# General Discussion > Opinions >  Are electric cars really a better idea?

## Angela

I just saw that German car production is way down, and one suggested cause is all the Tesla sales. 

Does that make sense?

Are electric cars really better for the environment if the effects of generating the electricity are considered?

----------


## [email protected]

And the environmental impacts of battery construction and eventual disposal.

----------


## [email protected]

It has been pointed out that it is more environmentally sound to keep your old high emissions clunker than it is to buy a new, efficient car due to the impacts of manufacturing a new product, starting with mining the raw materials . . .

----------


## Dagne

I would opt for electric car, if I had money, because they are silent and free from poisonous emissions (diesel cars are really bad for us - influencing diabetes, strokes, underdeveloped brain, allergies, etc., even higher violent crime rates..., unbelievable, isn't it? ) Somehow, people are not in a habit of weighting the harmful effects of traffic pollution especially of diesel cars... 

I already imagine how cool it would be to live in a world without traffic noise and smog... and when cars will be go where you wanted without having to drive it yourself:)

regarding production costs - yes, it is true that it would be wise to stop being consumers and start re-using things that we already have or using items in a long term.
For instance, I red a story a famous Lithuanian historian who lived in the 19th century, he came from a poor family and had two coats during his entire life. So, this is the right approach, but currently all our economy is based on fashion, advertising - without consumption and GDP growth the whole economy would collapse, so it is unlikely that people can stop consuming in a short term. 

So, people would be still buying new cars (like new coats), so it is better that those new ones are less harmful for the environment and people. The issue is how to make that new one serve a long time, instead of being designed to serve 3 or 5 years and then having to replace it with again a new one (which could be the case with Tesla cars, I am not sure)


The long term use of anything is such a challenge now - I get attached to my jeans but the material completely wore out in half a year ... I suppose there is somewhat conspiracy among producers of household appliances like washing machines, etc, because they break after several years (when the warrantee expires), instead of serving for 20 or 40 years, as they could. Again, the reason is that our economy is fuelled by consumption! 

Any ideas how to deal with that?

----------


## bigsnake49

> I just saw that German car production is way down, and one suggested cause is all the Tesla sales. 
> 
> Does that make sense?
> 
> Are electric cars really better for the environment if the effects of generating the electricity are considered?


As far as whether they have been affected by sales of electric cars that can be found out by the sales numbers. For millennials at least in the US, they tend to want to live downtown which means they don't need a car. They can take the bus or take an Uber. 

As far as whether they are more better for the environment overall, it depends on whether the electricity's generated by coal, natural gas or renewables. 

The batteries that are in the Teslas when they reach 80% battery life are recycled into Tesla Powerwalls storage units where they can be used for another 10-15 years. Then the lithium can be recycled further.

----------


## bigsnake49

Here's where electric cars may have an effect on employment. An electric car has about 10,000 parts, a conventional car about 30-35,000. The more parts the more employment broadly speaking. Less parts to assemble, less employment, although with robotic factories it might not make much difference. Less parts to break, less maintenance, less employment.

But I will take a silent car that's less polluting anytime.

But the major change will come when long distance trucks are either replaced by electric ones or their loads are transferred via rail to the end city and then picked up by local electric trucks.

I don't know what to do about ships and airplanes. Local manufacture of products? Teleconference for business travel?

----------


## Tutkun Arnaut

> I just saw that German car production is way down, and one suggested cause is all the Tesla sales. 
> 
> Does that make sense?
> 
> Are electric cars really better for the environment if the effects of generating the electricity are considered?


Wind and solar electricity is 100% clean. The only thing with electric cars is high cost of batteries! The cheapest electric car is about $50 000 without subsidies. That is a problem.

----------


## Angela

> As far as whether they have been affected by sales of electric cars that can be found out by the sales numbers. For millennials at least in the US, they tend to want to live downtown which means they don't need a car. They can take the bus or take an Uber. 
> 
> As far as whether they are more better for the environment overall, it depends on whether the electricity's generated by coal, natural gas or renewables. 
> 
> The batteries that are in the Teslas when they reach 80% battery life are recycled into Tesla Powerwalls storage units where they can be used for another 10-15 years. Then the lithium can be recycled further.


Is it solar energy generated electricity which is fueling these cars now, though? Or is it oil and gas?

I lived in Manhattan for about ten years and loved it. Wouldn't do it now, though; I want green grass and trees outside my door and windows, and the neighbors not too close, and not visible, and blessed quiet. :) So, a car is a necessity. I love a road trip too.

My worry is for those people it would put out of work. Not everyone is college material and the good paying jobs, of which trucking is one, are going to disappear.

----------


## bicicleur

car sales are dropping here
politicians interfere without any clear strategy nor knowledge
what they subsidise today, they tax tomorrow
nobody knows what kind of car they should buy
so they postpone and keep driving their old cars

----------


## Angela

> car sales are dropping here
> politicians interfere without any clear strategy nor knowledge
> what they subsidise today, they tax tomorrow
> nobody knows what kind of car they should buy
> so they postpone and keep driving their old cars


This is my problem with the whole climate change debate. It's not based on reason and information.

If the Tesla's are being run on electricity produced by oil and gas plants than what the hell is the point???

Maybe in France they're run by nuclear power? That certainly produces fewer greenhouse gases, but even Japan with all its technology had a huge problem.

A country like Italy could never do it. A map of the seismic faults looks like a crumpled piece of paper. 

Until those electric cars are powered by solar energy and the cost to "power them up" is in a reasonable range, count me out. 

Not that you would ever listen to them, but Hollywood types or celebrities of any type should not be looked to for advice. They should stick to acting and singing, and leave such discussions to people who are actually educated in these matters. There will still be bias and disagreement, but at least it will be informed disagreement. 

I've had enough of them flying around on private jets while lecturing me on climate change.

Plus, who is kidding who??? We have nowhere near the impact on climate change that China and India have and will increasingly have. Why doesn't that European girl go protest in front of "their" embassies. Go home and figure out how the world works.

----------


## Wheal

I have to agree with Angela on this. You still have to produce the electricity to power your car and I think it will be a very long time before the batteries can be sufficient for people that don't live in cities and drive 100 miles each day doing their daily activities/work. And the deal with the Hollywood types is even worse if you consider that California can't even produce enough electricity to supply their own state and have to rely on other states to supply them. And the reason they don't? It's because they don't want that 'pollution' in their state.

----------


## Ailchu

> This is my problem with the whole climate change debate. It's not based on reason and information.


agree with the hypocrisy that is going on. imo we will never actually do something effective. in the end people just try to make money with it again no matter if their products are usefull or not.

but what do you mean with the climate change debate not beeing based on reason and information? what is your opinion on climate change? do you think climate change is real? if so, do you have an idea what people should do? did you change your own life a bit? like for example using the car as little as possible or not using the airplane or eating less meat?

----------


## Angela

The debate isn't based on reason because people don't even factor in the fact that the electricity is being produced the same old way it always was for the most part, or perhaps by nuclear power, which has its own huge issues. The same people against oil and gas and coal are usually also against nuclear power, at least here. Even if you're for nuclear power, as things stand now you're probably not polluting less than someone driving a low emissions gas powered vehicle.

The U.S. isn't Europe. It's vast, and people are very mobile. I thought nothing of driving close to 200 miles each way every weekend to go see my parents after I moved away. Driving 30 miles each way to work is common.

As for climate change itself, yes, I believe fossil fuels are impacting it, but I have no idea to what extent it's worse than it would be anyway because the data doesn't exist back far enough. What I do know is that we've had climate fluctuations before the massive population the planet now sustains and cars and factories and massive herds of cows, and I'm not talking about the ones thousands and thousands of years ago. We had a "mini" one in the Middle Ages.

Plus, from what I've been able to glean as a "lay person", we're overdue for an ice age. What if the "warming" is staving it off? An ice age would be a lot bigger problem than losing some shoreline.

Until the scientists stop massaging the data either for leftist think tanks or oil and gas companies and try to give us some objective data, I don't know what to think.

I know it's hard to imagine a life so dissimilar to life in Europe, but the closest supermarket to me is about 2 miles away. How can I load up on the weekly grocery shopping on foot? I suppose I could get a few staples using the granny cart, but that's about it. :) The elementary school is perhaps a mile away, but the middle school and high school much further. Same goes for regular shops. There is no functioning without your car. 

Yes, I carpooled for the trip into NYC and back for work and I often take the train for going in for entertainment purposes, but I can't carpool for the other things. Plus, most American cities are new, created after the age of the automobile, and don't have trains or public transit of any kind. NYC is better in that way, but those kinds of solutions won't work for most Americans. San Francisco doesn't even have taxis roaming around, which is damn inconvenient if you didn't drive in. Plus, there's no place to park. Maybe with uber it's more convenient.

No, I haven't given up using airplanes. How could I get to San Francisco if not by plane, or even Boston or Washington, D.C.? Our distances are vast. A person with two or three weeks vacation a year doesn't have ten days to drive one way from N.Y. to S.F. spend a few days there and then ten days back, nor, frankly, the desire to drive hours and hours each day for days on end. I don't even drive from N.Y. to Florida, although I'd like to because then I don't have to rent a car down there. My son has done it twice but stopped because it's two days of constant driving each way. It makes no sense if you have seven days off. I can't do that anymore period. For the only train service where I can bring my car, I have to drive five hours plus to Washington D.C. and then drive 3 hours from Orlando to my condo. Plus, you're sleeping in a train seat the whole night. I tried it once. My back didn't thank me. We're not all in our early twenties.

That young girl pontificating about climate change just irritated the hell out of me. I was a teenager and a twenty something too, arrogant in my certainty that I knew exactly how everything worked. Now I'm only arrogant about my certainty that if you have any brains you should be certain of almost nothing. :)

----------


## Wheal

@ailchu-I do believe in climate change. Are cow's causing it? Then did dinosaurs cause it too? Our climate has been changing for centuries and I don't think it was from airplanes long ago. Could humans be adding to it now? yes, they could be. But do we destroy half the human population? Land mass movement also causes the climate to change in areas that move north or south. Tsunami's also cause the earth to shift on it's axis. None of these things are ever discussed in our country. And like Angela commented, it seems only to apply to us lowly peons that don't own private jets or have access to them to fly around the world.

----------


## Ailchu

> @ailchu-I do believe in climate change. Are cow's causing it? Then did dinosaurs cause it too? Our climate has been changing for centuries and I don't think it was from airplanes long ago. Could humans be adding to it now? yes, they could be. But do we destroy half the human population? Land mass movement also causes the climate to change in areas that move north or south. Tsunami's also cause the earth to shift on it's axis. None of these things are ever discussed in our country. And like Angela commented, it seems only to apply to us lowly peons that don't own private jets or have access to them to fly around the world.


what i get from your text is, that what is happening now is normal to some extent and that we shouldn't care that much about it. is that your argument? if that's the case why would you even care about grey engergy of electric cars? they have other benefits like making no noise, no smell or dirt that people have to breath.

i know that the climate changed naturally throughout earths history. but we know that it is happening faster than it would normally happen, we know that it is caused by us, we know that it is endangering many animal species, we know that many human populations will get problems too. and yet we don't care. 
when the people are flying around the globe in private jets are critizised it is exactly many of those lowly peons that defend them. those people are popular because most people don't care about their wrong doings.

----------


## bicicleur

> what i get from your text is, that what is happening now is normal to some extent and that we shouldn't care that much about it. is that your argument? if that's the case why would you even care about grey engergy of electric cars? they have other benefits like making no noise, no smell or dirt that people have to breath.
> 
> i know that the climate changed naturally throughout earths history. but we know that it is happening faster than it would normally happen, we know that it is caused by us, we know that it is endangering many animal species, we know that many human populations will get problems too. and yet we don't care. 
> when the people are flying around the globe in private jets are critizised it is exactly many of those lowly peons that defend them. those people are popular because most people don't care about their wrong doings.


the changes that are happening now are not abnormal and are not faster than changes that happened before
the younger dryas and 8,2 ka climate change happened much faster
during the Eemian, sea level was 8 meter higher than today
a problem today is that people have invested in infrastructure and real estate - much of it along the sea shores - and can't move any more
some areas may become problematic, but others more north offer new opportunities
it is now possible to grow tomatoes in greenhouses in Greenland, where never before fresh vegetables were available and land prices in Greenland are rising
another major problem is population growth, 7,5 billion people on earth today, an explosion since the industrial revolution

however I agree that there is an imbalance in CO2 concentration caused by human activity and that it will cause extreme conditions on the long run if we don't restore this imbalance
the solutions have to come from technological innovations which we don't have yet
I don't think electric cars are the solution
nuclear energy or hydrogen fuel technology might bring the solution

those climate alarmists talking about extreme situations already happening today are irritating me
they don't bring any solution whatsoever

----------


## mha

Electric cars are a better idea than internal combustion machines. It's not that all problems implementing a new system are already resolved, but a global change in mass transportation is only at its dawn, there is still plenty left to learn and develop. 

Experts recently said that only question about recycling batteries is still widely open. It's sort of chicken and egg problem, as for any recycling you need industrial-scale production first to be economical. And different battery technologies are heavily researched still, so it's hard to work on recycling technologies without knowing, which battery chemistry will prevail in the future.

We mustn't forget all the implications, which are hidden in the oil economy. Especially global politics. I think that I would be even prepared to take inferior transportation system, just to get rid of oil from international politics. 

The real issue is, of course, consumer society. Maybe this transformation of mass transport will be one small step toward a way out of it. It's not small thing changing so deeply entrenched habits.

----------


## Ailchu

> the changes that are happening now are not abnormal and are not faster than changes that happened before
> the younger dryas and 8,2 ka climate change happened much faster
> during the Eemian, sea level was 8 meter higher than today
> a problem today is that people have invested in infrastructure and real estate - much of it along the sea shores - and can't move any more
> some areas may become problematic, but others more north offer new opportunities
> it is now possible to grow tomatoes in greenhouses in Greenland, where never before fresh vegetables were available and land prices in Greenland are rising
> another major problem is population growth, 7,5 billion people on earth today, an explosion since the industrial revolution
> 
> however I agree that there is an imbalance in CO2 concentration caused by human activity and that it will cause extreme conditions on the long run if we don't restore this imbalance
> ...


can you give me a source for the comment that the changes now are not abnormal and are not faster than before? and if there were such changes in the past already could it be that they were also tied to sudden increases in the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and could these sudden changes in temperature also have lead to massextinctions?

during the eemian there were also hippos living at the rhine. if the worst case prognoses are correct we might reach temperature levels close to those of the eemian in 2050. we already reached similar CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere in 2015. but the increase of the surface temperature is delayed.

not only people close to the shores will have problems, also people who live in dry regions like certain places in africa or the mediterranean.

the population growth might not be such a big problem in the future. it's more our way of living. the global population growth seems to be slowing down and migth hit a maximum soon. a decrease of the population size would certainly not hurt though.

----------


## bicicleur

> can you give me a source for the comment that the changes now are not abnormal and are not faster than before? and if there were such changes in the past already could it be that they were also tied to sudden increases in the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and could these sudden changes in temperature also have lead to massextinctions?
> 
> during the eemian there were also hippos living at the rhine. if the worst case prognoses are correct we might reach temperature levels close to those of the eemian in 2050. we already reached similar CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere in 2015. but the increase of the surface temperature is delayed.
> 
> not only people close to the shores will have problems, also people who live in dry regions like certain places in africa or the mediterranean.
> 
> the population growth might not be such a big problem in the future. it's more our way of living. the global population growth seems to be slowing down and migth hit a maximum soon. a decrease of the population size would certainly not hurt though.


the younger dryas was a temperature drop of 2-3° C in 1 or 2 decades

I don't know whether the Eemian hippos where from the same branch as those in Africa today and what climate they thrived in

yes some areas will become problematic, as has been in the past too
since the end of the LGM we have benefited from a very favourable climate which is one of the reasons of the population growth
a new temperature drop would be more dramatic for life on earth than the temperature rise that is expected now

another reason for population growth is human inventiveness and technology which eliminated many diseases and made life very comfortable
if we hadn't had the explosion in population growth CO2 concentrations would be much easier to handle
nevertheless I belive in human inventiveness and technology to overcome this challenge too

I acknowledge there is a problem and it is good that people become aware of it but I reject alarmism and measures inspired by panic
none of the projections of Al Gores movie became reality
the sole purpose was creating panic and putting himself in the spotlight
it will take several decades before we find a final solution, but these kind of actions could remove the credibility of the alarmists even before that time

----------


## Ailchu

> the younger dryas was a temperature drop of 2-3° C in 1 or 2 decades


can we or should we even used this for comparison? it was not a global temperature decrease, some areas got colder others got warmer and certainly some areas were not really affected. 
anyways what is the point to make comparisons? that we can see what massive effects those changes have on the ecosystems? we know modern climat change is human made or don't we? 




> yes some areas will become problematic, as has been in the past too
> since the end of the LGM we have benefited from a very favourable climate which is one of the reasons of the population growth
> a new temperature drop would be more dramatic for life on earth than the temperature rise that is expected now


depends on how the temperature is going to change



> another reason for population growth is human inventiveness and technology which eliminated many diseases and made life very comfortable
> if we hadn't had the explosion in population growth CO2 concentrations would be much easier to handle
> nevertheless I belive in human inventiveness and technology to overcome this challenge too


sure if it didn't happen it would be easier but it happened and it might continue for a bit now. but that's just how it is now. you can't tell people to not have children, i mean i still have the opinion that there is no reason to have children, but people need to get to this conclusion themselves. it has been shown that with the increase in education of the women the number of births decreases on all continents. so in the future the population might not get much bigger than it is now. and even if, with the right technologies and politics the population might be able to be way bigger in the future without any problems. the challenge will be to distribute people especially when certain regions might become uninhabitable. 




> I acknowledge there is a problem and it is good that people become aware of it but I reject alarmism and measures inspired by panic
> none of the projections of Al Gores movie became reality
> the sole purpose was creating panic and putting himself in the spotlight
> it will take several decades before we find a final solution, but these kind of actions could remove the credibility of the alarmists even before that time


which measures against climate change are inspired by panic and alarmism in your opinion? and which measures are reasonable for you? are there any that should or should not be taken now?

----------


## bicicleur

weren't there biomass power plants built that afterwards proved very harmful?
do you think it was the right decision of Germany to hastily stop nuclear power and switch to the polluting coal plants again?
do you think these gas power plants are a good idea? they lose a lot of methane (20 times strong greenhouse gas than CO2) in the air and they are not CO2-efficient
cars on LNG which are promoted and subsidised as eco-friendly now appear more harmful to the climate than petrol or diesel cars

these are all measurements taken by politicians to create a green image but afterwards proved more harmful than beneficial
how long do you think the taxpayer will put up with this?

and these are decisions that proved hazardous, no matter the costs

but there is more
I believe we realy should weigh the costs and the efforts compared to the benefits
the world is also facing other challenges than climate change
climate change has to be handled, but we shouldn't stop the world from turning

but I see that you are confident too, you believe the population might become even way bigger
for many of them climate is not a priority, first they want food and then they want proper, comfortable housing and then they are dreaming of their own car

----------


## bigsnake49

> weren't there biomass power plants built that afterwards proved very harmful?
> do you think it was the right decision of Germany to hastily stop nuclear power and switch to the polluting coal plants again?
> do you think these gas power plants are a good idea? they lose a lot of methane (20 times strong greenhouse gas than CO2) in the air and they are not CO2-efficient
> cars on LNG which are promoted and subsidised as eco-friendly now appear more harmful to the climate than petrol or diesel cars
> 
> these are all measurements taken by politicians to create a green image but afterwards proved more harmful than beneficial
> how long do you think the taxpayer will put up with this?
> 
> and these are decisions that proved hazardous, no matter the costs
> ...


Please provide a reputable source for your assertion that natural gas plants are more polluting than coal. Or that natural gas based cars are more polluting than gasoline or diesel cars.

All I know is that there was/is a building boom around downtown Orlando/Tampa mainly by millennials. They don't want the 20+ miles commute. They don't need a car, they take Uber everywhere. 

Soon enough the batteries will last long enough for an interstate trip. Give a little bit of time. Soon enough the parking lots of these huge companies like Dell or Intel or Microsoft will be covered with solar panels (Intel has already started). You could charge your car for the trip home.

Some states already are taxing electric cars more because they are losing gas taxes. There has been enough of an impact.

I am seeing a lot more Teslas on the road. Some of the same people that used to buy BMWs are now buying newer model Teslas (Model X). 

Our utility (FPL) still does not reimburse you enough for your solar energy but will gladly sell you solar energy from one of their solar plants. BTW, one of their subsidiaries, Nextera is the largest producer of renewable energy in the US. All over US and Europe, the utilities are transforming. The transportation sector is next.

There are changes everywhere. Get used to them.

----------


## Ailchu

> weren't there biomass power plants built that afterwards proved very harmful?
> do you think it was the right decision of Germany to hastily stop nuclear power and switch to the polluting coal plants again?
> do you think these gas power plants are a good idea? they lose a lot of methane (20 times strong greenhouse gas than CO2) in the air and they are not CO2-efficient
> cars on LNG which are promoted and subsidised as eco-friendly now appear more harmful to the climate than petrol or diesel cars
> 
> these are all measurements taken by politicians to create a green image but afterwards proved more harmful than beneficial
> how long do you think the taxpayer will put up with this?
> 
> and these are decisions that proved hazardous, no matter the costs
> ...


i see some of those fails as proof that some politicians have 0 interesst to take effective measures or they have no idea about it. a lot of these recent protests are also taking place because of how ineffective and useless some efforts are while real measurements get little support. and it is hard for some people to hear, that right now there is nothing to do but maybe in a few decades with the right technologies. because this isn't true.

now, can you also think of reasonable measurements that could be done now?




> but I see that you are confident too, you believe the population might become even way bigger
> for many of them climate is not a priority, first they want food and then they want proper, comfortable housing and then they are dreaming of their own car


i don't see why it should matter if the population grows, it's possible that it happens and if it happens it is certainly solvable. yes, all these people won't really care about climate change. but what is your point? do you have a solution?

----------


## bicicleur

indeed, most politicians don't care about the effictiveness of the measures, they care more about their image
they see taking measures as image-building

that being said, there are also many 'activists' mingling into the conversation who don't have any idea about effective measurements
their main purpose is seems to be creating a feeling of 'guilt' among the population
it is a strategy that doesn't work, and probably will even become counterproductive

we have to stimulate innovation and technology and study the effectiveness of technologies and measurements
solar and wind energy have proven their effectiveness if applied in proper places and well integrated in the total energy mix
I don't think it will ever fullfill all needs
I wouldn't shut down nuclear energy plants before the end of their life cycle if they are situated in the right place
I like electric bikes, it makes sense to me, especially for commuting, but I'm sceptical about electric cars
my hopes for transporation are on hydrogen fuel, probably hybrid with electric to increase energy efficiency

and yes, we have to make people conscious and avoid waste and spoiling energy, but we shouldn't become fundamentalist on that

overpopulation has certainly contributed to the problem
I believe finding the technological solutions and apply them in the developped world won't be the biggest challenge
finding the resources to apply these solutions wordlwide, also in dictatorships and underdevellopped areas will be harder

but for the moment we even don't have the technologies yet
as I mentioned earlier, I believe it will take several decades, if not more than a century
well .. technology has achieved a lot in 1 century
and there is no reason not to believe it will again in the coming century

----------


## Angela

I suggest the activists focus their efforts on China and India...

"EU nations are closing coal fired power stations to combat #climatechange ... while China is opening its LONGEST coal transporting railway line, which will carry 200 million tonnes of coal to coal fired power stations. Quote Tweet People's Daily, China @PDChina · Jul 23, 2019 Menghua Railway, China’s LONGEST coal transporting railway line, is expected to be put in operation in Oct. The 1,837-km railway will carry 200 million tonnes of coal annually from N China's Inner Mongolia to E China's Jiangxi."

----------


## Farstar

I recommend to follow https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/with_replies for rationality on climate change.

----------


## [email protected]

> I recommend to follow https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/with_replies for rationality on climate change.


I don't know what's true or not about this issue. I expect I must believe the "experts," but their warnings are undercut by the hypocrisy of their supporters in Hollywood and at Windsor. It doesn't help the cause to have the Prince of Wales tell us to live a simpler life in order to save the planet, then to have him get into his limousine and ride back to his palace. And it looks bad (an understatement) when climate summits are attended by hundreds who arrive there in private jets; hasn't anyone heard of Video Tele-Conference?

I think the appropriate quote is, "I'll believe it's a crisis when people who tell me it's a crisis act like it's a crisis."

----------


## bigsnake49

Now, let's separate the hyperbole of headlines from the facts. It is a fact that in California the dry season starts a little earlier and ends a bit later. It is also a fact that there are more hot days per year. That helps with having a lot of ready made fire fuel. But you won't have a fire without ignition. That ignite in the middle of the summer in California does not come from thunderstorms unless you're talking the northeast par and the high elevations of Sierra Nevada. It come mainly from badly maintained power lines and power lines touching trees. The bread is aided by fierce winds but you need ignition first. So does human-related global warming play a role? Sure but human related activities such as badly maintained power lines play a bigger role. 
As far as electric cars are concerned, I appreciate the fact that electric cars are both quiet and non-polluting. I still want electric cars replacing fossil fuel cars but first get rid of diesel trucks. They are a hell more polluting than cars. Move long distance loads by rail which is about ten times more efficient and have local electric trucks distribute the load locally. 90% of the worlds trade gets moved by ship. A reduction 5 knots in speed leads to a reduction of up to 50% in fuel consumption. According to scientists 18% of global warming is attributable to black soot. Imagine eliminating all the black soot produced by all the means of transportation. Not only you are eliminating a major source of global warming but you also don't have to breathe it. Or imagine eliminating all that noise pollution.

----------


## Charlie Roarke

The question remains how electric car manufacturers plan to dispose of batteries. I have read tons of articles about that but found no clear answers there  :Sad:  I myself am considering an electric car, but the question of the battery is a dilemma for me.

----------


## Charlie Roarke

> The question remains how electric car manufacturers plan to dispose of batteries. I have read tons of articles about that but found no clear answers there  I myself am considering an electric car, but the question of the battery is a dilemma for me. Anyway I am going to get a Tesla via Carplus when Elon opens their brand store in my region.


Also there is a problem with manufacturing electric cars as there is constant lack of batteries or chips or whatever.

----------


## bigsnake49

> The question remains how electric car manufacturers plan to dispose of batteries. I have read tons of articles about that but found no clear answers there  I myself am considering an electric car, but the question of the battery is a dilemma for me.


They take them out of cars when they are at 80% capacity and use them in large grid batteries. I am sure the lithium is too expensive to just throw away and they recycle it. Tesla will be changing their battery chemistry to lithium ion phosphate which are much longer lasting (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/10...ries-globally/). So they won't have to change them as often.

----------

