Bob Roberts

The perceptions may be out of touch, but the statistics are the statistics. There is still a lot of education needed to change perceptions.

Needsdecaf

He just was given those by Ford in the past week. I think you're missing the point, which is not that EV's are winter capable. It's what the general buying public believes about EV's.

Exactly.

I get so many questions by my co-workers about my Tesla. The general public has no clue what a proper EV is capable of. You should see their faces when I tell them I've taken it to Dallas and back in the same day (roughly 480 miles round trip). They have no idea something like that is possible in an EV.

stealthpilot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GAdW4Xa3MU-

groundhog

Lol, of course the general public understand EVs - that’s why they’re not rushing out and buying them. For most, in most parts of the world the numbers don’t add up. Your average joe can’t afford to kit his house out with new panels, meaningful battery storage and then on top of that buy a relatively expensive new vehicle that doesn’t fit his needs. Nonetheless it seems fine for EV owners to suck down subsidies. The disconnect is amazing.

Also I noted the review by the long term EV owner in relation to the Taycan (as was posted above - Teslanomics) - where he pointed out the Taycan was much better than the Tesla product, and also, in all likelihood the Taycan had a different target market.

The funny thing about this is, this is what many of us understood months ago and said months ago. Some prefer quality over quantity.

I note you appear to think that someone has a closed mind because they don’t like a product. Yet don’t seem to understand they don’t like the product because they think its not up to the standards or performance requirements they are looking for (or frankly poorly made, cheap and nasty with poor reliability).

Tip, that’s not a closed mind, that is someone that has made a judgement call. Moreover, it’s an easy call to make.

Some are happy to pay for quality and or something different - others aren’t or can’t - these are facts of life.

evanevery

The "Average Joe" doesn't need to "kit his house out with new panels, meaningful battery storage". They just need to plug their EV into a 220V outlet. Hell, you can even charge them from a 15A 120V outlet if you have to. We did this for years with our volt.

All you really need is to run a 40 or 50A circuit (like you have for a drier or stove) to somewhere in your garage. Most people have more than enough power to do this. Especially if you charge at night (as most owners do...)

There is no magic required...

groundhog

Well of course you can simply plug it in - but that was never the point. The aim for the evsngelistas was to take as little power from the grid as possible and maximise power from direct renewables where possible.

I have always pointed out that this was a fallacious, disingenuous and even specious position (as advocated by many EV owners with a political persuasion) largely because that’s not how humans behave. As it turns out approximately 70% of drawer down is delivered by the grid (in relation to charging of EVs) - which has a series of longer term consequences for all.

AlexCeres

your straw man argument suffers from largely being completely false. Reducing tail pipe emissions and industrial emissions are two problems. Both need solving. I suppose I could say more, but you’re clearly disingenuous.

groundhog

Lol, the whole premise of Tesla was saving the world through EVs (actually that was Musks marketing angle to suck in the gullible, the gospel according to the electric Jesus).

Most "human" emissions are the product of producing energy via coal/oil/gas fired power stations - when you plug in, you drawer down from a variety of sources that often include large amounts of fossil fuel derived power capacity. Typically, 70% of charging of EVs is done from grid power.

Unless you are prepared to invest in large amounts of home based storage and extra panels to accomodate - you will be plugging into the grid, moreso if you have a multicar family.

Tesla and VW are both expanding into China a country that is adding around 230GW of coal fired power along with plenty of "retraining" camps - US and Europe exporting emissions whilst leaving ethical and moral considerations at home, another quality outcome brought to you by the vacuous evangelistas - all signalling and no clue.

Not to worry, Hanoi Jane is on the job - perhaps Electric Jesus and Hanoi Jane should visit a few camps to give them the all clear...........

If you want to solve a problem, you have to understand it first - if you don't understand the problem in the first place you will achieve little.

If the direct correlation between warming in the lower troposphere (as recorded by the UAH sat system) and changes in atmospheric CO2 (as recorded by the Mauna Loa observatory) over the last 35 years or so is 0,4 (40%) - then there is a huge problem with current perceived understanding and the hysteria attached to it. If you really think CO2 is the problem then you need to tackle China and India - tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock - sipping a latte and running around in a Tesla is much easier than doing something substantive.

To be clear the Taycan solves nothing either.........although at least its a quality product.

evanevery

You can power your EV from any number of sources (wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, nuclear, coal, gas,...). You can power your EV from sources which benefit from the economies of scale and which can't normally operate in such small packages as they would hauled around by an ICE.

If you have an issue of how your energy is being generated for your neighborhood, then you should take that up with your community. Its not the fault of your car (EV) if your house is not benefiting from clean power. There are many more options of how to power your home/EV than can be available to your ICE.

"Extending tailpipe emissions" is a misdirected excuse. Its a non-issue if you address the problem at the source...

Adk46

From a section of Wikipedia on climate models: "Atmospheric GCMs (AGCMs) model the atmosphere and impose sea surface temperatures as boundary conditions. Coupled atmosphere-ocean GCMs (AOGCMs, e.g. HadCM3, EdGCM, GFDL CM2.X, ARPEGE-Climat)[15]combine the two models."

Groundhog has studied these models thoroughly and determined that - despite their apparent sophistication - they are based on fake differential equations.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but this is an important subject, not something we should be overly polite about. Let the preponderance of scientific opinion guide your actions.

AlexCeres

groundhog has his drum and he’s going to beat it no matter what anyone says. It’s ironic to watch him insult and denigrate large swaths of people for being dumb. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing when you’re stuck down in his league.

groundhog

I have been to original sources and acquired key data myself.............and the correlation between CO2 and changes in lower troposphere temperatures over the last 35 years is 40% - this is a fact (based on data from UAH - sat and Mauna Loa observatory).

Over the last 500,000 years there have been numerous cooling events that have resulted in “ice ages” inter spaced with warm periods. These interglacial periods tend to be characterised by rapid warming followed by slow cooling - currently we are in an interglacial towards the end of a rapid warming phase.

These warming and cooling cycles are driven and caused by variation in total insolation. The primary driver of total insolation is the long term eccentricity of the earths orbit (with minor drivers being obliquity and precession). We are currently living in an interglacial period with further warming still to come.

Over many millions of years pCO2 levels have been up to 5 times higher than we are currently experiencing and life forms were as abundant and indeed likely more abundant than present.

These are the facts.

I have commented on the poor state, inaccuracy and imprecise nature of GW models on the basis of first principles going back to original methods of data collection, how that data was aggregated and from there how global temperatures were estimated.

The absolute reality is only recent data e.g, satellite derived atmospheric temperature measurements are sufficiently accurate and precise to generate meaningful trends (there are two long term satellites in orbit) - unfortunately this type of data (both high resolution and generally accurate - although a generic correction had to be applied to some recent UAH data) has been available for about 35 years.

One of the main reasons climate models have proved so inaccurate is because of the limited amount of consistent long term data from terrestrial measurement and more importantly the virtual absence of meaningful oceanic data - critical in assessing the huge impact that oceans and seas have on long term climate trends.

Indeed the debate is and should be taken seriously - unfortunately all many EV owners have is regurgitation, they lack the capacity to investigate and research - they can’t even construct a meaningful hypothesis worthy of testing.

The total lack of knowledge around whole earth systems through time and as demonstrated repeatedly by many Tesla owners (not all) on here is staggering.

Yet they buy EVs and broadcast their ignorance and stupidity to the world whilst sipping latte and living in a country that holds the all time cumulative record for emissions and then double down by supporting a company that is expanding in China even though it’s the worlds leading emitter of GHG, building a huge amount of coal fired capacity going forward and superimposed on this continues to build ever more re-education and re-training camps.

The only thing worse than a hypocrite is a dumb hypocrite - I guess latte with Hanoi Jane, is preferable to doing the hard yards.

As I said if you believe the world is about to collapse because of CO2 emission - the key is to focus on the key drivers of emissions - which means in the first instance you have to deal with China. That’s a lot harder task than buying a subsidised EV.................

Moral and ethical considerations are multi faceted and not singular however it seems singular hysterical views are embraced and further compounded by the inability of major institutions, such as the UN, to confront reality on so many levels and in a scientifically rigorous way.

Adk46

So, what is the most accurate estimate of how much CO2 we can put in the atmosphere without ill effect?

This question is largely rhetorical. I don't believe climate change skeptics have the slightest idea, convinced it's all just a hoax.

groundhog

The effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is non-linear. In fact, there is a logarithmic diminution of the influence CO2 on temperature - again this is a scientific fact. Science is like Nietzsche - most can read, but few understand.

"To find yourself, think for yourself" Socrates.

You didn't know that did you - no need to answer. The climate is always changing.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterly.../#5f5710ed205f

Another great review of the Taycan -"Game changing Porsche Taycan redefines electric performance"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterly.../#5f5710ed205f

Needsdecaf

thanks for the thinly veiled insults calling me and other Tesla owners poor and incapable of appreciating a quality product. I'm seriously sick of your sanctimonious crap. It's just dripping with condescension and privilege Or did you think I was too stupid to understand your insults? I really don't give a flying f*ck whether you like Tesla or not. Really, it bothers me not in the least. If it bothers you so much, why do you keep posting the same tired drivel. Hint? It's because you are the one who can't stand an opposing viewpoint not me. Shame you can't see that.