Now electric vehicles are BAD for the environment

[Gene2memE]

Getting out of that agreement and becoming energy independent for the first time in our history was the best thing we did for our energy needs. President Trump did that for us, and biden threw it away.

Despite the claims, the US was never "energy independent" during the Trump administration. At best, you could say the Trump administration reduced US dependency on liquid energy imports and increased exports. But, even then, the US was still importing ~9.2 million barrels of oil per day in 2019 and US consumption was greater than US production by about 1.1 million barrels per day.

2020 was the first time since WW2 that the US was a net exporter of oil and production was greater than consumption. That's not thanks to the Biden or Trump administrations though, that's due to COVID-19.

Data from the US Energy Information Administration.

For a policy and legislative perspective, the Trump Administration really did little to modify existing core US energy policy. Their main initiatives were to remove environmental, health & safety and worker protection regulations and slap tariffs on imports. You know "business friendly" stuff.

The energy trends put in place in the Bush II and first Obama administrations basically continued under Trump.

 

[rambot]

Boy, it's just SOOOO HARD to understand that making things can lead to waste. Man!

I mean, I know we have 300years of rampant capitalism and a SOLID century of consumerism but I'm just SOOOO surprised that when you make a product, it STILL makes waste!

 

[adrianmonk]

After reading a review from someone who had an electric vehicle with a solar panel in the roof he was excited about for that very reason, he soon discovered that even a full day in the sun didn't add any measurable amount of power to the vehicle's battery.

In most cars that have them, the solar panels are meant to produce just enough power to keep accessories running. (AC for a short time, radio etc). Some regular gas cars have them too for the same reason. They are even marketed as such.

 

[Aldebaran]

In most cars that have them, the solar panels are meant to produce just enough power to keep accessories running. (AC for a short time, radio etc). Some regular gas cars have them too for the same reason. They are even marketed as such.

Are you referring to a vehicle battery maintainer?
1.5 Watt Solar Battery Charger

 

[adrianmonk]

Are you referring to a vehicle battery maintainer?
1.5 Watt Solar Battery Charger

I did not refer to any specific battery maintainer, but some cars (the old Fisker Karma for example) had factory installed solar panels on the roof which was meant to provide some power for accessories. For example, if you had to run into the store on a hot day, the car would use the power from these panels to keep your car interior cool.

 

[Aldebaran]

I did not refer to any specific battery maintainer, but some cars (the old Fisker Karma for example) had factory installed solar panels on the roof which was meant to provide some power for accessories. For example, if you had to run into the store on a hot day, the car would use the power from these panels to keep your car interior cool.

They should be offering that as an option on gas powered cars today. It would keep people from having to idle the engine to run accessories when they're parked without running down the main battery. I'll bet today's cars could still be outfitted with something like that simply enough, just like how any car can have a backup camera put in even if the car wasn't designed to have one.

 

[Whyayeman]

I'll bet today's cars could still be outfitted with something like that simply enough

Lovely, but hardly significant. The issue is whether EVs are worse for the environment than vehicles which use fossil fuels. The case has not been made.

EVs are the future in my view. There will be wind and sunshine to generate the renewable power to allow people to drive without further polluting the atmosphere. Whether that is an expensive option or not in the short term pales into insignificance when the long term benefits are properly considered.

We only have one atmosphere and one planet. We can neglect it or cherish it.

 

[rjs330]

Now I've looked into this, there are suggestions that removing the methane by converting it to C02 would be a benefit in the short term. Turn Methane into CO 2 to Reduce Warming, Experts Propose

Sounds counter intuitive...

Just goes to show the science isn't settled. Hmm... No surprise here.

 

[Bradskii]

Just goes to show the science isn't settled. Hmm... No surprise here.

I think the idea is that as methane is so much more of a problem (yet short lived) then the plan would be to remove the methane in some manner, which actually reduces the global warming effect, even though it increases the CO². But then we have more CO². So it's two steps forward, one step back. I guess if we reduced the amount of CO² we emit below that which would be produced by converting methane then it's one step forward and nonsteps back.

All the same, I think we need to drop CO² emmisions and then possibly investigate removing methane. In the meantime, eat less Mexican.

 

[Aldebaran]

Lovely, but hardly significant. The issue is whether EVs are worse for the environment than vehicles which use fossil fuels. The case has not been made.

EVs are the future in my view. There will be wind and sunshine to generate the renewable power to allow people to drive without further polluting the atmosphere. Whether that is an expensive option or not in the short term pales into insignificance when the long term benefits are properly considered.

We only have one atmosphere and one planet. We can neglect it or cherish it.

The planet and atmosphere are resilient. They've proven to be amazingly adaptive to whatever us puny little people do on the surface.

 

[Bradskii]

The planet and atmosphere are resilient. They've proven to be amazingly adaptive to whatever us puny little people do on the surface.

It's not many people that can sum up the problem without realising it.

 

[Aldebaran]

It's not many people that can sum up the problem without realising it.

Too bad so many people see a problem where none exists. Paranoia can cause that. So can conspiracy theorists.

 

[Bradskii]

So can conspiracy theorists.

Again, you're hitting those nails squarely on the head.

Marjorie Taylor Greene Reports Sightings of Jewish Space Lasers Across U.S.

 

[Aldebaran]

Again, you're hitting those nails squarely on the head.

Marjorie Taylor Greene Reports Sightings of Jewish Space Lasers Across U.S.

The topic is electric cars, not lasers (or me).

 

[Bradskii]

The topic is electric cars, not lasers (or me).

Sorry, I thought you were heading into conspiracy territory re global warming (hence an argument to reject the requirement for solar heating in the first
place). I thought you might think of a way to use the space lasers as a means of energy.

 

[adrianmonk]

They should be offering that as an option on gas powered cars today. It would keep people from having to idle the engine to run accessories when they're parked without running down the main battery. I'll bet today's cars could still be outfitted with something like that simply enough, just like how any car can have a backup camera put in even if the car wasn't designed to have one.

Some ICE cars do have the option. However this takes away from having a panoramic or an opening sunroof which is what consumers prefer. Though some of the cars they had it installed on have been on the more expensive side.

 

[Whyayeman]

It is obvious that solar panels mounted on car roofs will be inadequate to do much more than run the car radio. EVs will need heavy batteries in place and regular charging from permanent stations connected to the grid. This poses design and supply problems, of course. It is not so much different from conventional petroleum based power points in cars now which are heavy and require regular refilling from stations which themselves need to be replenished.

In the near future petroleum sources will be depleted with associated increases in cost. In contrast, once the infrastructure is in place electricity prices will come down dramatically; wind and sun are free and will never be depleted.

As for the resilience of the atmosphere; temperatures of the air and the oceans have been climbing steadily for a century. There are no guarantees that this trend will not continue. At some point the atmosphere could settle stably at a level which cannot sustain human life.

 

[rambot]

Too bad so many people see a problem where none exists. Paranoia can cause that. So can conspiracy theorists.

Yes. Clearly there is not a major shift in weather patterns and ocean currents that are both directly tied to climate change and these events will not impact us in a meaningful way.... Because even though they already have, it doesn't mean that they have, or they will.

 

[Aldebaran]

Sorry, I thought you were heading into conspiracy territory re global warming (hence an argument to reject the requirement for solar heating in the first
place). I thought you might think of a way to use the space lasers as a means of energy.

Actually, there was a sort of "space laser" idea floating around where giant mirrors would be put into orbit to reflect solar energy in a beam down to the surface. I don't know if the mirrors would be of the Jewish faith or not.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes. Clearly there is not a major shift in weather patterns and ocean currents that are both directly tied to climate change and these events will not impact us in a meaningful way.... Because even though they already have, it doesn't mean that they have, or they will.

When data can be selectively used to promote a narrative, any conclusion can be reached. Right now, the government that uses data to promote it's current agenda is controlled by increasingly radical Left politicians, so it's best to take any of their conclusions with a barrel of salt.