Zero-emission vehicles, their batteries & subsidies/rebates for them.- No politics regarding the subsidies!

[Chromatischism]

And that's just currently. At those rates, it will be some time before China passes the U.S. in total emissions. The vast majority share of carbon in the atmosphere right now that's been contributing to warming was from the U.S.

 

[Blumlein 88]

And that's just currently. At those rates, it will be some time before China passes the U.S. in total emissions. The vast majority share of carbon in the atmosphere right now that's been contributing to warming was from the U.S.

Which nobody can do a thing about so I see it as of no relevance.

 

[pseudoid]

Here are the top 6 countries that account for nearly 60% of global carbon emissions. The U.S. has the highest per capita emissions. China the highest overall amount of emissions.

Great data @dtaylo, but somewhat dated (circa 2018). There was a downswing during the Covid years and the emissions are on an upswing.
In addition to the list of gross-emitters (2022 data is being released as we speak), one must also look at the data regarding "pledges" made to "go green" by country/by year.
But since we, here, at ASR are a bit nerdy and like to know how different countries calculate GHG greenhouses, I provide you this 90 second discussion. (please add 'https' heading to the youtube link).
I am guessing these calculations are probably like NASCAR and cheating but that would be OT.

 

[dtaylo1066]

Great data @dtaylo, but somewhat dated (circa 2018). There was a downswing during the Covid years and the emissions are on an upswing.
In addition to the list of gross-emitters (2022 data is being released as we speak), one must also look at the data regarding "pledges" made to "go green" by country/by year.
But since we, here, at ASR are a bit nerdy and like to know how different countries calculate GHG greenhouses, I provide you this 90 second discussion. (please add 'https' heading to the youtube link).
I am guessing these calculations are probably like NASCAR and cheating but that would be OT.

Yup, I realized it was a few years off, but given COVID maybe not so much. Certainly directional.

The reall issue or question within my noggin' is with about 8 billion folks on the planet, how many more can we afford to add if we are to reduce emissions. From virtually all the ways I look at things, there is zero benefit to more humans on planet earth.

For those of us in the U.S., the world's third most populated nation (way behind China and India), how many people is enough or how many do we want? That question is never asked. I turn 66 in two weeks. When I was born in 1956 the U.S. had a population of 164 million. It is now 330 million. I my opinion, I see no preceived benefit to that additional 166 million people, and certainly there has been profound environmental impacts.

Sustainability and emissions are inextricably linked to population size. Quality of life in the 3rd world is greatly dependent on industrialization and modernization, which in the growth phase is very dirty. There is a lot of bad math in those facts.

Prudent managment of climate change is difficult to imagine in a world where clean water, clean air and a stable food supply are major issues to billions.

Regardless of things looking bleak IMHO, awareness is on the rise. When insurance companies begin to walk away from Florida later this year reality will begin to slap many in the face as flood insurance will either cease to exist or become a socialized, tax-subsidized reality. There is a reason certain areas are called flood plains, and oceanfront and waterfront properties at some frequency are going to be inundated. It appears to me the flood event frequency will be increasing.

I would suspect for the wealthy on Sanibel Island and Fort Meyers, if they can get insurance in the future, the cost will be stratospheric. Non-wealthy will not be able to afford it. And conservatives and fiscal hawks like Desantis will cry foul and initiate tax payer supported insurance schemes.

At some point it would be less expensive and and more prudent to cease development in flood plains and along waterfronts, and after disasters condemn wiped out areas and just pay to have people re-settle further from harm's way.

I'm not buying any land in Pakistan or along the Florida coast.

And flooding is just one issue of rising ocean levels and temperatures.

 

[Chromatischism]

Which nobody can do a thing about so I see it as of no relevance.

We can't change the past, however it is hugely relevant. Other developing countries know this and base their arguments on it: "we should be able to burn oil to fuel our growth, too". Unfortunately since we allowed fossil fuels to dominate for so long by allowing corruption to proliferate, we can't argue our way out of it. And that shapes what's possible on the world diplomatic stage. At some point I hope we see a RICO case brought forward as it's really no different than what the tobacco industry did. Anyway I'm getting off track here!

What I want to know: will QuantumScape batteries qualify for the subsidy? They will be made in the U.S., I hear.

 

[Chromatischism]

The reall issue or question within my noggin' is with about 8 billion folks on the planet, how many more can we afford to add if we are to reduce emissions. From virtually all the ways I look at things, there is zero benefit to more humans on planet earth.

For those of us in the U.S., the world's third most populated nation (way behind China and India), how many people is enough or how many do we want? That question is never asked. I turn 66 in two weeks. When I was born in 1956 the U.S. had a population of 164 million. It is now 330 million. I my opinion, I see no preceived benefit to that additional 166 million people, and certainly there has been profound environmental impacts.

I found reading about Nixon's opportunity, then abandonment, of the issue in 1970 fascinating. There was a Commission. Even the Catholic Church was involved.

I guess he caved to the idea that population growth must be maintained to...not be out-birthed by other countries? So here we are. But in the end, U.S. population growth has actually stagnated, and wouldn't continue to be positive without immigration. An uncomfortable fact for some.

 

[pseudoid]

The reall issue or question within my noggin' is with about 8 billion folks on the planet, how many more can we afford to add if we are to reduce emissions.

Elon Musk has made me look at the world population from a different angle, which my noggin did not contemplate previously.
His thought (and those of some others) is that we need more people in the world to solve world's more complex problems.
OT: I think the 8Billionth person is supposed be born imminently (Nov.15th, 2022?).
OTx2: Oct. 31, 2011 was "The Day of Seven Billion".

 

[blueone]

We can't change the past, however it is hugely relevant. Other developing countries know this and base their arguments on it: "we should be able to burn oil to fuel our growth, too". Unfortunately since we allowed fossil fuels to dominate for so long by allowing corruption to proliferate, we can't argue our way out of it. And that shapes what's possible on the world diplomatic stage. At some point I hope we see a RICO case brought forward as it's really no different than what the tobacco industry did. Anyway I'm getting off track here!

Talk about a red herring.

 

[Chromatischism]

Talk about a red herring.

No...a red herring is a diversionary tactic and logical fallacy brought up in an argument or debate.

 

[blueone]

No...a red herring is a diversionary tactic and logical fallacy brought up in an argument or debate.

I know what it is, and I know what I posted.

 

[pseudoid]

106 pages later, I am still not convinced that eVs (and all that is involved in that type of mobility) will be the savior of earth.
Wasn't it that British whore prostitute sex-worker Helana Handcart who had cautioned us about "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater"?
Or am I making an idiomatic error?

 

[blueone]

106 pages later, I am still not convinced that eVs (and all that is involved in that type of mobility) will be the savior of earth.
Wasn't it that British whore prostitute sex-worker Helana Handcart who had cautioned us about "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater"?
Or am I making an idiomatic error?

EVs are not intended to be the savior of the earth, nor could they be. In many ways they are just better technology and better for the environment than ICE vehicles. Not every way yet, since they are still a nascent technology by comparison, but IMO they are better in a lot of ways, as I've previously posted. I'm getting impatient with the two camps here, one that EVs can't be any good until they're better in every way than ICE vehicles, and the other that we just have to do stuff, however ineffective and illogical, just because they have an environmental agenda that we must do something, their way.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Elon Musk has made me look at the world population from a different angle, which my noggin did not contemplate previously.
His thought (and those of some others) is that we need more people in the world to solve world's more complex problems.
OT: I think the 8Billionth person is supposed be born imminently (Nov.15th, 2022?).
OTx2: Oct. 31, 2011 was "The Day of Seven Billion".

I've read a few articles about this idea. People (like me) say the environment is a too many people problem. There are modeling and economic simulations that indicate if we had half the people the overall product of the world economy would be well less than half as much. That more people used in more different roles can provide more solutions than fewer people. In for a penny, in for a pound situation I suppose. A technological society can do more things more effectively with more people.

 

[Blumlein 88]

EVs are not intended to be the savior of the earth, nor could they be. In many ways they are just better technology and better for the environment than ICE vehicles. Not every way yet, since they are still a nascent technology by comparison, but IMO they are better in a lot of ways, as I've previously posted. I'm getting impatient with the two camps here, one that EVs can't be any good until their better in every way than ICE vehicles, and the other that we just have to do stuff, however ineffective and illogical, just because they have an environmental agenda that we must do something, their way.

I agree with you. One of the things I dislike are biofuels. Bad idea, bad for the economy, bad for the environment, bad thinking thermodynamically, just bad. But they have this halo of the blessing of green only zealots. You cannot get the gov't subsidies cut which would be a big win for everyone. One of the issues with oil refineries is the requirement to include a small amount of biofuels in the blend. Things are far simpler, cheaper and easier without that in the mix.

Biofuels are the wrong way to do solar as what they are is solar power. The best only manage to convert 2% of sunlight to energy and that doesn't include other associated costs. Crappy 10% solar cells are much better all the way around.

 

[pseudoid]

I've read a few articles about this idea. People (like me) say the environment is a too many people problem. There are modeling and economic simulations that indicate if we had half the people the overall product of the world economy would be well less than half as much. That more people used in more different roles can provide more solutions than fewer people. In for a penny, in for a pound situation I suppose. A technological society can do more things more effectively with more people.

So, what you are saying is that I am a 'contrarian'?
At this point, I can call your reply this:

Or send you a:

But that would be ignoring the rest of your valid post!

 

[blueone]

I agree with you. One of the things I dislike are biofuels. Bad idea, bad for the economy, bad for the environment, bad thinking thermodynamically, just bad. But they have this halo of the blessing of green only zealots. You cannot get the gov't subsidies cut which would be a big win for everyone. One of the issues with oil refineries is the requirement to include a small amount of biofuels in the blend. Things are far simpler, cheaper and easier without that in the mix.

Biofuels are the wrong way to do solar as what they are is solar power. The best only manage to convert 2% of sunlight to energy and that doesn't include other associated costs. Crappy 10% solar cells are much better all the way around.

I know what you mean. Every time I fill up with gasoline and I see the "up to 10% ethanol" sticker it annoys me. You would think after all these years I'd just get used to it.

 

[Chromatischism]

I agree with you. One of the things I dislike are biofuels. Bad idea, bad for the economy, bad for the environment, bad thinking thermodynamically, just bad. But they have this halo of the blessing of green only zealots. You cannot get the gov't subsidies cut which would be a big win for everyone. One of the issues with oil refineries is the requirement to include a small amount of biofuels in the blend. Things are far simpler, cheaper and easier without that in the mix.

Biofuels are the wrong way to do solar as what they are is solar power. The best only manage to convert 2% of sunlight to energy and that doesn't include other associated costs. Crappy 10% solar cells are much better all the way around.

That was a Bush-era thing, likely to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and help our local corn producers (or at least look like we were) at a time when oil imports were spiking. However well intentioned, you are right. And don't ever leave ethanol sitting in an aluminum engine.

 

[pseudoid]

Here in the lala land of gas at $6.38/gallon (87 octane), no one complains.
We even pay 70 cents more than the island of Kauai.
Obviously, the eV fix is in!.
Its no politics to state that our Governor is looking to an early start of our 'winter blend' gas (+8% butane @52psi RVP) which supposed to lower the price by a few pennies. Woot!

 

[gvl]

Obviously, the eV fix is in!

A month ago they were begging everyone to limit electricity usage during the heatwave. I don’t quite get how they plan to ban gas cars by 2035 if their energy supply and infrastructure is not up to snuff even today.

 

[pseudoid]

A month ago they were begging everyone to limit electricity usage during the heatwave. I don’t quite get how they plan to ban gas cars by 2035 if their energy supply and infrastructure is not up to snuff even today.

I will have to be fair to govawesome!
He is sending me (and every CA taxpayer) a 'rebate' of $350 this month, due to [errrrrr......] gas-hardship.
IMO: Even if this rebate has coincided with the mid-terms, one cannot call this vote-buying because he gains nothing from it, in a single-party state.

I hate hand-outs but this ploy seems more like pouring salt into a wound... or like kicking a family of 4 in the gonads and once they are buckled; then, you offer them a band-aid.