The End For Electric Cars? VW Develops New Hydrogen Tech: 2,000 Km On A Single Tank

[Into the Night]

The sun is the energy system involved. You completely stupid dumb fiuck. It is renewable as it gets, you dumb shit. The panels capture and use the energy.

There is no such thing as an 'energy system'. Buzzword fallacy.

Solar panels capture only a small amount of energy from the Sun. They are very expensive for what they do. Solar panels do not use energy. Solar panels only work during the day. They don't work at night.
Renewable sources of energy include sunlight, wind, natural gas, oil, hydroelectric (sun powered), wood, and possibly coal (no one really knows).

Energy doesn't have to be renewable.

You are advocating government manipulation of energy markets. That's fascism, dude.

[Into the Night]

Care to provide your evidence to support your 80k claim? I think you have already forgotten what your claim actually was as you devolve into name calling instead of providing actual support.

Reuters used the Argonne National Labs calculator to create scenarios. (Argonne uses all CO2 produced for production and the life of the vehicle.) They only way they got to 80% was assuming 100% coal electricity. Using the average US electrical production the point at which lifetime CO2 was less when compared to the ICE car was less than 15,000 miles. So clearly your claim that 80k is closer to the norm is complete bullshit.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aut...rs-2021-06-29/

The Argonne GREET model can be found here:
https://greet.es.anl.gov/
It includes all emissions for mining, production, use, and recycling.

Then surely you can provide some actual data to show how my claims are wrong? Or is your only point to name call in that sentence?

Are we? If we are then your numbers are clearly wrong since the battery tech we currently have is better than it was in 2013. Once again Argonne has all the emissions that result from making a lithium ion battery updated to 2021. Producing 1kg of lithium ion battery from mining to assembly releases 26 kg of CO2





I didn't realize that EVs were the only subsidized energy. Did you forget about solar and wind? If subsidized energy allows for transportation to be all electric and all electric production to be from non carbon sources than clearly the CO2 production would be cut by 50%. Even if we still rely on CO2 sources for some electricity we would still reduce our emissions by 25% or more because an EV that runs on electricity produced by Natural gas releases less CO2 than an ICE vehicle.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas', except as a buzzword in a religion. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

[Bigdog]

What's to predict? Climate has no value associated with it.

Does weather have a value associated with it?

[Bigdog]

Care to provide your evidence to support your 80k claim? I think you have already forgotten what your claim actually was as you devolve into name calling instead of providing actual support.

Reuters used the Argonne National Labs calculator to create scenarios. (Argonne uses all CO2 produced for production and the life of the vehicle.) They only way they got to 80% was assuming 100% coal electricity. Using the average US electrical production the point at which lifetime CO2 was less when compared to the ICE car was less than 15,000 miles. So clearly your claim that 80k is closer to the norm is complete bullshit.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aut...rs-2021-06-29/

The Argonne GREET model can be found here:
https://greet.es.anl.gov/
It includes all emissions for mining, production, use, and recycling.

Then surely you can provide some actual data to show how my claims are wrong? Or is your only point to name call in that sentence?

Are we? If we are then your numbers are clearly wrong since the battery tech we currently have is better than it was in 2013. Once again Argonne has all the emissions that result from making a lithium ion battery updated to 2021. Producing 1kg of lithium ion battery from mining to assembly releases 26 kg of CO2





I didn't realize that EVs were the only subsidized energy. Did you forget about solar and wind? If subsidized energy allows for transportation to be all electric and all electric production to be from non carbon sources than clearly the CO2 production would be cut by 50%. Even if we still rely on CO2 sources for some electricity we would still reduce our emissions by 25% or more because an EV that runs on electricity produced by Natural gas releases less CO2 than an ICE vehicle.

You keep saying "the U.S.". Why do lib crackas always assume the world ends at U.S. borders. Don't be myopic.

I already gave you the evidence that nearly 80% of batteries are produced in China where coal is the main energy source.

27% is transportation of which maybe 11% are cars. EV's are not 100% green as the left claims. So you might reduce that 11 to 5% if all the world's cars were EVs. That's not going to happen anytime soon.

Solar and wind are not reliable sources of energy. You can't run a factory based on unreliable energy. Cracka libs know nothing about business.

Anyway, I'll ask again, ... by how many degrees will EVs change the global temp?

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You keep saying "the U.S.". Why do lib crackas always assume the world ends at U.S. borders. Don't be myopic.

Who said the world ended at the borders of the US? Why do you resort to name calling rather than dealing with facts?

I already gave you the evidence that nearly 80% of batteries are produced in China where coal is the main energy source.

And I already provided you the numbers that show that even with the batteries being made in China with coal , they are still make an EV greener than an ICE car. And the average time for a EV in China to produce less GHG than an ICE car is still less than 80K miles since China is not 100% coal electricity. Using China electrical production and GREET, the average EV in China will produce less GHG at about 40K.

27% is transportation of which maybe 11% are cars. EV's are not 100% green as the left claims. So you might reduce that 11 to 5% if all the world's cars were EVs. That's not going to happen anytime soon.

Hmm... SO many lies in so few words.
27% is transportation of which maybe 11% are cars. I'm not sure whether you don't understand English or you don't understand math with that statement.
1. 11% of GHG transportation is not cars. Over half of GHG from transportation in the US comes from passenger vehicles.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sou...-gas-emissions
The way you wrote your statement, it would mean that 11% of the 27% would be cars which would mean only 2.97% of GHG would come from cars.

2. The left doesn't claim EVs are 100% green. That is your strawman that you keep wanting to beat up on. It is a ridiculous argument on your part since the rest of your argument is an attempt to defeat my claim that they are greener, not that they are 100% green.

3. Your 11% number is made up as is your 5% number.

4. No one has said that all the vehicles in the world will be EV's in the next few years.

Solar and wind are not reliable sources of energy. You can't run a factory based on unreliable energy. Cracka libs know nothing about business.

The sun comes up every morning. Easy to predict.
Coal and gas are not reliable sources of energy since the plants can fail at any time or the power grid can go down at any time. It makes as much sense as your argument.
Solar and wind can be predicted with a reasonable accuracy to allow for back up source to be used as needed.you are You are relying on idiotic fallacies to make your arguments. A reduction in GHG production is the goal. If solar and wind can produce 50% or 80% of the electricity that is is better than no solar and wind.

Anyway, I'll ask again, ... by how many degrees will EVs change the global temp?

Idiotic question since the current goal is to prevent predicted future increases in temperature. The real question is how much will the temperature increase if we don't at least try to reduce GHG?

Your argument is that if the brakes won't work well enough to stop us from hitting the brick wall then we shouldn't do anything. My argument is if we at least try to use the brakes so we won't hit the brick wall as hard as doing nothing.

[cancel2 2022]

Who said the world ended at the borders of the US? Why do you resort to name calling rather than dealing with facts?



And I already provided you the numbers that show that even with the batteries being made in China with coal , they are still make an EV greener than an ICE car. And the average time for a EV in China to produce less GHG than an ICE car is still less than 80K miles since China is not 100% coal electricity. Using China electrical production and GREET, the average EV in China will produce less GHG at about 40K.



Hmm... SO many lies in so few words.
27% is transportation of which maybe 11% are cars. I'm not sure whether you don't understand English or you don't understand math with that statement.
1. 11% of GHG transportation is not cars. Over half of GHG from transportation in the US comes from passenger vehicles.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sou...-gas-emissions
The way you wrote your statement, it would mean that 11% of the 27% would be cars which would mean only 2.97% of GHG would come from cars.

2. The left doesn't claim EVs are 100% green. That is your strawman that you keep wanting to beat up on. It is a ridiculous argument on your part since the rest of your argument is an attempt to defeat my claim that they are greener, not that they are 100% green.

3. Your 11% number is made up as is your 5% number.

4. No one has said that all the vehicles in the world will be EV's in the next few years.


The sun comes up every morning. Easy to predict.
Coal and gas are not reliable sources of energy since the plants can fail at any time or the power grid can go down at any time. It makes as much sense as your argument.
Solar and wind can be predicted with a reasonable accuracy to allow for back up source to be used as needed.you are You are relying on idiotic fallacies to make your arguments. A reduction in GHG production is the goal. If solar and wind can produce 50% or 80% of the electricity that is is better than no solar and wind.

Idiotic question since the current goal is to prevent predicted future increases in temperature. The real question is how much will the temperature increase if we don't at least try to reduce GHG?

Your argument is that if the brakes won't work well enough to stop us from hitting the brick wall then we shouldn't do anything. My argument is if we at least try to use the brakes so we won't hit the brick wall as hard as doing nothing.

Poor Dick is Twittering yet again, so much bullshit!

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Poor Dick is Twittering yet again, so much bullshit!

Care to point out my errors? Or are your eyes to brown to see them?

[cancel2 2022]

Care to point out my errors? Or are your eyes to brown to see them?

Yes I have pointed it out many times to many people and frankly I just can't be bothered to argue with a fool like you. I will direct you instead to the great atmospheric scientist Richard Lindzen who stated the following back in a presentation to the House of Commons back in 2012.

Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.

What about your prediction that Musk would get nowhere with his takeover bid, care to talk about that?

[cancel2 2022]

Care to point out my errors? Or are your eyes to brown to see them?

I have hazel eyes and know how to spell 'too' correctly.

[Nordberg]

You keep saying "the U.S.". Why do lib crackas always assume the world ends at U.S. borders. Don't be myopic.

I already gave you the evidence that nearly 80% of batteries are produced in China where coal is the main energy source.

27% is transportation of which maybe 11% are cars. EV's are not 100% green as the left claims. So you might reduce that 11 to 5% if all the world's cars were EVs. That's not going to happen anytime soon.

Solar and wind are not reliable sources of energy. You can't run a factory based on unreliable energy. Cracka libs know nothing about business.

Anyway, I'll ask again, ... by how many degrees will EVs change the global temp?

Some countries are way ahead of America in electric vehicles. https://www.livemint.com/auto-news/g...745051665.html The rightys and energy companies will drag us down.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Yes I have pointed it out many times to many people and frankly I just can't be bothered to argue with a fool like you. I will direct you instead to the great atmospheric scientist Richard Lindzen who stated the following back in a presentation to the House of Commons back in 2012.

Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.

What about your prediction that Musk would get nowhere with his takeover bid, care to talk about that?

A couple of things there.
1. It is no longer 2012 and much of Lindzen's work has been debunked since then.
2. Musk supposedly has an agreed upon offer but his final financing and the purchase have not yet occurred. We shall see if it happens in the six month time frame. He claimed he was going to take Tesla private and we all know where that went. Stockholders still have to vote on the sale and Musk has to secure the financing and cash he has committed to providing. Margin loans can only occur if he meets the margin requirements required under Federal law.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I have hazel eyes and know how to spell 'too' correctly.

Somehow I think your eyes are brown. Have you checked lately?

[Nordberg]

A couple of things there.
1. It is no longer 2012 and much of Lindzen's work has been debunked since then.
2. Musk supposedly has an agreed upon offer but his final financing and the purchase have not yet occurred. We shall see if it happens in the six month time frame. He claimed he was going to take Tesla private and we all know where that went. Stockholders still have to vote on the sale and Musk has to secure the financing and cash he has committed to providing. Margin loans can only occur if he meets the margin requirements required under Federal law.

Almost every climate scientist is on board with global warming and man being a huge contributor. Finding an outlier and claiming he is the expert. and the other thousands of scientists are wrong is ridiculous.

[Into the Night]

Does weather have a value associated with it?

No.

[Into the Night]

Who said the world ended at the borders of the US?

You did.

Why do you resort to name calling rather than dealing with facts?

Learn what 'fact' means. Buzzword fallacy.

And I already provided you the numbers that show that even with the batteries being made in China with coal , they are still make an EV greener than an ICE car.

Most EVs are available in white or black only. A lot more ICE cars are available in green.

And the average time for a EV in China to produce less GHG than an ICE car

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas', except as a religious artifact. NO gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

is still less than 80K miles since China is not 100% coal electricity.

Coal isn't electricity, though much electricity generated in China is by burning coal. China, being a dictatorship, does not burn coal cleanly. There is a lot of soot released into the air due to poorly built plants.

Using China electrical production and GREET, the average EV in China will produce less GHG at about 40K.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.

Hmm... SO many lies in so few words.
27% is transportation of which maybe 11% are cars. I'm not sure whether you don't understand English or you don't understand math with that statement.
1. 11% of GHG transportation is not cars. Over half of GHG from transportation in the US comes from passenger vehicles.

Argument from randU fallacy. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sou...-gas-emissions

False authority fallacy. Making numbers is a fallacy, dude...even if the government does it. Argument from randU fallacy.

The way you wrote your statement, it would mean that 11% of the 27% would be cars which would mean only 2.97% of GHG would come from cars.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

2. The left doesn't claim EVs are 100% green.

Yes they do.

That is your strawman that you keep wanting to beat up on.

Fallacy fallacy. Not a strawman.

It is a ridiculous argument on your part since the rest of your argument is an attempt to defeat my claim that they are greener, not that they are 100% green.

RQAA. Most EVs are only available on black or white. A few in red. If you want a green car, you have a much better selection among ICE vehicles. If it's a tractor, there is only ONE color a lot of tractor owners swear by!

3. Your 11% number is made up as is your 5% number.

Argument from randU fallacy. Kettle logic.

4. No one has said that all the vehicles in the world will be EV's in the next few years.

You did.

The sun comes up every morning. Easy to predict.

Irrelevence fallacy. Cliche fallacy.

Coal and gas are not reliable sources of energy

Generating electricity with coal or gas is efficient, cheap, and available 24 hours a day.

since the plants can fail at any time or the power grid can go down at any time.

You want to go there? How about the solar plants that fail or the windmills that fail??

It makes as much sense as your argument.

You are not making sense.

Solar and wind can be predicted with a reasonable accuracy

Nope. Wind is rather fickle. Only a narrow range of windspeeds are suitable for wind generators. Solar reliably doesn't work at night. Watt for watt, solar power is the most expensive method of producing electricity. Wind comes in at 2nd. Coal, oil, natural gas, hydroelectric, and even nuclear are far cheaper methods.

to allow for back up source to be used as needed.

Won't work. Not everyone has that kind of real estate to dedicate to such expensive systems. Try a generator.

you are You are relying on idiotic fallacies to make your arguments.

Fallacy fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.

A reduction in GHG production is the goal.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are STILL ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't create energy out of nothing.

If solar and wind can produce 50% or 80% of the electricity that is is better than no solar and wind.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Idiotic question since the current goal is to prevent predicted future increases in temperature.

What increases in temperature? You cannot create energy out of nothing, dude. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

The real question is how much will the temperature increase if we don't at least try to reduce GHG?

Can't reduce a religious artifact.

Your argument is that if the brakes won't work well enough to stop us from hitting the brick wall then we shouldn't do anything. My argument is if we at least try to use the brakes so we won't hit the brick wall as hard as doing nothing.

Cliche fallacy.

You cannot create energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor has this capability.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

If you want an EV. Go buy one. Don't expect me or anyone else to support buying it for you through subsidies. Enjoy your long charge times and expensive car.
If you want an ICE. Go buy one. Enjoy your short refueling times and cheaper car.