Electric Propulsion Reality Check

[MEXICOWANDERER]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_naDg-guomA

[time2roll]

MEXICOWANDERER wrote:
Every senator and every representative has a constituent available email address.

Tell them you want reforestation to be mandated on the climate issue, not merely controls on slash and burn farming. Between Belem and Manaus, the land alongside the Amazon river looks like the surface of the moon. More than a thousand miles..

I am supposed to send an email to my representative in Brazil?

[MEXICOWANDERER]

The offer of a ten billion dollar tax-free reward for CO2 reversal would stir the pot. O2 for obvious reasons, carbon fiber to replace steel.

My idea was rejected by leading environmental groups because when not if, it works these people would utterly lose scare tactics.

Ferrous particles spread over the far-middle south pacific ocean. The algae bloom would form on the surface and algae eats 2000% more carbon dioxide than the most prolific rainforest plant or tree. The area presently is utterly sterile of occen life. Algae would mean plankton and miniature base food compounds which would stimulate marine life. The proposed area is far distant from inhabited islands.

[MEXICOWANDERER]

Every senator and every representative has a constituent available email address.

Tell them you want reforestation to be mandated on the climate issue, not merely controls on slash and burn farming. Between Belem and Manaus, the land alongside the Amazon river looks like the surface of the moon. More than a thousand miles.




just before CO2 levels zoomed upward in the past there is convincing evidence there was an equatorial drought. Camel --- Straw? Get it?

George Jetson or no George Jetson, the rainforest goes bye-bye crops, jobs and maybe your grandkids. This isn't a power play or politics it's reality and a 101% all electric America would do absolutely nothing to inhibit disaster.

[pianotuna]

Ah but the current Potus appears to be a world leader in the lie department. Not that Canada is much better.

Too bad we are not extracting co2 to produce combustible fuels.

[MEXICOWANDERER]

China is worrisome. They refuse with threats and bluster to allow any on-site verification. And like the Soviet Union II, they lie like hell.

Brazil needs an economic spanking. No reforestation no-trade liberalization. No coffee, importation by the USA. Brazil pulls the alcohol fuel for cars out of its sleeve meanwhile the country produces 300% more CO2 emissions than the USA. Per person, Brazil's primary exports are land mines, military-grade arms, ammunition, grenades. littoral patrol craft.

Tremendous amounts of CO2 are produced when razing sugar cane after harvesting. A person is seldom exposed to these realities because of politically correct censorship in the news media.

"I almost made it across without drowning" doesn't cut it."

And not joining the climate accord has not degraded the US effort one gaddamned bit. Despite the con artist trickery, the USA has fundamentally reduced carbon emissions more than any other country. The reduction must be gauged both in percentage and in gross tonnage.

The four horsepeople of the apocalypse is a perfect example of flagellation and ignorance. Ban cow farts, barbecues, and other insignificant drama while ignoring while saying nothing about tropical clear-cutting.

Par for the course.

[pianotuna]

actually China is retiring coal plants faster than anyone else. Partly because they have more of them.

[pnichols]

time2roll wrote:
The real benefit of these emerging economies growing wealthy to first world standards will be the free choice of lower reproduction rates. That is the only hope I have. Let them burn coal to raise the standard of living until the world population begins the eventual decline. Going to take 200+ years for this eventuality. Not sure how the state of the world will be at that time. CO2 1500 ppm?

China is burning more coal. China is also installing tons of solar power. Not sure when coal might start to drop off in China as coal currently is doing in the US. China economy is still digging the middle class out of poverty as we know it.

Economics will dictate the changes more than political will.

Until then I will day to day enjoy the wonderful effortless clean and low cost power of my EV powered by my solar panels. And periodically enjoy an RV trip burning tons of gasoline.

Great observations and well stated!! You're pretty close to being right on the money.

However, I doubt that the China coal drop off - or any other country's coal drop off - can outrun the increase in the world's population, going forward.

If the world's total population could eventually (way out there in the future) stabilize at say, around ~1 billion, eveyone everywhere could:

1. Drive ICE vehicles, probably forever and still have normal weather.
2. Always find an RV campsite without making reservations.
3. Have city streets that we could still stroll down and on ... safely.
4. Visit, and be welcome at, world tourist attractions while being in small crowds.
5. Fish and still catch fish, in both freshwater and saltwater ... and have them be safe to eat.
6. Not have to wear breathing masks over our mouths when out shopping ... anywhere.
7. Travel in commercial planes with all seats being First Class size.
8. Attend opening night in the theaters with some seats not being filled regardless of the show.
9. Attend sports events via buying tickets right at the gate before we go in.
10. Not wait in lines to re-register or transfer title of, our vehicles.
11. Drive our RVs through downtown Chicago and New York.
12. Etc..

I'll never forget what I read in a National Geographic publication sometime ago that went something like this - "It would take four Earths for all of the world's population to live like the U.S. middle class does." Science and technology notwithstanding, I wonder how many Earths it will take when the world's population is 20 billion?

(The above is assuming we never become a Class 1 or higher civilization: https://veronicasicoe.com/2014/04/12/the-kardashev-scale-0-to-6/comment-page-1/)

[time2roll]

The real benefit of these emerging economies growing wealthy to first world standards will be the free choice of lower reproduction rates. That is the only hope I have. Let them burn coal to raise the standard of living until the world population begins the eventual decline. Going to take 200+ years for this eventuality. Not sure how the state of the world will be at that time. CO2 1500 ppm?

China is burning more coal. China is also installing tons of solar power. Not sure when coal might start to drop off in China as coal currently is doing in the US. China economy is still digging the middle class out of poverty as we know it.

Economics will dictate the changes more than political will.

Until then I will day to day enjoy the wonderful effortless clean and low cost power of my EV powered by my solar panels. And periodically enjoy an RV trip burning tons of gasoline.

[MEXICOWANDERER]

And Russia and China BOTH weaseled out by setting THEIR OWN timeline for compliance. The USA refused and withdrew.

Action, and not B.S.

Neither country has done squat with or without joining the accord.

And toss in Brazil and equatorial Africa for ignorance in defending their role in rainforest depletion.

"Oh because your country is the wealthiest it has to do more. Much much more" is the height of hypocrisy.

But you have to get into the minutes of the meetings to see this.

Yet the US has reduced emissions than any other country. But people who ***** about the USA refusal are the first to pull out their pie charts and chortle over the gross reduction in fossil fuel reliance for the production of electricity. Take Russia and their openness with a giant catastrophe with nuclear weapons radiation leak -- a class III event.

China is using m-o-r-e coal than ever before. Clearcutting has increased on the equator. And I see no meaningful effort at reforestation.

One for you and two for me. Two for you and seven for me doesn't cut it.

[JRscooby]

Gdetrailer wrote:


JR, that is a very sad take on life.

Dictators only care about ONE person, themselves.

They do not care if their "subjects" under them are starving to death, freezing to death, have PERSONAL transportation, ect.

The only thing Dictators are worried about is keeping themselves in power by any means they can.. That IS done by stripping away ALL means of the citizens to have a better life, have more things, and freedoms..

It is a street that you and I never want to be on.

Making EV the only means of personal transportation EV IS a great "tool" which has a high risk of being used to REDUCE personal freedom..

EV REQUIRES to either be 100% dependent on some sort of electrical grid whether it is public or personal.. We have the technology now days to fully track not only where you vehicle goes but how much you can go.. would not take much to do so..

With ICE, it is more difficult to control people, how far they go, where they go, as long as there are gas stations or even some sort of liquid fuel..

Control.. A power which can be easily abused..

I would like to respond to this, but way off topic for this thread. Might be a exchange of ideas, but likely not on topic for a RV, but general discussion or PM.
BTW, I am not in favor of dictatorship.

[pianotuna]

Hi Mex,

Ummmm I believe everyone signed on to the Paris accord, except USA wishes to withdraw. The last of the folks working in the 'science' wing of the White House left today.

"On 1 April 2016, the United States and China, which together represent almost 40% of global emissions, issued a joint statement confirming that both countries would sign the Paris Climate Agreement.

Parties (174 states and the European Union) signed the agreement on the first date it was open for signature. On the same day, more than 20 countries issued a statement of their intent to join as soon as possible with a view to joining in 2016. With ratification by the European Union, the Agreement obtained enough parties to enter into effect as of 4 November 2016.

As of May 2019, 194 states and the European Union have signed the Agreement. 185 states and the EU, representing more than 88% of global greenhouse gas emissions, have ratified or acceded to the Agreement, including China, the United States (who is intent on leaving) and India, the countries with three of the four largest greenhouse gas emissions of the UNFCC members total (about 42% together). All 197 UNFCCC members have either signed or acceded to the Paris Agreement."

[MEXICOWANDERER]

The key to meaningful CO2 reduction is to get the top 30 emitters on board. The entire continent of Europe and Scandinavia totals about 12% of CO2 emissions. It's not the number of countries who sign-on it's the high emitters. one's that refused to join in the climate conference agreement.

The USA is a major polluter but pales in comparison to Russia, China, Brazil, etc.

Assuming the high ground plus five dollars will get you a cup of coffee at any Starbucks.

Those images you see of cities in China choked with smog are not just a few cities -- try two dozen with population averages of around seven million each. China's insistence on burning coal to make solar panels is ludicrous.

The democracies must threaten Brazil and all of equatorial Africa with stiff sanctions unless they stop slash and burn and instead plant millions upon millions of acres. One tropical deciduous plant can equal the O2 production of 2 dozen pine trees.

[pianotuna]

wildtoad,

Given my current driving patterns, where I am walking as much as possible (health reasons), all my charging could be done on a 15 amp, 120 volt power source. I do live in a tiny city of 230,000 souls.

Being that it gets to -40, almost all homes, and most apartment buildings do have 15 amp outlets intended for outdoor use.

Based on 10 hours of charging, I'd have a daily range of about 30 kilometers. The bev I desire has a range of 415 kilometers.

[wildtoad]

Around here there are several new fuel stations being built with many many islands for vehicles to use. However they are all petroleum products based. I have yet to see any significant outlay of capital or real estate to support electric vehicles. It could be that there is insufficient data to predict the need. Not so much because EV’s aren’t going to sell but the majority of them will be able to be charged at home and never need a public place to charge.

[MEXICOWANDERER]

"Hey Vern!"

"Combine all of Europe and combine it with the United States. How much Co2 is that compared to the rest of the world?"

How much? Oh man you've got to be kidding

That's like ******* on a forest fire. Speaking of which the giant California forest fire emitted something like 12% of all CO2 in 2018

And meet our new nutrition expert

"I'd eat tofu for breakfast but I lost the cork"