Is electric really the answer?

[C8RKH]

Is electricity the answer? Well, recently, several states, including Alabama, Mississippi and Oklahoma have all switched their preference from electricity to nitrogen! 😵

[LotusLeftLotusRight]

I guess that’s more of a final solution, than an answer.

[C8RKH]

6 minutes ago, LotusLeftLotusRight said:

I guess that’s more of a final solution, than an answer.

Many on here had Electric as the "final solution" and refused to hear any argument against....  They're mostly quiet these days though lol.

[Sparky]

TBH no amount of reduction in any emissions will resolve the cause of this whole ecological disaster: population growth.  But nobody seems to want to acknowledge this simple and obvious fact.  So deep down we all know what the 'final solution' should be.  And the planet has been doing its best lately.  Eventually it will win.

[C8RKH]

Yup. I raise the issue of "population" constantly in a number of forums/groups and nobody, absolutely nobody, wants to go there.

More people = more consumption = more emissions

More people = large middle class = even more emissions

More people = living longer = more emissions for even longer

The solution, we need less people. However, western governments are worried about low population growth so are trying to encourage more babies = totally stupid decision

Let the westerners die out through lack of babies = more space for migration = people can live in places more hospitable = but then that will drive more per capita consumption for longer

So, there really is only one solution - we need less people. And as you point out @Sparky nature is working its way around to change the climate to reduce the population. 

 

If you don't believe us, look at the figures:

The world's population today is more than three times larger than it was in the mid-twentieth century. Global population hit 8bn in November 2022. 72 years earlier, in 1950, it was 2.5bn people.

From 1998 to  today, we added 2bn people.

From 2010 to today we added 1bn people.

The chart below should be scaring the shit out of governments, the WHO, the UN etc.  Bare in mind that population growth in developed countries is relatively stable, which you could argue means consumption will be relatively stable.

But what that also tells us is that the population explosion in the less developed countries will literally result in a nuclear sized explosion in consumption driven by increased wealth generation as the middle classes swell exponentially. Those extra 2bn in global population from less developed countries could consume as much resources a 6bn people currently, meaning we will be consuming resources globally, as if 12bn people where on the planet today, instead of just 8bn.  

Playing around with EVs and cars, that represents less than 5% of the "emissions" problem is like prioritising treating someone's ingrowing toe-nail over their lymphoma cancer. We can imagine the outcome of that for sure.

 

[JimmytheTurbo]

44 minutes ago, Sparky said:

population growth.  

You might want to reconsider that statement as we are facing a population crash disaster.

Even China is running out of people...as for Japan Spain and Italy they might well be ideas of the past in a matter of decades.

 

[Sparky]

Nope, not going to reconsider.  Might be a hiatus at present, but there are way too many humans on the planet.

In our arrogance we cull species in regions around the planet if we feel they are damaging the ecology.  Seems we're not prepared to extend that logic to ourselves.

[Escape]

That's what @C8RKH pointed out, in some countries population is stable or even slightly decreasing, but those are a minority. It will be a long time before China runs out of people (unless their next attempt at a virus is helluvalot more effective). There's no indication the graph above will fall anytime soon. And if it doesn't, our earth wont be able to keep supporting the populace. I'll probably not be around to worry about that though.

See @C8RKH, you're not alone, I've been preaching the same. Just with a bit less zest. 😉

4 minutes ago, Sparky said:

In our arrogance we cull species in regions around the planet if we feel they are damaging the ecology.  Seems we're not prepared to extend that logic to ourselves.

So electricity might be the answer after all? 😁

[C8RKH]

20 minutes ago, JimmytheTurbo said:

You might want to reconsider that statement as we are facing a population crash disaster.

Can you be specific as regards the "we" you refer to?

Is it in a specific region? A specific race?

It cannot be "we" as in the human race, as there is no decline in overall population, it is still growing as fast as ever. Hence the issue, we have over populated the planet with humans who consume too much, more than the planet can sustain.

[cor]

1 hour ago, C8RKH said:

Yup. I raise the issue of "population" constantly in a number of forums/groups and nobody, absolutely nobody, wants to go there.

More people = more consumption = more emissions

More people = large middle class = even more emissions

More people = living longer = more emissions for even longer

The solution, we need less people. However, western governments are worried about low population growth so are trying to encourage more babies = totally stupid decision

Let the westerners die out through lack of babies = more space for migration = people can live in places more hospitable = but then that will drive more per capita consumption for longer

So, there really is only one solution - we need less people. And as you point out @Sparky nature is working its way around to change the climate to reduce the population. 

 

If you don't believe us, look at the figures:

The world's population today is more than three times larger than it was in the mid-twentieth century. Global population hit 8bn in November 2022. 72 years earlier, in 1950, it was 2.5bn people.

From 1998 to  today, we added 2bn people.

From 2010 to today we added 1bn people.

The chart below should be scaring the shit out of governments, the WHO, the UN etc.  Bare in mind that population growth in developed countries is relatively stable, which you could argue means consumption will be relatively stable.

But what that also tells us is that the population explosion in the less developed countries will literally result in a nuclear sized explosion in consumption driven by increased wealth generation as the middle classes swell exponentially. Those extra 2bn in global population from less developed countries could consume as much resources a 6bn people currently, meaning we will be consuming resources globally, as if 12bn people where on the planet today, instead of just 8bn.  

Playing around with EVs and cars, that represents less than 5% of the "emissions" problem is like prioritising treating someone's ingrowing toe-nail over their lymphoma cancer. We can imagine the outcome of that for sure.

 

100% true but.....

Perhaps another man-influenced disaster will hit us earlier.....

[C8RKH]

Agreed @cor. A Putin shaped one. Or possibly one from the middle east which feels like a child playing with matches in a hay barn.

Watched the Channel 4 news the other night and what the Israeli "settlers" are getting away with could well be the spark that sets it off. One settler filmed shooting a Palestinian in the stomach, who was unarmed, from point blank with an exploding bullet that ripped out his left side. What have the Israelis done? Shouted at him and took his gun away. It's absolutely shocking and indefensible.

[yeller77]

3 hours ago, C8RKH said:

It cannot be "we" as in the human race, as there is no decline in overall population, it is still growing as fast as ever. Hence the issue, we have over populated the planet with humans who consume too much, more than the planet can sustain.

Well. There's always the Soylent Green solution..

[blindside]

Joe Biden says Chinese EVs could pose a security threat to the US: 

https://www.ft.com/content/40003f25-23e9-433f-83a3-a2244fb8b942

Thankfully someone in his administration managed to wake him up and insert the right medication.

[Escape]

13 hours ago, yeller77 said:

Well. There's always the Soylent Green solution..

That's discriminatory towards us vegetarians!

But we're straying off topic somewhat. 😉

[Chillidoggy]

18 hours ago, blindside said:

Joe Biden says Chinese EVs could pose a security threat to the US: 

https://www.ft.com/content/40003f25-23e9-433f-83a3-a2244fb8b942

Thankfully someone in his administration managed to wake him up and insert the right medication.

Not to worry, Trump will soon be back in the saddle for another round in due course.

[blindside]

Yes, Trump has unsurprisingly already expressed a very hard nosed protectionist/ tariff heavy view on trade with China if he is elected later this year, (which is probably likely).

Based on his previous term as President it’s not just empty rhetoric.

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/01/27/trump-china-trade-war/

 

[Escape]

He's not wrong to protect the US market from government funded and controlled imports from the PRC.

Europe should take note and realise all their regulations are achieving is making domestic production too expensive and thus opening the door for import from poorly regulated regions.

[Escape]

7 hours ago, C8RKH said:

EV's are a great solution for urban areas where you do not need a large range and can easily adapt charging locations for short "burst" use, and overnight charging.

Overnight charging is exactly the problem as I see it. In urban areas a lot of people don't have a garage or driveway and never know where they'll be able to find a parking spot. So how could they charge their EV? Hope one of the public chargers is available and if not, stand guard all night till a spot frees up? Or roll 50m of extension cord down the sidewalk?
What could work, is coordinated charging at work places. Ideally with an automatic system that would charge one car after an other to set amount. I seem to recall there was some prototype of a robotic charger that could work its way around a parking lot charging all the cars. But that would require a huge amount of standardisation.

[C8RKH]

1 minute ago, Escape said:

Overnight charging is exactly the problem as I see it. In urban areas a lot of people don't have a garage or driveway and never know where they'll be able to find a parking spot. So how could they charge their EV? Hope one of the public chargers is available and if not, stand guard all night till a spot frees up? Or roll 50m of extension cord down the sidewalk?

Community charging locations will be the next big thing.

I'm currently working with a start-up that has exclusive access over 2,000 "green spaces" across the UK that we are assessing for suitability for community charging. These are typically the green spaces that you see around housing estates.  There is an ideal size and location footprint that makes these great for the purpose.

The average in town/city car use will be less than 20 miles a day. So a small, efficient, lightweight EV will only need charging once every 8-12 days or so. If we look hard enough we can find the solutions for sure. Not every owner needs a charging point, and in public you don't need one charger per EV.

As I have said before, the current "lull" in sales is a good thing, as it allows us to get the infrastructure required in place.

[Escape]

Even if you only need to charge once a week (I don't think every 8-12 days is realistic at this point or in the near future), you still need an awful lot of chargers. Or a very good system to charge one car after another.

On another note, do I understand correctly that green spaces, as in grass, trees, parks etc, are going to disappear to make room for charging stations? How is that helping the environment?? This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, as we see a lot of trees being cut down and grass verges paved over to make more room for cyclists, all in the name of being green. 😠

[C8RKH]

@Escape - the maths is simple - if you do 20 miles a day, and have a range of say 250-280 miles, then realistically, you only need to charge-up every 8-12 days. Once people get confidence in the range, they'll be happy to run their batteries down, just like they do with petrol/diesel where many will fill to half full, then run it down to the "light" coming on telling them to fill up. EVs are no different in this respect and we need to stop finding "issues" where frankly they don't exist now.

As for the green spaces that I am working on, no, no trees will be cut down as part of the process. Yes, some grass will be lost, but our designs border the space with mixed hedgerow plantings that actually provide a much more bio-diverse environment that encourages birds and wildlife to use the area too. The goal is to "improve" the environment around our green space chargers from an aesthetic and practical point of view.

I see no reason why trees and grass should be lost to cycle lanes as in the UK the majority of cyclists just totally ignore the cycle lanes as they are "entitled" to use the roads and they like to show every day how entitled, and what feckless little tw@ts, they are and can be. And this is a view from an ex racing cyclist, coach of junior cyclists, etc.

[Escape]

I can do maths, me. 😛 But I don't think most small EVs have a usable range of 240+ miles, hence my revision of your charging intervals. But that's just a detail.

I'm glad to hear the charging sites you're involved with incorporate hedges etc as well, that could make it a win/win. Because yes, grass may be better then concrete but is certainly not the best way to increase biodiversity.

As for that last paragraph, I couldn't agree more! Can you believe there actually building a COVERED bridge for cyclist over here? Not only that, the sides get covered with a mozaic of wood tiles! It must make it a lot more expensive, and the users will still get wet on the lanes before and after the bridge anyway. So what's the point? Maybe those in charge just want to show off how much they've invested to entitle those feckless little tw@ts some more.

[Kimbers]

On 01/03/2024 at 15:15, cor said:

100% true but.....

Perhaps another man-influenced disaster will hit us earlier.....

Yes but that is the issue with Population growth. The planet has been fighting back with disaster after disaster. The issue is as @C8RKH says, we keep preventing it in the cause of stopping human suffering. I too have given my heard earned to help the poor people of Africa, Haiti etc etc however the fact can't be argued that the main disasters are in places humans don't deserve to be in such huge numbers. The ecology can't sustain them. Hence mass migration. But no one does anything about the cause, population growth. 

Have you noticed why this happens in many places? Lack of contraceptives. And why? Because the Roman Catholic Church is still in the medieval ages and bans use of them or abortion and refuses to change its stance. Many of these 3rd world countries the Church is the main constant in their lives. 

I'm sorry but a big disaster is coming and whether thats mother nature or the likes of Putin, it seems to be the only way to deal with the main issue! 

[Kimbers]

And just as I had mentioned Toyota their Chairman makes a statement.

https://electrek.co/2024/03/01/toyota-says-it-would-rather-buy-credits-than-waste-money-on-evs/?fbclid=IwAR1cQxKF_1jUV5M6-lRtv_ElaDgwaaUB2-6vil-qN68NL4P09XUrg8P7pXg

!The CEO of Toyota isn’t mincing words, saying that he believes EVs will only make up 30% of the US new-vehicle market in 2030, half of the target the EPA sought last year. As the car industry’s largest hybrid pusher, Toyota says it is better positioned to just buy credits to close the EPA gap rather than “waste” money on BEVs, its CEO said."

 

[Kevin Wheeler]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-68426263

So the life of a Nissan Leaf is 8 years? Well, not quite, but some of its features are.

My Windows XP machine is still available.