New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

I don't know how that emoji got in there. Fat fingered perhaps.

No seriously, this will change my mind. I searched, couldn't find anything convincing.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Also, plants need CO2. By trying to eliminate that, you'll be hurting them in the process.

Jesus, are you kidding? Show me how 250ppm CO2 was so terrible for plants…

Plants were good, animals were good, climate was relatively stable.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Plants were good, animals were good, climate was relatively stable.

So plants and animals that have always existed are not to be blamed.
What are some of the biggest sources then? Are you willing to start with yourself to solve it? Until you do that, I can't take anything you say seriously.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

What are some of the biggest sources then?

[Dadhawk]

Based in @ZDan's pie chart then we have a two pronged problem. We need to reduce the transportation slice, without increasing the Electric Power slice. Of course since this is a percentage chart, the "percents" have to go somewhere.

What would be more helpful though is if Transportation was broken down a bit. A pretty small piece of that is personal vehicles. Planes, Trains, and Ships make up most of that 27%.

[chipmunk]

And what's gonna happen to that 25% from electricity generation?

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

So plants and animals that have always existed are not to be blamed.
What are some of the biggest sources then? Are you willing to start with yourself to solve it? Until you do that, I can't take anything you say seriously.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

As stated above, the biggest issue with hydrogen adoption isn't public fear; it is practicality. Hydrogen cars have been exclusive to California because it was where Toyota and the state agreed to invest in fueling stations, but there are few to date. It is less green than BEVs over the life of the car.

I think they will be there in the future, but I just don't think it will be necessary or best. Solid state sodium sulfur batteries will reduce cost and be more energy dense, so range anxiety will be non-existent, and even without them, battery swapping in the future would be better than refueling with hydrogen. Battery swapping would allow the use of smaller batteries for daily needs and larger batteries for long trips, which means we wouldn't need 100kWh battery cars as the norm--more like 25kWh battery cars. These would be much lighter and cheaper to produce--far cheaper.

My comment is anecdotal. As you know, anything negative someone can find on something they are against, they will cling to without looking into it any further.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

anything negative someone can find on something they are against, they will cling to without looking into it any further.

YES. Exactly.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Based in @ZDan's pie chart then we have a two pronged problem. We need to reduce the transportation slice, without increasing the Electric Power slice. Of course since this is a percentage chart, the "percents" have to go somewhere.

It's not clean per se, but this is the most practical application I see for carbon capture. They have that plant up and running in TX this year along with other places in the world. The plant makes it's own fuel on site.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Based in @ZDan's pie chart then we have a two pronged problem. We need to reduce the transportation slice, without increasing the Electric Power slice. Of course since this is a percentage chart, the "percents" have to go somewhere.

Going strictly by CO2 emissions, on average you do reduce them by about 27% swapping from *non plug-in hybrid* transportation to electric according to one MIT study:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/26/life...perts-say.html

Going from ICE to EV cuts CO2 emissions about in half, from ~400 g/mile to ~200 g/mile

IMO we could do more by reducing demand (see more below), but still moving from ICEs will be at least part of the answer to reduce emissions.,

What would be more helpful though is if Transportation was broken down a bit. A pretty small piece of that is personal vehicles. Planes, Trains, and Ships make up most of that 27%.

"Light-duty" vehicles (that's us) makes up 57%, "planes trains and ships" make up 12%:
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fa...-gas-emissions

Originally Posted by chipmunk

And what's gonna happen to that 25% from electricity generation?

As we move towards electric vehicles? The "electricity generation" percentage will go up but CO2 emissions will be reduced. More so if/as we transition to clean energy.

There are things we could do to reduce CO2 emissions without transitioning to electric, things we should be doing anyway.
1. incentivize 4- and 3-day work weeks
2. incentivize working from home
3. require employers to pay well enough that employees can afford to live a reasonable distance from work
4. invest in public transportation
etc.

The MAJOR portion of "light-duty" vehicle emissions is people commuting a long way to work 5 days a week. You think those people are HAPPY doing that?! I have to do it two days a week and my impression is most are quite the opposite of happy about it.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by ZDan

"Light-duty" vehicles (that's us) makes up 57%, "planes trains and ships" make up 12%:

But reducing the emissions on the 12% will actually have a bigger impact because the "pollution per unit" is significantly higher. For example, there are only about 25,000 commercial and cargo aircraft in service around the globe vs 1.45 Billion registered cars in the world.

So, by unit we are back to planes, trains and ships.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Help me out here - are you talking about global warming, or climate change? Are they the same or is there a difference? Can you point me to some scientific studies that causatively, not correlatively, show that carbondioxide causes temperature rise, and not the other way around?
Also, plants need CO2. By trying to eliminate that, you'll be hurting them in the process.

How exactly are you going to produce all that extra electricity is 50, 60, 70 % of all US cars are EVs?

Global warming is the measured increase of average global temperatures. Climate change is the measurable extremes seen due to global warming. For instance, if average ocean temperatures are warmer than hurricanes pick up more heat energy can on average are larger and more destructive. Climate change can lead to an area getting colder or warmer in extremes or extremes in weather anomalies, even if the global averages are higher.

Here is a basic experiment showing CO2 trapping heat.

We aren't eliminating CO2. The world produces CO2 and absorbs it in a balance. Volcanic ash, fires and other natural phenomenon releases CO2 and plants absorb CO2. We just want to get the CO2 back to historically normal levels that don't pose a threat, but more importantly, we want to avoid continuing to dump excess CO2. In 2019 human activity dumped an extra 43 billion metric tons of CO2 in the atmosphere that wouldn't have happened if we didn't exist.

Nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, tidal, geothermal, bacteria and anything else I am missing. We will build these power plants. I'm missing what you find confusing about that?

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by ZDan

The "electricity generation" percentage will go up but CO2 emissions will be reduced.

Please elaborate how this will happen. Still a lot of data unclear. The definitions of the terms used, what all the categories encompass, what data points are omitted or include, what sample space, etc.

In addition to increased electricity generation, now you're looking at emissions due to the production of the equipment to hold the electricity. While the claims of using sulphur and sodium are in the nascent stage, we're still dependent on countries like Myanmar and China for raw materials. And nothing has been proved yet with sulphur and sodium.

In fact, the trend from EPA's website doesn't look bad at all. Since around 2005 it has been on a decline.