Etron e-mail
09-09-2018, 03:32 PM
#11
AudiWorld Senior Member
IMO two things must happen for wide scale adoption in US - 1) Battery technology with much higher charge density for weight to give at least 300 mile range at 75-80mph. 2) Charging speed no slower than filling up a full tank of gas. OR battery swap same time frame as filling a full tanks of gas. Of course the second option to happen battery sizes, mounting and connections will have to standardized to fit various makes. It will be like going back in time when full service gas stations were the norm.
09-09-2018, 03:44 PM
#12
AudiWorld Senior Member
Tesla is imploding. I recommend you short the stock.
Popular <> viability. You can't state there's zero pollution, because most EVs run on fossil fuels. Its just that the burning of fossil fuels is further up the generation chain, so EV owners can feel better about themselves without having to see the dinosaurs burn.
And in the US at least, the electric grid is nowhere near ready for EV mass adoption. Its still a micro-niche market for people with excess disposable income. And EVs wouldn't be anywhere near where they are currently in number without taxpayers paying for their neighbors coal-burners (via tax subsidy).
Are Electric cars really green?
Popular <> viability. You can't state there's zero pollution, because most EVs run on fossil fuels. Its just that the burning of fossil fuels is further up the generation chain, so EV owners can feel better about themselves without having to see the dinosaurs burn.
And in the US at least, the electric grid is nowhere near ready for EV mass adoption. Its still a micro-niche market for people with excess disposable income. And EVs wouldn't be anywhere near where they are currently in number without taxpayers paying for their neighbors coal-burners (via tax subsidy).
Are Electric cars really green?
09-09-2018, 05:51 PM
#13
AudiWorld Senior Member
I will not buy an EV car until there are EV superchargers in every gas station.
09-09-2018, 07:22 PM
#14
AudiWorld Member
It is easier/cost effective and control pollution including CO2 at the generating source than individual tail pipes. Just have get past this de-regulation madness at the EPA. Wide adoption of PV and storage batteries at home will reduce dependence on the grid. Micro or even nano grids also have second advantage faster recovery after natural disasters, or other man made emergencies specially in the suburbs.
You speak about all this infrastructure tech that doesn't currently exist. We're talking about current EVs. Not ready for mass adoption.
09-10-2018, 08:43 PM
#15
AudiWorld Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You speak about all this infrastructure tech that doesn't currently exist. We're talking about current EVs. Not ready for mass adoption.
I also look forward to Audi making more EVs. While the Model 3 has some appeal, it definitely lacks the refinement and comfort of the S5 SB I’m leaning toward instead.
09-10-2018, 08:52 PM
#16
AudiWorld Member
You asserting something does not make it so. I'm actually very well read on the topic, and far from ignorant. Of course, your reply also infers as fact that man-caused climate change is a real thing, which the science has yet to prove (its still a theory). Sure, there's been a minuscule increase in temps over hundreds of years (less than 2 degrees), but that trend began long before soccer moms idled their Ford Expeditions in the McDonalds drive-through line. One could also examine the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as compared to temps, which shows that temps have been both cooler with more CO2, and hotter with less CO2. The real science is a bit more complicated than Al Gore's TV documentary.
09-10-2018, 09:44 PM
#17
AudiWorld Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You asserting something does not make it so. I'm actually very well read on the topic, and far from ignorant. Of course, your reply also infers as fact that man-caused climate change is a real thing, which the science has yet to prove (its still a theory). Sure, there's been a minuscule increase in temps over hundreds of years (less than 2 degrees), but that trend began long before soccer moms idled their Ford Expeditions in the McDonalds drive-through line. One could also examine the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as compared to temps, which shows that temps have been both cooler with more CO2, and hotter with less CO2. The real science is a bit more complicated than Al Gore's TV documentary.
You are clearly not well-versed in the subject. First of all, saying “its [sic] still a theory” is not meaningful nor accurate. Scientific theories are explanations of facts. Gravitational theory being theory doesn’t mean gravity doesn’t exist.
You probably mean hypothesis, not theory. But that’s inaccurate. Anthropogenic climate change is very real, and is settled science. The active scientific debate is about its effects, what the ultimate impact will be, whether it’s reversible, etc. There has been consensus in the scientific community for years about the fact that our carbon emissions have increased global temperatures.
Far from being trivial, the increase in temperature has had major impacts on various ecologies, and itself has caused more CO2 to be released from melting ice.
And no, the warming caused by human emissions has only been measurable since the 1950s. It is true that some warming due to other external forcings occurred before and continues to occur. This is well accounted for in the models. It is abundantly clear that these do not come close to accounting for the unprecedented increase seen since the middle of the last century.
Maybe next time don’t try spreading disinformation if you don’t know whom you’re talking to.
09-10-2018, 10:34 PM
#18
AudiWorld Member
🙄
You are clearly not well-versed in the subject. First of all, saying “its [sic] still a theory” is not meaningful nor accurate. Scientific theories are explanations of facts. Gravitational theory being theory doesn’t mean gravity doesn’t exist.
You probably mean hypothesis, not theory. But that’s inaccurate. Anthropogenic climate change is very real, and is settled science. The active scientific debate is about its effects, what the ultimate impact will be, whether it’s reversible, etc. There has been consensus in the scientific community for years about the fact that our carbon emissions have increased global temperatures.
Far from being trivial, the increase in temperature has had major impacts on various ecologies, and itself has caused more CO2 to be released from melting ice.
And no, the warming caused by human emissions has only been measurable since the 1950s. It is true that some warming due to other external forcings occurred before and continues to occur. This is well accounted for in the models. It is abundantly clear that these do not come close to accounting for the unprecedented increase seen since the middle of the last century.
Maybe next time don’t try spreading disinformation if you don’t know whom you’re talking to.
1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism
I guess all these folks didn't get the word about the science being "settled", or the famed "consensus".Now about that assertion that its "unbelievably ignorant" to assert that:
CO2 isn't pollution
....please be sure to check out the credentials of those folks quoted in that link, to see how they line up against your "you don't know whom your talking to" failed Appeal to Authority logical fallacy.Let's recap:
- You called me ignorant
- You assert that having a "consensus" in science actually means something, which it doesn't. And there is no consensus (its been thoroughly debunked).
- You assert that the science is "settled", but real science is always open to additional data/facts. Especially when that data debunks non-science "consensus"
09-11-2018, 03:58 AM
#19
AudiWorld Member
I certainly enjoy the hubris with the vague "you don't know who you're talking to" nonsense. Who you are has no bearing on actual science, just like you touting "consensus" as something meaningful belies how utterly vapid your position really is. Just like you calling it "settled science". No, not remotely settled, in fact. Both of these things 1. touting "consensus" and 2. claiming "settled" science clearly indicate that you likely don't understand how real science works at all. Here, let me help break through your confirmation bias bubble that has likely been constructed around you by people who instruct propaganda:
Now about that assertion that its "unbelievably ignorant" to assert that:
Let's recap:
1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism
I guess all these folks didn't get the word about the science being "settled", or the famed "consensus".Now about that assertion that its "unbelievably ignorant" to assert that:
CO2 isn't pollution
....please be sure to check out the credentials of those folks quoted in that link, to see how they line up against your "you don't know whom your talking to" failed Appeal to Authority logical fallacy.Let's recap:
- You called me ignorant
- You assert that having a "consensus" in science actually means something, which it doesn't. And there is no consensus (its been thoroughly debunked).
- You assert that the science is "settled", but real science is always open to additional data/facts. Especially when that data debunks non-science "consensus"
I won't be buying a car for a long time, but when I do I hope Audi has a viable electric offering to fit my needs.
09-11-2018, 06:41 AM
#20
AudiWorld Member
Are you positing that deforestation has led to increased CO2 because there's fewer plants to convert to oxygen? Some specifics, please.