Global warming ...

[SeanNelson]

I just want to do the right thing, period. I don't care what other people think about me, I care about what I think about me and whether or not I can feel OK about how I live my life.

I know that some people think you're a dupe to do the right thing when there's nothing in it for you personally - and that's how the rest of the world sees America now

Sean, I think there needs to be a measure of "what's in it for me" on an individual level towards the overall larger goal of addressing climate change. From charging my car using solar, and exporting more electricity than I can use, not only am I saving money & not buying gasoline, but my power bills usually become credits during May, June, and July. I've also insulated ourselves from surprise increases in electricity rates. There is nothing at all wrong, or selfish about that. These are tangible benefits I can sink my teeth into, and provides ongoing rewards to "do the right thing". The public is more inclined to take personal action against climate change when they see a carrot in front of them, rather than getting hit with a carbon tax stick, or being ridiculed because they drive an SUV.

Of course incentives are a great thing. It's obvious that everyone's motivations are unique and the more reasons there are to choose green the better off we'll all be. But my point is that in response to the question "why on earth would someone pay a premium to buy an EV" there are at least some people for whom the prime concern is reducing their environmental impact. That's my motivation, and I can't be the only one.

I'm with Phil about calling BS When someone says they bought an EV to fight global warming. They really bought a car that gets them from A to B. The side effect choosing an EV might be an individual, and microscopic contribution in the effort against global warming, but for these folks, it really is more about making a statement than anything else.

There's a psychological phenomenon called "projection" in which people with a certain mindset assume that others must act according to the same mindset. I can't help but wonder if that's what's happening here, because what you describe is truly not the way I feel about my choices. I feel like you're trying to convince yourself that people such as me are behaving a certain way when we're really not.

If Global Warming really was their #1 concern, they wouldn't have made the choice to increase their personal CO2 footprint from the acquisition of a brand new, 3600 pound hunk of steel, glass, and petrochemicals along with the energy required to create it. They'd instead take the bus, or ride a bike.

You're trying to argue that doing the right thing has to be an "all or nothing" effort. If that was true then we're doomed, because none of us are saints. But just because we are flawed human beings doesn't mean we have to throw our hands up and surrender to our basest impulses. We can still choose to do what we can, so we can feel like we at least tried.

Albert Einstein one said "The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." My conscience doesn't permit me to do nothing, yet I'm also not capable of doing everything. So I must content myself with just doing the best that I can.

 

[SeanNelson]

You can. To what end?

I have to say that kind of attitude is exactly why the rest of the world is aghast at the US right now.

You mean the attitude that a favorable end or outcome is desirable? That ineffectual, feel-good actions should be avoided, in favor of actions that may actually do some good?

No - the attitude that "I can't fix it all by myself so I'm not even going to try". The fewer people who have that attitude, the better off we'll be as a species.

 

[phil0909]

No - the attitude that "I can't fix it all by myself so I'm not even going to try". The fewer people who have that attitude, the better off we'll be as a species.

That was not the attitude I expressed. Nor is it the attitude of the US or its president.

Try something that could work, and I'll be right there with you. Make a totally futile gesture that only makes you feel better about yourself and does nothing for anyone else - count me out.

 

[SeanNelson]

Make a totally futile gesture that only makes you feel better about yourself and does nothing for anyone else - count me out.

IMHO buying EVs even in these early days is important because cars are a major source of emissions, both greenhouse and pollutants. And the only way to get the fleet converted is for some people to get the ball rolling. If GM, Tesla, Nissan, etc. can't sell enough EVs to make it worth further investment then the transition to zero emission vehicles is never going to get off the ground. Early adopters are important for that transition, even if they themselves are not making that much of a dent in overall emissions.

Perhaps you're just a "glass half empty" kind of guy, but not me.

 

[LeftieBiker]

Of course they can purchase an EV out of concern for the environment while still riding their jetskis and flying to a far away country for vacation and enjoying a backyard BBQ.

The notion that only the pure are allowed to state that they are concerned with the environment is a flawed view IMO. I think it is equally flawed to criticize people who don't address their biggest source of environmental impact first. You don't have to be perfect to be better.

People can, of course, do things - even stupid things. But not being perfect is a bit different from being blatantly, irrationally hypocritical. Backyard barbecues are several orders of magnitude below personal watercraft and ATVs in environmental impact, unless they take place on forest land cleared just for that use, and use tar sands oil for fuel.

 

[sparkyps]

Of course they can purchase an EV out of concern for the environment while still riding their jetskis and flying to a far away country for vacation and enjoying a backyard BBQ.

The notion that only the pure are allowed to state that they are concerned with the environment is a flawed view IMO. I think it is equally flawed to criticize people who don't address their biggest source of environmental impact first. You don't have to be perfect to be better.

People can, of course, do things - even stupid things. But not being perfect is a bit different from being blatantly, irrationally hypocritical. Backyard barbecues are several orders of magnitude below personal watercraft and ATVs in environmental impact, unless they take place on forest land cleared just for that use, and use tar sands oil for fuel.

You continue to demand purity when purity isn't required.

I'm not sure where a good charcoal BBQ is in the emissions scheme of things compared with riding around for 1/2 hour on a jetski, nor is it important. If you choose to get rid of your charcoal BBQ for a natural gas or propane BBQ out of concern for air quality I think that is fantastic even if you still ride your jetskis. In fact I'm fine with someone replacing their charcoal grill with a propane grill to improve air quality even though they could choose to not grill at all or use a solar cooker.

Wanting to do better does not make you a hypocrite when you in fact do better. If you ran around saying that everyone should be reducing their carbon footprint by 80% while not bothering to do so yourself because you enjoy riding a jetski, then you would be a hypocrite.

Let me put this in perspective, let's say someone wants to reduce their caloric intake as part of a weight reduction plan. They tell you how excited they are about reducing 300 calories from their daily intake by getting rid of their two slices of bread with butter they eat every day. Do you call them a hypocrite for continuing to have a bowl of ice cream three nights a week and point out that it is a bigger source of calories than their bread? Or do you say "Good job, you cut 300 calories"? Do you call them a hypocrite for wanting to lose weight while continuing to eat ice cream?

Better is good, perfect isn't required.

 

[sparkyps]

People can, of course, do things - even stupid things. But not being perfect is a bit different from being blatantly, irrationally hypocritical. Backyard barbecues are several orders of magnitude below personal watercraft and ATVs in environmental impact, unless they take place on forest land cleared just for that use, and use tar sands oil for fuel.

No idea of the accuracy but let's compare some numbers for 1/2 hr riding a jetski and a backyard charcoal BBQ and see if in fact they are "several orders of magnitude" different.

I see a reference to a 60hp Seadoo Spark that uses 2 gallons of gas/hr at wide open throttle. So that would be 1 gallon of gas burned in an energetic 30 minute ride. Obviously you can burn a lot more or less depending on what you are riding.
http://www.steveninsales.com/far-can-jet-ski-go-tank-gas/

Burning a gallon of gasoline produces about 20 pounds of CO2

This article suggests a charcoal grill produces 11 pounds of CO2, obviously it depends on how much charcoal you burn but it's a good estimate
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2015/07/your-grills-smoky-truth

So we have 20 pounds and 11 pounds, pretty clearly not several or even one order of magnitude different.

The grill article suggested that a gas grill produces about 1/2 the CO2 that a charcoal grill produces.

If you are striving to minimize your carbon footprint then you are going to need to find a new hobby to replace riding around on a jetski. But if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, switching from a charcoal grill to a gas grill will reduce your carbon footprint and you won't be a hypocrite because you still drive an SUV or ride a jetski.

 

[phil0909]

Early adopters are important for that transition

They really aren't. Technologies become popular when they are ready, and not a moment sooner. Do you imagine that you could have accelerated the development and popularity of television by purchasing an early TV set? Would personal computers be more ubiquitous today if you had bought a couple of extra TRS-80's that you didn't really need? Same with electric cars. They will probably win a large market share someday, but not until they mature and become better than other competing products. If your goal is to improve the world for your fellow human beings, there are far more effective ways to spend $40,000 than buying yourself an EV. But if you just want to pretend you're saving the world and feel superior...well, go right ahead.

 

[LeftieBiker]

People can, of course, do things - even stupid things. But not being perfect is a bit different from being blatantly, irrationally hypocritical. Backyard barbecues are several orders of magnitude below personal watercraft and ATVs in environmental impact, unless they take place on forest land cleared just for that use, and use tar sands oil for fuel.

No idea of the accuracy but let's compare some numbers for 1/2 hr riding a jetski and a backyard charcoal BBQ and see if in fact they are "several orders of magnitude" different.

I see a reference to a 60hp Seadoo Spark that uses 2 gallons of gas/hr at wide open throttle. So that would be 1 gallon of gas burned in an energetic 30 minute ride. Obviously you can burn a lot more or less depending on what you are riding.
http://www.steveninsales.com/far-can-jet-ski-go-tank-gas/

Burning a gallon of gasoline produces about 20 pounds of CO2

This article suggests a charcoal grill produces 11 pounds of CO2, obviously it depends on how much charcoal you burn but it's a good estimate
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2015/07/your-grills-smoky-truth

So we have 20 pounds and 11 pounds, pretty clearly not several or even one order of magnitude different.

The grill article suggested that a gas grill produces about 1/2 the CO2 that a charcoal grill produces.

If you are striving to minimize your carbon footprint then you are going to need to find a new hobby to replace riding around on a jetski. But if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, switching from a charcoal grill to a gas grill will reduce your carbon footprint and you won't be a hypocrite because you still drive an SUV or ride a jetski.

You're ignoring the environmental impact of dumping unburned fuel (and a little grease and oil) into the water, plus the impact the craft physically has on the ecosystem, and are instead focusing solely on carbon release by the personal watercraft alone - something that I didn't claim to use as a metric. I'm talking about total "environmental impact" not about "a carefully isolated portion of the total environmental impact." Even then, you seem to be implying that these things get carried to the bodies of water they pollute in backpacks, instead of being towed behind vehicles (most of them trucks and SUVs) that burn lots of extra fuel in doing so. I grew up with dirtbikes and snowmobiles, and only started to realize how dirty they are as I got older. There's still time for all of us. Or maybe not...

 

[WetEV]

Early adopters are important for that transition

They really aren't. Technologies become popular when they are ready, and not a moment sooner.

Not a moment sooner, but can be many moments later.

Production of anything has a declining cost curve.

Make one of anything, and it is going to be very expensive and/or not very good.

Make ten, and they get cheaper and better.

Make ten million, cheaper and better still.

Suppose I want to make a gadget. Might take a man-year or two of design and development, like the first model T. Maybe more, for more complex gadgets. Maybe less. May needed make tools/jigs/software to make the gadget.

Suppose the market is 10. Most of the above costs only need to be paid once. So on for 100 and 1000 and a million.

How does a technology become "ready"?

Having been in the technology business a long time I'm very aware of how volume impacts everything.

Suppose there is a technology that is "ready", but no one wants to pay the price for the first thousand units. How will it get made, even if it makes economic sense in volumes of ten million?

 

[sparkyps]

People can, of course, do things - even stupid things. But not being perfect is a bit different from being blatantly, irrationally hypocritical. Backyard barbecues are several orders of magnitude below personal watercraft and ATVs in environmental impact, unless they take place on forest land cleared just for that use, and use tar sands oil for fuel.

No idea of the accuracy but let's compare some numbers for 1/2 hr riding a jetski and a backyard charcoal BBQ and see if in fact they are "several orders of magnitude" different.

I see a reference to a 60hp Seadoo Spark that uses 2 gallons of gas/hr at wide open throttle. So that would be 1 gallon of gas burned in an energetic 30 minute ride. Obviously you can burn a lot more or less depending on what you are riding.
http://www.steveninsales.com/far-can-jet-ski-go-tank-gas/

Burning a gallon of gasoline produces about 20 pounds of CO2

This article suggests a charcoal grill produces 11 pounds of CO2, obviously it depends on how much charcoal you burn but it's a good estimate
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2015/07/your-grills-smoky-truth

So we have 20 pounds and 11 pounds, pretty clearly not several or even one order of magnitude different.

The grill article suggested that a gas grill produces about 1/2 the CO2 that a charcoal grill produces.

If you are striving to minimize your carbon footprint then you are going to need to find a new hobby to replace riding around on a jetski. But if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, switching from a charcoal grill to a gas grill will reduce your carbon footprint and you won't be a hypocrite because you still drive an SUV or ride a jetski.

You're ignoring the environmental impact of dumping unburned fuel (and a little grease and oil) into the water, plus the impact the craft physically has on the ecosystem, and are instead focusing solely on carbon release by the personal watercraft alone - something that I didn't claim to use as a metric. I'm talking about total "environmental impact" not about "a carefully isolated portion of the total environmental impact." Even then, you seem to be implying that these things get carried to the bodies of water they pollute in backpacks, instead of being towed behind vehicles (most of them trucks and SUVs) that burn lots of extra fuel in doing so. I grew up with dirtbikes and snowmobiles, and only started to realize how dirty they are as I got older. There's still time for all of us. Or maybe not...

This is a global warming/CO2 discussion and not even a discussion of jetskis.

I'm quite happy if someone wants to help the environment by replacing their charcoal grill with a gas grill even if they engage in other activities, such as jetskis, that produce even more environmental harm than backyard grilling.

Others seem to think you become a hypocrite by replacing your charcoal grill for environmental reasons unless you also change every other activity that produces more greenhouse gases than backyard grilling.

Perfection is the enemy of progress

 

[LeftieBiker]

I know it got OT, but I was clear in writing "environmental impact" in my original statement. If we focus purely on carbon emissions, we ignore things like nuclear waste and accidental or intentional releases of radioactive materials, destruction of ecosystems to make way for "cleaner" power, etc. The environment isn't just warming - it's degrading generally.

 

[phil0909]

Suppose there is a technology that is "ready", but no one wants to pay the price for the first thousand units. How will it get made, even if it makes economic sense in volumes of ten million?

The answer to this question is obvious. Investors eagerly throw billions of dollars at products that are anywhere close to being ready to command a large market. GM, Nissan, Tesla and others are already doing that for EVs, and have been for decades.

 

[oilerlord]

Having been in the technology business a long time I'm very aware of how volume impacts everything.

Suppose there is a technology that is "ready", but no one wants to pay the price for the first thousand units. How will it get made, even if it makes economic sense in volumes of ten million?

As someone else that is also in the "technology business", I'd say this is more a question for a market economist than someone in IT. While you and I may understand how the technology works, or how to integrate it for the end user, we aren't necessarily experts in determining when a technology is "ready". The market does that.

IMHO, volume does not impact everything. Remember Windows 8? Millions of copies were sold. That doesn't mean the technology was ready.

What if the government decided to subsidize 50% of the price of an EV, and that created an artificial spike in sales volume...would the technology then be ready? Early EV adopters are essentially voluntary beta testers, and are in a way being paid to participate in an ongoing study through tax incentives, and manufacturer-subsidized low cost leases. Notwithstanding Tesla, government regulations are forcing the development of zero emission vehicles - not because car companies necessarily want to build them, but because they have to build them. That stifles innovation. We continue to have a bunch of compliance cars to choose from (arguably, including the Bolt) - cars built solely to comply with regulations, but offering little more to the public. To me, these are clear indicators that EV's (as a technology or alternative to an established norm) - aren't ready.

I agree with Phil. The technology isn't ready. Not even close.

Sean, this isn't about looking at the glass-half-empty or half-full, it's pouring the glass and measuring it.

 

[devbolt]

Early adopters are important for that transition

They really aren't. Technologies become popular when they are ready, and not a moment sooner. Do you imagine that you could have accelerated the development and popularity of television by purchasing an early TV set? Would personal computers be more ubiquitous today if you had bought a couple of extra TRS-80's that you didn't really need? Same with electric cars. They will probably win a large market share someday, but not until they mature and become better than other competing products. If your goal is to improve the world for your fellow human beings, there are far more effective ways to spend $40,000 than buying yourself an EV. But if you just want to pretend you're saving the world and feel superior...well, go right ahead.

Early adopters are important because someone has to buy the early models. If no one buys them in sufficient quantities the manufacturer gives up and stops development, even if they are a technologically superior product to what is already out there in the market. If Tesla hadn't been able to sell a lot of Roadsters, we never would've gotten the Model S or X. And without those models, the Model S would not be starting production in a month.

I worked for a major computer manufacturer for 17 years. We had some really great products. But not enough people bought our high-end products to sustain certain divisions and as a result I ended up without a job because the company chose to pare down the product line.

 

[devbolt]

<snip>
Notwithstanding Tesla, government regulations are forcing the development of zero emission vehicles - not because car companies necessarily want to build them, but because they have to build them. That stifles innovation. We continue to have a bunch of compliance cars to choose from (arguably, including the Bolt) - cars built solely to comply with regulations, but offering little more to the public. To me, these are clear indicators that EV's (as a technology or alternative to an established norm) - aren't ready.

Once upon a time government regulations forced gas companies to remove lead from gasoline. Those same regulations forced automobile manufacturers to install catalytic converters to reduce smog-producing emissions to improve air quality. And also decreed that cars should get better gas mileage, further reducing air pollution. Car companies didn't want to do any of that. They just wanted to sell their gas guzzling land yachts. And yet here we are some 40+ years later with cars that get great gas mileage & produce a fraction of the pollution due to those compliance requirements. Innovation wasn't stifled by those regulations, it was increased as manufacturers sought ways to comply.

 

[WetEV]

Suppose there is a technology that is "ready", but no one wants to pay the price for the first thousand units. How will it get made, even if it makes economic sense in volumes of ten million?

The answer to this question is obvious. Investors eagerly throw billions of dollars at products that are anywhere close to being ready to command a large market. GM, Nissan, Tesla and others are already doing that for EVs, and have been for decades.

Even if investors are willing to develop a product, the first production relies on people willing to take a chance on products that are perhaps not yet economically viable, and not yet as high quality as later production will be. The Ford Model A (1903–04), the Tesla Roadster and the GM EV1, as examples. And on products that may never be practical or economically viable, such as hydrogen fuel cell cars. Many people are not willing to take a chance, until their neighbors already have one.

You still have to sell the first one, and the first thousand.

 

[WetEV]

IMHO, volume does not impact everything. Remember Windows 8? Millions of copies were sold. That doesn't mean the technology was ready.

Software is a rather different business than hardware. Cars are hardware. Windows 8 is software.

Software copies are (hopefully) error free, so each copy of a software package is exactly the same as the first copy.

Hardware copies should (hopefully) get better with each copy. Better as in higher quality and/or cheaper.

I'd say the glass is about 29/64ths full.

 

[LectricBill]

Does my Bolt make a difference? Every day.

Too bad China will now lead the way on global warming...

And after China, then India, Africa, and Latin America. Making your electric motorcycle utterly pointless. Does your Bolt make a difference? Only in your imagination. In reality, it's an exercise in futility, no more saving the planet than a useless international treaty or a nice slogan on a t-shirt.

Sorry, I can't follow your logic. How does China etc, taking the lead on fighting global warming negate my contribution? Just because of scale. Mass movements are composed of individuals. Oh, and exactly how is the Paris Agreement, useless? (I'd understand your sentiment if you lived in Syria.)

 

[LectricBill]

Early adopters are important for that transition

They really aren't. Technologies become popular when they are ready, and not a moment sooner. Do you imagine that you could have accelerated the development and popularity of television by purchasing an early TV set? Would personal computers be more ubiquitous today if you had bought a couple of extra TRS-80's that you didn't really need? Same with electric cars. They will probably win a large market share someday, but not until they mature and become better than other competing products. If your goal is to improve the world for your fellow human beings, there are far more effective ways to spend $40,000 than buying yourself an EV. But if you just want to pretend you're saving the world and feel superior...well, go right ahead.

I'm old enough to remember when visiting neighbors who were the first to get a TV on our block, caused me to go home and whine to my parents that we needed one. Are you saying word of mouth is NOT the best form of advertising? Just how do you think "ready" technologies become "popular"? Same with my experience of computers.

I have people coming up to me to discuss my electric motorcycle about twice a week. EV meets have the public showing up to check out the cars. The Bolt starts inquiring conversations in parking lots.

My goal is not to feel superior; it's to participate, to make my contribution. What's your tactic to "improve the world for your fellow human beings", other than the trashing the actions of others in an online forum about an EV? :roll: