As Spool said, I don't think anyone is disputing that people don't drive very far on a regular/daily basis but it does happen and I'd be willing to bet the numbers change if the question is do you ever drive more than x miles.
So the solution is to just buy another car that can make it?
Take twice as long or more to deal with charging?
Rent an ICE or hybrid for the trip?
I think EVs will continue to gain marketshare (hopefully with the assistance of subsidies) and the tech will improve steadily but its really off putting to have a conversation when one side is "EVs are great and its your life that's the actual problem"
It's not your life that's a problem. You are just living, or believing you are living, an absurd edge case.
Like, I am not a Luddite. I have been driving a hybrid for half a decade and would have been sooner if they'd been within my price range at the time. There's no reason most people shouldn't be driving hybrids at this point now that there's a decent used stock available. But the Leaf is an awful vehicle that is mostly suited for areas where the bus or the train would be a better option for commuting anyway; and the Teslas are too expensive for most people and have supply issues for now. It is straight up over privileged nonsense thinking EVs are a suitable replacement for ICE driven vehicles right now.
I've always lived in small towns with completely inadequate public transit, and most days I would drive <30 miles total. With the exception of long trips elsewhere, it's an ideal niche for a Leaf.
Out of curiosity, how much of that <30 miles is spent in stop-and-go traffic where your <30 mile commute takes 2 hours (each way)? I know, I know: "regenerative braking." I used to have a hybrid Civic that had that tech. The problem was that it was wholly inadequate for such tasks. When engaged in stop and go situations, the batteries would be almost completely drained after about 30 minutes resulting in a car with gimped power (until they could recharge from normal highway/freeway speeds)...which made navigating some of the hills around Seattle (not even looking at the Bay area) tricky, dangerous, or just plain impossible.
Granted, the tech may have improved in recent years...it's been 12 years since I first bought that car.
EDIT - just noticed that you were talking general use and not commuting. My mistake, but the rest of my post can used for those talking about EVs for commuting purposes. Also, I've been finding myself wondering about getting an EV/hybrid scooter/moped for just putting around town (where my daily driving is around 5-10 miles).
The technology has transformed utterly. Regenerative braking will harvest nearly all or your stop and go driving energy. High speeds are where you will lose range faster in an ev.
Like, I am not a Luddite. I have been driving a hybrid for half a decade and would have been sooner if they'd been within my price range at the time. There's no reason most people shouldn't be driving hybrids at this point now that there's a decent used stock available. But the Leaf is an awful vehicle that is mostly suited for areas where the bus or the train would be a better option for commuting anyway; and the Teslas are too expensive for most people and have supply issues for now. It is straight up over privileged nonsense thinking EVs are a suitable replacement for ICE driven vehicles right now.
I've always lived in small towns with completely inadequate public transit, and most days I would drive <30 miles total. With the exception of long trips elsewhere, it's an ideal niche for a Leaf.
Out of curiosity, how much of that <30 miles is spent in stop-and-go traffic where your <30 mile commute takes 2 hours (each way)? I know, I know: "regenerative braking." I used to have a hybrid Civic that had that tech. The problem was that it was wholly inadequate for such tasks. When engaged in stop and go situations, the batteries would be almost completely drained after about 30 minutes resulting in a car with gimped power (until they could recharge from normal highway/freeway speeds)...which made navigating some of the hills around Seattle (not even looking at the Bay area) tricky, dangerous, or just plain impossible.
Granted, the tech may have improved in recent years...it's been 12 years since I first bought that car.
EDIT - just noticed that you were talking general use and not commuting. My mistake, but the rest of my post can used for those talking about EVs for commuting purposes. Also, I've been finding myself wondering about getting an EV/hybrid scooter/moped for just putting around town (where my daily driving is around 5-10 miles).
The technology has transformed utterly. Regenerative braking will harvest nearly all or your stop and go driving energy. High speeds are where you will lose range faster in an ev.
So the battery recharge isn't mostly happening when you reach and maintain cruising speed on level ground? That's definitely different. And kind of unbelievable that it's efficient to the point where it recharges almost all the battery power from braking. I distinctly remember reading the manual and it actually said to avoid using the brakes for best recharging performance (since using the brakes converts your spent battery power into heat).
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
Add me to the edge cases then. I have a 30 minute commute, but we do 3-4 hour drives once every couple months and 6-12 hours drives twice a year or so.
I think EV + rental car is a somewhat reasonable solution, but I couldn't simply swap my car for an EV right now.
As Spool said, I don't think anyone is disputing that people don't drive very far on a regular/daily basis but it does happen and I'd be willing to bet the numbers change if the question is do you ever drive more than x miles.
So the solution is to just buy another car that can make it?
Take twice as long or more to deal with charging?
Rent an ICE or hybrid for the trip?
I think EVs will continue to gain marketshare (hopefully with the assistance of subsidies) and the tech will improve steadily but its really off putting to have a conversation when one side is "EVs are great and its your life that's the actual problem"
It's not your life that's a problem. You are just living, or believing you are living, an absurd edge case.
This is not true.
A shitload of North Americans make trips every year, many a few times.
Treating literally millions of people and families as edge cases is exactly what I was talking about.
Edit : just to be clear I am a supporter of EVs for anyone who can make it work and when I can get one that works for me I certainly will. I'm not arguing to keep gas guzzlers on the road. I'm arguing for the millions of us who either can't afford it or are not willing to up end our lives to buy one.
You can put me in the disdainful camp of the western guy, nuclear family with toys to enjoy the environment around me.
The ideal situation isn't that everyone switch over the EVs. It's just not going to happen, it's not economical for many-to-most households, and despite most people driving less than 30 miles in their commute, there are still many people who drive much further than that outside of their drive to work and back.
Yes, going to and from work is the most common situation because it happens five-to-seven days out of the week, no that doesn't mean it's the only situation that matters.
The ideal situation for EVs is that those who stick to city driving and can switch over do so, that we switch over public transportation to EVs, and ramp up the viability of public transport in many areas. Trying to push EVs as they stand now as something that everyone has to take is just turning people off of the argument. There's still massive usability issues with EVs regardless of how far you drive regularly.
Yeah, the way the whole anti-EV side in this thread is "but, but I have to drive 600+ miles regularly, SO EVS AREN'T FUCKING VIABLE!" That is really annoying because to be brutally fucking honest, that is an edge case and such a small chunk of the market that most won't give a fuck. Yeah, it sucks that EVs might not be an option and it might not make financial sense to get a separate car or rent when yo do make those trips (though if it's business related, and assuming you aren't the own, that begs the question of why your employer feels they shouldn't have to cover travel expenses and assume you'll subsidize them).
From where I'm sitting the only thing really holding EVs back is primarily infrastructure. The next big one would probably be cost, but that will likely go down; especially, with city planning more focused on dealing with the infrastructure. Probably for most people, EVs with the need infrastructure could cover most of their travel needs and likely save them quite of money. So maybe they'll have to consider renting a vehicle for the long family trip or rethink how they handle the trip (if I visit my parents, it's a 2-3 hour drive depending on traffic, so maybe I have to plan on adding 15-30 minutes to the trip because I have to stop in the middle of it for charging up the battery).
It's also a bit silly that people get hung up on the tech not being perfect. Seriously, going read up the history on every little gadget you rely on. None of that stuff was particularly great or up to "viable" standards when it was first released to the public as a consumer good. I think we as a society need to get off this new idiotic modern expectation that things must be perfect if we hope to deal with climate change because our best bet is to run with several of the new technologies that aren't "perfected" and concede that we'll have to revisit them more than once, like we've done with every other fucking piece technology that we use now.
Honestly, it makes a lot of sense to look at EVs now because it's going to be a long phase for pure gasoline vehicles. People can expect to get about 20 years out of their vehicle and a decent chunk of EV early adopter are probably going to trade in a gasoline power vehicle that gets put on a used car lot to be sold to people that can't be early EV adopters. Gasoline only vehicles won't get any cleaner after they are sold and wear and tear means they'll emit higher emissions over the course of lives. By pushing EVs now, a government would be ensuring that they could start seeing gasoline only consumer vehicles and possibly hybrid vehicles entirely off their roads before 2050. The big holdouts I see. Are shipping because I'm not sure the tech is up to snuff for their needs and you still need trucks to move goods from trains/aircraft/ships to the stores that'll sell them or deliver things door to door. I also see the military being another one, for all the reasons shipping would be, plus a handful of other things unique to the military. Probably some parts of mass transit, since you'll have cases of buses or commuter vans taking routes where they have long legs on the interstate (city buses with established routes and stops not so much). I see push back from private truck owners, but I suspect that'll probably go by the way said (the industry and other idiots have people sold on trucks about egos rather than needs, what is billed as a standard truck is far too big and fuel inefficient for most people, I've seen the smaller models that will cover most things aka being able to load a bulky item without have to worry about the interior not having enough clearance or loading up something that will require use of hose to clean up after it).
If (to use a provided example) you regularly commute from Austin to Dallas, 200 miles, you are living in the wrong city. If you do it occasionally for work, then work can rent a gas-powered car for you. If the Leaf's mileage doesn't work for you, the next generation will have a longer range
If (to use a provided example) you regularly commute from Austin to Dallas, 200 miles, you are living in the wrong city. If you do it occasionally for work, then work can rent a gas-powered car for you. If the Leaf's mileage doesn't work for you, the next generation will have a longer range
It's not about commutes.
Commutes are the most common form of transport, but people do not stick to their commuting routine outside of the workday.
It also still doesn't work as an effective answer because it requires people to be buying cars made within the last 5-7 years, or still-expensive and less-able early model EVs, and that isn't viable for many people. On top of that it also requires that people rent cars over the weekend, which just adds an additional expense.
It's an extra argument that's simply not necessary to get the results of lowering carbon emissions. We don't need absolutely everyone to stop driving ICEs.
The last bit falls into the Malthusian trap again. You will never get people to agree to such drastic population cuts, they will rise up and literally kill every single member of their governments if they do this. It will be considered a genocide, even if it was applied equally (and based on human nature I think we can bet it won't be applied equally)
What? The last bit is just literally what happens when you have birth control and women's rights. It's not a government imposed thing.
Good. The fastest way to grow appetite for change is for climate change to take away things that everybody has come to love
It's a misleading headline and article compared to the actual report. About a third of Ethiopian farmers will need to change it's current strain of beans to a more drought resistant one, which will cost them money, over the next 10-30 years. The article also discusses how specific changes and economic support from the Ethiopian government might change coffee production to 400% more than present even with climate change factors, representing a considerable boost to their economy.
This has less to do with impacting coffee prices in the first world, which won't be impacted in any real way, than ensuring Ethiopia's economy remains healthy assuming they intent to keep governmental focus and stimulus on coffee production.
They'll still produce coffee sure, but coffee lovers are picky people and for a lot arabica (70% of world production) is coffee and that may be slowly dying out. Ethiopia isn't the only place this will effect, and they are also the place that contains basically all of the biodiversity among the species
This study indicates that virtually all existing locations that grow the plant become marginal or unsuitable under different climate models
Our results provide independent validation that Arabica is a climate sensitive species, supporting data on recorded climate optima [3]–[6], results based on environmental envelope methodologies [14], [15], and anecdotal information from coffee farmers. The logical conclusion is that Arabica coffee production is, and will continue to be, strongly influenced by accelerated climate change, and that in most cases the outcome will be negative for the coffee industry.
Don't models like this assume viability of current breeds only?
The last bit falls into the Malthusian trap again. You will never get people to agree to such drastic population cuts, they will rise up and literally kill every single member of their governments if they do this. It will be considered a genocide, even if it was applied equally (and based on human nature I think we can bet it won't be applied equally)
What? The last bit is just literally what happens when you have birth control and women's rights. It's not a government imposed thing.
Good. The fastest way to grow appetite for change is for climate change to take away things that everybody has come to love
It's a misleading headline and article compared to the actual report. About a third of Ethiopian farmers will need to change it's current strain of beans to a more drought resistant one, which will cost them money, over the next 10-30 years. The article also discusses how specific changes and economic support from the Ethiopian government might change coffee production to 400% more than present even with climate change factors, representing a considerable boost to their economy.
This has less to do with impacting coffee prices in the first world, which won't be impacted in any real way, than ensuring Ethiopia's economy remains healthy assuming they intent to keep governmental focus and stimulus on coffee production.
They'll still produce coffee sure, but coffee lovers are picky people and for a lot arabica (70% of world production) is coffee and that may be slowly dying out. Ethiopia isn't the only place this will effect, and they are also the place that contains basically all of the biodiversity among the species
This study indicates that virtually all existing locations that grow the plant become marginal or unsuitable under different climate models
Our results provide independent validation that Arabica is a climate sensitive species, supporting data on recorded climate optima [3]–[6], results based on environmental envelope methodologies [14], [15], and anecdotal information from coffee farmers. The logical conclusion is that Arabica coffee production is, and will continue to be, strongly influenced by accelerated climate change, and that in most cases the outcome will be negative for the coffee industry.
Don't models like this assume viability of current breeds only?
This sounds like a job for Monsanto Man, and his antihero sidekick: The Litigator.
The last bit falls into the Malthusian trap again. You will never get people to agree to such drastic population cuts, they will rise up and literally kill every single member of their governments if they do this. It will be considered a genocide, even if it was applied equally (and based on human nature I think we can bet it won't be applied equally)
What? The last bit is just literally what happens when you have birth control and women's rights. It's not a government imposed thing.
Good. The fastest way to grow appetite for change is for climate change to take away things that everybody has come to love
It's a misleading headline and article compared to the actual report. About a third of Ethiopian farmers will need to change it's current strain of beans to a more drought resistant one, which will cost them money, over the next 10-30 years. The article also discusses how specific changes and economic support from the Ethiopian government might change coffee production to 400% more than present even with climate change factors, representing a considerable boost to their economy.
This has less to do with impacting coffee prices in the first world, which won't be impacted in any real way, than ensuring Ethiopia's economy remains healthy assuming they intent to keep governmental focus and stimulus on coffee production.
They'll still produce coffee sure, but coffee lovers are picky people and for a lot arabica (70% of world production) is coffee and that may be slowly dying out. Ethiopia isn't the only place this will effect, and they are also the place that contains basically all of the biodiversity among the species
This study indicates that virtually all existing locations that grow the plant become marginal or unsuitable under different climate models
Our results provide independent validation that Arabica is a climate sensitive species, supporting data on recorded climate optima [3]–[6], results based on environmental envelope methodologies [14], [15], and anecdotal information from coffee farmers. The logical conclusion is that Arabica coffee production is, and will continue to be, strongly influenced by accelerated climate change, and that in most cases the outcome will be negative for the coffee industry.
Don't models like this assume viability of current breeds only?
Like, I am not a Luddite. I have been driving a hybrid for half a decade and would have been sooner if they'd been within my price range at the time. There's no reason most people shouldn't be driving hybrids at this point now that there's a decent used stock available. But the Leaf is an awful vehicle that is mostly suited for areas where the bus or the train would be a better option for commuting anyway; and the Teslas are too expensive for most people and have supply issues for now. It is straight up over privileged nonsense thinking EVs are a suitable replacement for ICE driven vehicles right now.
I've always lived in small towns with completely inadequate public transit, and most days I would drive <30 miles total. With the exception of long trips elsewhere, it's an ideal niche for a Leaf.
Out of curiosity, how much of that <30 miles is spent in stop-and-go traffic where your <30 mile commute takes 2 hours (each way)? I know, I know: "regenerative braking." I used to have a hybrid Civic that had that tech. The problem was that it was wholly inadequate for such tasks. When engaged in stop and go situations, the batteries would be almost completely drained after about 30 minutes resulting in a car with gimped power (until they could recharge from normal highway/freeway speeds)...which made navigating some of the hills around Seattle (not even looking at the Bay area) tricky, dangerous, or just plain impossible.
Granted, the tech may have improved in recent years...it's been 12 years since I first bought that car.
EDIT - just noticed that you were talking general use and not commuting. My mistake, but the rest of my post can used for those talking about EVs for commuting purposes. Also, I've been finding myself wondering about getting an EV/hybrid scooter/moped for just putting around town (where my daily driving is around 5-10 miles).
We're talking towns that are 20 minutes wide, so, none of it. A 30 minute commute is 15 minutes longer than i care to tolerate.
Like, I am not a Luddite. I have been driving a hybrid for half a decade and would have been sooner if they'd been within my price range at the time. There's no reason most people shouldn't be driving hybrids at this point now that there's a decent used stock available. But the Leaf is an awful vehicle that is mostly suited for areas where the bus or the train would be a better option for commuting anyway; and the Teslas are too expensive for most people and have supply issues for now. It is straight up over privileged nonsense thinking EVs are a suitable replacement for ICE driven vehicles right now.
I've always lived in small towns with completely inadequate public transit, and most days I would drive <30 miles total. With the exception of long trips elsewhere, it's an ideal niche for a Leaf.
Out of curiosity, how much of that <30 miles is spent in stop-and-go traffic where your <30 mile commute takes 2 hours (each way)? I know, I know: "regenerative braking." I used to have a hybrid Civic that had that tech. The problem was that it was wholly inadequate for such tasks. When engaged in stop and go situations, the batteries would be almost completely drained after about 30 minutes resulting in a car with gimped power (until they could recharge from normal highway/freeway speeds)...which made navigating some of the hills around Seattle (not even looking at the Bay area) tricky, dangerous, or just plain impossible.
Granted, the tech may have improved in recent years...it's been 12 years since I first bought that car.
EDIT - just noticed that you were talking general use and not commuting. My mistake, but the rest of my post can used for those talking about EVs for commuting purposes. Also, I've been finding myself wondering about getting an EV/hybrid scooter/moped for just putting around town (where my daily driving is around 5-10 miles).
We're talking towns that are 20 minutes wide, so, none of it. A 30 minute commute is 15 minutes longer than i care to tolerate.
Ahh...yeah. Back in the day, I would work in Seattle...but I live about 20 miles north by way of the freeway. Thankfully, public transportation is right around the corner from me, so I had that option. Even with the bus, a 2-hour commute was common (using HOV and express lanes, even). On weekends, if I have an event or something happening in Seattle and I have an option to drive...unless I want to spend another 2-hours in weekend and/or event traffic, I'll still take the bus.
Erlkönig on
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
Worth pointing out that America is a massive outlier in terms of its personal transportation requirements i.e massive, spread out, in many places you literally need a car, people drive a few hundred miles and it ain't no thing. That's fair enough but it's culturally unusual.
Electric Cars will become much more popular much more easily in, say, the much more densely populated Europe, and one massively significant thing will be whether China makes attempts to build infrastructure for them too.
Yeah, the way the whole anti-EV side in this thread is "but, but I have to drive 600+ miles regularly, SO EVS AREN'T FUCKING VIABLE!" That is really annoying because to be brutally fucking honest, that is an edge case and such a small chunk of the market that most won't give a fuck. Yeah, it sucks that EVs might not be an option and it might not make financial sense to get a separate car or rent when yo do make those trips (though if it's business related, and assuming you aren't the own, that begs the question of why your employer feels they shouldn't have to cover travel expenses and assume you'll subsidize them).
From where I'm sitting the only thing really holding EVs back is primarily infrastructure. The next big one would probably be cost, but that will likely go down; especially, with city planning more focused on dealing with the infrastructure. Probably for most people, EVs with the need infrastructure could cover most of their travel needs and likely save them quite of money. So maybe they'll have to consider renting a vehicle for the long family trip or rethink how they handle the trip (if I visit my parents, it's a 2-3 hour drive depending on traffic, so maybe I have to plan on adding 15-30 minutes to the trip because I have to stop in the middle of it for charging up the battery).
It's also a bit silly that people get hung up on the tech not being perfect. Seriously, going read up the history on every little gadget you rely on. None of that stuff was particularly great or up to "viable" standards when it was first released to the public as a consumer good. I think we as a society need to get off this new idiotic modern expectation that things must be perfect if we hope to deal with climate change because our best bet is to run with several of the new technologies that aren't "perfected" and concede that we'll have to revisit them more than once, like we've done with every other fucking piece technology that we use now.
Honestly, it makes a lot of sense to look at EVs now because it's going to be a long phase for pure gasoline vehicles. People can expect to get about 20 years out of their vehicle and a decent chunk of EV early adopter are probably going to trade in a gasoline power vehicle that gets put on a used car lot to be sold to people that can't be early EV adopters. Gasoline only vehicles won't get any cleaner after they are sold and wear and tear means they'll emit higher emissions over the course of lives. By pushing EVs now, a government would be ensuring that they could start seeing gasoline only consumer vehicles and possibly hybrid vehicles entirely off their roads before 2050. The big holdouts I see. Are shipping because I'm not sure the tech is up to snuff for their needs and you still need trucks to move goods from trains/aircraft/ships to the stores that'll sell them or deliver things door to door. I also see the military being another one, for all the reasons shipping would be, plus a handful of other things unique to the military. Probably some parts of mass transit, since you'll have cases of buses or commuter vans taking routes where they have long legs on the interstate (city buses with established routes and stops not so much). I see push back from private truck owners, but I suspect that'll probably go by the way said (the industry and other idiots have people sold on trucks about egos rather than needs, what is billed as a standard truck is far too big and fuel inefficient for most people, I've seen the smaller models that will cover most things aka being able to load a bulky item without have to worry about the interior not having enough clearance or loading up something that will require use of hose to clean up after it).
My argument was more "People frequently have family 6-8 hours away that they visit by car because plane tickets for everyone that can fit in a car would be $TEXAS." and "Nah dude, half of the cars you mentioned are hybrids, not EVs, and the one you subbed in for the Prius (the Leaf) struggles to make a fairly common 30ish mile commute because it's on a hilly ass freeway."
I'm sure the next gen EVs will be better than the current ones, that's obvious. But the future isn't here yet even though some people in this thread keep arguing it is in contradiction to reality, and if we want it any time soon we're gonna need a shitload more charging stations.
+3
Options
Blackhawk1313Demon Hunter for HireTime RiftRegistered Userregular
Yeah, the way the whole anti-EV side in this thread is "but, but I have to drive 600+ miles regularly, SO EVS AREN'T FUCKING VIABLE!" That is really annoying because to be brutally fucking honest, that is an edge case and such a small chunk of the market that most won't give a fuck. Yeah, it sucks that EVs might not be an option and it might not make financial sense to get a separate car or rent when yo do make those trips (though if it's business related, and assuming you aren't the own, that begs the question of why your employer feels they shouldn't have to cover travel expenses and assume you'll subsidize them).
From where I'm sitting the only thing really holding EVs back is primarily infrastructure. The next big one would probably be cost, but that will likely go down; especially, with city planning more focused on dealing with the infrastructure. Probably for most people, EVs with the need infrastructure could cover most of their travel needs and likely save them quite of money. So maybe they'll have to consider renting a vehicle for the long family trip or rethink how they handle the trip (if I visit my parents, it's a 2-3 hour drive depending on traffic, so maybe I have to plan on adding 15-30 minutes to the trip because I have to stop in the middle of it for charging up the battery).
It's also a bit silly that people get hung up on the tech not being perfect. Seriously, going read up the history on every little gadget you rely on. None of that stuff was particularly great or up to "viable" standards when it was first released to the public as a consumer good. I think we as a society need to get off this new idiotic modern expectation that things must be perfect if we hope to deal with climate change because our best bet is to run with several of the new technologies that aren't "perfected" and concede that we'll have to revisit them more than once, like we've done with every other fucking piece technology that we use now.
Honestly, it makes a lot of sense to look at EVs now because it's going to be a long phase for pure gasoline vehicles. People can expect to get about 20 years out of their vehicle and a decent chunk of EV early adopter are probably going to trade in a gasoline power vehicle that gets put on a used car lot to be sold to people that can't be early EV adopters. Gasoline only vehicles won't get any cleaner after they are sold and wear and tear means they'll emit higher emissions over the course of lives. By pushing EVs now, a government would be ensuring that they could start seeing gasoline only consumer vehicles and possibly hybrid vehicles entirely off their roads before 2050. The big holdouts I see. Are shipping because I'm not sure the tech is up to snuff for their needs and you still need trucks to move goods from trains/aircraft/ships to the stores that'll sell them or deliver things door to door. I also see the military being another one, for all the reasons shipping would be, plus a handful of other things unique to the military. Probably some parts of mass transit, since you'll have cases of buses or commuter vans taking routes where they have long legs on the interstate (city buses with established routes and stops not so much). I see push back from private truck owners, but I suspect that'll probably go by the way said (the industry and other idiots have people sold on trucks about egos rather than needs, what is billed as a standard truck is far too big and fuel inefficient for most people, I've seen the smaller models that will cover most things aka being able to load a bulky item without have to worry about the interior not having enough clearance or loading up something that will require use of hose to clean up after it).
My argument was more "People frequently have family 6-8 hours away that they visit by car because plane tickets for everyone that can fit in a car would be $TEXAS." and "Nah dude, half of the cars you mentioned are hybrids, not EVs, and the one you subbed in for the Prius (the Leaf) struggles to make a fairly common 30ish mile commute because it's on a hilly ass freeway."
I'm sure the next gen EVs will be better than the current ones, that's obvious. But the future isn't here yet even though some people in this thread keep arguing it is in contradiction to reality, and if we want it any time soon we're gonna need a shitload more charging stations.
My city has a whopping 5, all at the local college. Everywhere else there is straight up zero infrastructure for this currently.
The last bit falls into the Malthusian trap again. You will never get people to agree to such drastic population cuts, they will rise up and literally kill every single member of their governments if they do this. It will be considered a genocide, even if it was applied equally (and based on human nature I think we can bet it won't be applied equally)
What? The last bit is just literally what happens when you have birth control and women's rights. It's not a government imposed thing.
Good. The fastest way to grow appetite for change is for climate change to take away things that everybody has come to love
It's a misleading headline and article compared to the actual report. About a third of Ethiopian farmers will need to change it's current strain of beans to a more drought resistant one, which will cost them money, over the next 10-30 years. The article also discusses how specific changes and economic support from the Ethiopian government might change coffee production to 400% more than present even with climate change factors, representing a considerable boost to their economy.
This has less to do with impacting coffee prices in the first world, which won't be impacted in any real way, than ensuring Ethiopia's economy remains healthy assuming they intent to keep governmental focus and stimulus on coffee production.
They'll still produce coffee sure, but coffee lovers are picky people and for a lot arabica (70% of world production) is coffee and that may be slowly dying out. Ethiopia isn't the only place this will effect, and they are also the place that contains basically all of the biodiversity among the species
This study indicates that virtually all existing locations that grow the plant become marginal or unsuitable under different climate models
Our results provide independent validation that Arabica is a climate sensitive species, supporting data on recorded climate optima [3]–[6], results based on environmental envelope methodologies [14], [15], and anecdotal information from coffee farmers. The logical conclusion is that Arabica coffee production is, and will continue to be, strongly influenced by accelerated climate change, and that in most cases the outcome will be negative for the coffee industry.
Don't models like this assume viability of current breeds only?
This sounds like a job for Monsanto Man, and his antihero sidekick: The Litigator.
Monsanto and the like could save the world. About the only thing the far left and far right agree on is that Monsanto sucks.
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
The last bit falls into the Malthusian trap again. You will never get people to agree to such drastic population cuts, they will rise up and literally kill every single member of their governments if they do this. It will be considered a genocide, even if it was applied equally (and based on human nature I think we can bet it won't be applied equally)
What? The last bit is just literally what happens when you have birth control and women's rights. It's not a government imposed thing.
Good. The fastest way to grow appetite for change is for climate change to take away things that everybody has come to love
It's a misleading headline and article compared to the actual report. About a third of Ethiopian farmers will need to change it's current strain of beans to a more drought resistant one, which will cost them money, over the next 10-30 years. The article also discusses how specific changes and economic support from the Ethiopian government might change coffee production to 400% more than present even with climate change factors, representing a considerable boost to their economy.
This has less to do with impacting coffee prices in the first world, which won't be impacted in any real way, than ensuring Ethiopia's economy remains healthy assuming they intent to keep governmental focus and stimulus on coffee production.
They'll still produce coffee sure, but coffee lovers are picky people and for a lot arabica (70% of world production) is coffee and that may be slowly dying out. Ethiopia isn't the only place this will effect, and they are also the place that contains basically all of the biodiversity among the species
This study indicates that virtually all existing locations that grow the plant become marginal or unsuitable under different climate models
Our results provide independent validation that Arabica is a climate sensitive species, supporting data on recorded climate optima [3]–[6], results based on environmental envelope methodologies [14], [15], and anecdotal information from coffee farmers. The logical conclusion is that Arabica coffee production is, and will continue to be, strongly influenced by accelerated climate change, and that in most cases the outcome will be negative for the coffee industry.
Don't models like this assume viability of current breeds only?
This sounds like a job for Monsanto Man, and his antihero sidekick: The Litigator.
Monsanto and the like could save the world. About the only thing the far left and far right agree on is that Monsanto sucks.
It's more their legal department that everyone hates in the current day. I don't think the old corporate structure survived the merger/acquisition, reorganization, and spin-off from 1999 to 2000.
This sounds like a job for Monsanto Man, and his antihero sidekick: The Litigator.
Monsanto and the like could save the world. About the only thing the far left and far right agree on is that Monsanto sucks.
They theorietically could, but Monsanto and most of the giant agri-corps aren't interested in saving the world, just making a wad of cash now. Like top executives the world over, "Après moi, le déluge."
This sounds like a job for Monsanto Man, and his antihero sidekick: The Litigator.
Monsanto and the like could save the world. About the only thing the far left and far right agree on is that Monsanto sucks.
They theorietically could, but Monsanto and most of the giant agri-corps aren't interested in saving the world, just making a wad of cash now. Like top executives the world over, "Après moi, le déluge."
Incidentally, being the purveyors of adapted arabica will indeed make them wads of cash.
Will it make them wads of cash now? Or will they have to spend money now hoping that someone else later will be able to benefit/get the cash?
They didn't make money off of their other projects immediately either; GMO crop development is almost like drug development lite when you compare the regulatory side of it. The point is if they're first movers, by the time it is approved they can either offer a new coffee variety that will grow in new climates, or offer a plant to farmers experiencing crop failures.
On EVs, totally agree and have said infrastructure is an issue. I don't think the 6-8 hour trips that some families have to take will be that big of a hurdle. I would need to see the math on how everything plays out, but for the ones that are taking only 1-3 a year, which is probably most people that make such trips (like why would anyone want to suffer through such long drives) I imagine it could be cheaper just to rent a non-EV for those trips.
*lazy napkin math, so don't nitpick it too much.
For example my vehicle can sits about 37-40 miles per gallon on a weekly basis, the biggest variable is traffic (aka did some dumb cause a wreak because they at to wait til the last fucking minute to exit or do I have to go to one of the more grid locked areas in the Hampton Roads area). I think I average about 70 dollars spend on gas a month (this has been as low as 60 or as high as 85 depending on mileage for the week and fuel prices) since I can go a little over a week before having to refill (I think I have a 10 gallon tank, so lets say I get about 370 before filling up because I don't like to let the tank get to low, lets say 1k miles traveled a month). Looking at this LA times articles, it looks like an EV would only cost me about 35 dollars to run a month (I suspect prices would be a bit more stable, drive conditions will probably impact the price, but I could see electric being more stable than oil prices). So if the math worked out to where I save 50% on fuel prices a month (35 dollars), in the course of a year I would save about 420 dollars. Last time I had to rent a vehicle, I spend 120 dollars to rent one for a week (plus another 20 for gas). Unless someone is really set on they have to go visit family in their own personal vehicle, it seems like the most cost effective way early on will be to rent one. Not to mention this opens up the option to get one that will be more comfortable for a family to commute in then what they might currently have. Obviously, mileage will vary because I'm driving a 2016 Hyundai accent. Some would probably see bigger savings than me and others might see less; especially, if they are driving a hybrid. This tells me that right now the biggest barrier probably is pricing because I think right now, the fuel savings won't add up enough to make up for the current up front purchase costs.
As for GMO crops. I think those could help us out quite a bit. My main concern is that the current corporate culture with companies like Monsanto makes them a net negative. Most big companies are focused on immediate maximum profits and to really capitalize on GMOs, the best route would be to forgo the instant gratification route.
Absolutely bombshell of an article that is very well written, scary as fuck, and tells us everything we already knew and feared about the worst case scenario for how climate change plays out. I suggest you all read it and rethink your decision to have children, if in fact you are considering it currently.
Absolutely bombshell of an article that is very well written, scary as fuck, and tells us everything we already knew and feared about the worst case scenario for how climate change plays out. I suggest you all read it and rethink your decision to have children, if in fact you are considering it currently.
That article is long on DOOM! and short on solutions.
+8
Options
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
Absolutely bombshell of an article that is very well written, scary as fuck, and tells us everything we already knew and feared about the worst case scenario for how climate change plays out. I suggest you all read it and rethink your decision to have children, if in fact you are considering it currently.
That article is long on DOOM! and short on solutions.
Because we know what the solutions are to avoid everything. Stop burning fossil fuels, and divert all resources into cleaning things up.
Absolutely bombshell of an article that is very well written, scary as fuck, and tells us everything we already knew and feared about the worst case scenario for how climate change plays out. I suggest you all read it and rethink your decision to have children, if in fact you are considering it currently.
That article is long on DOOM! and short on solutions.
It seems to be arguing that there are no solutions, short of some sort of miracle. At the very end, it says that many of the climate scientists interviewed are optimistic, but only for the reason that the alternative is utter despair; we will find a solution because we must find a solution.
It's… hard to find any comfort in that.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
+7
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Absolutely bombshell of an article that is very well written, scary as fuck, and tells us everything we already knew and feared about the worst case scenario for how climate change plays out. I suggest you all read it and rethink your decision to have children, if in fact you are considering it currently.
That article is long on DOOM! and short on solutions.
We know the solutions. We just aren't willing to pay the price for them.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
+16
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Absolutely bombshell of an article that is very well written, scary as fuck, and tells us everything we already knew and feared about the worst case scenario for how climate change plays out. I suggest you all read it and rethink your decision to have children, if in fact you are considering it currently.
That article is long on DOOM! and short on solutions.
Absolutely bombshell of an article that is very well written, scary as fuck, and tells us everything we already knew and feared about the worst case scenario for how climate change plays out. I suggest you all read it and rethink your decision to have children, if in fact you are considering it currently.
That article is long on DOOM! and short on solutions.
It seems to be arguing that there are no solutions, short of some sort of miracle. At the very end, it says that many of the climate scientists interviewed are optimistic, but only for the reason that the alternative is utter despair; we will find a solution because we must find a solution.
It's… hard to find any comfort in that.
How many on here are actually informing the people around them?
I can talk to my friends and family untill I am blue in the face but they won't do shit to change their lives drastically. This sort of thing needs government intervention. Grassroots movements won't be enough in my opinion.
Absolutely bombshell of an article that is very well written, scary as fuck, and tells us everything we already knew and feared about the worst case scenario for how climate change plays out. I suggest you all read it and rethink your decision to have children, if in fact you are considering it currently.
That article is long on DOOM! and short on solutions.
It seems to be arguing that there are no solutions, short of some sort of miracle. At the very end, it says that many of the climate scientists interviewed are optimistic, but only for the reason that the alternative is utter despair; we will find a solution because we must find a solution.
It's… hard to find any comfort in that.
How many on here are actually informing the people around them?
I can talk to my friends and family untill I am blue in the face but they won't do shit to change their lives drastically. This sort of thing needs government intervention. Grassroots movements won't be enough in my opinion.
I agree. So how do we get this, and fast enough, and big enough? I'm serious here; I don't know.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
+2
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
It's hard not to read that article as see people like Pruitt as the ultimate enemies of humanity who will gladly shepherd civilization's downfall in exchange for short term comfort.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+6
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Dammit Mike, don't give Pruitt and his cabal of fellow Captain Planet villains more grounds for casting uncertainty among casual observers! "Practical pushback" will lead you down the path of becoming an unwilling catspaw!
I like how it leaves out timescales (/s), and how not even the IPCC takes this kind of talk seriously.
Here are a few segments it gets so, so wrong:
Even when we train our eyes on climate change, we are unable to comprehend its scope. This past winter, a string of days 60 and 70 degrees warmer than normal baked the North Pole, melting the permafrost that encased Norway’s Svalbard seed vault — a global food bank nicknamed “Doomsday,” designed to ensure that our agriculture survives any catastrophe, and which appeared to have been flooded by climate change less than ten years after being built.
The Seed Vault was flooded because of oversights during construction that did not take into account the possibility of extra rain in the late fall, and we've known this for some months now. Claiming that it was because of melt ice from Climate Change is alarmist bullshit, and if the author was ignorant enough to not check it casts a bad light on the rest of the piece.
Most people talk as if Miami and Bangladesh still have a chance of surviving; most of the scientists I spoke with assume we’ll lose them within the century, even if we stop burning fossil fuel in the next decade.
Counterpoint: The Entire Country of The Netherlands. Guess what's cheaper than relocating the 160+ million person population of Bangladesh? Dikes and Seawalls. Guess how fast they have to be built? One to two meters per century. Timescales: they're fucking important!
Drought might be an even bigger problem than heat, with some of the world’s most arable land turning quickly to desert. Precipitation is notoriously hard to model, yet predictions for later this century are basically unanimous: unprecedented droughts nearly everywhere food is today produced.
A planet that we hardly understand and barely have any sense of its inner workings. This past couple of weeks someone proposed again that the atmosphere may even by striated into compressed supercritical regions, with literal oceans of dense, hot CO2 on the surface that behave very differently from any other atmosphere we've seen. Comparing it to Earth starts to fall apart as soon as you get away from their similarity in size; even Venus' geology is alien to ours.
Whoever wrote this should be thrown out of all serious conversation. They're consistently cherry-picking the worst possible numbers and putting them all in one place, with no regard to the odds of them actually happening, and fail to cite where they get most of the most terrifying figures. Do you want to know what that means when predictions like these don't come true? People stop listening to you. This piece is absolute masturbatory trash.
what you guys have been talking about EVs in here and nobody told me?
Hi, I've owned a Nissan Leaf for 3+ years AMA
by the way, my current take on the infrastructure thing:
level 2 (ie 240v) public chargers are a mostly useless idea, you need several hours to charge an appreciable amount, and while I could get a decent % back on my Leaf with three hours, on a 200+ mile car that percent is way less (even though it's the same amount of juice, y'know?) so people are even less likely to want to use them
level 3 (high-voltage DC) is more useful giving you 80% charges in 15~30 minutes, but they're expensive AF to maintain and don't provide much of a return
and the main thing is, as the range goes up, the need to charge anywhere but your house goes down
I predict (assuming self-driving cars don't come in and upset the apple cart) that eventually we'll see large complexes on the freeways where you can do a hi-voltage charge while stopping to get lunch/coffee/whatever for all the long haul trips, and almost no charging infrastructure outside of that, and the majority of daily charging will be done at home
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Posts
It's not your life that's a problem. You are just living, or believing you are living, an absurd edge case.
The technology has transformed utterly. Regenerative braking will harvest nearly all or your stop and go driving energy. High speeds are where you will lose range faster in an ev.
So the battery recharge isn't mostly happening when you reach and maintain cruising speed on level ground? That's definitely different. And kind of unbelievable that it's efficient to the point where it recharges almost all the battery power from braking. I distinctly remember reading the manual and it actually said to avoid using the brakes for best recharging performance (since using the brakes converts your spent battery power into heat).
I think EV + rental car is a somewhat reasonable solution, but I couldn't simply swap my car for an EV right now.
This is not true.
A shitload of North Americans make trips every year, many a few times.
Treating literally millions of people and families as edge cases is exactly what I was talking about.
America Is Hitting the Road Again https://nyti.ms/22CPDkJ
Edit : just to be clear I am a supporter of EVs for anyone who can make it work and when I can get one that works for me I certainly will. I'm not arguing to keep gas guzzlers on the road. I'm arguing for the millions of us who either can't afford it or are not willing to up end our lives to buy one.
You can put me in the disdainful camp of the western guy, nuclear family with toys to enjoy the environment around me.
Yes, going to and from work is the most common situation because it happens five-to-seven days out of the week, no that doesn't mean it's the only situation that matters.
The ideal situation for EVs is that those who stick to city driving and can switch over do so, that we switch over public transportation to EVs, and ramp up the viability of public transport in many areas. Trying to push EVs as they stand now as something that everyone has to take is just turning people off of the argument. There's still massive usability issues with EVs regardless of how far you drive regularly.
From where I'm sitting the only thing really holding EVs back is primarily infrastructure. The next big one would probably be cost, but that will likely go down; especially, with city planning more focused on dealing with the infrastructure. Probably for most people, EVs with the need infrastructure could cover most of their travel needs and likely save them quite of money. So maybe they'll have to consider renting a vehicle for the long family trip or rethink how they handle the trip (if I visit my parents, it's a 2-3 hour drive depending on traffic, so maybe I have to plan on adding 15-30 minutes to the trip because I have to stop in the middle of it for charging up the battery).
It's also a bit silly that people get hung up on the tech not being perfect. Seriously, going read up the history on every little gadget you rely on. None of that stuff was particularly great or up to "viable" standards when it was first released to the public as a consumer good. I think we as a society need to get off this new idiotic modern expectation that things must be perfect if we hope to deal with climate change because our best bet is to run with several of the new technologies that aren't "perfected" and concede that we'll have to revisit them more than once, like we've done with every other fucking piece technology that we use now.
Honestly, it makes a lot of sense to look at EVs now because it's going to be a long phase for pure gasoline vehicles. People can expect to get about 20 years out of their vehicle and a decent chunk of EV early adopter are probably going to trade in a gasoline power vehicle that gets put on a used car lot to be sold to people that can't be early EV adopters. Gasoline only vehicles won't get any cleaner after they are sold and wear and tear means they'll emit higher emissions over the course of lives. By pushing EVs now, a government would be ensuring that they could start seeing gasoline only consumer vehicles and possibly hybrid vehicles entirely off their roads before 2050. The big holdouts I see. Are shipping because I'm not sure the tech is up to snuff for their needs and you still need trucks to move goods from trains/aircraft/ships to the stores that'll sell them or deliver things door to door. I also see the military being another one, for all the reasons shipping would be, plus a handful of other things unique to the military. Probably some parts of mass transit, since you'll have cases of buses or commuter vans taking routes where they have long legs on the interstate (city buses with established routes and stops not so much). I see push back from private truck owners, but I suspect that'll probably go by the way said (the industry and other idiots have people sold on trucks about egos rather than needs, what is billed as a standard truck is far too big and fuel inefficient for most people, I've seen the smaller models that will cover most things aka being able to load a bulky item without have to worry about the interior not having enough clearance or loading up something that will require use of hose to clean up after it).
It's not about commutes.
Commutes are the most common form of transport, but people do not stick to their commuting routine outside of the workday.
It also still doesn't work as an effective answer because it requires people to be buying cars made within the last 5-7 years, or still-expensive and less-able early model EVs, and that isn't viable for many people. On top of that it also requires that people rent cars over the weekend, which just adds an additional expense.
It's an extra argument that's simply not necessary to get the results of lowering carbon emissions. We don't need absolutely everyone to stop driving ICEs.
Don't models like this assume viability of current breeds only?
This sounds like a job for Monsanto Man, and his antihero sidekick: The Litigator.
Current cultivars + the existing wild stock yes
We're talking towns that are 20 minutes wide, so, none of it. A 30 minute commute is 15 minutes longer than i care to tolerate.
Ahh...yeah. Back in the day, I would work in Seattle...but I live about 20 miles north by way of the freeway. Thankfully, public transportation is right around the corner from me, so I had that option. Even with the bus, a 2-hour commute was common (using HOV and express lanes, even). On weekends, if I have an event or something happening in Seattle and I have an option to drive...unless I want to spend another 2-hours in weekend and/or event traffic, I'll still take the bus.
Electric Cars will become much more popular much more easily in, say, the much more densely populated Europe, and one massively significant thing will be whether China makes attempts to build infrastructure for them too.
In Europe, 100 miles is far. In the US, 100 years is a long time ago.
But yeah, talking about the US at all is honestly something of an "edge case".
My argument was more "People frequently have family 6-8 hours away that they visit by car because plane tickets for everyone that can fit in a car would be $TEXAS." and "Nah dude, half of the cars you mentioned are hybrids, not EVs, and the one you subbed in for the Prius (the Leaf) struggles to make a fairly common 30ish mile commute because it's on a hilly ass freeway."
I'm sure the next gen EVs will be better than the current ones, that's obvious. But the future isn't here yet even though some people in this thread keep arguing it is in contradiction to reality, and if we want it any time soon we're gonna need a shitload more charging stations.
My city has a whopping 5, all at the local college. Everywhere else there is straight up zero infrastructure for this currently.
Monsanto and the like could save the world. About the only thing the far left and far right agree on is that Monsanto sucks.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
It's more their legal department that everyone hates in the current day. I don't think the old corporate structure survived the merger/acquisition, reorganization, and spin-off from 1999 to 2000.
They theorietically could, but Monsanto and most of the giant agri-corps aren't interested in saving the world, just making a wad of cash now. Like top executives the world over, "Après moi, le déluge."
Incidentally, being the purveyors of adapted arabica will indeed make them wads of cash.
They didn't make money off of their other projects immediately either; GMO crop development is almost like drug development lite when you compare the regulatory side of it. The point is if they're first movers, by the time it is approved they can either offer a new coffee variety that will grow in new climates, or offer a plant to farmers experiencing crop failures.
*lazy napkin math, so don't nitpick it too much.
For example my vehicle can sits about 37-40 miles per gallon on a weekly basis, the biggest variable is traffic (aka did some dumb cause a wreak because they at to wait til the last fucking minute to exit or do I have to go to one of the more grid locked areas in the Hampton Roads area). I think I average about 70 dollars spend on gas a month (this has been as low as 60 or as high as 85 depending on mileage for the week and fuel prices) since I can go a little over a week before having to refill (I think I have a 10 gallon tank, so lets say I get about 370 before filling up because I don't like to let the tank get to low, lets say 1k miles traveled a month). Looking at this LA times articles, it looks like an EV would only cost me about 35 dollars to run a month (I suspect prices would be a bit more stable, drive conditions will probably impact the price, but I could see electric being more stable than oil prices). So if the math worked out to where I save 50% on fuel prices a month (35 dollars), in the course of a year I would save about 420 dollars. Last time I had to rent a vehicle, I spend 120 dollars to rent one for a week (plus another 20 for gas). Unless someone is really set on they have to go visit family in their own personal vehicle, it seems like the most cost effective way early on will be to rent one. Not to mention this opens up the option to get one that will be more comfortable for a family to commute in then what they might currently have. Obviously, mileage will vary because I'm driving a 2016 Hyundai accent. Some would probably see bigger savings than me and others might see less; especially, if they are driving a hybrid. This tells me that right now the biggest barrier probably is pricing because I think right now, the fuel savings won't add up enough to make up for the current up front purchase costs.
As for GMO crops. I think those could help us out quite a bit. My main concern is that the current corporate culture with companies like Monsanto makes them a net negative. Most big companies are focused on immediate maximum profits and to really capitalize on GMOs, the best route would be to forgo the instant gratification route.
Absolutely bombshell of an article that is very well written, scary as fuck, and tells us everything we already knew and feared about the worst case scenario for how climate change plays out. I suggest you all read it and rethink your decision to have children, if in fact you are considering it currently.
That article is long on DOOM! and short on solutions.
Because we know what the solutions are to avoid everything. Stop burning fossil fuels, and divert all resources into cleaning things up.
It seems to be arguing that there are no solutions, short of some sort of miracle. At the very end, it says that many of the climate scientists interviewed are optimistic, but only for the reason that the alternative is utter despair; we will find a solution because we must find a solution.
It's… hard to find any comfort in that.
We know the solutions. We just aren't willing to pay the price for them.
Solution: don't have kids.
How many on here are actually informing the people around them?
I can talk to my friends and family untill I am blue in the face but they won't do shit to change their lives drastically. This sort of thing needs government intervention. Grassroots movements won't be enough in my opinion.
I agree. So how do we get this, and fast enough, and big enough? I'm serious here; I don't know.
Here are a few segments it gets so, so wrong:
The Seed Vault was flooded because of oversights during construction that did not take into account the possibility of extra rain in the late fall, and we've known this for some months now. Claiming that it was because of melt ice from Climate Change is alarmist bullshit, and if the author was ignorant enough to not check it casts a bad light on the rest of the piece.
Counterpoint: The Entire Country of The Netherlands. Guess what's cheaper than relocating the 160+ million person population of Bangladesh? Dikes and Seawalls. Guess how fast they have to be built? One to two meters per century. Timescales: they're fucking important!
Oh Wait. Well, he got one thing right.
An entire section of pure speculation.
A planet that we hardly understand and barely have any sense of its inner workings. This past couple of weeks someone proposed again that the atmosphere may even by striated into compressed supercritical regions, with literal oceans of dense, hot CO2 on the surface that behave very differently from any other atmosphere we've seen. Comparing it to Earth starts to fall apart as soon as you get away from their similarity in size; even Venus' geology is alien to ours.
Whoever wrote this should be thrown out of all serious conversation. They're consistently cherry-picking the worst possible numbers and putting them all in one place, with no regard to the odds of them actually happening, and fail to cite where they get most of the most terrifying figures. Do you want to know what that means when predictions like these don't come true? People stop listening to you. This piece is absolute masturbatory trash.
Hi, I've owned a Nissan Leaf for 3+ years AMA
by the way, my current take on the infrastructure thing:
level 2 (ie 240v) public chargers are a mostly useless idea, you need several hours to charge an appreciable amount, and while I could get a decent % back on my Leaf with three hours, on a 200+ mile car that percent is way less (even though it's the same amount of juice, y'know?) so people are even less likely to want to use them
level 3 (high-voltage DC) is more useful giving you 80% charges in 15~30 minutes, but they're expensive AF to maintain and don't provide much of a return
and the main thing is, as the range goes up, the need to charge anywhere but your house goes down
I predict (assuming self-driving cars don't come in and upset the apple cart) that eventually we'll see large complexes on the freeways where you can do a hi-voltage charge while stopping to get lunch/coffee/whatever for all the long haul trips, and almost no charging infrastructure outside of that, and the majority of daily charging will be done at home
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies