If it is, does it mean we should do things differently than what is presently being advocated?

https://heartlanddailynews.com/2022/...electric-cars/

Just noticed that link is part 2. Part 1 is less interesting but its

https://news.yahoo.com/stossel-incon...TO9eu8n6ej4zPK

U can have batteries with solar or w.e for your home as well .
No idea why they focus only on cars .
People will have to change their habits some .

Batteries are not a perfect energy storage. Very few things are, as you there is always a loss in transformation of energy. The only reason fossil fuel seems better is that we aren't manufacturing it, we're just collecting it. Well, at least for the vast majority of the time.

Of course, the nonsense in the article stems from the rhetoric.

That electrical grids have to be updated, infrastructure for EVs expanded, energy storage improved and energy production outside fossil fuels increased are not in any way or form "inconvenient facts". These are known issues which have been pointed out for years. Necessary changes have both been discussed, proposed and are being implemented in plenty of countries. Adapting new technology on a societal scale is always a challenge.

This BS rhetoric that attempts to imply some sort of buried secret that nobody wants to mention is just your run-off-the-mill regurgitated talking points that the fossil fuel industry and their lobbyists in the so-called "climate change skepticism"-community is throwing around. The linked website is a good an example as any. It is named "Environment & Climate News" but one look at the front-page reveals that this is merely a disguised front for such lobbying, complete with trackers so that readers with certain click patterns can be automatically sent targeted ads on the issue later.

t_d nailed it.

Without going into details, my question is whether the article points out difficulties with the present gameplan that the majority of the advocates of that game plan are unaware of (ie political people who are non scientists) and if they knew about them, would cause them to want to change that gameplan.

no

Here are the Direct links to the videos.

Many folks do not want to have the conversation as your just a climate denier

No one wants to talk about Electrical capacity or the fact that many of the minerals are mined with slave labor and child labor. Also exporting more jobs to China . No question thousands of green jobs are created but were?

On many subjects you can present misleading facts or partial truths and get regular people to make mistakes. Somewhat shockingly, what average people think after 5 minutes of thought on technical subjects is worthless.

I asked this in the Climate thread . Please inform us what items he states are misleading or just wrong. He is not denying Climate Change nor the role that electric cars can play. He is questioning the massive push like states like California are making and cant provide the power they currently need unlike a province here in Canada that is pushing that route but has a massive capacity of electric power

California banning the sale of gas-powered cars starting in 2035. Will be bad for Californians, but a boon for car salesmen in Oregon, Nevada and Arizona.

Won't CA just ban their registration as well?

He’s an adult, why can’t he educate himself?

Kinda funny how gullible people are though. As if political op Eds are the primary way people Joe want to learn science in good faith go about it.

The way i look at it is that massive pushes like this in California spur investment and innovation. No guarantees, but the chase is on, knowing the demand and need will be there due to mandates such as Cali and NYS.

There are all sorts of competing lines of advancing battery technology that could provide an exponential leap forward in that tech and move us away from some of the rare earth bottlenecks. As e_d said, a lot of this rhetoric is paid for by big Oil, as an argument to stick to the status quo, because of 'unknown and high hurdles still to be surmounted'.

One thing i know for sure is Cali and NYS can relax their legislative demands if they see what they are asking is simply not feasible but should their mandates help make it feasible, th advances made will be huge for this entire planet.

We need to get to a place where every single new home built has a battery wall in it that can store at least 3 hours of power that just cycles thru it and when their is a power interruption it kicks in and all homes are on a smart grid. With that these rolling blackouts in Cali and Texas become a thing of the past as Utilities can simply alleviate stress in certain areas by switching homes in non threat areas to their battery use so they can meet peak demand in other areas and have the power to do so.

Texas could fix much of their current issues of peak demand now, by mandating that, but since the Utilities make record profits when they have emergency and power outages, you will not see that type of common sense fix.

That's not fair, some people learn about science from yootoobes.

You sure 3 hours of power is enough?

So your saying that many of the minerals needed for batteries are in abundance and mined by countries that do not use slave labor or child labor?

Yes battery technology is improving but it has a long way to go. We only have 10 years

Biden talked about thousands and thousands of green jobs as well but changed legislation to allow the US to buy Chines panels. Agh heck lets just rely on China for everything

I still say these mini nuclear reactors are the way to go

No kidding. And its almost as true for a lot of non technical subjects. The problem of course is a little thing called "voting".

Thank god the fossil fuel industry doesn't relay on unsavory business practices.

I was aware of all the issues raised in the article. I strongly suspect that advocates (political and otherwise) are aware of them too. I suspect that the advocates just disagree with the author about how heavy a lift it will be to address the issues.

And as usual there are two different things that people could disagree about, although, for some reason, they are rarely separated when discussing an issue. In this case there could be disagreement about "how heavy is the lift" or, even if they agree on that, they could disagree about "how heavy must the lift be before it is wrong to lift it".

If people are being logical, the answer to the first question usually implies an answer to the second question.

WEll I can tell you this much here in Alberta we do not employ slave labor or children to obtain our fossil fuels from the earth .

What California is doing is absurd and clearly not logical for a state of that size to go that way to want all new cars sold by 2035 as electric. But like with many of these targets I think we will see them being pushed out.


Yes this is the same as gas powered lawn equipment after California banned the new sales of that from 2024 onwards. They will just buy new equipment over the border.

There are plenty of proposed ideas that are opposed by some people because they think there is not enough benefit to the expected cost and others who think there is too much cost for the expected benefit. For instance, forcing first graders to wear masks. Some opposed that because they disagreed on the psychological harm it does. Some opposed it because they disagree on how much masks helped preventing covid. They are independent events.

Haven't heard anything about that.

Wildy exaggerated artcle but I'm still goign with yes

We need far less car use.