What Road Trip Charging Should Be

[sockmeister]

I mentioned climate change, because fossil fuels are a direct contributor.
The financial burdens of a changing climate are thoroughly studied. Scientists are not partisan or in this to make money off of fear-mongering. They're forming conclusions from readily available data.

The internet is flooded with scholarly articles on the effects of climate change from a cost standpoint. Here's the first article I found (it references the study): $10billion in 2012 alone.
https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/ho...-changes-costing-u-s-billions-health-spending

To find which portion of that fossil fuels are responsible for, just divide the number by fossil fuel's contribution to global warming. For JUST transportation, it's 14%.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

14% of $10 billion is $1.4 billion. That's for one year.

Now, EVs obviously have a carbon footprint too. But we've already covered how they're better over their lifetime, with a total emissions of less than half or more even when powered by coal plants.

Sponsored

 

[sockmeister]

Sorry you don't believe it, but like I said -- the effects of climate change are thoroughly studied and understood. I think I'll believe "researchers at the Natural Resource Defense Council and the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)" who literally dedicate their lives to this subject and spend decades studying it, over those of us on the internet who call it B.S.

If you read the linked study, they explain in detail that the costs are attributed to *climate sensitive events*, as in, disasters or health burdens which are proven by referenced studies to be directly affected by a changing climate.

100% of the cost of these events are allocated to climate change because they note that climate-triggered natural disasters like hurricanes will triple by the year 2050 as a direct result of climate change. So those are events and burdens which literally would not have happened, had the planet not warmed by the amount it is on track to.

Yes, I believe the EPA report on the contribution of transportation to greenhouse gas emissions is 14%.
It's a straightforward calculation.

About the tax incentive -- No, it would never reach that high. Only the first 200,000 EVs from a manufacturer are eligible for the incentive, and that's just the U.S. There aren't that many total manufacturers.

For what it's worth, in one of my previous posts I pointed out the economic burden of climate change on the global economy will be in the trillions if nothing is done, by the year 2050 or so.

 

[sockmeister]

I disagree. Don't forget that the oil and gas industry is heavily subsidized, to the tune of hundreds of billions.
It costs money to subsidize EVs. But the cost of NOT doing it, is far higher. EV subsidization is an investment against having to pay trillions down the line.

NOT saving the environment is going to cost us far, far more in the long run.

 

[sockmeister]

"Seasons with the most hurricanes" is not a complete picture, you need to look at average number of hurricanes; even if it were, looks to me like the general trend is more hurricanes as the years go by. If you want to see real research data on the trend, which is well-studied, you need to ask the scientists who study it. Or read the peer-reviewed articles.

"The number of hurricanes in categories 3-5 on the Saffir-Simpson scale has increased from on average of around 1.6-1.7 per year in the 1970s and 1980s to an average of 3.0-3.6 per year in the 2000s and 2010s. Climate change has been identified as a reason why stronger hurricanes occur." https://www.statista.com/chart/11009/hurricanes-over-the-atlantic-basin

 

[sockmeister]

The truth is, it's one prong of a hundred-pronged approach to stemming off climate change. EVs instead of ICE is just one step. And yes, it will pay for itself and then some if you understand the financial burden of climate change.

 

[BMT1071]

I can't believe I'm entering this train wreck of a thread, but here I am.
Just a couple points that seem to be eluding a couple of posters:
"If it's better the market will adopt it" WRONG
Betamax was better than VHS. The market chose incorrectly.
HD DVD was better than Blu-ray. The market chose incorrectly.
I could go on.
"We need to provide EV tax credits in perpetuity" WRONG
They are needed now to encourage adoption. As we reach economy of scale EVs will cost no more than, and likely less than ICE vehicles. The same principle can be applied to "alternative" energy.

 

[sockmeister]

I understand your point. However, you can't just look at an arbitrary chart - you need to associate statistical trends with global temperature increases.

The reason it will increase more rapidly in the next 30 years is because the number of people, and industrialized nations, has grown exponentially. At the same time, things like deforestation and melting ice caps act as negative feedback, and actually accelerate the process of climate warming. Less ice to reflect sunlight, more light is absorbed, and more ice melts faster. As an example.

In other words, the rate of warming is accelerating. It's not a linear trend.

There's a bit of misinformation around that commonly quoted "the earth was warm before!" line. Yeah it was, but the change took millenia. Many thousands of years to move a degree in one direction.
But now it's moving more than one degree in a mere 150 years. And it coincided with the industrial revolution.

Anyway... Let's leave it to the scientists who do this for a living every single day.
And there's a peer review process. You can't just make up or cherry pick facts without losing all credibility... Not to mention that study after study all reach the same conclusion year after year.

 

[sockmeister]

I can't believe I'm entering this train wreck of a thread, but here I am.
Just a couple points that seem to be eluding a couple of posters:
"If it's better the market will adopt it" WRONG
Betamax was better than VHS. The market chose incorrectly.
HD DVD was better than Blu-ray. The market chose incorrectly.
I could go on.
"We need to provide EV tax credits in perpetuity" WRONG
They are needed now to encourage adoption. As we reach economy of scale EVs will cost no more than, and likely less than ICE vehicles. The same principle can be applied to "alternative" energy.

Yeah, this thread is totally gone. I apologize to the OP We need our own thread.

 

[sockmeister]

In case anyone's interested, XKCD has a fun and accurate timeline depicting Earth's climate over the past 22,000 years. I always like to reference this. It's alarming.
https://xkcd.com/1732/

Sponsored