Time to End the Climate Gravy Train

I am pretty sure the gravy is what we are converting our atmosphere into so our alien overlords can survive on this planet. I think it has something to do with the war on christmas dinner.

Okay, I didn’t know that. Mind you the information I was going off of is like twenty years old back when “Who Killed the Electric Car” came out.

You know, back in my day we had this thing called science class where we actually made and burned hydrogen in the classroom. It was a fairly safe experiment until I blew it up. Still the class survived and the only damage was to the ceiling and the teacher's comb over.

The interesting thing about hydrogen is it is fairly safe given the rate it moves through the atmosphere. Unlike gasoline vapors which will pool and stay in an area, hydrogen disperses very quickly. After all it is just a proton and electron as opposed to a complex molecule. This actually makes it much safer than natural gas or gasoline.

Last I checked academics were not exactly well paid, often chronically underpaid compared to comparatively qualified people in industry. My nursing hours clock in as better paid than I ever was in academia.

Mashed potatoes on a fork track.

I wouldn't call it much safer, it presents different problems. Diffusion makes something potentially much more flammable. A puddle of gasoline will burn gradually rather than instantly (or even not burn at all) because very little of it is in contact with oxygen. A cloud of hydrogen? Well sounds like you already experienced how quickly that can burn in science class.

A parody of Ozzy’s Crazy Train.

It does present a very small zone of problem. Hydrogen is not the danger we are told it is.

Which is a garbage movie that presented disinformation as "facts."

Let me take a simple one that Ed Begley claims in the movie: 94% of Americans could use an electric car because they typically drive less than 20 miles a day, and the range of the EV-1 was 80 miles on a single charge. I'm dubious about the typical milage a person drives in a day because people's average daily commute is measured in hours, not minutes. Still, even if that is true, I can show why most Americans couldn't have used the EV-1.

GM leased the EV-1s only in selected areas of the country, for two reasons: 1.) California had mandated (and has since repealed) a law stipulating that by the year 2000 (or so) a large percentage of new cars sold in California had to be ZEV (Zero-Emission Vehicles). Which meant they had to be either electric or fuel cell powered. So, to gear up for compliance with the new law, they used CA and NV as "test markets" for the EV-1. 2.) The areas where the cars were sold have a consistent climate. Meaning that it's not like, for example, Alaska where it can get into the 80s in the summer and -40 in the winter. That means the range of the cars could be easily optimized. Extreme heat and extreme cold, fuck up batteries. Not only because it makes it hard to get energy in or out of the batteries, but also because you have to run things like A/C or heat. Those things will easily eat into the range your car can go. By a lot.

So, even in a state like TN, where you see fairly mild winters (rarely dropping below zero), opting for an electric car, like the EV-1 becomes a difficult choice. Back in 2012, when I was communiting (as many folks do in this area) some 30+ miles to work (one way), I did a count on the number of electric cars I would see on the roads, based on the weather. On really cold mornings (below freezing), I'd see maybe one or two. On days where the weather was mild (say mid-60s to 80s) I'd see around 2 dozen electric cars. When it got really hot (upper 90s to low 100s), I'd again only see one or two electric cars. Teslas (and I'd assume other modern electric cars) all have heating and cooling units just for the battery packs to protect them. The use of these means you get a longer life out the batteries, but cuts down your range when it is extremely warm or cold.

Next, and this was a huge issue with electric cars until just a few years ago, is a thing called "range erosion." As the batteries in an electric car age, they're less able to accept a charge, so your range begins to drop. Rather dramatically after just a few years. So while you might have been able to go 80 miles on a single charge the first two years you owned the car (in moderate weather, without running the headlights or radio) by the third year, you'll find the range down to about 60 miles. The fourth year, it drops to about 40. A couple of years ago, Penn Jillette talked about having to get rid of his eight year old Nissan Leaf, because the range had dropped so far as to make the car useless. (Mind you, he could easily afford what a new battery pack for the thing would cost, but given that they run as much as a decent used car, most people are unlikely to want one.)

While these things have improved since Ed Begley made his propaganda piece, don't for a moment believe that he was giving you the facts in the first doc. He wasn't.

You're forgetting the "inverse square law." Hydrogen, because it diffuses more rapidly poses less of a threat than gasoline as it evaporates.

There's a really great book on the subject of using hydrogen for fuel, and it's filled with citations from academic papers, not just speculation by hippie-types.

I live in northern Virginia outside DC with a lot of people with money to blow and I don’t see a lot of electric cars. I see a lot of hybrids, but hardly any electric cars.

Then you're not paying attention. On my daily commute I see Teslas, Volts, Bolts, and Leafs. Hell, there are a few Ford electrics running around too.

Me too.

I'm keeping an eye on Ammonia. Some promising works lately that could let it be used for both IC and fuel cell electric vehicles, and can be produced as a green fuel.

I see Tesla’s, but that’s mostly in town. Your commute is in the heart of smug central, mine is west bound. Less yuppies that way, lots of good ol’ boys.

So you are saying intelligence drops sharply as you get to your neighborhood. Thank you captain obvious for that astute observation.

Boron would make a good fuel as well.

Needs bleach additive to be reaaaaly effective

I mean Bear Grylls drank his own pee for “fuel” and pee contains ammonia so...

Got a link that isn't... well, that?

I realize your comments are directed at Who Killed the Electric Car and the EV1, but having purchased a 4 year old leaf and driven it for a year I'd like to offer some feedback.

Driving in commuter hell, Metro Atlanta (not LA), an EV is eminently suited for the environment. EVs LIKE stop and go traffic (regenerative braking) and wind resistance at speed uses a lot of energy. My commute is 20 miles from the burbs to midtown. 40 miles round trip. The airport is probably the farthest I've been, that's 35 miles each way or 70 round trip. The Leaf does this with comfortable reserve (more on this). We have a VW GTI for fun times but that rarely gets driven. The Leaf is our go to car.

90's tech in the EV1 was lead-acid. The EV2 was nimh. We've come a long way, baby. Lithium with varying electrode alloys have made batteries reliable for the long term and lightweight. They perform well in most temperatures.

The Leaf uses passive cooling for batteries. Teslas have active cooling (refrigerated batteries), but they're on a whole different plane from Leafs in terms of range, performance, and cost. I'm just talking Leafs.

The Leaf has about 10% lower range in extremely high temps or low temps. This is because the HVAC is working extra hard. It's a smart system that uses a variable speed compressor so it doesn't use any more power than needed to stay comfortable. It's also a reverse cycle compressor so it acts as a heat-pump to warm the cabin. In moderate temps the reduced range using A/C heat really isn't a big deal (couple miles range).

That 10% at extreme temps is relative to the duration of your commute of course. If you're sitting still in 0F ambient temps, heating the cabin, the HVAC has dropped to aux resistant heat at a higher power. I'm guessing about 1,500 watts (it maxes out at around 3,000) to maintain cabin temp. At 1,500 watts (1.5KW) a 24KWh battery will last for 16 hours without driving an inch. So over a two hour commute (it's Atlanta, Jake) going 40 miles round trip, you will use 3KWh to stay comfy and still have 21KWh for motivation. At about 3.5 miles per KWh that gives you a range of 73 miles in the cold of winter. If you want to go farther, turn off the heater (it has seating and steering wheel heaters to make this more palatable as these draw relatively little power). It will draw 3KW for short periods until the desired temperature is reached, but wait!

It has an awesome pre-heat/pre-cool feature that you can program to come on before you leave. As long as the car is plugged in it will utilize this feature. I come out to a toasty warm car (it even warms the steering wheel) automatically each morning. This also saves not needing the high power draw to get comfortable.

NV has extreme heat. The Leaf will go into limp mode if the batteries overheat. I think this is a problem over 110F AND it's been sitting out in the sun. I've never had a problem last summer when temps were 106 in Atlanta. Limp mode limits the power output of the batteries (but not the speed of the car) and getting some air moving should cool them enough.

Range erosion? I like to call it battery degradation. Before buying I talked to several people at work that bought Leafs in 2012 (7 years is more than a few years). Their range has reduced from 85 miles to about 60 miles. After 7 years. If you have a 70 mile commute this would be cause to buy a newer car (it's not cost effective to replace the batteries). Or plan ahead to charge before making that return trip. These people are still happily driving their 8 year old Leafs.

Nissan offered an additional extended warranty if the range drops below 60 miles in the first 5 years. I think they've had to replace batteries on a couple cars.

On the 2015 base Leaf I bought it has 86% capacity after 5 years and 30K miles. I don't anticipate needing to swap cars for at least 8 years due to battery degradation. At 13 years old, that's pretty good service life.

The car was cheap. I paid $9K for it with 20K miles at 4 years old. My commute costs $1.20 in electricity (if I paid Marietta rates for it). The same commute would have been $3.50 in gas driving a 30MPG Honda Fit. My employer offers free charging so it costs me almost nothing to drive it.

Yeah, I dropped about $500 to wire a level 2, 220V 50Amp charging station at the house. It paid for itself in the first 6 months.

The car is fun. It only has about 100HP but this is delivered smoothly and instantly. Full torque from launch. No noise. No shifting. No drama.

If it were totalled I'd buy another one. It's a no brainer.

Maybe you should watch Revenge of the Electric Car...

Teslas seem to have become common enough here that people are giving them shitty custom paint jobs.

E scooters and full sized electric motorbikes have surpassed their gasoline forebears on Toronto streets. Even people I'd consider comparatively poor have'em, and frequently strip them down for better speeds and range.

Oh, and this just came out today.

The equipment in my lab costs enough to employ me for 10 years or more. Not sure how the US system works, but the idea of making myself rich off grants is laughable because, no matter how many I bring in, my salary is fixed. I make just over $70k a year. Now more grants brought in might assist in academic promotion applications, but even a top Prof at my workplace is only on $130k, and that's way off my promotion path at the mo. Even our Vice-Chancellors (who get criticised for high pay compared to other academics) rarely exceed £250k. Grant money goes on equipment, postdocs and technicians. In the UK, the grant agencies frown on more than 10% going on Principal Investigator wages. And those only recompense the university what they already pay me, because bringing in grant cash is part of my job... I don't see that money, it's built into my paycheck, which I'd get anyway.

Hell, I knew a top-flight evolutionary geneticist whose (not so jokingly) career exit was "defecting" to giving after-dinner creationist speeches because, if you want to know who ACTUALLY bribes scientists, it ain't the leftists.

Going back to this and seeking clarification, are you saying you think that the warming over the past decades and forecast to continue this century is happening on a natural timescale?

Well, define the natural timescale. We've been taking measurements for about, what? Two centuries out of the last 4 billion years of the Earth's life cycle?

I'm sorry, but nobody is going to convince me that we're in some sort of man-made ecological doomsday scenario. I've seen too many of these 'scares' since I was a kid. The coming ice age, acid rain, ozone, glaciers all gone by 2020, and now this bullshit. Two winters ago we had more snow here than recorded in the past 30 years. If next winter is a record cold, somehow you'll stop hearing about 'global warming' and the new mantra will be 'climate change,' to the extent that hasn't already happened.

More scientists around the world are calling bullshit on this stuff now than are clinging to it. Governments are lying, and the fact is that the 'science' is sketchy to downright faulty. Anyone can conveniently compile their cherry-picked statistics and point to them to show anything you want- it's just information warfare, and nowadays, like so many other things, it possesses it's own form of political correctness. Voice the wrong opinion, and you'll be targeted as an uncaring, anti-environment, pro-destruction heathen who kicks puppies and yearns for the extinction of species.

Scream me down if you want. Call me names. Call me stupid. Just don't call me Shirley. MAN MADE DOOMSDAY global climate change: I. Am. Not. Buying. It. Sorry.

You. Are. Refusing. To. Respond. Directly. To. Facts. And. Arguments. That. Clearly. Refute. Your. Baseless. Opinions.

You. Fucking. Coward.

Here's all the response you need or will get: I dispute that some, if not all of what you consider 'facts' are truly that, Shirley.

Wut?