Could EVs Become Cheaper than ICE Cars by 2023?

[NickW + 2,714]

19 hours ago, DA? said:

 

Not quite like water. From OSH

Inhalation: Low concentrations are not harmful. Higher concentrations can affect respiratory function and cause excitation followed by depression of the central nervous system.

 

Levels as low as 1000 PPM are thought to affect cognitive skills.

[markslawson + 1,042]

9 hours ago, NickW said:

Levels as low as 1000 PPM are thought to affect cognitive skills.

NickW - sorry Nick but nope. this is an extract from  http://www.co2science.org/subject/h/summaries/healtheffectsco2.php

Very high concentrations of atmospheric CO2 can produce a state of hypercapnia or an excessive amount of CO2 in the blood (Nahas et al., 1968; Brackett et al., 1969; van Ypersele de Strihou, 1974), which typically results in acidosis, a serious and sometimes fatal condition characterized in humans by headache, nausea and visual disturbances (Poyart and Nahas, 1968; Turino et al., 1974).  However, these phenomena do not impact human health until the atmosphere's CO2 concentration reaches approximately 15,000 ppm (Luft et al., 1974; Schaefer, 1982), which is approximately 40 times greater than its current concentration.  Hence, we do not have to worry about any direct negative health effects of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content.

 

[DA? + 301]

5 hours ago, markslawson said:

NickW - sorry Nick but nope. this is an extract from  http://www.co2science.org/subject/h/summaries/healtheffectsco2.php

Very high concentrations of atmospheric CO2 can produce a state of hypercapnia or an excessive amount of CO2 in the blood (Nahas et al., 1968; Brackett et al., 1969; van Ypersele de Strihou, 1974), which typically results in acidosis, a serious and sometimes fatal condition characterized in humans by headache, nausea and visual disturbances (Poyart and Nahas, 1968; Turino et al., 1974).  However, these phenomena do not impact human health until the atmosphere's CO2 concentration reaches approximately 15,000 ppm (Luft et al., 1974; Schaefer, 1982), which is approximately 40 times greater than its current concentration.  Hence, we do not have to worry about any direct negative health effects of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content.

 

A part from the climate change which is coursing more violent weather, killing many people.

[NickW + 2,714]

11 hours ago, markslawson said:

NickW - sorry Nick but nope. this is an extract from  http://www.co2science.org/subject/h/summaries/healtheffectsco2.php

Very high concentrations of atmospheric CO2 can produce a state of hypercapnia or an excessive amount of CO2 in the blood (Nahas et al., 1968; Brackett et al., 1969; van Ypersele de Strihou, 1974), which typically results in acidosis, a serious and sometimes fatal condition characterized in humans by headache, nausea and visual disturbances (Poyart and Nahas, 1968; Turino et al., 1974).  However, these phenomena do not impact human health until the atmosphere's CO2 concentration reaches approximately 15,000 ppm (Luft et al., 1974; Schaefer, 1982), which is approximately 40 times greater than its current concentration.  Hence, we do not have to worry about any direct negative health effects of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content.

 

More recent research (research that isn't older than most participants on this forum) suggests otherwise

Satish study (2012) found effects at 1000PPm and 2500PPm compared to 600ppm.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3548274/

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1104789

Katja (2003&2006) notes observable reductions in cognitive performance at 2000ppm

Kajtar L, Herczeg L, Lang E. In: Proceedings of Healthy Buildings 2003, 7–11 December 2003. Singapore:Stallion Press, 176–181; 2003. Examination of influence of CO₂ concentration by scientific methods in the laboratory.

 

Edited November 14, 2018 by NickW

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

Another impact of a CO₂ increase is ocean acidification.

Sea surface pH has decreased from 8.25 to 8.14 since the Industrial Revolution. This doesn’t sound like much, but the pH scale is not linear – it is logarithmic. So this seemingly tiny change in pH actually translates to a 30% increase in H⁺ ions in our seas. We call this phenomenon ocean acidification.

Biologists are very worried about the effect this will have on marine life. The problem is that a vast number of marine organisms build their skeletons and shells from calcium carbonate. But calcium carbonate dissolves in acidic solutions! Many researchers have showed that when these organisms are exposed to high levels of CO₂, they cannot build their shells/skeletons properly.

http://moocs.southampton.ac.uk/oceans/2016/10/19/sour-seas-how-does-carbon-dioxide-affect-our-oceans/

[NickW + 2,714]

6 hours ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

Another impact of a CO₂ increase is ocean acidification.

Sea surface pH has decreased from 8.25 to 8.14 since the Industrial Revolution. This doesn’t sound like much, but the pH scale is not linear – it is logarithmic. So this seemingly tiny change in pH actually translates to a 30% increase in H⁺ ions in our seas. We call this phenomenon ocean acidification.

Biologists are very worried about the effect this will have on marine life. The problem is that a vast number of marine organisms build their skeletons and shells from calcium carbonate. But calcium carbonate dissolves in acidic solutions! Many researchers have showed that when these organisms are exposed to high levels of CO₂, they cannot build their shells/skeletons properly.

http://moocs.southampton.ac.uk/oceans/2016/10/19/sour-seas-how-does-carbon-dioxide-affect-our-oceans/

Thats the real elephant in the room.  a relatively small increase in Co2 induced acidity is thought to massively effect the ability of marine organisms to build shells and skeletons. 

As for impact on Man - take 100 million tonnes of marine protein out of the global food account and see what happens😑

 

[markslawson + 1,042]

15 hours ago, DA? said:

A part from the climate change which is coursing more violent weather, killing many people.

JH - sorry but no.. the violent weather link is still highly disputed. This from the 2014 IPCC report.. it ssays there is a sort-of link but they aren't too sure.

“Globally there is low confidence regarding changes in tropical cyclone activity over the 20th century owing to changes in observational capabilities, although it is virtually certain that there has been an increase in the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic since the 1970s (WGI AR5 Section 2.6). In the future, it is likely that the frequency of tropical cyclones globally will either decrease or remain unchanged, but there will be a likely increase in global mean tropical cyclone precipitation rates and maximum wind speed (WGI AR5 Section 14.6).” – 5^th Assessment Report, Impacts, Adaptations and Vulnerabilities. Chapter 5, Coastal Systems and Low Lying Areas.

You will find 0ther studies saying there is an effect. Then there will be studies saying there isn't an effect.

[markslawson + 1,042]

10 hours ago, NickW said:

More recent research (research that isn't older than most participants on this forum) suggests otherwise

NickW - congratulations! You've actually won a point. A "statistically significant" change in performance is hardly much to write home about but does show you weren't just sounding off. A first for you, I think. Keep up the good work. Keep the rest of us on our toes.

[DA? + 301]

7 hours ago, markslawson said:

JH - sorry but no.. the violent weather link is still highly disputed. This from the 2014 IPCC report.. it ssays there is a sort-of link but they aren't too sure.

“Globally there is low confidence regarding changes in tropical cyclone activity over the 20th century owing to changes in observational capabilities, although it is virtually certain that there has been an increase in the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic since the 1970s (WGI AR5 Section 2.6). In the future, it is likely that the frequency of tropical cyclones globally will either decrease or remain unchanged, but there will be a likely increase in global mean tropical cyclone precipitation rates and maximum wind speed (WGI AR5 Section 14.6).” – 5^th Assessment Report, Impacts, Adaptations and Vulnerabilities. Chapter 5, Coastal Systems and Low Lying Areas.

 

You will find 0ther studies saying there is an effect. Then there will be studies saying there isn't an effect.

The old habit of cherry picking science. No the violent weather link is really and only the deluded would ague otherwise. Draw a bell curve of violent weather events one say over a time period in the 60 to 70's then do the same with the 21st century and see the difference. Tropical cyclones aren't the only destructive weather event to occur although they may not get more common they are getting more destructive, no surprise when you see what warmer seas do.

The evidence is clear, just the other day we had a very unusual event killing about a dozen people in the area I live in. Now one event doesn't make a trend but it's all over. Climate change is real no matter hard carefully you pick your cherries.

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

8 hours ago, markslawson said:

JH - sorry but no.. the violent weather link is still highly disputed. This from the 2014 IPCC report.. it ssays there is a sort-of link but they aren't too sure.

“Globally there is low confidence regarding changes in tropical cyclone activity over the 20th century owing to changes in observational capabilities, although it is virtually certain that there has been an increase in the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic since the 1970s (WGI AR5 Section 2.6). In the future, it is likely that the frequency of tropical cyclones globally will either decrease or remain unchanged, but there will be a likely increase in global mean tropical cyclone precipitation rates and maximum wind speed (WGI AR5 Section 14.6).” – 5^th Assessment Report, Impacts, Adaptations and Vulnerabilities. Chapter 5, Coastal Systems and Low Lying Areas.

 

You will find 0ther studies saying there is an effect. Then there will be studies saying there isn't an effect.

 

A warm temperature of the sea surface is one of the conditions favoring the formation of tropical storms :

1. Large sea surface with temperature higher than 27° C,
2. Presence of the Coriolis force enough to create a cyclonic vortex,
3. Small variations in the vertical wind speed,
4. A pre-existing weak low-pressure area or low-level-cyclonic circulation,
5. Upper divergence above the sea level system,

If you warm up the ocean the area where you would encounter the favorable conditions will increase and one of the main factors of tropical storm formation will be easier to reach.

 

[DA? + 301]

31 minutes ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

 

A warm temperature of the sea surface is one of the conditions favoring the formation of tropical storms :

1. Large sea surface with temperature higher than 27° C,
2. Presence of the Coriolis force enough to create a cyclonic vortex,
3. Small variations in the vertical wind speed,
4. A pre-existing weak low-pressure area or low-level-cyclonic circulation,
5. Upper divergence above the sea level system,

If you warm up the ocean the area where you would encounter the favorable conditions will increase and one of the main factors of tropical storm formation will be easier to reach.

 

Yup and the warmer the water the more evaporation occurs increasing precipitation, the more precipitation occurring the more flooding and often more importantly the more damage the wind does.  

[NickW + 2,714]

17 hours ago, markslawson said:

NickW - congratulations! You've actually won a point. A "statistically significant" change in performance is hardly much to write home about but does show you weren't just sounding off. A first for you, I think. Keep up the good work. Keep the rest of us on our toes.

Don't be so modest Mark. 

You are the Master ace of winning your own strawman and cherry pickled arguments😄

[markslawson + 1,042]

17 hours ago, DA? said:

The old habit of cherry picking science. No the violent weather link is really and only the deluded would ague otherwise. Draw a bell curve of violent weather events one say over a time period in the 60 to 70's then do the same with the 21st century and see the difference.

No point in arguing with me. Argue with the IPCC. The consensus is at the moment is that may  be some effect on the more intense storms, as it says in the excerpt I quoted.. that is a conclusion that can also be drawn from the graphs I have seen, so if you think there is evidence maybe you should go and have another look at the material you are relying on and then make a submission to the IPCC.. leave it with you.

[markslawson + 1,042]

16 hours ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

A warm temperature of the sea surface is one of the conditions favoring the formation of tropical storms :

1. Large sea surface with temperature higher than 27° C,
2. Presence of the Coriolis force enough to create a cyclonic vortex,
3. Small variations in the vertical wind speed,
4. A pre-existing weak low-pressure area or low-level-cyclonic circulation,
5. Upper divergence above the sea level system,

 

16 hours ago, DA? said:

Yup and the warmer the water the more evaporation occurs increasing precipitation, the more precipitation occurring the more flooding and often more importantly the more damage the wind does. 

I'm well aware of what the theory says. I don't understand why you're repeating it. The statistical link ain't there, or at least its much weaker than otherwise expected. As I told another poster, go and argue with the IPCC about the matter. the consensus is as I quoted from the 2014 report. Scientists have been arguing for years over the trends and the same scientists keep saying different things. In any case, the effects from trends in building codes, procedures in dealing with storm warnings and evacuation, improvements in storm forecasting would all completely swamp any climate effects. Leave it with you.

[markslawson + 1,042]

7 hours ago, NickW said:

Don't be so modest Mark.

While we're on the subject. You realise that the "statistically significant" effects in the first paper, are for concentrations of what 1000 ppm? Or was it 10,000 ppm. Go and look at the Mauna Loa trends. Even 1000 PPM won't be reached for at least a century if that, even counting an evident acceleration in the CO2 levels post-war, whatever the acceleration may be due to. In other words the research is a complete waste of time. Perhaps even the "statistically significant" part will vanish when someone repeats the experiment, as often happens. I'm not the one using straw man arguments here. Leave it with you.

[Cowpoke + 70]

On ‎11‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 4:14 PM, Justin Thyme said:

America is falling behind in the technology innovation field

No were not. Were just wising up. Let others do the hard work and then just steal it. Seems to have worked very well for other countries.

[DA? + 301]

6 hours ago, markslawson said:

In any case, the effects from trends in building codes, procedures in dealing with storm warnings and evacuation, improvements in storm forecasting would all completely swamp any climate effects. Leave it with you.

Not working out to well even for a wealthy country like the USA.

[OFITE1 0]

One item I'm not seeing in this string (I will admit I have not read every word) is the time needed to recharge the batteries as well as the cost of electricity to recharge.  If I am driving halfway across the country, how long do I have to wait for recharging?  I can pump a tank of gas in less than 10 minutes.  We as a society seem to less patient and waiting several hours for a full recharge won't cut it.

[DA? + 301]

8 minutes ago, OFITE1 said:

One item I'm not seeing in this string (I will admit I have not read every word) is the time needed to recharge the batteries as well as the cost of electricity to recharge.  If I am driving halfway across the country, how long do I have to wait for recharging?  I can pump a tank of gas in less than 10 minutes.  We as a society seem to less patient and waiting several hours for a full recharge won't cut it.

Many modern EV's 80% in around twice that time for filling an ICE tank. That's on a 300 mile range model3 charged up to 240 miles and you get time to get a coffee as you don't have to stand next to the car. Although for most of the people most of the time they get to charge at home nice and easy. And the ranges on EV's are rapidly getting better.

[Bobby P + 88]

LOL EV's...😄

[DA? + 301]

42 minutes ago, Bobby P said:

LOL EV's...😄

Umm, EV's nothing for BMW or Mercedes to laugh about in the USA car market, arses well and truly kicked.

[Janet Alderton + 124]

I love my EV, a 2015 Nissan Leaf. It accelerates like a rocket. It handles well on snow and ice. It costs about $100 for annual maintenance. I charge it at home using electrons from either hydropower or my garage-top solar array. I do admit that I live on an island that has never presented me with a range problem. The range of newer EVs is expanding rapidly. There is speculation that VW is producing an EV that will sell for around U.S. $21,000 and have a range of around 170 miles.  

[markslawson + 1,042]

19 hours ago, DA? said:

Not working out to well even for a wealthy country like the USA.

In fact it is working out.. go back and look at numbers of deaths due to storms, floods, and adjust them for population.. The deadliest storm ever in America was the 1900 Galveston hurricane, with 6,000 - 12,000 deaths. One result was that they put up an enormous sea wall. That's what happens. Building codes change, major constructions occur - less damage next time around. Sometimes that doesn't work - New Orleans for example, so 2005 was a standout year, but mostly it does so the overall trend is down. However, you do have an excuse for being confused over damage trends. The problem there is the drift to the coast. There is a lot more property along the coast, where storms do their damage (they lose power when they move inland) and that property is increasingly valuable - so insurance claims are up. These trends, of course, completely swamp any effect from climate change, whatever they may  be.  

[DA? + 301]

5 hours ago, markslawson said:

In fact it is working out.. go back and look at numbers of deaths due to storms, floods, and adjust them for population.. The deadliest storm ever in America was the 1900 Galveston hurricane, with 6,000 - 12,000 deaths. One result was that they put up an enormous sea wall. That's what happens. Building codes change, major constructions occur - less damage next time around. Sometimes that doesn't work - New Orleans for example, so 2005 was a standout year, but mostly it does so the overall trend is down. However, you do have an excuse for being confused over damage trends. The problem there is the drift to the coast. There is a lot more property along the coast, where storms do their damage (they lose power when they move inland) and that property is increasingly valuable - so insurance claims are up. These trends, of course, completely swamp any effect from climate change, whatever they may  be.  

The costs are huge and ask Miami about building a nice sea wall to protect it. Ask California if building codes were tight enough to stop fires. Wasn't there a report the other day showing some city got more hammered due to poor design for dealing with flood waters. It's costing the government to subsidise the wealthy on the coast as insurance companies won't touch many of these properties. It's going to well.

[Justin Thyme + 24]

On 11/12/2018 at 2:08 AM, catch22 said:

 

You dont really need to school me on the electrical infrastructure details either - like i said - im fully qualified electrician.

 

I had an interesting experience regarding a 'fully qualified electrician'.

He double-fed an electrical socket and did not gang the fuses in the panel - completely separated from each other  A shocking experience. Tripped one breaker, the box was still live. We were the first tenants in the unit - it was done by the original electricians.

Just because you are 'fully qualified' does not mean that you know what you are doing.