Nothing is complicated about it, it just shows a frankly hard to believe lack of understanding of basic physics and common sense. Air mixes. There’s no magic keeping airplane pollution at 35000 feet.
It takes less than six minutes for a thunderstorm outflow to move air, including CO2, from 35,000 feet to sea level.How fast do you think the CO2 moves to surface from 35,000 feet vs at the rate at which it's being pumped out? It's not instant, or even close to instant and as long as more is being pumped out, no amount of CO2 capture at surface is going to fix the greenhouse effect. It's like trying to clean plastic out of the ocean by focusing only at the shore lines. Every little bit helps but it will never come close to fixing the problem.
It doesn’t matter how fast the air mixes. It could be measured in minutes, weeks or years and it wouldn’t make a difference. The mixing is far, far faster than any individual source is contributing.How fast do you think the CO2 moves to surface from 35,000 feet vs at the rate at which it's being pumped out? It's not instant, or even close to instant and as long as more is being pumped out, no amount of CO2 capture at surface is going to fix the greenhouse effect. It's like trying to clean plastic out of the ocean by focusing only at the shore lines. Every little bit helps but it will never come close to fixing the problem.
I don't know what's hard or complicated about that statement. Airplanes pollute high up, that's where the greenhouse effect is the most present.
Trees and land based carbon capture take care of CO2 at lower levels but no tree is tall enough to capture CO2 at air traffic heights.
Using Red Physics and Red Chemistry, I cannot fault this proposal.You should definitely build a giant catapult and fling your trees up into the stratosphere to capture the CO2.
Dunno, I’m just going by what I saw online and in advertisements.
I haven't checked in a while, but I'm fairly certain it's higher than 7% in the U.S. (A source in the forums claims it's about 16% for passenger cars, still think that's not worth fixing?)Well, the long and short of it for me is the percentage of carbon pollution.
There's no certainty that the technology will become exclusively electric. They're experimenting with hydrogen.. We speculate about the prevalence of electric in our investment decision of vehicle purchase.
Meanwhile, the push to EV is only addressing 7% of the climate carbon pollution problem. 7% won't mitigate anything. The other 21% would, if there were a fix.
I can't think of any other avenues for replacing carbon. They'd have to resurrect nuclear power.
Personally, I think civilization is doomed, unless they can scrub atmospheric air and turn the CO2 into limestone or cement. Then we can worry about when fossil fuel -- particularly oil of any kind -- runs out.
yeah, so the less we emit now, the better it will be.I agree CO2 is an problem, but trying to reduce it at surface without doing anything about atmospheric emissions is going to be futile.
Don't get me wrong any reduction we can do we should do, but let's not pat ourselves on the back even once every single car is an EV, as it's still not going to be close to enough to making a dent. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for around 300 to 1,000 years. This is straight from NASA.
The Atmosphere: Getting a Handle on Carbon Dioxide - NASA Science
Part Two: Satellites from NASA and other space agencies are revealing surprising new insights into atmospheric carbon dioxide, the principal human-produced driver of climate change.science.nasa.gov
EVs have tons of benefits IMO. They really reduce a lot of pollution in cities in the air and also reduce a lot of noise pollution.Meanwhile, the push to EV is only addressing 7% of the climate carbon pollution problem. 7% won't mitigate anything. The other 21% would, if there were a fix.
Your understanding of atmospheric mixing is completely wrong so I'm not going to worry too much about a perceived lack of solutions to the problem you envision.I agree CO2 is an problem, but trying to reduce it at surface without doing anything about atmospheric emissions is going to be futile.
Don't get me wrong any reduction we can do we should do, but let's not pat ourselves on the back even once every single car is an EV, as it's still not going to be close to enough to making a dent. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for around 300 to 1,000 years. This is straight from NASA.
The Atmosphere: Getting a Handle on Carbon Dioxide - NASA Science
Part Two: Satellites from NASA and other space agencies are revealing surprising new insights into atmospheric carbon dioxide, the principal human-produced driver of climate change.science.nasa.gov
Yes, I took another stab at it today, and it was over 16% of the total in the US. That has to alter my perspective. But all the senior citizens I know who are still capable of renewing their driver license are sticking with their old ICE vehicles. Some of them can much better afford a new BEV, HEV or PHEV than I. I'm just not going to be in a hurry at the moment.I haven't checked in a while, but I'm fairly certain it's higher than 7% in the U.S. (A source in the forums claims it's about 16% for passenger cars, still think that's not worth fixing?)
Nobody is forcing consumers to buy BEVs in the U.S., at least not anytime soon. We let the free market do its work, although yes there are some tax incentives to encourage things along.
No offense but easy for you, as a retiree, to say humanity is doomed and you DGAF. I'd imagine the babies being born today will have a different opinion of things when they're old enough to learn that collectively, we let the GHG emissions problem drag on for years/decades too long because Republicans had to protect corporate profits.
Just FYI, if the Red Squirrel is agreeing with you, then something is very fishy.
I had just made a "rule" for myself ten or fifteen years prior: "Avoid investing very much in any complete ICE-vehicle purchase." But my restorations and maintenance on my old SUV are still a kind of "investment" -- but only a mere fraction of dollars.I had a reservation for a Rivian R1S but there were a couple things that turned me off to it. Main thing was the lack of satellite radio, two was the price. Cost was $90k for a vehicle that isn’t really all that luxurious at a price where it really should be. I cancelled my reservation after buying my 2022 Lexus GX. It cost $30k less and had all those features. Yeah, it isn’t fuel efficient but I don’t drive much and $30k buys a lot of fuel.
So, no. I’m and not interested in buying an EV. I’m not opposed to it, it just didn’t fit my needs at the time.
I was really interested in a PHEV. But I'm at the point where I expect decent range out of it, and I want excellent power. The only two that interested me were the BMW X5 PHEV and the Volvo XC-90 variant. I'm a mid 50's mid life crisis guy right now and I give two shits about fuel mileage despite driving about 50 miles a day. So I'm going for an ICE vehicle again. Perhaps in 4-5 years when I'm looking the EV landscape will have settled down.
My employer is going to put limited charging stations in for employees, but I suspect the same people to hog them all of the time and there will be no way to manage moving vehicles during the day, especially in the winter. It would almost take a dedicated person to monitor who's been charging for how long as I don't expect them to actually use or maintain a charging app. Basically it will be first come first served.
Closer to 3.9, but it has been having some issues with the battery that are well documented and are keeping me away from it.The 2024 X5 50e has a 4 second 0-60 time. It is very quick.
There are 8 billion humans on earth. Any one person's consumption habits isn't going to move the needle, unless you're globetrotting on your own large jet plane. It's a lot like voting; my individual vote won't do anything but when millions of people all march in the same direction, it matters.Yes, I took another stab at it today, and it was over 16% of the total in the US. That has to alter my perspective. But all the senior citizens I know who are still capable of renewing their driver license are sticking with their old ICE vehicles. Some of them can much better afford a new BEV, HEV or PHEV than I. I'm just not going to be in a hurry at the moment.
Otherwise I think my choice is essentially the same: a Toyota RAV4 Hybrid "Prime" PHEV. And if I can afford the XLE, that, too . . .
I agree with everything you say.There are 8 billion humans on earth. Any one person's consumption habits isn't going to move the needle, unless you're globetrotting on your own large jet plane. It's a lot like voting; my individual vote won't do anything but when millions of people all march in the same direction, it matters.
But I'm not encouraging you to make a decision that makes little financial sense (if anything, I would discourage that). My point is that it's wrong to say only 7% of the problem is too marginal to try to fix; and because the problem is too "big" or now too "expensive" to fix, humanity just has to accept its pending doom.
I'll be dead before severe climate change will come home to roost, but it doesn't mean I shouldn't care about the future generations that will get left holding the bag.
We need affordable BEVs, and from a public policy standpoint, I think it will one day make sense to allow the Chinese to enter western markets IF they aren't cheating.* Autos are expensive enough already and the only thing that restrains prices in a market system is healthy competition. We're still in the early days where the legacy manufacturers aren't really serious about BEVs, and still consider them luxury products that demand higher prices.
* I don't believe banning them "forever" would be prudent, nor do I support their "dumping below cost" or IP theft business models. I haven't read it yet, but the NYT recently had an article about where China is going:
How China Built Tech Prowess: Chemistry Classes and Research Labs - Slashdot
Stressing science education, China is outpacing other countries in research fields like battery chemistry, crucial to its lead in electric vehicles. From a report: China's domination of electric cars, which is threatening to start a trade war, was born decades ago in university laboratories in...news.slashdot.org
How do you like the GX, did you look at any other models before pulling the trigger? I need to eventually replace wife's Sequoia platinum.I had a reservation for a Rivian R1S but there were a couple things that turned me off to it. Main thing was the lack of satellite radio, two was the price. Cost was $90k for a vehicle that isn’t really all that luxurious at a price where it really should be. I cancelled my reservation after buying my 2022 Lexus GX. It cost $30k less and had all those features. Yeah, it isn’t fuel efficient but I don’t drive much and $30k buys a lot of fuel.
So, no. I’m and not interested in buying an EV. I’m not opposed to it, it just didn’t fit my needs at the time.
How do you like the GX, did you look at any other models before pulling the trigger? I need to eventually replace wife's Sequoia platinum.