New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

When I hear the news quoting a new correlation study saying seven eggs a week increases my risk of heart disease by 40%, but six eggs wasn’t statistically significant, I question the validity of the claim, regardless of the strength of the correlation and the degree to which they account for confounding variables like eating eggs with bacon or seven eggs also correlating to larger meals or excess fat....

Claims like the eggs should not use percentages because it has no context. Let's say 7 eggs did increase your chance of heart disease but your chance of heart disease is 1 in 100 persons, then you now have a chance of 1.4 in 100 persons of having heart disease. Not sure that is something worth worrying about.

Basically to know the whole story you need to know 40% more than what?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Claims like the eggs should not use percentages because it has not context. Let's say you 7 eggs did increase your change of heart disease but you chance of heart disease is 1 in 100 persons, then you now have a chance of 1.4 in 100 persons of having heart disease. Not sure that is something worth worrying about.

Basically to know the whole story you need to know 40% more than what?

Exactly. Good point. With that said, heart disease is the number one cause of death, typically early death:

[bcj]

So I should be considering aftermarket FI.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by bcj

So I should be considering aftermarket FI.

Do it while you can.

[Lantanafrs2]

I don't listen to the noise anymore. I read the Bible. It's been correct for 2000 yrs.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

I don't listen to the noise anymore. I read the Bible. It's been correct for 2000 yrs.

[soundman98]

Yep, the old testament is a lot older than 2,000 years.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by soundman98

Yep, the old testament is a lot older than 2,000 years.

And the New Testament is a lot newer than 2000 years.
Very little if any is 2000 years old.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

And the New Testament is a lot newer than 2000 years.
Very little if any is 2000 years old.

And it's been known to change from time to time.

[Sasquachulator]

Originally Posted by Spuds

And it's been known to change from time to time.

It should be called the New Telephone and the Old Telephone

[Irace86.2.0]

The hubris of thinking a single book has it all.

The Library of Congress, founded in 1800, is a book lover’s dream. With 164 million items and 1,350 kilometers of bookshelves, it’s the world’s largest library.

https://ru.usembassy.gov/explore-wor...ght-now-video/

There are a lot of scientific papers out there. One estimate puts the count at 1.8 million articles published each year, in about 28,000 journals.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...ple-180950222/

[weederr33]

I still vote we move towards hydrogen. But I also believe we should read a text book instead of a bible.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by weederr33

I still vote we move towards hydrogen. But I also believe we should read a text book instead of a bible.

The end of life carbon emissions are higher for hydrogen than BEVs currently on a mixed grid, and they still would be higher on a renewable grid, but the grid would need to be even bigger with hydrogen because of how inefficient hydrogen is from electricity generation to vehicle motion. When we move to sodium sulfur batteries, the emissions from battery production should drop significantly because sodium sulfur production will be greener, and the batteries will be much smaller. This is because the batteries are more energy dense, so they don't need to be as big, which means the cars will be lighter, and that also means the batteries won't need to be as big.

For hydrogen, to support desalination and electrolysis for hydrogen production, there would need to be massive infrastructure, and because hydrogen is far less efficient than BEVs, we would need to make far more renewable infrastructure for electricity generation, and then the gas stations would need to be converted to support hydrogen fuel, and that is far more expensive than putting up superchargers and plugging cars into the grid in a garage at home and work.

[weederr33]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

The end of life carbon emissions are higher for hydrogen than BEVs currently on a mixed grid, and they still would be higher on a renewable grid, but the grid would need to be even bigger with hydrogen because of how inefficient hydrogen is from electricity generation to vehicle motion. When we move to sodium sulfur batteries, the emissions from battery production should drop significantly because sodium sulfur production will be greener, and the batteries will be much smaller. This is because the batteries are more energy dense, so they don't need to be as big, which means the cars will be lighter, and that also means the batteries won't need to be as big.

For hydrogen, to support desalination and electrolysis for hydrogen production, there would need to be massive infrastructure, and because hydrogen is far less efficient than BEVs, we would need to make far more renewable infrastructure for electricity generation, and then the gas stations would need to be converted to support hydrogen fuel, and that is far more expensive than putting up superchargers and plugging cars into the grid in a garage at home and work.

Maybe it does. But EV is not the solution for a very long time.