Ron Wagner

How Far Have We Really Gotten With Alternative Energy

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

That is at least four times higher than the alleged current levels, which are not specified as to location.

The well established current level of  global outdoor CO2 is 420ppm  and increasing rapidly. 1400 is just 3.3 times higher.

If you read the article you would know that the immediate concern is indoor concentrations which run considerably higher than the outdoor baseline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The well established current level of  global outdoor CO2 is 420ppm  and increasing rapidly. 1400 is just 3.3 times higher.

If you read the article you would know that the immediate concern is indoor concentrations which run considerably higher than the outdoor baseline.

"Before the Industrial Revolution started in the mid-1700s, the global average amount of carbon dioxide was about 280 ppm. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (blue line) has increased along with human emissions (gray line) since the start of the Industrial Revolution in 1750."

So in nearly 300 years of industrialisation the world has added 140ppm of Co2 in the atmosphere from what was an all time low level in earths history of 280ppm. To suggest we are going to reach 1400ppm any time soon is crazy even though as you would expect it is increasing rapidly due to greater global industrialisation. However with the drive for renewables, EV's, carbon capture projects etc this isnt likely in the next few centuries, if ever, unless of course there are massive supervolcanic eruptions and then we wont really care about much at all!

If as you keep espousing Jay the world is going renewable energy and EV's, which I also think will happen rightly or wrongly then what is the problem?

It may well be far more beneficial for the world and life in general to have Co2 at levels around the 600ppm in any case.

Even the worst case scenarios for human health suggest sustained levels at 1000ppm are detrimental and some as high as 5000ppm.

The below is by far the worst case scenario I could find by any study anywhere and is not indicative of the mainstream viewpoint.

https://airqualitynews.com/2019/07/10/co2-affects-human-health-at-lower-levels-than-previously-thought/

Edited by Rob Plant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2022 at 11:41 AM, specinho said:

 

we could probably have a look at the highlights........ and realize

1. we ara extrapolating the demand ( of energy, of housing, of almost everything), as modern statistics or modelling software teaches us to

2. we know we do not have unlimited resources of raw meterial for the ideal changes ( e.g. all EVs, batteries, hydrogen power, nuclear power etc) we intended but we insist each of them is the only way...........

What if, there are alternatives e.g. the way we think, the way we find solution, the way we create and not follow blindly with trends............??

image.png.e5ca5b61af3a7efb6dd01249bed5db83.png

We know extrapolation with statistics and software posts a risky situation i.e. GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT. The baseline data, variable used, etc determine the outcomes. With method of  trial and error, we can possibly get all kinds of outcomes, from down to earth science to the way we want it to be known. We can CREATE scenes that make things seem very serious to be of concern........... to get attention and/or fund, yes? When we deviate from facts and common sense, change truth to suit our so called scientific calculations, we might be leading the crowd onto a path of fruitless pursue, worse, with much unwanted side problems................

This brings us to a reflection on new energy stations built after 1960s or 70s...... Could anyone recall how many newly added since then?

For a small remote country with name unknown to many, if not most, western citizens of monolingual, there might have not been any new construction announced over the past 60 years despite heavy development increasing demand drastically over the decades. This country was aided to build them. Hence, other countries with more advanced engineering works might have done the same somewhere. Could this mean, due to the foresight of the pioneer generations, the old settings might have more than enough energy that could sustain the needs even decades later?

This brings us to a point to ponder:

What if, we could cut random massive construction projects that of low demand and may be overpriced? What if we control how many permit to be allocated so that the demand is always below the capacity of energy supply?

What if, population could be self regulated if we do not encourage random behaviour?

Not sure if the following image or info is correct, but if it is, you might know why controlling wanted and unwanted pregnancies of random sex don't always work...

image.png.4582daeab06054a6959eaeb5d0183893.png

 

 Someone mentioned in a feedback to a newsletter received that this world works by COPYing good models; duplicating successful acts of a person by others etc......... At the beginning, this method worked fine, executed with the right attitude by those mostly struggled in lives, but aided to prosper with the right person(s) or network. No one could succeed on one own........ yes?  When it turns out 99.9% of us are merely copycats,  we rarely find genuine solutions to problems faced. We rush into trends because free money is there and there is no responsibility required to the outcomes. If it works, fine. If it doesn't, nobody might care enough to ask or to know..........

What if, anything started with finite resources might not be a good idea is true? Then batteries, hydrogen, limited sunlight, dwindling wind etc could run out if we do not know how to regenerate or sustain the sources...... What would become the left over batteries, equipment etc that could no longer be reused, renewed or needed to be recycled?

What if, there could be other alternatives, genuine and functional, awaiting to be tested out? Why must we shut the doors to possibilities because the trends and money are in the few technologies created in the 50s and yet to be adopted by us 80 years later? What are we thinking and doing, diverging but focus seperately with closed minds? O.o

Putin is killing off population with high wheat and corn prices. We’ll have to see how many millions will be lost before we can judge resource depletion accurately. Interesting with India and China buying Russian FF, why is there a shortage of FF? Why are grains high? Speculation? Harvest isn’t for months. Smells like a scam. Anyhow there are like over a dozen countries that depend 100% on the Ukraine, Russia or both. Also there are many poor countries that approx 85% of the poors income goes towards food. The war has caused many commodities prices to double. Sensing a problem. Putin will get the credit for the needless attack. We could ship those poor to Russia. They need population due to the drink and little sex. Anyhow, will anybody rent them a boat yet? I see the holes all over the fields suggesting poor accuracy from a lack of chips? Can the Russians flip a McDonalds  burger without American management. Let us know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2022 at 11:41 AM, specinho said:

 

we could probably have a look at the highlights........ and realize

1. we ara extrapolating the demand ( of energy, of housing, of almost everything), as modern statistics or modelling software teaches us to

2. we know we do not have unlimited resources of raw meterial for the ideal changes ( e.g. all EVs, batteries, hydrogen power, nuclear power etc) we intended but we insist each of them is the only way...........

What if, there are alternatives e.g. the way we think, the way we find solution, the way we create and not follow blindly with trends............??

image.png.e5ca5b61af3a7efb6dd01249bed5db83.png

We know extrapolation with statistics and software posts a risky situation i.e. GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT. The baseline data, variable used, etc determine the outcomes. With method of  trial and error, we can possibly get all kinds of outcomes, from down to earth science to the way we want it to be known. We can CREATE scenes that make things seem very serious to be of concern........... to get attention and/or fund, yes? When we deviate from facts and common sense, change truth to suit our so called scientific calculations, we might be leading the crowd onto a path of fruitless pursue, worse, with much unwanted side problems................

This brings us to a reflection on new energy stations built after 1960s or 70s...... Could anyone recall how many newly added since then?

For a small remote country with name unknown to many, if not most, western citizens of monolingual, there might have not been any new construction announced over the past 60 years despite heavy development increasing demand drastically over the decades. This country was aided to build them. Hence, other countries with more advanced engineering works might have done the same somewhere. Could this mean, due to the foresight of the pioneer generations, the old settings might have more than enough energy that could sustain the needs even decades later?

This brings us to a point to ponder:

What if, we could cut random massive construction projects that of low demand and may be overpriced? What if we control how many permit to be allocated so that the demand is always below the capacity of energy supply?

What if, population could be self regulated if we do not encourage random behaviour?

Not sure if the following image or info is correct, but if it is, you might know why controlling wanted and unwanted pregnancies of random sex don't always work...

image.png.4582daeab06054a6959eaeb5d0183893.png

 

 Someone mentioned in a feedback to a newsletter received that this world works by COPYing good models; duplicating successful acts of a person by others etc......... At the beginning, this method worked fine, executed with the right attitude by those mostly struggled in lives, but aided to prosper with the right person(s) or network. No one could succeed on one own........ yes?  When it turns out 99.9% of us are merely copycats,  we rarely find genuine solutions to problems faced. We rush into trends because free money is there and there is no responsibility required to the outcomes. If it works, fine. If it doesn't, nobody might care enough to ask or to know..........

What if, anything started with finite resources might not be a good idea is true? Then batteries, hydrogen, limited sunlight, dwindling wind etc could run out if we do not know how to regenerate or sustain the sources...... What would become the left over batteries, equipment etc that could no longer be reused, renewed or needed to be recycled?

What if, there could be other alternatives, genuine and functional, awaiting to be tested out? Why must we shut the doors to possibilities because the trends and money are in the few technologies created in the 50s and yet to be adopted by us 80 years later? What are we thinking and doing, diverging but focus seperately with closed minds? O.o

You must have missed the massive overbuild of solar that brings electricity costs to a few cents. Then we mine dumps with the Newly employed. Cars are going aluminum so don’t buy anything steel. There is a new round of tech for solar and different battery tech. No worries, just need a few years to ramp up. Just think, almost free ac. Hint, in Texas move north in the winter. They don’t do electricity to good. They into building a wall when sites for illegals to get picked up for daily work go unchecked. They get $15 a meal and a ride to the pickup spot. But Abbot praises the police for getting them border crashes. That’s profile talk for getting brown people. Even though there are millions of legal brown citizens. But yea, tech will have summers covered. Till the hurricanes hit from Climate Change. Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

9 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

"Before the Industrial Revolution started in the mid-1700s, the global average amount of carbon dioxide was about 280 ppm. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (blue line) has increased along with human emissions (gray line) since the start of the Industrial Revolution in 1750."

So in nearly 300 years of industrialisation the world has added 140ppm of Co2 in the atmosphere from what was an all time low level in earths history of 280ppm. To suggest we are going to reach 1400ppm any time soon is crazy even though as you would expect it is increasing rapidly due to greater global industrialisation. However with the drive for renewables, EV's, carbon capture projects etc this isnt likely in the next few centuries, if ever, unless of course there are massive supervolcanic eruptions and then we wont really care about much at all!

If as you keep espousing Jay the world is going renewable energy and EV's, which I also think will happen rightly or wrongly then what is the problem?

It may well be far more beneficial for the world and life in general to have Co2 at levels around the 600ppm in any case.

Even the worst case scenarios for human health suggest sustained levels at 1000ppm are detrimental and some as high as 5000ppm.

The below is by far the worst case scenario I could find by any study anywhere and is not indicative of the mainstream viewpoint.

https://airqualitynews.com/2019/07/10/co2-affects-human-health-at-lower-levels-than-previously-thought/

CO2 is increasing at an exponential rate. It has increased by 50 ppm in just the past 20 years. In the previous 20 years it only increased by 30 ppm. 100 ppm of that 140 ppm total increase has happened since 1960.

line graph showing human carbon dioxide emissions (gray line) and the resulting atmopsheric carbon dioxide levels (blue line)

LIne graph of monthly atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and the 12-month running average

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The posts of the flock of the Church of Warming add credence to Bonhoeffer's contention, 

“Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless."

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

12 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Well LFP batteries that last over half a million miles are certainly concrete. Half of all new Teslas already use them.

The average US person drives 14K miles per year so that is on average 35 years of life.

There have to be commercial realities developed, which often proves to be the end of the road.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

34 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

There have to be commercial realities developed, which often proves to be the end of the road.

You just can't comprehend that long life LFP batteries are already in mass use. Half of all new Teslas already use them as well as half of all Chinese EVs. And of course I have to remind you that China is the largest EV market in the world.

"half of Tesla's vehicles are now installed with lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries.

Tesla's shift is actually following and in turn enhancing the market trend. In the China market, according to statistics from the China Automotive Power Battery Industry Innovation Alliance, the share of domestic LFP batteries in the installed power battery capacity has increased from 38% in 2020 to 52% in 2021, and the has surpassed that of ternary material batteries."

https://news.metal.com/newscontent/101816603/Installed-Capacity-of-LFP-Batteries-Likely-to-Grab-60-of-Market-Share-by-2024/

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

It may well be far more beneficial for the world and life in general to have Co2 at levels around the 600ppm in any case.

Even the worst case scenarios for human health suggest sustained levels at 1000ppm are detrimental and some as high as 5000ppm.

Nearly all housing, schooling, business etc has a CO2 level of 1000ppm and often higher currently, and to get LEED certification etc, air tightness is even higher so such buildings will have even HIGHER CO2 levels. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

7 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You just can't comprehend that long life LFP batteries are already in mass use. Half of all new Teslas already use them as well as half of all Chinese EVs. And of course I have to remind you that China is the largest EV market in the world.

"half of Tesla's vehicles are now installed with lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries.

Tesla's shift is actually following and in turn enhancing the market trend. In the China market, according to statistics from the China Automotive Power Battery Industry Innovation Alliance, the share of domestic LFP batteries in the installed power battery capacity has increased from 38% in 2020 to 52% in 2021, and the has surpassed that of ternary material batteries."

https://news.metal.com/newscontent/101816603/Installed-Capacity-of-LFP-Batteries-Likely-to-Grab-60-of-Market-Share-by-2024/

Lithium prices are rising rapidly. 

And LFP batteries are low performance batteries for short trips.

Jay, you want the American people to lower their standard of living for no good reason? Very foolish.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Lithium prices are rising rapidly. 

And LFP batteries are low performance batteries for short trips.

Jay, you want the American people to lower their standard of living for no good reason? Very foolish.

Lithium prices have been decreasing and LFP batteries are excellent performance batteries that are very popular! Almost all trips are short trips.

image.png.35230ebe719902edb5d123a5bb4852de.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Lithium prices have been decreasing and LFP batteries are excellent performance batteries that are very popular! Almost all trips are short trips.

image.png.35230ebe719902edb5d123a5bb4852de.png

Okay, use your EV for short trips and keep your ICE fossil fuel car for anything over ten miles. ICE does the real work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Ecocharger said:

Okay, use your EV for short trips and keep your ICE fossil fuel car for anything over ten miles. ICE does the real work.

The Tesla LFP car has a range of 267 miles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The Tesla LFP car has a range of 267 miles. 

But in the real world it is more like 180 miles and thats if your drive like an 85 year old!

My boss has a Tesla with the extended range LFP battery, he drove to London and back circa 220 mile round trip and the car told him after 130 miles to either stop and charge it up (it was fully charged before ther journey started) or to continue but to drive at no more than 60 miles per hour on the highway (most people drive at 85mph in the UK). He wasnt impressed at all!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Okay, use your EV for short trips and keep your ICE fossil fuel car for anything over ten miles. ICE does the real work.

Eco smeak-o.  LFP has nearly same energy density as NMC at the battery pack level as all the safety gear is absent and its form factor is better, and it has higher C rate, which means for same DoD on the battery it lasts much longer.  No nickel, no cobalt.  Also, per KWh, uses less lithium as well.  Unfortunately, there is a new LFPSi version coming out which is not only cheaper, uses less lithium, but the batteries only last half as long and I will bet you that MOST LFP will actually be LFPSi so the cars will not last all that long as car companies will want to sell more cars and LFP will in the long run be money losing so they will change to LFPSi to shorten the life of cars.  OH yea, and no patents on LFP which means EVERYONE will use it. 

PS: Everyone has it wrong regarding range on EV. The reason for the range is so you charge less often and your batteries lose capacity slower.  If you constantly pull near 100% or even 70%, your battery loses charge MUCH MUCH quicker and why car companies love shorter ranged vehicles.  Get to sell more cars sooner.  I will bet only old versions of EV's will have long range and nearly all going forward will certainly never go over 300mi as the cars will last too long.  What everyone actually wants is a ~500mi range so by 20 years it will still have a 300 mi range.  Replace the seats and a new paint job and the car should be able to go another 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Billyjack said:

The posts of the flock of the Church of Warming add credence to Bonhoeffer's contention, 

“Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless."

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

You mean 30% of US refinery capacity is foreign owned? That’s kinda stupid? Allowing Russian and Chinese money in our markets and business. Seems kinda stupid. Breath the air of refining for foreigners and what you get is pollution and bad health. foreigners don’t refine enough in their own countries. I guess they be fighting the evil. They have churches glorifying war instead. Then they ship oil for others to refine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One wonders just how much fossil fuel US infrastructure is foreign owned and what they spend on lobbying. We know 30% of refining capacity is foreign owned. What about the grids. Any Russian or Chinese oligarchs own big chunks? We hear 25% of twitter is an algorithm. With the wild foreign stuff you hear it’s probably internet wide. Them Republicans are not my daddy’s Republicans. They Coup promoting, polluting promoting, anti rule of law promoting. Put two and two together and you get foreign algorithms are Republicans. My new conspiracy for the day. I mean look. They have power or the 250+ legislators that voted not to investigate the Coup would be in jail with Trump the liar. Lol What doesn't wash is Trump isn’t smart enough for algorithms. He can’t even handle pillowhead talk. Trump brains work like Putin brains. Big plans but poor support. Algorithms can spread idiot ideology to the masses but don’t think to good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The Tesla LFP car has a range of 267 miles. 

The demand for EV is in the short range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Boat said:

One wonders just how much fossil fuel US infrastructure is foreign owned and what they spend on lobbying. We know 30% of refining capacity is foreign owned. What about the grids. Any Russian or Chinese oligarchs own big chunks? We hear 25% of twitter is an algorithm. With the wild foreign stuff you hear it’s probably internet wide. Them Republicans are not my daddy’s Republicans. They Coup promoting, polluting promoting, anti rule of law promoting. Put two and two together and you get foreign algorithms are Republicans. My new conspiracy for the day. I mean look. They have power or the 250+ legislators that voted not to investigate the Coup would be in jail with Trump the liar. Lol What doesn't wash is Trump isn’t smart enough for algorithms. He can’t even handle pillowhead talk. Trump brains work like Putin brains. Big plans but poor support. Algorithms can spread idiot ideology to the masses but don’t think to good. 

Gasoline and diesel prices are rising through the roof due to a lack of refining capacity, caused by the mistaken government promotion of an anti-fossil fuel policy. That has reduced investment in refineries and caused the current pain at the gas pump.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

But in the real world it is more like 180 miles and thats if your drive like an 85 year old!

My boss has a Tesla with the extended range LFP battery, he drove to London and back circa 220 mile round trip and the car told him after 130 miles to either stop and charge it up (it was fully charged before ther journey started) or to continue but to drive at no more than 60 miles per hour on the highway (most people drive at 85mph in the UK). He wasnt impressed at all!

I guess all that bluff we get from Jay is just industry propaganda.....which is what I have noticed for some time now.

What I also noticed is that Jay does not drive an EV himself, he just urges others to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

15 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Okay, use your EV for short trips and keep your ICE fossil fuel car for anything over ten miles. ICE does the real work.

No EVs do the hard daily real work and ICE is maybe used for the occasional long trip.

Interestingly, the study found that the respondents who drove more frequently than others were more likely to consider an EV. This is likely due to gas prices, which have skyrocketed in 2022. The study says:

“The study, now in its second year, finds that the more vehicle owners drive, the more they are likely to consider an EV. While daily commuters who are encountering higher fuel prices are logical candidates to switch to EVs, those who take frequent vacations and road trips might be assumed to be less likely to adopt EVs. But, like heavy commuters, heavy road-trippers have a higher EV purchase consideration tendency than those who use their vehicles less often for this purpose. It could be an indication that frequent drivers are increasingly seeing the advantages of EVs compared with their gasoline-powered counterparts.”

https://www.teslarati.com/americans-evs-next-car-jd-power-2022/

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

11 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

But in the real world it is more like 180 miles and thats if your drive like an 85 year old!

My boss has a Tesla with the extended range LFP battery, he drove to London and back circa 220 mile round trip and the car told him after 130 miles to either stop and charge it up (it was fully charged before ther journey started) or to continue but to drive at no more than 60 miles per hour on the highway (most people drive at 85mph in the UK). He wasnt impressed at all!

But it satisfies his needs well 99% of the time. To offset that 1% he can consider how he doesn't have to go to a gas station on a weekly basis, he just wakes up with a full car every morning.

There is currently only one size of Tesla LFP battery, no extended range versions.

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

The number of consumers looking to buy electric vehicles has hit 52%, according to the latest EY Mobility Consumer Index (MCI). This is the first time the number has exceeded 50%, and it represents a rise of 22 percentage points in just two years.

EV buyers are on the rise

The MCI survey has tracked consumer mobility patterns and buying intentions since the start of the pandemic in 2020. EY writes:

While overall levels of travel reported remain lower when compared to the pre-pandemic benchmark, the number of consumers who say constant access to a personal car is very important to them is rising, and for the first time more than half of those surveyed, 52%, who intend to buy a car say they intend to choose either a fully electric, plug-in hybrid or hybrid vehicle.

In a survey of 13,000 people in 18 countries, car buyers in Italy (73%), China (69%), and South Korea (63%) are the most committed to buying an EV. Consumers in Australia (38%) and the US (29%) are the least committed.

_________________________________________________________

J.D. Power’s annual U.S. Electric Vehicle Consideration (EVC) Study was released today, and it shows that more Americans said they are “very likely” to buy an electric car for their next vehicle now more than ever.

The study showed that 24 percent of respondents said they were “very likely” to buy an EV for their next purchase or lease, a 4 percent increase from a year ago. Several factors contributed to the increased interest in purchasing an EV, but the biggest contributor was the expansion of the electric pickup truck market, which was labeled “important” and “largely untapped.”

“The addition of new EV models has moved the needle on consumer consideration,” J.D. Power’s Senior Director of Automotive Retail, Stewart Stropp, said. “In fact, several new models from perennial mass-market brands are at the top of that consideration list. Even so, more remains to be done in terms of transitioning from early to mass adoption. Though the study findings show a shift in favor of EVs, about 76% of new-vehicle shoppers say they are not ‘very likely’ to consider buying one. With new EV model introductions coming at a rapid pace, automakers must continue their efforts to persuade more shoppers to give these vehicles a try.”

Living situations also attributed to whether people were considering an electric vehicle for their next car. People who owned their homes were much more likely to say they were “very likely” to consider an EV next, with 27 percent of respondents giving that response. Only 17 percent of those who rented their living quarters said they would consider an EV.

Charging infrastructure also played a substantial part in whether people were considering an EV. Thirty-four percent of people said they were unlikely to consider an EV gave this response because they said they lacked access to charging capabilities at home or at their place of work.

 

Interestingly, the study found that the respondents who drove more frequently than others were more likely to consider an EV. This is likely due to gas prices, which have skyrocketed in 2022. The study says:

“The study, now in its second year, finds that the more vehicle owners drive, the more they are likely to consider an EV. While daily commuters who are encountering higher fuel prices are logical candidates to switch to EVs, those who take frequent vacations and road trips might be assumed to be less likely to adopt EVs. But, like heavy commuters, heavy road-trippers have a higher EV purchase consideration tendency than those who use their vehicles less often for this purpose. It could be an indication that frequent drivers are increasingly seeing the advantages of EVs compared with their gasoline-powered counterparts.”

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/17/2022 at 12:04 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

In regard to renewable energy? Absolutely I do. 

That might explain why my numbers are right and your numbers are almost always wrong.

I think the reason you won't post the article is because you know it is mostly BS.

 

LOVE THOSE BATTERIES THAT ARE GOING TO SAVE THE PLANET WITH STORAGE FOR RENEWABLES!  

 

image.thumb.png.a5831c501199ef848f4bd729b6cddfec.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, JoMack said:

 

LOVE THOSE BATTERIES THAT ARE GOING TO SAVE THE PLANET WITH STORAGE FOR RENEWABLES!  

 

image.thumb.png.a5831c501199ef848f4bd729b6cddfec.png

Yep, going to be great getting away from the much more flammable coal and gas power plants. From the past month:

image.png.08c1ef8bf9cc1bf340d181c26053ec89.png

image.thumb.png.c46be3dd8cf9416688a8d4d8b3ed0c13.png

image.png.e15fc271da823bd6df4d77a7bad3d47b.png

image.png.512ed02b3be63b1c929850c27eb48187.png

(Taichung Harbor Fire Brigade photo)

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.