EV drawbacks

kommando said:
Hypothesis to theory takes a long time and is confirmed by observational data not by models.


Plate tectonic theory had its beginnings in 1915 when Alfred Wegener proposed his theory of "continental drift."

This was the first hypothesis, it got disproved but it was heading in the right direction and came back modified from results of observations.

In the 1960's a world-wide array of seismometers were installed to monitor nuclear testing, and these instruments revealed a startling geological phenomenon. It showed that earthquakes, volcanoes, and other active geologic features for the most part aligned along distinct belts around the world, and those belts defined the edges of tectonic plates.
And yet Climate Science

Michael Joseph Kelly
Credentials
Ph.D., solid state physics, Cambridge (1974).1
M.Sc., Mathematics and Physics, University of Wellington, New Zealand.2
FR.Eng.3
FRS.4

“It’s no good looking at a model today and saying it’s done well for the last 30 years. If you look at a model made 30 years ago and look how well it’s done in the 30 years since, if you look at the data for the last 30 years, on average the models have been heating twice as fast as the data,” he said.

On NetZero based on Boris Johnsons UK plan

In an article for The Spectator, Kelly characterised Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s 10 point plan for a “Green Industrial Revolution” as “doomed from the outset,” and “reckless, unscientific and certain to fail.” Kelly disputed the cost implications of Johnson’s plan, writing: “Johnson’s green revolution would mean that we would need to completely upgrade electric wiring in our homes, streets, substations, and transmission lines. To meet demand would require enormously costly upgrades to local electricity grids, which we would all ultimately pay for through higher energy bills. If this really is part of the plan, then the government must be honest about who is to foot the bill.”

On the IPCC

As a panel member for an inquiry into the “Climategate” controversy in 2009, Kelly said:14 15
“Up to and throughout this exercise, I have remained puzzled how the real humility of the scientists in this area, as evident in their papers, including all these here, and the talks I have heard them give, is morphed into statements of confidence at the 95% level for public consumption through the IPCC process. This does not happen in other subjects of equal importance to humanity, e.g. energy futures or environmental degradation or resource depletion. I can only think it is the ‘authority’ appropriated by the IPCC itself that is the root cause.”
Click to expand...

Anyone who has a hint of insight regarding historical geologic activity understands the above.
"Historical" indicates a study of the Geologic activity over hundreds of millions of years. Thirty years is not even the beginning of a blink from the perspective of geologic history.
 
Last edited:
I realise by the title of this thread (and direction often taken here) that the thread is principally by climate science sceptics for climate science sceptics and that’s ok. Many of the points made here are entirely valid; I‘m sceptical of some elements myself. A few random observations though - no particular order - my opinion only:

- what are legitimate concerns for some are conspiracy affirming fodder for others; with each pearl of wisdom a nugget of nonsense if you like. We should recognise the difference.

- finding sceptical climate science articles is like shooting fish in a barrel. It would pay to spend time finding the many credible (climate sceptic) articles rather than posting the barely believable.

- points like: ‘EV to replace ICEV is impossible’; ‘EV’s are a fad’; ‘EV’s are not economically viable’; ‘climate science is just about money’, are negative absolutes without any real validation. More truths born of opinion.

- repeatedly returning to the contradiction between EV intent and current fossil fuel power supply, whilst completely ignoring ongoing/long term action to change the generation mix may also be a contradiction.

- we have to have at least one eye on the future. Desperately negative commentary based on the current state of electrification, projected blindly onto the future, is short sighted at best.

- the big picture matters. The same initiative may fall short in some areas but work well in others. When the result is a net positive then the aim may have been achieved.

- critising the high cost of EV‘s to achieve electrification in the same conversation as observing how much money those purchasers will lose when EV prices drop seems a conflicted point.

- people purchasing EV’s know that they are paying an inflated developmental price; common knowledge - technology reduces in cost over time. They can afford it and sales have to start somewhere. Fair or not.

- criticising specific (current) EV range/infrastructure examples without referencing localised info - owners needs and expectations, journey type and future range/infrastructure improvements etc, may be a little myopic. Planning will be required to make a journey by EV, as it is by ICEV.

- there is definitely room for constructive criticism as well as destructive criticism in this debate. Unless we challenge our thinking occasionally, then confirmation bias will likely result.

- does ridiculing science add value to the discussion?

D261673D-7ECF-4956-8CC1-8EA6BEA33516.jpeg

There are many ways to counter my points above - I could do it myself. But, you can’t have a conversation without counter discussion points unless we only want to talk about EV ‘Drawbacks’ that is!
 
Last edited:
Yeah but yeah. History is littered with scientific fuck ups. I could start listing then but what’s the point. It’s become the new religion people are so passionate about it. They used to put people to death for trying to predict the future. Scientists are not gods but we’re putting.
them up there as if they are.

I hate ev’s I think they’re stupid and will be a bad idea in history. But they’re probably pretty good as a stepping stone to something better. Maybe
 
Stephen_Spencer said:
- what are legitimate concerns for some are conspiracy affirming fodder for others; with each pearl of wisdom a nugget of nonsense if you like. We should recognise the difference.
Click to expand...
Agreed, BOTH ways.


Stephen_Spencer said:
- repeatedly returning to the contradiction between EV intent and current fossil fuel power supply, whilst completely ignoring ongoing/long term action to change the generation mix may also be a contradiction.
Click to expand...
Actually the argument is that long term effects of ICE are being exaggerated at the same time as they are being downplayed for EV. So it’s not about ignoring, it’s about facts being twisted to suit agendas.


Stephen_Spencer said:
- we have to have at least one eye on the future. Desperately negative commentary based on the current state of electrification, projected blindly onto the future, is short sighted at best.
Click to expand...
The big issue most have is NOT the long term future, I like many agree with the idea that electrification may make sense long term. I also believe that science and technology will prevail. Its the short term legal enforcement that is the BIG problem for me. 2030 is SEVEN years away Stephen, ain’t no miracle cures coming along in seven years. There are many people in many situations where EVs are currently not viable, this is unlikely to change massively in seven years, yet NO ONE is explaining what these people are supposed to do.


Stephen_Spencer said:
- the big picture matters. The same initiative may fall short in some areas but work well in others. When the result is a net positive then the aim may have been achieved.
Click to expand...
100% agree. Which is why a MULTI FUEL strategy is required rather than an EV only strategy.


Stephen_Spencer said:
- critising the high cost of EV‘s to achieve electrification in the same conversation as observing how much money those purchasers will lose when EV prices drop seems a conflicted point.
Click to expand...
No it’s not. The problem with the high purchase price is obvious, it’s a barrier to entry for many. Trouble is this is NOT likely to lead to high residuals due to battery decline. So it’s highly likely that people will be paying much more for a car that lasts a lots less. The contradiction is claiming that this is a realistic transport option for the masses. It ain’t, not yet, more development time is needed before this can be imposed on us all as our only option by law.


Stephen_Spencer said:
- people purchasing EV’s know that they are paying an inflated developmental price; common knowledge - technology reduces in cost over time. They can afford it and sales have to start somewhere. Fair or not.
Click to expand...
If it were their money, that would be fine. What sucks is that the working classes are subsidising the upper classes via the huge tax breaks they get on their EVs. That’s the unfair part.


Stephen_Spencer said:
- criticising specific (current) EV range/infrastructure examples without referencing localised info - owners needs and expectations, journey type and future range/infrastructure improvements etc, may be a little myopic. Planning will be required to make a journey by EV, as it is by ICEV.
Click to expand...
The planning required is totally different between EV and ICE and again this is why there should be a multi fuel strategy. Please study what Toyota have said, and look at the billions they’ve spent on R&D in this direction. Its crazy that their viewpoints just get ignored, they are the largest car maker in the world, they were the pioneers of hybrid and hydrogen, they’ve spent more on R&D in this area than ANYONE… it staggers me that people can’t see they just might have learnt something valuable along the way…!


Stephen_Spencer said:
- there is definitely room for constructive criticism as well as destructive criticism in this debate. Unless we challenge our thinking occasionally, then confirmation bias will likely result.
Click to expand...
The trouble is there is so little of this in the climate space. Constructive criticism is derided, shut down, etc. THAT is problem.


Stephen_Spencer said:
- does ridiculing science add value to the discussion?
Click to expand...
It does if the hypothesis is that the flaws within the scientific approach are being ignored and glossed over and that science is being turned into a monolithic ‘all seeing and always right’ belief structure. Which it is, as seen by the ‘follow THE science‘ strap lines. As I’ve said before, there is science, there is no such things as THE science. As soon as that thinking creeps in then the entire basis of science is dangerously undermined. Some of us are more aware of / concerned about this than others.


Stephen_Spencer said:
There are many ways to counter my points above - I could do it myself. But, you can’t have a conversation without counter discussion points unless we only want to talk about EV ‘Drawbacks’ that is!
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%. But as said above, it’s actually very rare these days with both sides too quick to try and shut down opposing views rather than actually discuss and / or debate them.
 
Last edited:
Good points FE

Agree with a lot of what you are saying, minus a few inevitable interpretational points. More importantly though, my critique was on how the thread participant are covering the topic - rather than how science and government is.

- Agendas being manipulated/facts twisted is largely speculation on the time scale (‘long term effects’) indicated - examples in specific areas may be apparent, depending on who/which agency is making the claim. The contradiction I was referring to was the incessent commentary about fossil fuels being used to power EV’s currently - seeking to discount the entire premise into the future. These comments largely ignore current (and future plans to) change the generation mix.

- A different point to mine but I agree, legal enforcement is problematic to say the least, in countries where it is advocated. Although it applies to new vehicle sales only (people will not be forced to dispose of their gas guzzlers) significant problems in this area are inevitable. If (probably when) they become insurmountable, no doubt caveats and changes to legislation will be made. That’s what the pollies are supposed to do for a living.

- Agreed, a multi fuel, multi disciplined approach is inevitably, especially as new technology comes online. I also can see hybrids filling the gaps.

- On price; my point was the commentary on EV prices currently, being used to discount them into the future whilst in the same conversation crowing about how much these people will lose when prices eventually normalise. Of course it’s a barrier to purchase currently (although that is changing) and absolutely nobody is saying that EV’s are viable for the masses currently.

- Agreed, subsidising the wealthier is unfair. There has been efforts to address this already. Example in this short article


- On planning (I was referring to) a journey. I see little difference in the future when infrastructure is in place. Whether you are pulling up to the bowser or a charging station. Noting the rate (doubling year on year) of higher capacity (read faster) charging points being installed. Time to charge will still be an issue of course. I was also referring to people buying the EV that best meets their needs - a small/capacity machine if their principle use is confined to city limits etc. My original point - much commentary about current limitations without accounting for future direction or advancement.

I was talking about constructive criticism in this thread of course. Agreed though, there is not enough space for dissenting voices in the wider arena.

Great thread FE - long may it run. I’m learning a shitload about climate science and other stuff -some of which I’d previously given no thought to at all. And I can research it whilst drinking my favourite newly rebranded beer ;)!

A3898AF5-592F-4450-B23E-F4DE0565C1EC.jpeg
 
I wish you’d not added that joke. That kinda sums up what’s wrong and the great divide in opinion, to me at least.

Everything on that speakers list is good. So why oh why don’t we just freakin‘ say so?? Why don’t we just say that those are the things we want ?? They are almost inarguable.

The whole problem is that a ‘climate emergency’ is being used to justify those aims.

Drop ‘the end is nigh‘ drama and guess what will happen…90% of the argument goes away and then we can all crack on…!

When all debate is clouded by the ’warming crisis’ it actually shuts out all proper debate about pollution in general, noxious gas emissions, how we actually improve life on this planet. etc, etc.

Take ‘just stop oil’. If we actually did that, life as we know it would end. Without oil there’s no plastics, no large scale food production, no medicine, no transport. And there’d not be a tree alive within two years. So bang goes your rain forest (no oil? Burn wood), bang goes healthy children (hard to be healthy when you’re starved of food and medicine), etc.

And don’t even get me started on the ‘stop agriculture‘ crowd. They are simply brain dead stupid.

All of these crowds are fuelled by the end is nigh warming idea…

I am actually beginning to think that some of these movements are really anti humanist ?
 
Last edited:
🤣 Was’nt looking at the cartoon for it‘s message to be honest FE, just thought it was an amusing cartoon - call me shallow!

I think a few of those on the board pre-date the ‘climate crisis’ reaching fever pitch, but I get your point. Unless part of your point is that we don’t need to do anything about man’s contribution to warming because the warming is entirely natural, and then our opinions might diverge.

Rather than ‘shutting down debate about polution/noxious gas emmisions‘ has the focus on the ‘climate crisis’ not brought pollution to the absolute forefront? That’s what the subject of this thread is all about right? What might be more accurate is that we talk/focus less on some elements on that board because all of the band-width is taken up by talk of the impending nature of the ’crisis’.

Don’t think anybody on the planet is talking about the total cessation of anything required for the production of food or medicine, but I get your point.
 
Last edited:
On high alert for any major (or minor) temp. uptick. The unbiased IPCC, the UN WHO equivalent climate team, has warned us!!! ….Nothing just yet…. will keep you posted. For nearly nine years now, still flat. Via Dr. Roy Spencer.

Roy Warren Spencer is a meteorologist, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.
 

Attachments

  • EV drawbacks
    Screenshot_20230510-232953.webp
    75.4 KB · Views: 84
Stephen_Spencer said:
Rather than ‘shutting down debate about polution/noxious gas emmisions‘ has the focus on the ‘climate crisis’ not brought pollution to the absolute forefront?

No, I disagree, at least in the mainstream now almost all talk is about one thing and one thing only, and it must be chased at the cost of anything and everything else !


Don’t think anybody on the planet is talking about the total cessation of anything required for the production of food or medicine.

Again, I disagree, many groups are doing exactly this BECAUSE they fail to see the actual consequence of what they’re campaigning for.
Click to expand...
 
Stephen_Spencer said:
I realise by the title of this thread (and direction often taken here) that the thread is principally by climate science sceptics for climate science sceptics and that’s ok. Many of the points made here are entirely valid; I‘m sceptical of some elements myself. A few random observations though - no particular order - my opinion only:

- what are legitimate concerns for some are conspiracy affirming fodder for others; with each pearl of wisdom a nugget of nonsense if you like. We should recognise the difference.

- finding sceptical climate science articles is like shooting fish in a barrel. It would pay to spend time finding the many credible (climate sceptic) articles rather than posting the barely believable.

- points like: ‘EV to replace ICEV is impossible’; ‘EV’s are a fad’; ‘EV’s are not economically viable’; ‘climate science is just about money’, are negative absolutes without any real validation. More truths born of opinion.

- repeatedly returning to the contradiction between EV intent and current fossil fuel power supply, whilst completely ignoring ongoing/long term action to change the generation mix may also be a contradiction.

- we have to have at least one eye on the future. Desperately negative commentary based on the current state of electrification, projected blindly onto the future, is short sighted at best.

- the big picture matters. The same initiative may fall short in some areas but work well in others. When the result is a net positive then the aim may have been achieved.

- critising the high cost of EV‘s to achieve electrification in the same conversation as observing how much money those purchasers will lose when EV prices drop seems a conflicted point.

- people purchasing EV’s know that they are paying an inflated developmental price; common knowledge - technology reduces in cost over time. They can afford it and sales have to start somewhere. Fair or not.

- criticising specific (current) EV range/infrastructure examples without referencing localised info - owners needs and expectations, journey type and future range/infrastructure improvements etc, may be a little myopic. Planning will be required to make a journey by EV, as it is by ICEV.

- there is definitely room for constructive criticism as well as destructive criticism in this debate. Unless we challenge our thinking occasionally, then confirmation bias will likely result.

- does ridiculing science add value to the discussion?

View attachment 106661

There are many ways to counter my points above - I could do it myself. But, you can’t have a conversation without counter discussion points unless we only want to talk about EV ‘Drawbacks’ that is!
Click to expand...
Quite handy that we have challengers to almost all of the arguments made (on both sides).

"nuggest of nonsense" is DEFINITELY a keeper! I won't be so vain as to believe I inspired that one...
 
  • Haha
Reactions: baz
KiwiShane said:
On high alert for any major (or minor) temp. uptick. The unbiased IPCC, the UN WHO equivalent climate team, has warned us!!! ….Nothing just yet…. will keep you posted. For nearly nine years now, still flat. Via Dr. Roy Spencer.

Roy Warren Spencer is a meteorologist, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.
Click to expand...
NASA?

climate.nasa.gov

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...
climate.nasa.gov climate.nasa.gov

NASA’s graph seems to be different. Can you show us your source so we can have a look?

Thanks

Steve

971433A6-21FB-4234-8BE9-F248E41F9E85.jpeg

Dr Spencer clearly has the qualifications and expertise to comment in this field however, he has quite the rep for denying current climate science thinking; linked to some religious thinking apparently. He’s all over the net - can’t vouch for this site or those commenting but worth a read.

skepticalscience.com

Skeptical Science Search Results

Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.
skepticalscience.com
 
Last edited:
Did you not watch some of the other videos linked here recently (that you don’t like)?

Where the explanation was put forward about the danger of starting these graphs from the mid to late 1800s ??

This is precisely what we mean by skewing the data / argument to fit an agenda …
 
Source for Roy Spencer's Graphs

Latest Global Temps - Roy Spencer, PhD.

Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The intensity of the signals these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies is...
www.drroyspencer.com

They are different graphs because they are using different temperature databases and are comparing them using different criteria.
 
Fast Eddie said:
Did you not watch some of the other videos linked here recently (that you don’t like)?

Where the explanation was put forward about the danger of starting these graphs from the mid to late 1800s ??

This is precisely what we mean by skewing the data / argument to fit an agenda …
Click to expand...
Going by data sources available and that I trust FE; I guess that you are free to do the same mate.

I asked Shane (respectfully) for his source so that I can get a better understanding, if it is credible (hence the check on Dr Spencer).

I’m trying to broaden my understanding; are you? You seem to be pretty set in your thinking that data is false/or has been manipulated. Show me a credible source for that.

I’m guessing though, that NASA and the IPPC may have factored in the point you make above; but I’ll do some more reading. Learning shitloads! And I may be wrong of course. I often am!
 
Imagine what happens when it gets into the water table...
Approximately 2.2 million litres of water is needed to produce one ton of lithium. The production of lithium through evaporation ponds uses a lot of water - around 21 million litres per day. Approximately 2.2 million litres of water is needed to produce one ton of lithium.

Lithium

Drinking Water Saline Water Can Contain Lithium, Sodium, Barium, Chloride, Bromide, and other Contaminants Connate Water
www.knowyourh2o.com www.knowyourh2o.com

Why did doctors stop prescribing lithium?
It has long been known that lithium has toxic effects on the thyroid gland and the kidneys. The thyroid toxicity, caused primarily by lithium's interference with thyroid hormones' release from the gland (19) affects up to 19% of treated patients .
www.verywellmind.com

Why You Need Regular Blood Tests While Taking Lithium

Learn about the short-term and long-term effects of lithium, lithium toxicity risks, and why blood tests are required at lithium monitoring labs during treatment.
www.verywellmind.com www.verywellmind.com
 
Last edited:
Stephen_Spencer said:
Going by data sources available and that I trust FE; I guess that you are free to do the same mate.

I asked Shane (respectfully) for his source so that I can get a better understanding, if it is credible (hence the check on Dr Spencer).

I’m trying to broaden my understanding; are you? You seem to be pretty set in your thinking that data is false/or has been manipulated. Show me a credible source for that.

I’m guessing though, that NASA and the IPPC may have factored in the point you make above; but I’ll do some more reading. Learning shitloads! And I may be wrong of course. I often am!
Click to expand...
In the video I’m referring to the case was made VERY strongly that current data started being measured in the late 1800s.

And that was also the coldest average period in THOUSANDS of years.

So, it is obvious that temperatures will rise from a historic low point.

You then use that exact same graph… as though the previous video and conversation had never happened !

If you have a counter argument, thats great, let’s hear it.

Ignoring valid points is not a counter argument.
 
ITS THE NEW GOLD RUSH....WITH MANY GETTING ON THE BAND WAGON
Talison Lithium
It is owned and operated by Talison Lithium, a joint venture between TLEA and US miner Albermarle Corporation. Talison Lithium is supplying the downstream⚠️ processing industry being established in Western Australia by TLEA. Mining began at Greenbushes in 1888, with development of the lithium ore body commencing in 1983.

The Mt Marion lithium operation is located approximately 40km south-west of Kalgoorlie in the Goldfields region of Western Australia. The operation is jointly owned by Mineral Resources (50%) and one of the world's largest lithium hydroxide producers, Jiangxi Ganfeng Lithium Co. Ltd. (50%

Pilbara Minerals Limited ($PLS) Australia's biggest lithium miner, Pilbara Minerals owns the Pilgangoora Project in Western Australia, which has an estimated mine life of 26 years and a maximum production capacity of 580,000 tonnes per annum.

www.abc.net.au

Six workers at WA lithium plant exposed to potentially acidic dust

The ABC understands the workers required medical attention following a health and safety incident, as the state's workplace safety watchdog continues to investigate the Bunbury plant.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

www.abc.net.au

WorkSafe investigation underway at lithium plant south of Perth after staff were exposed to toxic gases

The workplace has been described by a union as a "21st century facility with a 19th century workplace safety culture", but the facility's majority owner says safety is the company's top priority.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Reactions of other riders to your 961?
Replies
6
Views
243
City Garage
City Garage
Bonzo
Rolled the K100RS out of the garage today - first time in about 2 years!
Replies
6
Views
261
daveforty
D
marshg246
Another Reseller Going Away
Replies
7
Views
948
Stevo
Stevo
Dellis
Heavy Vibration Issue
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
109
Views
6,203
Schwany
Schwany
ashman
Seems to be a debate on use of clutch when stopped
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
5,686
ashman
ashman
Back
Top