The Dirt on Clean Electric Cars

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

The Dirt on Clean Electric Cars

Of course, it's a conspiracy. Eleventy, if I may quote @Tom Kirkman

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Misleading information from "environmental" solution of EVs?

I'm shocked.  Shocked I tell you!

[DA? + 301]

6 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Misleading information from "environmental" solution of EVs?

I'm shocked.  Shocked I tell you!

Mr Kirkman did you really read the article and understand the limitations and fogginess (maybe I should have put smogginess) written? The electricity of these countries is improving and serious EV producers are trying to buy renewable electricity, sort of passed over in this article.

We are just at the start of a massive disruption and of course it's not an overnight perfect change, but change it will be. No matter how much money is given by the fossil fuel world to a certain politician to try and bring in a bill to slow EV's in the USA, think that's just snow flake behaviour of the industry. "Misleading information" is what I have read repeatedly on this site, but living in an echo chamber doesn't stop the world from changing.

And to tell the truth I'm not shocked at all I find this sort of misleading information here, it's been an industry standard for a long time, hand in hand with the tobacco industry.

[Refman + 207]

7 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

 

Bloomberg is well known for misleading and biased articles against clean energy and electric vehicles.

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Amazing how I just happen to be pro oil & gas on a forum called Oil Price.  Real headscratcher.

[Refman + 207]

I'm pro oil & gas as well, but that doesn't stop Bloomberg from being biased against renewable energy and electric vehicles.

[Brian W + 78]

There's so much in this article that makes the positive  case for EVs. Even the graph has a best case scenario with the examples of Norway and Northvolt. They even reference, maybe with a little exaggeration, but still, the Tesla solar array despite the fact it's not producing even a significant proportion of the Gigafactory's electricity.

It does present some good info showing that EVs aren't always cleaner in terms of CO2 emissions. But it also picks Germany as an example to present a "dirty" future in which grids stay dirty. The article is more anti-coal than anti-EV. 

 And there comes a point at which claiming bias just looks like conspiracy, when valid discussion points are ignored, even if the numbers are slightly off. 

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

Its obvious that the way the electricity is generated has an impact on how cleaner an EV is compared to an ICE car. But EVs will be more reliable than ICEs and will last longer (they contain less moving parts). And while the number of electric cars will grow on the roads the electricity will turn greener, the coal power plants being replaced by renewables. The difference in CO2 emission will increase in favor of EV's.

As Brian just said, this article is not anti-EV. It is just emphasizing the need to have a global strategy towards a low carbon future. shifting to EVs is not enough. We also need to shift to a greener electricity.

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

10 hours ago, Refman said:

Bloomberg is well known for misleading and biased articles against clean energy and electric vehicles.

 

Everyone is biased, some more than others and Bloomberg is no exception. However, I like figures. I also like seeing different perspectives. What I dislike is people sticking to the dominant narrative--which I call the hard party line--and refusing to accept another perspective.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 hour ago, Marina Schwarz said:

I also like seeing different perspectives.

What I dislike is people sticking to the dominant narrative--which I call the hard party line--and refusing to accept another perspective.

 

Meanwhile...

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

6 hours ago, Brian W said:

 And there comes a point at which claiming bias just looks like conspiracy, when valid discussion points are ignored, even if the numbers are slightly off.

There's right and there's biased, right?  If it agrees with your perspective, it's right.  If it doesn't agree with your perspective, it's biased.  In most cases anyway.

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

Confirmation bias. It's very simple. 

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

Also doctors. Amen to that.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

7 minutes ago, Marina Schwarz said:

Also doctors. Amen to that.

I don't know if I like doctors and amen in the same thought, although vast amounts of people summon the assistance of the old man in the sky to help the doctors remember their med school training.  

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 hour ago, mthebold said:

we should all strive to care a little less so that we may think a little more. 

But over-reactions can be so amusing...

https://youtu.be/j-FxA1jloTg

 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

6 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

But over-reactions can be so amusing...

https://youtu.be/j-FxA1jloTg

 

The comments below that video are great too!

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 minute ago, Dan Warnick said:

The comments below that video are great too!

Thanks, I can't stop laughing at the comments.  Hadn't noticed the comments earlier, was too busy replaying the video.

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

1 hour ago, Dan Warnick said:

I don't know if I like doctors and amen in the same thought, although vast amounts of people summon the assistance of the old man in the sky to help the doctors remember their med school training.  

Hehehe. Let's leave the amen out, then. I would hate to offend anyone's religious sensibilities.

PS Is that Yosif Visarionovich on the photo in the video? It is! There goes my busy day. Thanks a lot, guys!

Edited October 19, 2018 by Marina Schwarz

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

I really don't care about their motivation as long as they do their job well. Besides, don't we all like to feel good about ourselves and what we do for a living?

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Dr. House = Great character in a great show!

[JunoTen + 118]

So the problem is electricity comes from carbon intensive sources in many countries. But the solution is simple: Wind and solar all the way !

[DA? + 301]

1 hour ago, JunoTen said:

So the problem is electricity comes from carbon intensive sources in many countries. But the solution is simple: Wind and solar all the way !

Sounds like you have been corrupted in to believing liberal green unscientific hogwash, turned into an unthinking sheep that spouts environmental over reacting conspiracy fear mongering hippy hard party lined perspective bending dominant narrative. As it's well known any argument, data or fact that doesn't conform to my personal opinion has to be wrong, therefore as you have not changed your mind and accepted my opinion you are obviously narrow minded.

Or something along those sort of twisted logic.

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

12 hours ago, JunoTen said:

So the problem is electricity comes from carbon intensive sources in many countries. But the solution is simple: Wind and solar all the way !

If the solution was so simple the planet would have been covered with solar and wind farms already. So no, it's not that simple.

@mthebold but isn't this true for every profession? I mean the "As long as they do their job well" part. I don't know any doctors personally so I can't speak about their feel-good habit.

[DA? + 301]

As we are on to Doctors now I have to say, with my international experience of dealing with them

16 hours ago, mthebold said:

Yes, doing the job well is what's required of every profession.  The problem placed before consumers is to find providers who do this consistently.  We must use limited information to assess the probability of good service.  I.e. we must use conditional probability: what's the probability of good service this time given good service last time?  What's the probability of good service this time given that the provider is emotional and prone to bad days?  What's the probability of good service given that the provider obtained a degree from Baylor? 

In the case of medical providers, I've found that anyone in it to feel good is inconsistent.  If you don't tip toe around their delicate sensibilities and convince them you're a wounded fawn in need of protection, they just don't care.  It doesn't give them the buzz they're looking for.  On the other hand, a provider in it for the money is easy: lay down the cash, and you'll get what you want.  The best providers are the Dr. Houses of the world.  They're in it to be right.  They don't care about me personally; they just want to solve the problem.  From these, you get perfectly consistent service, independent of the whims and vagary of human interaction. 

As we have moved on to Doctors now I after much international experience of them have come to the conclusion that 25% actual care about you and do their best, 50% don't really give a dam either way their in it for the money and the last 25% are actively trying to kill you (mind you I tend to get this reaction from about 25% of the normal population as well).

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 hour ago, DA? said:

and the last 25% are actively trying to kill you