EV drawbacks

I predict this will get MUCH worse.

There’ll probably be some kind of cliff edge / tipping point as the market wakes up to the fact that EVs will become economically unviable WAY earlier than ICEs.

When folk start to see the reality of €15k-€20k battery changes, who the hell is gonna buy a 5 year old EV knowing there’s a high likelihood of a bill like that around the corner !!

But hey, if EVs only have a 5+ year life expectancy, the Automotive OEMs will be quids in !!
 
Fast Eddie said:
I predict this will get MUCH worse.

There’ll probably be some kind of cliff edge / tipping point as the market wakes up to the fact that EVs will become economically unviable WAY earlier than ICEs.

When folk start to see the reality of €15k-€20k battery changes, who the hell is gonna buy a 5 year old EV knowing there’s a high likelihood of a bill like that around the corner !!

But hey, if EVs only have a 5+ year life expectancy, the Automotive OEMs will be quids in !!
Click to expand...

The question is, or will be, who buys cars in the future?

The whole concept of short term hires / 'car clubs' may become more common as people no longer own their cars, and just hire them by the hour on an ad hoc basis.
 
I think that it might be worthwhile looking at other videos on that site, who produced them and their general intent. A great source maybe, if you want information that reaffirms a belief system.

78ED79C8-B355-4048-BDFF-2CF5227105A2.jpeg

Or

Take a broader look and then make your mind up.

www.carbonbrief.org

Factcheck: What Greenland ice cores say about past and present climate change

A misleading graph purporting to show that past changes in Greenland’s temperatures dwarf modern climate change has been circling the internet since at least 2010.
www.carbonbrief.org www.carbonbrief.org

www.pbs.org

Latest ice core analysis shows sharp warming spike in Greenland

New ice core data shows Greenland is the warmest it's been in more than 1,000 years. Until Wednesday's study, scientists didn't have recent ice core data. The last ice core was from 1995.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org

There is more disinformation in the climate space than any other. I guess it’s up to each of us to decide what we believe. Not saying it’s obvious where the truth lies, because it just isn’t! Not saying that the current science is 100% correct, because I’m not at all sure.

Failing that, just switch off the news and drink more beer - f#&k that’s tempting!
 
Last edited:
Yes I took a broader look at the journalists that publish for "carbon brief" and they appear to be ex msm left wing agenga driven specialists that have worked & published material for the likes of the Guardian and Rolling Stone etc...(we all know how reliable they are ?)

Carbon Brief - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Here is a video from the said mentioned site featuring a scientific specialist
 
Last edited:
KiwiShane said:
Yes I took a broader look at the journalists that publish for "carbon brief" and they appear to be ex msm left wing agenga driven specialists that have worked & published material for the likes of the Guardian and Rolling Stone etc...(we all know how reliable they are ?)

Carbon Brief - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Here is a video from the said mentioned site featuring a scientific specialist
Click to expand...

For those who don’t know, Dr Moore is not some crack pot.

Firstly he is properly educated and highly experienced in this field. Secondly he is passionate about the environment and was a founder member and former president of Greenpeace !
 
Hey Shane - your Wikipedia extract doesn’t really seem to support your claims about Carbon Brief, in fact it seems to indicate the polar opposite (bad pun)! Respected organisation/site, accolades, award winning etc.

BFC1C879-3EB9-4BCA-85BD-47148C22F838.jpeg

D1C50CE7-5E2C-448E-9844-4B27C5EF9D51.jpeg

And did you just use Wikipedia!? You’ll be quoting the MSM next!;)

No way of you and I finding consensus here Shane, but that’s ok! It shows just how devisive the subject is. Not a lot of consensus to be found anywhere!
 
Last edited:
The climate change hypothesis is not just a simple 'As CO2 increases so does the Temp', it adds to this Feedbacks which it states are positive (warming of the tundra releasing methane another greenhouse gas as an example). By positive they mean for every 1C of increase from CO2 then there are other processes set off that amplify the increase from CO2 alone increasing on the 1C. The technical term is climate sensitivity.

This hypothesis was in the first 1990 IPCC report is unchanged in the models to this day and predicts 3C in a century per doubling of CO2.

Science works by stating a hypothesis, making a prediction and then running experiments to test the prediction.

So we have the models making predictions giving an average of 3C per century based on doubling of CO2 and this is also the measured current trajectory of CO2 increase. Put differently this is 0.3C per decade.

The experiment is the real world average temperature increase since 1990. According to the climate models this should be 0.9C. However the 2 satellite databases are showing an increase of only 0.4C over this same time period.

So the full IPCC climate hypothesis that drives Net Zero is unproven and after 30 odd years needs rewritten.

The current values of climate sensitivity entered into the models is too high. If you take the 0.4C and work backwards you get a climate sensitivity just over 1 instead of the 2 to 3 values currently used in the models.

Take the current models and change the sensitivity to just over 1 and the output matches the last 30 years increase and then shows a total increase of 1.5C (so 1.1C to go) before the warming runs out.

Why does the warming stop after 1.5C, well the effect of C02 when it increases from 280ppm to 560ppm is the same as 560ppm to 1120ppm and 1120ppm to 2240ppm. Its logarithmic and the increase eventually stops having any effect at all. See the blue or green lines.

EV drawbacks

So this revised model output shows that CO2 increases are in fact beneficial, after the little ice age we needed the warming and a bit of insurance against the next ice age cannot be bad. Without all the doom loops and tipping points the warming stops at the end of the century and cannot progress much further as fossil fuels will be running out. So we need alternative energy sources but not in the same timescale as the IPCC state and not at the expense of our living standards in the West or the drive for poorer countries to pull themselves up to the same standards.


So extra CO2 does increase temps but not in an alarming or destructive manner.
 
Last edited:
According to all the rabid "science" since the 60s, we should have been frozen, flooded, shrouded in a dark mist and/or have our atmosphere float away variably at least one event every decade or so.

What is the current cataclysmic prediction? My prediction is that it, too, will fail miserably, and temperature variations will continue ad infinitum.
 
grandpaul said:
According to all the rabid "science" since the 60s, we should have been frozen, flooded, shrouded in a dark mist and/or have our atmosphere float away variably at least one event every decade or so.

What is the current cataclysmic prediction? My prediction is that it, too, will fail miserably, and temperature variations will continue ad infinitum.
Click to expand...
Don't forget the food famine and running out of oil etc etc bla bla
 
I remember when they phased out/stopped paper grocery bags etc...because at that time there was a "science prediction" that we wood 🤣run out of trees....and that is when NZ and many other countries introduced PLASTIC shopping bags etc to take the pressure of the environment.....NOW NZ exports our plastic rubbish to be burnt or disposed of in a 3rd world country and poison their ecosystem
" The science "🙃 Now these brain dead M.....F..KERS want us to go electric OR ELSE !!.......

....I SAY..
 

Attachments

  • EV drawbacks
    imagejpeg_2(2).webp
    22.6 KB · Views: 79
I guess we are where these pub debates generally end up, in the realm of personal opinion/interpretation and entrenched belligerence, with a smattering of alternate science commentary thrown in for good measure. But hey, this is the pub and that’s what it’s for!

Mi 2p - The vast majority of actively published climate scienctists have reached consensus, through the IPPC, using a rigorous peer review process of thousands of papers from around the globe. Their processes are transparent, which ensures that reports can’t be politically motivated.

Of course you can find alternate views and outliers as you can in any area where projections relating to the future are used, the subject is so complex and the stakes so very high. I’ve yet to read/hear anything that shifts the dial for me. No irrefutable contrary evidence - no clearly credible alternative - certainly no ‘smoking gun’. I trust the science, although I recognise that it is not exact - how can it be when projections of the future are involved.

Attacking science/scientists seems a little absurd though - it reminds me of the ‘what have the Romans ever done for us’ sketch.
 
Stephen_Spencer said:
Mi 2p - The vast majority of actively published climate scienctists have reached consensus, through the IPPC, using a rigorous peer review process of thousands of papers from around the globe. Their processes are transparent, which ensures that reports can’t be politically motivated.

Of course you can find alternate views
YOUR 2P 👇
EV drawbacks

theconversation.com

Climate explained: how the IPCC reaches scientific consensus on climate change

The IPCC’s review process is among the most exhaustive for any scientific process. Each report generates thousands of comments from hundreds of reviewers across a range of scientific perspectives.
theconversation.com theconversation.com
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • EV drawbacks
    Screenshot_20230508-072254_Google.webp
    39.8 KB · Views: 63
Was this guy a knob for writing it, or was I the knob for reading it????

(I presume he got paid for it.....

...regards, EstuaryKnob :-) )

MSN

www.msn.com
 
Not sure why you are helping me put a counter discussion forward Shane - but thanks anyway;)! Unless you are insinuating that I plagiarised the term ‘peer review process’. If so, you might as well include plagiarising the moniker of ‘climate scientists’. I guess we all get our information from reading, viewing and discussion. It may be that we pick up (extremely) common phrases along the way.

I know they say that attack is the best form of defence, but why not just make a discussion point instead, or, alternatively, just move straight along to name calling or disparaging remarks about previous employment.
 
EstuaryBoy said:
Was this guy a knob for writing it, or was I the knob for reading it????

(I presume he got paid for it.....

...regards, EstuaryKnob :) )

MSN

www.msn.com
Click to expand...
According to that article, it hinges on the EV being able to travel a certain distance without emissions.

OK, so I suppose it matters not how many tons of carbon the CHARGING FACILITIES emit? How about the actual PRODUCTION of the materials used in the MANUFACTURE of the EVs themselves? Doesn't matter, I suppose, as long as the little bitty EV doesn't "emit" anything.

"It's a greeeeeeeeen world, after all"
 
Back
Top