Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Porsche to build charging network, Tesla compatible

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I'd agree that it doing so eventually is a sure thing, but the bet that it will do so soon enough to head off climate change disaster
is anything but a sure thing.
Not "eventually", there is clear data showing the US grid is becoming cleaner right now. No need to "bet". :)

As to whether that will stop "climate change disaster", it won't. Before the end of this century the planet will be well over the 2C increase figure that there is so much discussion about. However, we still have to do everything we can to decrease the likelihood of even greater temperature increases.
 
As someone who lives in coal-fired electricity land, allow me to point out that even adoption of EVs -- by itself -- doesn't necessarily move the needle much on GHGs. If you broaden that skepticism to all fossil-fuel-powered electricity generation -- as you really
should -- the hope dims significantly further. :(

Coal generated electricity is down 20% from 2014 to 2015 alone (from 39% to 33% of total). Renewables are up for that same time period. Fortunately, there is something most of us can PERSONALLY do to help accelerate sustainable energy production. Buy solar panels. Put them on you roof, in your field, or in a solar farm. A year and a half ago, I worked on getting the first privately owned solar farm in Maine going. I am now helping with the sixth one.

Thank you kindly.
 
Coal generated electricity is down 20% from 2014 to 2015 alone (from 39% to 33% of total). Renewables are up for that same time period. Fortunately, there is something most of us can PERSONALLY do to help accelerate sustainable energy production. Buy solar panels. Put them on you roof, in your field, or in a solar farm. A year and a half ago, I worked on getting the first privately owned solar farm in Maine going. I am now helping with the sixth one.

Thank you kindly.

Yep, doing just that. If only more would do so as well...
 
Sure, there are lots of reasons to like/prefer EVs strictly on their own merits. Although I care a lot about the greenness considerations,
they were not primary in my choice of a Tesla. I'm curious about the geopolitical reasons that are not functionally equivalent to GHG
concerns -- what would those be?
Off topic, but what I was referring to is decreasing demand for oil decreases the income/influence/power of Russia, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, Iran, etc. For example here's Jim Woolsey (former CIA director) talking about this back in 2010. He was an early advocate of EVs for this reason:
How to End America's Addiction to Oil
 
Off topic, but what I was referring to is decreasing demand for oil decreases the income/influence/power of Russia, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, Iran, etc. For example here's Jim Woolsey (former CIA director) talking about this back in 2010. He was an early advocate of EVs for this reason:
How to End America's Addiction to Oil
Still OT, but...
I thought that might be what you meant. How does moving from directly fossil-fuel burning cars to indirectly fossil-fuel burning EVs
powered by directly fossil-fuel burning power plants meaningfully move that particular needle? The net increase in ounces-of-oil-
per-mile efficiency, while non-zero, doesn't seem large enough to affect geo-politics.
 
I thought that might be what you meant. How does moving from directly fossil-fuel burning cars to indirectly fossil-fuel burning EVs
powered by directly fossil-fuel burning power plants meaningfully move that particular needle? The net increase in ounces-of-oil-
per-mile efficiency, while non-zero, doesn't seem large enough to affect geo-politics.

Check out Carboncounter | Cars evaluated against climate targets to compare costs, pollution, efficiency across many cars. The EVs are much better in many ways, even when looking at total pollution. It will make a large difference.
 
Check out Carboncounter | Cars evaluated against climate targets to compare costs, pollution, efficiency across many cars. The EVs are much better in many ways, even when looking at total pollution. It will make a large difference.
I'm not talking about "many ways" -- I've already agreed that there are many reasons to like/prefer EVs. I'm specifically saying that the
net change in either fossil-fuel consumption or GHG emissions from switching to an EV in the US, at least, today is, on average, not very
large.
 
I'm not talking about "many ways" -- I've already agreed that there are many reasons to like/prefer EVs. I'm specifically saying that the
net change in either fossil-fuel consumption or GHG emissions from switching to an EV in the US, at least, today is, on average, not very
large.
I guess I am misunderstanding you? It is well known that EVs even with most of their power coming from coal powered plants are still better than ICEs. So, even in the USA, presuming worst case sources, ie on average, switching is still better, and is significant. And it will only improve. Surely it is better to head the right direction than throw up your hands and give up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cyclone
As someone who lives in coal-fired electricity land, allow me to point out that even adoption of EVs -- by itself -- doesn't necessarily
move the needle much on GHGs. If you broaden that skepticism to all fossil-fuel-powered electricity generation -- as you really
should -- the hope dims significantly further. :(

However don't EV's use the energy more efficiently then ICE do?
 
Still OT, but...
I thought that might be what you meant. How does moving from directly fossil-fuel burning cars to indirectly fossil-fuel burning EVs
powered by directly fossil-fuel burning power plants meaningfully move that particular needle? The net increase in ounces-of-oil-
per-mile efficiency, while non-zero, doesn't seem large enough to affect geo-politics.
Power plants rarely burn oil.
 
Although, strangely, he's now actively supporting Donald Trump, a climate change denier, for president.
I've not seen any evidence of human caused climate change and I've studied it a fair bit. I believe it's possible but not probable. Yep, pretty much a denier.

Even so I am still pro energy conservation, pro EV's, pro sustainability. Our current house was one of the first to have a blower door test (blew a 4.8!!!) and only recently have new houses been more energy efficient than our nearly 4 decade old house. Our new house that we are currently building will be near passive house and net zero (including our cars). We ride bicycles for much of our transportation and have worked for years to make walking and bicycling a viable transportation option for people in the US. We've also worked on numerous water conservation efforts.

Don't confuse the two.
 
I've not seen any evidence of human caused climate change and I've studied it a fair bit. I believe it's possible but not probable. Yep, pretty much a denier.
When I was a small child, I was very proud that I knew that CO2 was 0.03% of the atmosphere. Now it's 0.04%. That doesn't sound like much, but it's a 33% increase. One can actually measure this sort of thing in a high school chemistry lab. Now, most people I've talked to who don't believe that climate change exists, or that it's not caused by humans, say that it's just not credible that we can change the environment very much. So, can I ask you please, from your "fair bit" of study, what exactly has changed the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere so much in just 50 years? (Ignore for the time being any other consideration, just asking "where did the CO2 come from?")

Yes, this should all be in a different thread. Sorry about that.
 
When I was a small child, I was very proud that I knew that CO2 was 0.03% of the atmosphere. Now it's 0.04%. That doesn't sound like much, but it's a 33% increase. One can actually measure this sort of thing in a high school chemistry lab. Now, most people I've talked to who don't believe that climate change exists, or that it's not caused by humans, say that it's just not credible that we can change the environment very much. So, can I ask you please, from your "fair bit" of study, what exactly has changed the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere so much in just 50 years? (Ignore for the time being any other consideration, just asking "where did the CO2 come from?")

Yes, this should all be in a different thread. Sorry about that.

What you are suggesting is that the atmosphere would not change at all if humans were not here. I just cannot fathom that with everything that occurs on this planet. I also wouldn't say we are completely innocent either.

The other question I have is what the numbers are to more decimals. I can make it look huge by saying that 0.035% rounded is 0.04%, even though it only increased from 0.034% which was rounded down to 0.03%. This is only a 3% change rather than the 33% you are pointing out. I believe that some of these studies are presented in this way to help many of the people that are trying to line their pockets like Al Gore. If he wasn't flying in a private jet, I may have had some more belief in what he says.