FAIL- Electric Car Sales Plunge To 4 Year Lows

[Jarlaxle]

Lifting the front wheels is a clear indication of stored energy.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Electric vehicles are a liberal fad.

http://www.economist.com/news/scien...r-may-be-much-dirtier-petrol-one-cleaner-what

If an electric car is charged by a coal fired generating station, it pollutes more to charge that car to drive its limited range than a conventional petrol car puts out driving the same distance.

Not sure why that link doesn't work.

economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21636715-why-electric-car-may-be-much-dirtier-petrol-one-cleaner-what

 

[westwall]

Temperature has both gone up and down when CO2 levels were both high and low. CO2 has NO effect on global temperature as anyone who can read a graph can see. Further, whenever the temperature HAS been higher than the present day the Earth has done better. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

This is not accurate. But again, this is really besides the point about the other big reason to care about electric cars and hybrid if one cars a lot about the US: lack of dependence on foreign oil. Also, it is important for keeping the world safe and pure for future generations.

Actually, it IS accurate.

 

[westwall]

No, CO2 is not a pollutant. Your arguments are sophomoric at best. CO2 will kill you if you replace all O2 with it. We have ample evidence of what life was like when CO2 levels were much higher than the present day and conditions on this planet were much better due to increased plant growth. That's a fact.

The problem isn't whether plant growth will go up. The problem is that temperature will go up. See the water analogy again. Just because something can be a good thing, and can be good in some aspect

The reason why the morons at the EPA want to classify CO2 as a pollutant is so they can regulate it. In other words they wish to regulate the very air that you breath. Just think about that for a minute. YOU emit CO2.

They already do regulate the air I breath in terms of the ozone levels and the sulfur dioxide levels. So?

It may help to just taboo the word "pollutant" and focus on "can more CO2 have results we'd rather not have?"

With developed fuel cell technology you no longer need an ICE so no, they will not still be hybrids.

Not my point: My point is that a fuel cell car is essentially a battery powered car with a (possibly better) battery. But as I said, the underlying chemistry makes fuel cell cars unlikely.

Temperature has both gone up and down when CO2 levels were both high and low. CO2 has NO effect on global temperature as anyone who can read a graph can see. Further, whenever the temperature HAS been higher than the present day the Earth has done better. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

Ah yes, life did so well during the warm spell at the Permian-Triassic boundry.

Yes, it's an instant PhD to the person who gives a credible answer to what caused it. Funnily enough not a single reference was made to global warming till a few short years ago. Asteroid strike, (likely), global cooling due to extreme volcanism (very likely) and a couple of other proximal causes (that amazingly enough also result in global cooling) are THE most likely causes. The only people pushing global warming are you morons. All evidence that we do have (and it is not much) says cooling was the cause. There is no actual empirical evidence to support your nonsense. None at all.

 

[westwall]

Yes, they are. And if CO2 were a problem that would be a big deal. However it is not.

Yes, it is, and improving efficiency of use of fossil fuels also has many other benefits, such as making the US less dependent on foreign sources of oil and less vulnerable to shocks. It also is the sort of thing that would make dealing with countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia much easier both for the US and its allies. How different do you think the unfolding Ukrainian situation would have been if so many NATO countries weren't reliant so heavily on Russian oil?

As far as the technology goes EV's have only improved range wise 100% in 100 years. ICE vehicles on the other hand have improved over 700% and that is going up. All the while they are getting cleaner and more reliable.

Yes, the range problem is a serious one, but it isn't everything: note for example that most Americans don't travel more than 40 miles by car daily.

Also note that hybrid automatically beats ICE in this regard, since they get essentially most the benefits of both.

In Paris, where they actually have some applicability, they still don't get a tremendous amount of use simply because the majority of the people can't afford them.

Yes, affordabiltiy is a huge problem.

If they could ever get Nicola Tesla's energy broadcast system to work then EV's would instantly become THE vehicle to have as range would no longer be an issue.

The inverse square law basically rules out any such system.

But the claim that they are such a new technology is not born out by fact.

Has anyone here claimed otherwise?

The only thing different between a 100 year old EV and a Tesla, is the Tesla is much more comfortable and has twice the useful range.

And can be charged at home or at work, and can do city miles more efficiently, and has much better acceleration which is almost as good as a high-end conventional car.

The P85D Tesla S is not almost as good as any high-end conventional car, it's acceleration is better than any high end 5 passenger luxury sedan. At 3.2 0 to 60 mph, with 155 mph top end, and a quarter mile time that is in top end muscle car territory, it is one fast sedan.

Just don't plan to take it on a 600 mile drive and expect to finish it in one day. Figure two days....and then you'll need at least half the day to recharge before you can actually use it at your destination. But, for the 50 mile jaunts around town that we do on a daily basis it would be OK. Of course I have a $30,000 Subaru that CAN make those 600 miles one day drives, AND then be driven around, and THEN can be driven home the next day.

And, our 0-60 times are not too far off the Tesla's. Just over5 seconds. All at one third the price of the BASE model Tesla.

Recently it was reported that a Tesla was able to make it from the LA to New York in 58 odd hours which is great. However they drafted the Chevy Suburban which was used as a chase car (which I think is cheating to be honest, the cars are supposed to go without aid of any kind), and what's funny is the Suburban only needed fuel every three stops the Tesla made! Which was plugged in for over 12 hours for charging BTW.

 

[westwall]

[

Scientists have staked their reputations on global warming, and they are going to stick with it until the bitter end.

So you consider the bitter end to be around when? 10 years? 20 years? More?

No, much sooner than that. The MSM is actually reporting the global warming failures now. They never did that before. The end is nigh. Of course it helps when the climatologists are caught lying all the time. They are their own worst enemy.

 

[JoshuaZ]

[

Scientists have staked their reputations on global warming, and they are going to stick with it until the bitter end.

So you consider the bitter end to be around when? 10 years? 20 years? More?

No, much sooner than that. The MSM is actually reporting the global warming failures now. They never did that before. The end is nigh. Of course it helps when the climatologists are caught lying all the time. They are their own worst enemy.

So, let me see. If someone asked to bet with you $25 on whether in say 5 years the world-wide consensus will be that global warming is a hoax would you take that bet?

 

[JoshuaZ]

Electric vehicles are a liberal fad.

http://www.economist.com/news/scien...r-may-be-much-dirtier-petrol-one-cleaner-what

If an electric car is charged by a coal fired generating station, it pollutes more to charge that car to drive its limited range than a conventional petrol car puts out driving the same distance.

Not sure why that link doesn't work.

economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21636715-why-electric-car-may-be-much-dirtier-petrol-one-cleaner-what

Coal fired fired plants are larger-scale, efficiency goes up for larger generators, but yes, ideally there won't be any coal in the system, with a combination of nuclear, wind, hydro, solar, tidal, and small amounts of natural gas.

I'm curious, if you think that electric cars are a "liberal fad" there are currently around 300,000 highway capable electric cars in the US. When do you expect the fad to end? Is there a point when you expect there will be say fewer than 150,000 electric cars in the US?

 

[westwall]

[

Scientists have staked their reputations on global warming, and they are going to stick with it until the bitter end.

So you consider the bitter end to be around when? 10 years? 20 years? More?

No, much sooner than that. The MSM is actually reporting the global warming failures now. They never did that before. The end is nigh. Of course it helps when the climatologists are caught lying all the time. They are their own worst enemy.

So, let me see. If someone asked to bet with you $25 on whether in say 5 years the world-wide consensus will be that global warming is a hoax would you take that bet?

Consensus is not science. Consensus is the language of politicians. I suggest you learn what that means. If I tell you that the speed of light is 200,000 mph you can look in any book and see that I am full of poo. It's not "consensus" (which means more people agree than disagree) it's a FACT that the SoL is 186,282 miles per second. Science deals with FACTS. Not "consensus". That's why the scientific method was developed. To do away with idiots and their "consensus". It was the consensus view that the Earth was flat. It was the "consensus" view that the Earth was the center of the universe.

The scientific method only concerns itself with FACTS. Facts are reproduceable. Trenberth famously couldn't repriclate HIS OWN EXPERIMENT! This is the level of fail to which climate science has fallen.

And, for the record......global warming is happening and natural. It's the human caused part that is a hoax. The biggest one in human history.

 

[boedicca]

Given the drought in CA, electricity (from hydro-electric) is going to become VV expensive. The loons opposed nuclear power, so the ones who drive electric cars are in for some energy sticker shock.

 

[JoshuaZ]

[

Scientists have staked their reputations on global warming, and they are going to stick with it until the bitter end.

So you consider the bitter end to be around when? 10 years? 20 years? More?

No, much sooner than that. The MSM is actually reporting the global warming failures now. They never did that before. The end is nigh. Of course it helps when the climatologists are caught lying all the time. They are their own worst enemy.

So, let me see. If someone asked to bet with you $25 on whether in say 5 years the world-wide consensus will be that global warming is a hoax would you take that bet?

Consensus is not science. Consensus is the language of politicians. I suggest you learn what that means. If I tell you that the speed of light is 200,000 mph you can look in any book and see that I am full of poo. It's not "consensus" (which means more people agree than disagree) it's a FACT that the SoL is 186,282 miles per second. Science deals with FACTS. Not "consensus". That's why the scientific method was developed. To do away with idiots and their "consensus". It was the consensus view that the Earth was flat. It was the "consensus" view that the Earth was the center of the universe.

The scientific method only concerns itself with FACTS. Facts are reproduceable. Trenberth famously couldn't repriclate HIS OWN EXPERIMENT! This is the level of fail to which climate science has fallen.

And, for the record......global warming is happening and natural. It's the human caused part that is a hoax. The biggest one in human history.

Yes, thank you, I understand with how science works. I'm not going to have a discussion on that other than to note that while science deals in facts, understanding the consensus when one isn't a subject matter expert is an important heuristic. Let me be more clear then: I'm attempting to make a falsifiable version of your claim that we're near the bitter end. So if you really believe this, can you make a testable prediction based on this for what will happen in the next few years?

 

[westwall]

[

Scientists have staked their reputations on global warming, and they are going to stick with it until the bitter end.

So you consider the bitter end to be around when? 10 years? 20 years? More?

No, much sooner than that. The MSM is actually reporting the global warming failures now. They never did that before. The end is nigh. Of course it helps when the climatologists are caught lying all the time. They are their own worst enemy.

So, let me see. If someone asked to bet with you $25 on whether in say 5 years the world-wide consensus will be that global warming is a hoax would you take that bet?

Consensus is not science. Consensus is the language of politicians. I suggest you learn what that means. If I tell you that the speed of light is 200,000 mph you can look in any book and see that I am full of poo. It's not "consensus" (which means more people agree than disagree) it's a FACT that the SoL is 186,282 miles per second. Science deals with FACTS. Not "consensus". That's why the scientific method was developed. To do away with idiots and their "consensus". It was the consensus view that the Earth was flat. It was the "consensus" view that the Earth was the center of the universe.

The scientific method only concerns itself with FACTS. Facts are reproduceable. Trenberth famously couldn't repriclate HIS OWN EXPERIMENT! This is the level of fail to which climate science has fallen.

And, for the record......global warming is happening and natural. It's the human caused part that is a hoax. The biggest one in human history.

Yes, thank you, I understand with how science works. I'm not going to have a discussion on that other than to note that while science deals in facts, understanding the consensus when one isn't a subject matter expert is an important heuristic. Let me be more clear then: I'm attempting to make a falsifiable version of your claim that we're near the bitter end. So if you really believe this, can you make a testable prediction based on this for what will happen in the next few years?

Clearly you DON'T Understand how science is supposed to work, or you are simply intellectually dishonest, when you continually trot out a meaningless statement like "consensus".

Further the meme that if you're not a climatologist you simply can't understand what they are talking about is ridiculous. 2+2=4. It will ALWAYS equal 4. Only in the twisted computer models of climatologists can it be made to equal 5.

As far as making a prediction. They already have. And it has already failed. They stated many times ad-nauseum that if CO2 were to increase then the global temperature would likewise increase "inexorably" was their favorite term.

We have now got a 18 year period where the CO2 levels have gone far beyond what Hansen predicted and no measurable global warming. The current lie that 2014 is the "warmest ever recorded" is simply not born out by fact. They claim they can measure a .01 degree C increase in temperature but the error bars in the study are .1 C.

Do YOU understand what that means?

 

[JoshuaZ]

Clearly you DON'T Understand how science is supposed to work, or you are simply intellectually dishonest, when you continually trot out a meaningless statement like "consensus".

Please reread what I wrote. Consensus is important.

Further the meme that if you're not a climatologist you simply can't understand what they are talking about is ridiculous. 2+2=4. It will ALWAYS equal 4. Only in the twisted computer models of climatologists can it be made to equal 5.

Ok. No one is saying that one cannot but that it is very hard and easy to get tripped up. Do you for example think you can understand Andrew Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem? If not, then you see how areas can genuinely be difficult.

As far as making a prediction. They already have.

Ah, but I'm not talking to some amorphous group of climate scientists. I'm talking to you. So I'm interested in what predictions your hypothesis implies, and your hypothesis was not just that global warming isn't real, but that we were in the bitter end where people would soon realize that. That's a much narrower and stronger claim.

 

[airplanemechanic]

I'm curious, if you think that electric cars are a "liberal fad" there are currently around 300,000 highway capable electric cars in the US. When do you expect the fad to end? Is there a point when you expect there will be say fewer than 150,000 electric cars in the US?

It's a fad if the gov't has to subsidize everyone who buys one of these cars. How many of those 300k cars did the gov't NOT subsidize? If technology is wonderful, the free market will grab onto it. If it needs thousands in gov't subsidies for each vehicle purchased to make it worthwhile to purchase, then it's a fad.

Only 300k? There are currently 253 million cars in the USA. 300K represents 1/10th of 1 percent.

It's a fad.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

I'm curious, if you think that electric cars are a "liberal fad" there are currently around 300,000 highway capable electric cars in the US. When do you expect the fad to end? Is there a point when you expect there will be say fewer than 150,000 electric cars in the US?

It's a fad if the gov't has to subsidize everyone who buys one of these cars. How many of those 300k cars did the gov't NOT subsidize? If technology is wonderful, the free market will grab onto it. If it needs thousands in gov't subsidies for each vehicle purchased to make it worthwhile to purchase, then it's a fad.

Only 300k? There are currently 253 million cars in the USA. 300K represents 1/10th of 1 percent.

It's a fad.

Once again, no "subsidies" exist, nor have ever existed. The most that the gubment was ever willing to give up, was to let us have some of our own tax money, back. That should make ditto-heads, exceedingly estatic, yet they now whine about the gunbents loss of revenue! Too funny, even more so considering that oil gets huge tax breaks from the gub.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

So you consider the bitter end to be around when? 10 years? 20 years? More?

No, much sooner than that. The MSM is actually reporting the global warming failures now. They never did that before. The end is nigh. Of course it helps when the climatologists are caught lying all the time. They are their own worst enemy.

So, let me see. If someone asked to bet with you $25 on whether in say 5 years the world-wide consensus will be that global warming is a hoax would you take that bet?

Consensus is not science. Consensus is the language of politicians. I suggest you learn what that means. If I tell you that the speed of light is 200,000 mph you can look in any book and see that I am full of poo. It's not "consensus" (which means more people agree than disagree) it's a FACT that the SoL is 186,282 miles per second. Science deals with FACTS. Not "consensus". That's why the scientific method was developed. To do away with idiots and their "consensus". It was the consensus view that the Earth was flat. It was the "consensus" view that the Earth was the center of the universe.

The scientific method only concerns itself with FACTS. Facts are reproduceable. Trenberth famously couldn't repriclate HIS OWN EXPERIMENT! This is the level of fail to which climate science has fallen.

And, for the record......global warming is happening and natural. It's the human caused part that is a hoax. The biggest one in human history.

Yes, thank you, I understand with how science works. I'm not going to have a discussion on that other than to note that while science deals in facts, understanding the consensus when one isn't a subject matter expert is an important heuristic. Let me be more clear then: I'm attempting to make a falsifiable version of your claim that we're near the bitter end. So if you really believe this, can you make a testable prediction based on this for what will happen in the next few years?

Clearly you DON'T Understand how science is supposed to work, or you are simply intellectually dishonest, when you continually trot out a meaningless statement like "consensus".

Further the meme that if you're not a climatologist you simply can't understand what they are talking about is ridiculous. 2+2=4. It will ALWAYS equal 4. Only in the twisted computer models of climatologists can it be made to equal 5.

As far as making a prediction. They already have. And it has already failed. They stated many times ad-nauseum that if CO2 were to increase then the global temperature would likewise increase "inexorably" was their favorite term.

We have now got a 18 year period where the CO2 levels have gone far beyond what Hansen predicted and no measurable global warming. The current lie that 2014 is the "warmest ever recorded" is simply not born out by fact. They claim they can measure a .01 degree C increase in temperature but the error bars in the study are .1 C.

Do YOU understand what that means?

Westwall, I don't believe that global warming is man made, but do you seriously disagree with the fact that the earth's climate is increasing in temperature?

 

[westwall]

Clearly you DON'T Understand how science is supposed to work, or you are simply intellectually dishonest, when you continually trot out a meaningless statement like "consensus".

Please reread what I wrote. Consensus is important.

Further the meme that if you're not a climatologist you simply can't understand what they are talking about is ridiculous. 2+2=4. It will ALWAYS equal 4. Only in the twisted computer models of climatologists can it be made to equal 5.

Ok. No one is saying that one cannot but that it is very hard and easy to get tripped up. Do you for example think you can understand Andrew Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem? If not, then you see how areas can genuinely be difficult.

As far as making a prediction. They already have.

Ah, but I'm not talking to some amorphous group of climate scientists. I'm talking to you. So I'm interested in what predictions your hypothesis implies, and your hypothesis was not just that global warming isn't real, but that we were in the bitter end where people would soon realize that. That's a much narrower and stronger claim.

No. Consensus is NOT important. Facts are important. If you're referring to the Diophantine equation (can't remember how to spell his name, it's been a few decades) with a few hours I can be quite conversant again. My PhD is in geology where we use a lot of math anyway, but my best friend at Caltech was a theoretical math major, and we had many long discussions about math in general.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Once again, no "subsidies" exist, nor have ever existed. The most that the gubment was ever willing to give up, was to let us have some of our own tax money, back. That should make ditto-heads, exceedingly estatic, yet they now whine about the gunbents loss of revenue! Too funny, even more so considering that oil gets huge tax breaks from the gub.

Yes, they very much exist.

Incentives for Plug-in Hybrids and Electric Cars PluginCars.com

If the gov't knocks 7500 off the price of a car because its an electric, that's the gov't interfering with free market.

A tax incentive is the same as a subsidy. It artificially deflates the price of a car.

 

[JoshuaZ]

I'm curious, if you think that electric cars are a "liberal fad" there are currently around 300,000 highway capable electric cars in the US. When do you expect the fad to end? Is there a point when you expect there will be say fewer than 150,000 electric cars in the US?

It's a fad if the gov't has to subsidize everyone who buys one of these cars. How many of those 300k cars did the gov't NOT subsidize? If technology is wonderful, the free market will grab onto it. If it needs thousands in gov't subsidies for each vehicle purchased to make it worthwhile to purchase, then it's a fad.

Only 300k? There are currently 253 million cars in the USA. 300K represents 1/10th of 1 percent.

It's a fad.

The fraction of something being small is not a useful indicator that it is a "fad"- any new technology will start off rare. That's why I asked when you expect there to be a drop, which is what you expect to happen if it is just a fad. So when do you think there will be fewer than 150,000 electric cars?

 

[JoshuaZ]

No. Consensus is NOT important. Facts are important.

Both are important. Facts go into creating a consensus.

If you're referring to the Diophantine equation (can't remember how to spell his name, it's been a few decades) with a few hours I can be quite conversant again. My PhD is in geology where we use a lot of math anyway, but my best friend at Caltech was a theoretical math major, and we had many long discussions about math in general.

Yeah no, (aside from the correct spelling of Diophantine). See, my PhD is in number theory, and I know how absolutely difficult something like Wiles's proof is. At one point when I was a grad student, a bunch of us considered doing a seminar on it, and we realized that we'd need probably at least a full semester just to establish the general framework and techniques used. Some things are genuinely difficult and when experts have put a lot in, it is worth listening to them.

But this ignores my central question: you made a claim, do you have a precise version of that claim or is your claim completely unfalsifiable?