Posted on 08/15/2022 9:15:07 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
If someone proposes a solution to an "existential problem" that has no chance of success, should we be forced to take the problem seriously?
If the climate alarmists truly believe there is a climate emergency, then they should be able to answer the first basic question about "the plan." Are the numbers in the plan even remotely achievable? Remember: based on their screeching, we have only twelve years before we all die from "man-made climate change."
To answer that question, let's break part of the plan into the most basic math problem: can we replace 25%, 50%, or 75% of the cars on the road in ten years? To understand the theoretical possibility, we will simplify this to how many years will it take to replace all vehicles on the road in the U.S.
I will start with how many vehicles are on the road today in the U.S.
According to this link, in 2020, there were 286 million. I will round that to 300 million to simplify the math.
How many total vehicles are sold every year in the U.S.? This link answers that an average of a little fewer than 15 million vehicles are sold in the U.S. every year (assuming sold vehicles and production capacity are related).
How many electric vehicles are produced in the US? From this link, we produce fewer than 1 million. I will round up to one million for my calculation.
The simple math problem is, how many years will it take to replace all the cars in the U.S. with electric vehicles (total in the U.S. rounded up / average production volume per year)?
It is 300M / 15M/year = 20 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Exactly.
Btt
Electric car in Montana and Wyoming and most western states are a waste of money... unless you live a large city....
There was a Ted Talk about the carbon footprint of EV’s. When bought brand new an EV has several times the carbon footprint than a traditional vehicle. You need to do about 80,000 miles before it becomes “green”.
So if we’ve only 8.5 years left, forcing EV’s on everyone NOW would just be exacerbating the problem and put that last nail in our coffin.
OR this is all nonsense.
The truth of the matter is that there is absolutely no way that they know what the temperature of the earth should be at any place, at any point in time. And any graph they create of the gases in the atmosphere is conjecture.
Carbon still needs to be burned to make electricity and component parts.
Entire thing is ludicrous.
Electric Vehicles May Present Major Problem During Natural Disaster Evacuations: Experts (8.11.22)
Insights welcome.
How about the rest of the story and when and how do we replace all the buses, trucks and school buses that use way more fuel than todays car fleet.
https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10308
Never going to go all electric.
Somehow lost in the push for EVs is how will agriculture transition to battery power. Currently US agricultural production runs on diesel fuel. There are not even working prototypes of electric tractors, combines or heavy haul trucks to take the harvest to market. Even if some battery powered tractor or combine might be quickly developed how does one go about charging the batteries in the middle of a field? I suppose portable diesel powered generators would be an option but it kind of defeats the purpose. The Green New Deal could end mechanized farming and with the bans on fertilizer mass famine could be the result.
The truth is the “climate side” people have only ever counted what they claim is (a) (1) needed CO2 reductions by (2) x date.
Before going back to (a) 2, the date, asking how needed that date is, we can first address the biggest questions which are all about (a) (1), the supposed needed CO2 reductions.
In that regard the alarmists have no calculations, in terms of engineering studies, feasability studies, supple side studies or economic impact studies. In other words they have demands with no reasonable thought out plans of how to get there without doing worse economic damage than any supposed climate damage.
There have been engineering studies and feasibility studies done by others outside of the climate alarmists, and all of them say that do to engineering issues, energy production issues and supply side issues, attempting to achieve the immediate demands with immediate mandates will make the possible so called “solutions” more expensive year by year, leaving them wholly unachievable or barelt achievable with hefty increasing government subsidies and even deeper mandates outside of transportation to try to make up for what cannot be achieved in transportation.
The green aganda is some combination of a fools errand carried out in ignorance by leaders, whith the political leaders being conned into an attmept at total socialist centrally planned global economy - with CO2 as merely the wedge with which to do it.
None of it is necessary, even if there are any merits to containing the growth of man-made CO2 that is released to the atmosphere.
Why?
That takes us back to the date needed for the claimed levels of CO2 reductions.
At the highest stated CO2 reduction demands being made now, the rise in the accumulated atmospheric CO2 will continue, far at least 100 to possily 200 years before annual increases slow enough to stop the overall increase.
That means the economy will keep getting pooer and poorer - more expensive - chasing CO2 today, while even by the end of the first 100 years the “average global temperature” (according to the alarmists own science) will bave reached climate harmful conditions.
And by then where will all the needed measures to mitigate and adjust to that change be? They will not have happened because the needed monie was thrown into chasing CO2 INSTEAD of the changes needed to adapt to and mitigate the affects of all the differen climate changes.
The green agenda is a Pol Pot style agenda against the world. Destroy it to recreate it, in someone’s evil maniacal global utopian agenda.
Carbon dioxide has nothing to do with climate change.
The greenhouse gas that affects climate change is water vapor. It is time to start looking at the real cause of climate change for the past 10 million years.
This fixation on a minuscule volume of carbon dioxide has nothing to do with science.
“That takes us back to the date needed for the claimed levels of CO2 reductions. ...”Carbon dioxide has nothing to do with climate change.”
My comments on that are based entirtely on the climate alarmists own “science” assumptions, not the many good critiques of those assumptions.
It is the issue that thier CO2 demands - date specific CO2 mandats - cannot even meet the expected demands - for “CO2
emissions change” - that come out of their own CO2 assumptions.
Their whole program, from the CO2 side to the energy, engineering side, to the supply-side and economic impact affects is all GIGO - garbage in and garbage out.
Even if achieved, what will will the change be to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere? Currently, its at 4/100ths of 1% (yes, .04%). Who gives a crap if all cars suddenly became electric overnight? What affect would it have on CO2 levels, and what level of CO2 is needed to affect the “climate change? And, will the change that is effectuated be positive, or negative on “climate change”? This really is a bunch of nonsense.
They are there, too. How long until you need a new battery at the price of a gas subcompact? What’s your resale value if you want to ditch it rather than continue to reup with batteries?
As it is now, there are thousands of fuel centers, each operating 10 or 20 gas pumps, where drivers are in/out in 5 or 10 minutes. That's not going to happen with EVs.
Yep.
And some towns are banning construction of new gas stations.
Equip all evs with tow brackets on the front end.
Can couple to diesel pickups for a ride north to safety.
Do it for “the children”
Those are probably deep blue towns :) They deserve what they get.
A new neighbor moved in and needed help with carrying the new 65” tv he bought upstairs. 65” are $350 and up!
My first 32” flat screen was $900 back in 2009.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.