lifetime carbon emissions from an EV would be less than a gas car, which depends on your electricity mix and vehicle. For you in CA, I think it's probably only 30k miles but for me where most electricity still comes from coal, it is more like 60k miles before I'm saving the planet. Buying a new car every couple years isn't good because of the upstream emissions, you're best to try to drive every car you buy for as long as you can before getting a new one if you want to be really green.

 

[ChasingCoral]

THE TOPIC:
Are EV's really the answer to a lower carbon footprint?

The Government provides a website to check your carbon footprint of EV's, also known as "beyond tailpipe emissions". The MME GTPE, which I have, uses power which amounts to 200g/mi based on energy production throughout the ENTIRE day (cited).

Important question: is this g/mi carbon, carbon dioxide, or carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e)?

 

[DevSecOps]

Important question: is this g/mi carbon, carbon dioxide, or carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e)?

Grams CO2

 

[DevSecOps]

Thus, banning extremism and enforcing moderation is a fool's errand.

Phil, my hope is to get people to try to be balanced. I understand that everyone has their leanings and based on your previous comments you and I lean the same way. That doesn't mean that I can't accept things from the other side. I understand that everyone is different and I personally didn't buy an EV to save anything other than money on gas and to have a fun car to drive with a lot of new tech. But if someone can prove to me that I'm helping lower a carbon footprint then hey that's an added bonus. My calculations thus far show that hybrids are better than EVs from a carbon standpoint.

Impacts per mile are only the tip of the iceberg here - the carbon impacts of the manufacturing and disposal processes can dwarf the operating impacts and are notoriously difficult to quantify.

Are you including the following in your calculations?:

I understand and both of you basically are saying the same thing. I know this is a long thread and some of the posts are long winded. I am trying to compare just from power production / refinement to tailpipe. The data on EV production is that it produces far more carbon emissions than ICE. EVs are heavier and damage the roads more and cement is one of the worst carbon emitters on earth. EV batteries, mining minerals, the toxicity of the batteries in crashes and disposal, there's a ton of things to consider beyond production of energy and it's not in the favor of EVs at all. But in an attempt to be fair and simple I've drawn my conclusion from production / refinement.

It’s also why this thread has struggled to gain traction.

I posted this thread in an area that doesn't appear in the stats, so when posts are made they don't appear where most people would see them. I did that because I know that there's members here that won't even attempt to give impartial answers.

8.78 kg of CO2 per gallon of gasoline is emitted (source). So you could do your own math with the fuel economy. FuelEconomy.gov also lists grams of CO2 per mile for most cars.

I posted a couple times in later posts that I missed it, but it's been pointed out to me a few times.

If you click the Calculate Emissions link then and enter your zip code it will show you your CO2 per mile with your local electricity mix (seems based off regional operator data spanning multiple states).

Yeah here's my issue with that number and why I feel there's a lot of deception. In California and a lot of states we are encouraged to charge at night. Even if we aren't encouraged to, most people are at work during the day. At night the energy mix is far more carbon intensive and the numbers online are averages throughout a 24 hour period. It's like saying it's 80 degrees all day, when that's just the high and it's actually 35 at midnight.

 

[Mach1E]

Phil, my hope is to get people to try to be balanced. I understand that everyone has their leanings and based on your previous comments you and I lean the same way. That doesn't mean that I can't accept things from the other side. I understand that everyone is different and I personally didn't buy an EV to save anything other than money on gas and to have a fun car to drive with a lot of new tech. But if someone can prove to me that I'm helping lower a carbon footprint then hey that's an added bonus. My calculations thus far show that hybrids are better than EVs from a carbon standpoint.




I understand and both of you basically are saying the same thing. I know this is a long thread and some of the posts are long winded. I am trying to compare just from power production / refinement to tailpipe. The data on EV production is that it produces far more carbon emissions than ICE. EVs are heavier and damage the roads more and cement is one of the worst carbon emitters on earth. EV batteries, mining minerals, the toxicity of the batteries in crashes and disposal, there's a ton of things to consider beyond production of energy and it's not in the favor of EVs at all. But in an attempt to be fair and simple I've drawn my conclusion from production / refinement.



I posted this thread in an area that doesn't appear in the stats, so when posts are made they don't appear where most people would see them. I did that because I know that there's members here that won't even attempt to give impartial answers.



I posted a couple times in later posts that I missed it, but it's been pointed out to me a few times.



Yeah here's my issue with that number and why I feel there's a lot of deception. In California and a lot of states we are encouraged to charge at night. Even if we aren't encouraged to, most people are at work during the day. At night the energy mix is far more carbon intensive and the numbers online are averages throughout a 24 hour period. It's like saying it's 80 degrees all day, when that's just the high and it's actually 35 at midnight.

It’s a very interesting and honestly very important question. But as you can see, it’s extremely complicated to calculate.

I will make one hopeful assumption: that since the people who are “doing their best” to save the environment believe in BEVs as a solution, I would hope they actually make a difference.

Not like some things….. don’t get me started on corn ethanol.

The discussion reminds me of a book from 2009 that I remember hearing about: “Time to eat the dog?”

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/time-to-eat-the-dog

It’s a very dry read about sustainable living. But one of the things they calculated was the “carbon pawprint” of a family dog. Summary? More than a 4x4 vehicle, including the manufacturing of the vehicle.

It’s kinda a silly premise, but it does go back to what I said earlier that:

There isn’t just one solution
and
Everything helps

 

[DevSecOps]

I will make one hopeful assumption: that since the people who are “doing their best” to save the environment believe in BEVs as a solution, I would hope they actually make a difference.

That's exactly what scares me. I don't think that all people do things for the wrong purposes, but when it comes to climate there's a lot of things that just don't make much sense.

The discussion reminds me of a book from 2009 that I remember hearing about: “Time to eat the dog?”

Very interesting. Thank for that link!

There isn’t just one solution
and
Everything helps

Yes, but what if we are actually doing harm by thinking we are doing good? That's the whole premise of this topic. There's so many forum members who say "F*ck gas", anything to get rid of ICE etc. If I could prove that a 55mpg ICE vehicle has a lower carbon footprint than an EV, would they change their minds? I doubt it! Would they be willing to accept that (basically) slaves are used for cobalt mining? Or how about this Florida college report that breaks down lithium mining and explains how farmers can't grow crops because the huge amounts of water being diverted for mining efforts?

The point isn't to dive down a rabbit hole into all the possibilities, the point I'm trying to get across is that I'm not so sure we're doing the right thing especially with other technologies that look really promising such as efuel, transient plasma ignition and turbines, like Omega 1.

Sponsored