Report: No "Global Warming" for 325 Months...

[rhino]

See, the volcanos man..... like..... put out sulfur that cools the planet,
but also put out like CO2 which warms the planet, so their like neutral man.

That's like, hella deep 'n' sh**, man.

 

[actaeon277]

Now I feel sweaty.

And, when I sweat, everyone loses.

Ain't that the truth.

Wait.
Did I say that out loud?

 

[rhino]

Ain't that the truth.

Wait.
Did I say that out loud?

I didn't see anything.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

File this one under "THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG!!!"

Study: Your all-electric car may not be so green | Fox News

 

[olhorseman]

Here is a link to the study findings. It is truly amazing how a writer can pick and choose a few lines out of a study and twist the study results.
For those who don't wish to read the findings let me simply post the 1st paragraph which I feel totally conflicts with the point the writer is trying to make.

The electrification of passenger vehicles has the potential to
address three of the most critical challenges of our time:
plug-in vehicles may (i) produce fewer greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions when powered by electricity instead of gasoline, depending
on the electricity source; (ii) reduce tailpipe emissions,
which impact people and the environment; and (iii) reduce gasoline
consumption, helping to diminish dependency on imported
oil. Recognizing these benefits, US policymakers have provided
federal tax credits of up to $7,500 per vehicle to encourage electrified
transportation, with additional supporting policies enacted
in many states (1, 2). Ideally, these policies would compensate
for the externalities of energy use, such as damages to human
health and to resources caused by emissions or oil consumption.
Because such externality damages are not priced explicitly in the
marketplace, they are not adequately accounted for in decision
making, and users consume and emit more than they would have
if they had born the full costs (3). Policymakers understand the
impossibility of eliminating all externality damages; instead, laws
favor determining which externality-reducing measures are worth
paying for and which approaches reduce externality damages
most efficiently.


Valuation of plug-in vehicle life-cycle air emissions and oil displacement benefits

My bad; The above link was to a previous study, here is the link to the study the article references
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2...html?sid=57cdf81f-dc7f-4d34-8118-443e92adfe73

 

[jamil]

Here is a link to the study findings. It is truly amazing how a writer can pick and choose a few lines out of a study and twist the study results.
For those who don't wish to read the findings let me simply post the 1st paragraph which I feel totally conflicts with the point the writer is trying to make.

The electrification of passenger vehicles has the potential to
address three of the most critical challenges of our time:
plug-in vehicles may (i) produce fewer greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions when powered by electricity instead of gasoline, depending
on the electricity source; (ii) reduce tailpipe emissions,
which impact people and the environment; and (iii) reduce gasoline
consumption, helping to diminish dependency on imported
oil. Recognizing these benefits, US policymakers have provided
federal tax credits of up to $7,500 per vehicle to encourage electrified
transportation, with additional supporting policies enacted
in many states (1, 2). Ideally, these policies would compensate
for the externalities of energy use, such as damages to human
health and to resources caused by emissions or oil consumption.
Because such externality damages are not priced explicitly in the
marketplace, they are not adequately accounted for in decision
making, and users consume and emit more than they would have
if they had born the full costs (3). Policymakers understand the
impossibility of eliminating all externality damages; instead, laws
favor determining which externality-reducing measures are worth
paying for and which approaches reduce externality damages
most efficiently.


Valuation of plug-in vehicle life-cycle air emissions and oil displacement benefits

The market should decide the value of a product. I like the idea of an electric vehicle for commuting to work, and if the true cost was less than its value to me, I would buy one. But currently their value is not greater than their cost, except for snoots who think being seen saving the planet is valuable. I don't care about that so for me the value isn't even close. Especially when the true cost is hidden by government subsidies, taking money from people who earned it so that financially better-off snobs can be seen being "green".

 

[rhino]

Especially since the battery technology is . . . immature.

 

[88GT]

Especially since the battery technology is . . . immature.

IKR. It totally needs to grow up.

 

[rhino]

IKR. It totally needs to grow up.

Like that big wheel of cheese on the cracker commercials?

 

[HoughMade]

I like the IDEA of an electric car from a few different perspectives. What I don't like is the government choosing winners and losers.

Do I really NEED a full-sized pickup with a 320hp V8 just to commute back and forth to work.....YES, but that's not the issue right now.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

I like the IDEA of an electric car from a few different perspectives. What I don't like is the government choosing winners and losers.

Do I really NEED a full-sized pickup with a 320hp V8 just to commute back and forth to work.....YES, but that's not the issue right now.

Sometimes I do too. That's why I have an F250 SuperDuty Diesel, AND a car AND a motorcycle.

The total environmental cost includes battery cradle-to-grave costs, which were not even scratched.

 

[chipbennett]

Like that big wheel of cheese on the cracker commercials?

Exactly what I was picturing.

 

[chipbennett]

I like the IDEA of an electric car from a few different perspectives. What I don't like is the government choosing winners and losers.

Do I really NEED a full-sized pickup with a 320hp V8 just to commute back and forth to work.....YES, but that's not the issue right now.

What you NEED is none of the State's business. Just look what happened to school lunches based on what Michelle Obama thinks that school children NEED.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

What you NEED is none of the State's business. Just look what happened to school lunches based on what Michelle Obama thinks that school children NEED.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

As for the maturity of lithium ion battery technology for large applications - like EV's - there are ways to make the batteries "greener", but none of those ways are available, are even started in research, or reduce deliverable capacity and cycle life of the batteries (Examining The Cradle To Grave Aspects Of EV Batteries | EarthTechling).

So, a maximum service life of only 7 years, is only part of the problem. Production and use of cobalt and nickel and corrosive and toxic electrolytes are a public health and environmental issue. Add to that the risk of fire and energy cost (REMC) - for me - EV's are a long way from winning my dollars.

 

[rhino]

I dunno, maybe catching on fire as you're driving your 20 miles maximum range would make the trip more exciting?

 

[Bunnykid68]

I dunno, maybe catching on fire as you're driving your 20 miles maximum range would make the trip more exciting?

And if it happens during the winter it will keep you warm

 

[rhino]

And if it happens during the winter it will keep you warm

For a while.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for a day.

Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

 

[88GT]

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for a day.

Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his short life.

Better?