Energy Companies Are Finally Backtracking On Their Absurd Green Goals

[RumTumTugger]

before i get into what the 99% of actual hurricane scientists have to say about what effects hurricanes answer these 2 questions.

1. How does lowering the carbon foot print stop the cooling and also stop the heating of the earth? This is what your 97% climate change scientists are telling us.
most importantly
2. What is the optimal global temp.

[Cerebrum123]

While I share your skepticism of politicians in general, I don't share your belief they are only about controlling us if they are democrats. Hence my belief your comment represents more paranoia than anything that is a valid concern. What they are doing is more about the fact that capitalism itself is a very poor tool when you have to make changes that the market will not support until there is not enough time left to make the changes required.

You really think that people here only think Democrats are controlling? I highly doubt that is a common belief here.

[oxmixmudd]

I never said anything about Democrats being the only ones to be 'controlling' . You are doing that thing where you imagine what the other person means or said when they didn't and then attack a straw man.

No, im doing the thing where more times than not, actions designed to reduce greenhouse gasses are charaterized as designed to gain control of people or, equivalently, to force people to live a certain way, feel free. But your post - 'when they outlaw gasoline cars' - fits neatly into that context.

But the democrats in this case have an agenda, the green agenda. I am sure they truly believe the world will end if they don't stop global warming. It is that conviction that is what drive them to set crazy policies like banning gas stoves and coal fired pizza ovens in New York City. And what makes them try to severely limit oil production. And why they want to eliminate gas cars and replace them with electric. If they get legislation passed to force all new cars to be electric by 2030 (I think that is the year I heard) then even if they say they will allow old gas powered cars to continue to exist, they will do everything they can to eliminate them as fast as possible. Raising taxes, continue with policies that limit access to gas and petroleum which will drive the price of gasoline too high to afford. Whatever it takes. After all they are trying to save the world.

So first you deny I'm on the mark, then you show I am precisely on the mark with the remainder of your post??

[oxmixmudd]

Please stop this "paranoia" nonsense, Jim -- Just because we are not swayed by all the hype doesn't mean we are paranoid. There is very good reason to be skeptical. Paranoia requires an element of unjustified fear.

When I use the word paranoia, it's because whatever it is I'm referencing looks like unjustified fear to me. But if it makes you feel better for me not to use the word 'paranoia', then I'm sure there are other ways I can make the same point without using that word.

[Cow Poke]

When I use the word paranoia, it's because whatever it is I'm referencing looks like unjustified fear to me.

There's a problem when a man sees fear where there is none.

But if it makes you feel better for me not to use the word 'paranoia', then I'm sure there are other ways I can make the same point without using that word.

Well, yeah, you can call it whatever you want, but you're seeing things that aren't there. There's a name for that, too.

[Gondwanaland]

That demand is for new cars sold. Cars using gasoline still have many years ahead of them even with that mandate. And the shift to them in full in terms of power demand will still be decades away.

I sure hope it will. Because problems with the push for electric vehicles are becoming more and more apparent.

For example, their much heavier weight damages roads at a much higher rate than normal vehicles:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...e-ev-calamity/

We have grown used to the soaring energy bills. We have started to accept the restrictions on air travel, and the expensive modifications we will have to make to our homes. But now it turns out that there is another consequence of our catastrophically poorly planned rush to hit Net Zero.

What used to be a pleasant summer drive through the British countryside has been turned into an assault course through a minefield of potholes better suited to Kaleb Cooper of Clarkson’s Farm than the average driver – for the simple reason that nobody had the sense to consider the impact on the roads of forcing us to switch to electric cars.

News that EVs damage roads twice as much as their petrol equivalents as the pothole crisis grows on Britain’s roads brings together two great failings of the British state.

First, potholes are now an epidemic on our decrepit road network. The tarmac is littered with hazardous bumps and craters. Tyres are being worn much more quickly as a result, creating new hazards: worn and defective tyres are among the leading causes of accidents on UK roads. And even if there is no collision, or even damage to the vehicle, journeys are punctured by stomach churning bumps and jolts. The state of our country roads are not what you would expect in a developed nation.

Second, our obsession with centrally planned decarbonisation is causing all sorts of unintended consequences. Electric vehicles put a massive stress on roads: last month it was reported that their sheer weight could sink our bridges. The batteries are heavy, with many popular models weighing more than two tonnes, and while that might be fine for motorways built for big lorries, on smaller roads it has put huge strain on surfaces of many highways. They are literally buckling under the pressure. What’s more, EVs are not currently charged a fuel duty on the electricity used to recharge them. Drivers of electric cars will have to start paying vehicle excise duty from 2025, bringing them in line with petrol and diesel vehicles.

It is going to get much worse. There are currently 900,000 electric cars on the road. But with sales of new petrol and diesel cars banned from 2030 that number is going to rise and rise. The stress on our roads will increase at least five fold over the next few years as the switch to electric accelerates.

Everyone accepts that we need to combat climate change, even if there is scope to debate how quickly the target of zero net carbon emissions should be met, or whether the UK really needs to be a world leader. Replacing petrol engines with battery powered ones will be an important part of that. But it needs to be properly planned and well-executed. Instead we don’t have enough chargers for all the EVs we are expected to buy. We don’t generate enough electricity to power them all up, And now it turns out that our roads are woefully unprepared for all the extra strain that will be put on them.

None of that is necessary. When we decided to ban petrol cars we could have embarked on a building programme to create the generating capacity we would need. We could have installed the chargers so that drivers never had to queue to plug in their vehicle. And we could have started to strengthen the road network so that it was fit for all the extra weight it would have to take. Instead, the British political establishment set lots of virtue signalling targets, and completely ignored the hard work, and extra investment, that would be required to make it work. It is an embarrassment. And next time you get a nasty bump in the road, or an expensive puncture, you will know exactly who to blame.

https://www.energylivenews.com/2023/...study-reveals/

EVs cause twice the road damage of petrol vehicles, study reveals


A new study shows EVs put 2.24 times more stress on roads than petrol vehicles, possibly worsening the UK’s pothole crisis

Electric vehicles (EVs) cause twice as much stress on roads compared to petrol vehicles, potentially worsening the pothole crisis in the UK, according to a study.

The research conducted by data journalists at The Telegraph revealed that the average EV exerts 2.24 times more stress on roads compared to a similar petrol vehicle and 1.95 times more stress than a dieselWales.

And that extra weight puts the rest of us at risk in accidents:

As electric vehicles become more common, experts worry they could pose a safety risk for other drivers

As electric vehicles become more common, concerns over their safety, not just for those who drive them but for others on the road as well, are also increasing.

Tests performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) show EVs hold up well in a simulated crash. Their batteries make the vehicles heavier, offering better protection to the passengers inside, but that extra weight — hundreds to even thousands of pounds — has traffic safety advocates concerned about the potential risk to other drivers.

"I think it does present significant challenges for safety," National Transportation Safety Board chair Jennifer Homendy told CBS News. "If you think about an impact in a crash with a lighter vehicle with a pedestrian or a cyclist or motorcyclists, it's going to have a much different outcome than we've seen in the past. Terribly tragic."

When asked if she was concerned it could lead to more deaths on the road, Homendy answered, "Absolutely it could. There's not a focus on the safety aspect of this."

The average vehicle on the roads as of mid-2023 weighed around 4,300 pounds, according to government data, but some newer large EVs weigh thousands of pounds more. That difference, crash experts say, matters.


"It's simple laws of physics," said Raul Arbelaez, vice president of IIHS' Vehicle Research Center in Ruckersville, Virginia. "The crash for the other vehicle, when you are heavier, is going to be more severe."

GMC's Hummer EV weighs more than 9,000 pounds and can go from zero to 60 in roughly three seconds. It is more than 3,000 pounds heavier than the GMC's full-size pickup. The Hummer EV's battery alone weighs about the same as a Toyota Corolla sedan.

The electric Ford F-150 Lightning pickup is up to 2,500 pounds heavier than the lightest gas-powered version of the vehicle model. Rivian's R1 pickup weighs around 7,100 pounds.

IIHS testing found that a significant weight difference between vehicles can have a noticeable impact in a crash. In a March 2018 test, a 2018 Kia Forte sedan and a 2016 Kia Sorento SUV, weighing 928 pounds more than the sedan, were crashed into each other at 40 miles per hour, simulating a near head-on collision. IIHS found the forces on the driver dummy in the sedan were much greater than those in the SUV.

Post-crash analysis found a high likelihood of head injuries for the driver of the Forte, likely injuries to the leg and possible injuries to the neck and chest. In contrast, the Sorento SUV test dummy had mostly good injury measurements, aside from a possible right leg injury. The sedan also suffered visibly more damage than the SUV.

"In short, the 2018 Forte was a good performer in crash tests and stood out as a very safe choice among small cars," IIHS spokesman Joseph Young told CBS News. "However, the extra weight of the Sorento pushed the limits of what the smaller car could handle, leading to additional structural intrusion and higher risk of injury, even with the two vehicles traveling at the same speed."

According to a 2011 study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a 1,000-pound difference between vehicles results in a 47% increase in the likelihood that a crash turns deadly.

"A 7,000-pound vehicle hitting a 4,000-pound SUV, the impact on that smaller vehicle is going to be quite significant," said Arbelaez. "It is going to be a more severe crash with more intrusion and higher levels of injury."

Arbelaez has previously written about his concerns that heavier EVs on the roads could pose a safety risk for other drivers.

"You take a very large vehicle, say a 10,000-pound vehicle, against that mid-size SUV. You have now converted that from a 40 mph crash for that smaller vehicle all the way to about a 58 mph crash," Arbelaez explained. "And what crash research tells us is that once you go above, say, the standard 40 mph crash severity, to 55 [mph] and higher, safety for those occupants in those vehicles goes down dramatically. The occupant compartment starts to collapse in ways that we aren't designing for."

Traffic safety advocates acknowledge that vehicle weight is just one factor in a crash. In addition, while EV sales are surging, they remain a small fraction of the total number of vehicles on the roads, making crash and injury data limited.

The nation's top road safety regulator, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), said it is closely monitoring this topic and is conducting "extensive research" on the differences between gas-powered vehicles and EVs. An agency spokesperson told CBS News that research includes investigating size- and weight-related crash implications.

That's not to mention the fire hazards for concentrated communities, condos, apartments, etc.:
https://www.costar.com/article/74660...scooters-bikes

Apartments Face Growing Fire Threat From Electric Scooters, Bikes

Lithium-Ion Batteries Spark Flames in Multifamily Properties From London to Los Angeles



Earlier this month, Los Angeles firefighters rolled an electric scooter out of a Hollywood apartment complex near the charred remains of a lithium-ion battery. The incident shows one of the newest dangers facing multifamily property owners and tenants.
The battery had exploded at 1710 N. Fuller Ave. before being extinguished by fire sprinklers, according to a statement by the Los Angeles Fire Department. Apartment units beneath the sprinklers were damaged and one person was evaluated for burn injuries.
The electric scooter fire was the latest apartment blaze caused by lithium-ion batteries as sales of these scooters and bikes grow in the United States. Apartment owners and government officials are taking note, with some instituting bans and others pursuing policies to make these scooters and bikes safer.
Cities such as New York are increasingly calling for safety around e-bikes and e-scooters to reduce lithium-ion fires, particularly those in multifamily buildings.
“Fires caused by e-bikes and the lithium-ion batteries they rely on have increased dramatically in our city, with deadly consequences for citizens and first responders,” FDNY Commissioner Laura Kavanagh said in statement last month.
Apartment fires in general are costly to apartment owners. Between 2017-2019, more than 100,000 multifamily fires were reported on average annually in the United States, causing more than 400 deaths and over $1.7 billion in property loss, according to the National Fire Data Center based in Emmitsburg, Maryland.
Roughly three-quarters of all apartment fires are related to cooking, but in nearly all of these instances the fires cause limited damage, according to the National Fire Data Center. However, lithium-ion related battery fires are "particularly severe and difficult to extinguish, spreading quickly and producing noxious fumes," according to the New York mayor's office.

Responding To Fires

Electric-powered scooters and bikes have seen a surge in popularity in recent years, with the U.S. importing roughly 790,000 electric two-wheelers in 2021, according to Bloomberg, up from 463,000 in 2020.
"The electric scooter has been recognized as one of the most popular urban transport micromobility options due to its affordability, convenience, and environmentally friendly features, and was particularly favored by many to help alleviate the 'first-mile/last-mile' mobility issue," according to an International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Healthstudy.
However, the risk of fire damage to apartments is happening alongside the rise of in popularity of electric scooters and bikes. The Fire Department of the City of New York reported 220 lithium-ion fires in 2022. These fires killed 10 people and injured 226 between 2021-2022 and a fire in Queens in April killed two young people at an apartment building.
In London, the fire department said it has seen a 60% rise in e-bike and e-scooter fires this year through April 9compared with 2022.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission received reports of at least 208 micromobility fire or overheating incidents between Jan. 1, 2021, through Nov. 28, 2022, according to a statement.
Some apartment owners are banning electronic bikes and scooters. New York City landlord Glenwood told residents in 2022 to permanently remove any e-bikes, according to Axios. The landlord said e-bikes are banned in its entire buildings, including inside apartments.
Fordham University, also in New York City, banned e-bikes in late December 2022 along with Boston College. Both schools cited the risk of fire as part of the ban. In 2021, Columbia University in New York banned e-scooters due to lithium-ion battery concerns.
Globally, cities have pursued bans of e-scooters and e-bikes due to safety concerns. In 2021, London banned e-scooters from its public transportation due to fire risk, according to The Guardian. Meanwhile, Parisians voted in April to ban the renting of electric scooters.
Banning e-scooters and e-bikes, though, can have traffic consequences. A Georgia Tech study found that after Atlanta banned e-scooter and e-bikes its average commute times increased by about 10% with more people in cars. That meant an extra 784,000 hours of sitting in traffic annually.

Insurance Bans

Kitty Wallace, a senior executive vice president of Colliers in Los Angeles who has expertise in apartment properties, said insurance companies may take note of lithium-ion batteries before landlords.
Apartment insurance costs have been on the rise nationwide and in Los Angeles for various reasons, including mounting losses from flooding, tornadoes and wildfires. Wallace said insurance costs used to be roughly 35 cents per square foot but have increased to roughly 55 cents.
"The insurance companies are going to ban them before the landlord," Wallace said.
But Wallace said electric scooters and bikes are important modes of transportation for residents, particularly residents who can't afford cars.
These scooters can make it easy to get around traffic-clogged cities, too, such as in Los Angeles.
Meanwhile, work continues to repair the 1710 N. Fuller Ave. apartments in Hollywood after the lithium-ion battery fire. The building owner did not respond to a request to comment from CoStar News.

[oxmixmudd]

There's a problem when a man sees fear where there is none.



Well, yeah, you can call it whatever you want, but you're seeing things that aren't there. There's a name for that, too.

There is no problem. When people continually voice things they are afraid will happen, it is properly called fear. When those thing have no rational justification, is is properly called irrational fear, i.e paranoia.

But if you don't like the word paranoia, I'm sure I can find other words to use that say the same thing. That might even be better, because it will likely allow me to spell out in simple terms the reason the fear is irrational

[Cow Poke]

There is no problem. When people continually voice things they are afraid will happen, it is properly called fear.

So, all these global alarmists warning us of terrible things they are afraid will happen --- they're paranoid?

[Sparko]

No, im doing the thing where more times than not, actions designed to reduce greenhouse gasses are charaterized as designed to gain control of people or, equivalently, to force people to live a certain way, feel free. But your post - 'when they outlaw gasoline cars' - fits neatly into that context.



So first you deny I'm on the mark, then you show I am precisely on the mark with the remainder of your post??

I was disagreeing your characterization that "only Democrats are trying to be controlling" - that is a straw man. And as I said, it might not even be about "controlling" - they probably believe they are actually saving the world, but in their zeal, they are actually harming society and the economy. I think electric vehicles will take the place of gasoline cars naturally as they get cheaper and better. That's how technology works. They didn't have to outlaw horses when the car was invented. People just found automobiles more convenient and effective than horses. So there is no reason to force people to accept technology that is not quite ready for prime time like EVs. But that won't stop the government from doing so. If even just so they can pound their own chests and claim that they saved the world from gasoline cars.

The way to do it is to give tax breaks and grants to devolopers of EVs and related tech so they can improve the technology and make it cheaper. Then just let the market forces take over. If I could by an EV that could go 300 miles on a charge, even under less than ideal situations (running AC or Heater, headlights, etc) and could charge it in 10 minutes or less, and it cost the same or less than an equivalent gas car, AND I knew I could charge it anywhere in the country, I would definitely buy an EV. As would most others who are looking for a new car. Eventually gas vehicles will go the way of the horse, only used in specialized cases, or by collectors.

But I am sure the government won't be happy with that transition, It will be too slow. So I think they will find ways to not only force manufacturers to only make EVs, but find ways to 'disincentivize' people from keeping and owning gas cars.

You should bookmark this post so in 5 or 10 years when it happens you can come back and respond "Sorry Sparko, I was wrong" - I will wait.

[Cow Poke]

Are you aware you're repeating yourself, Jim?

There is no problem. When people continually voice things they are afraid will happen, it is properly called fear. When those thing have no rational justification, is is properly called irrational fear, i.e paranoia.

But if you don't like the word paranoia, I'm sure I can find other words to use that say the same thing. That might even be better, because it will likely allow me to spell out in simple terms the reason the fear is irrational

When I use the word paranoia, it's because whatever it is I'm referencing looks like unjustified fear to me. But if it makes you feel better for me not to use the word 'paranoia', then I'm sure there are other ways I can make the same point without using that word.

What, exactly, do you think "we" are "afraid" will happen?
We already see multiple things the global alarmists were "afraid" would happen, made dire predictions accordingly, and they failed to come to pass. Paranoia.
So, what do you see as our "fears" that are not legitimate or based in history or reality?

[One Bad Pig]

I sure hope it will. Because problems with the push for electric vehicles are becoming more and more apparent.

They can also go through tires rather quickly. I talked with a coworker with a Tesla recently. His first set of tires lasted 2,500 miles.

On a separate note, Tesla has incredibly invasive control over its cars; you can be locked out of certain features (such as the autopilot) for as long as the company feels like it if they decide you're not sufficiently adhering to their rules.

[Cerebrum123]

They can also go through tires rather quickly. I talked with a coworker with a Tesla recently. His first set of tires lasted 2,500 miles.

On a separate note, Tesla has incredibly invasive control over its cars; you can be locked out of certain features (such as the autopilot) for as long as the company feels like it if they decide you're not sufficiently adhering to their rules.

Amazon did something similar by locking a guy out of his smart house controls for a week simply because he was reported as saying something racist. There isn't any evidence that he did that but they still stopped him from being able to do stuff like adjust his thermostat. That kind of thing can kill people.

[Sparko]

Paranoia is an unreasonable or unrealistic fear.

As Johnny Fever said on WKRP, "When everyone is actually out to get you, paranoid is just good thinking"

[Cow Poke]

Paranoia is an unreasonable or unrealistic fear.

As Johnny Fever said on WKRP, "When everyone is actually out to get you, paranoid is just good thinking"

And just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you!

[rogue06]

That's just nuts. ABC, CBS, ... have always been legitimate news organizations, despite protests by conservatives to the contrary. The latest insanity on that front is at the behest of a demagogue that knows if you can get voters to stop listening to news sources you dont control, you can tell them anything you want to tell them. E.g. the 2020 election was rigged.

What you have said here underlies one of the most significant sources of misinformation that is out there. And if you are actually interested in knowing or understanding what the truth is, you'll stop echoing it

Funny how after saying that you can call news organizations that pushed the myth of the Collusion Delusion, the Ukraine phone call hoax etc. (all of which are still being supported by some on those networks) legitimate.