| Pages:
1
..
50
51
52
53
54
..
122 |
JDCanuck
Super Nomad
Posts: 1669
Registered: 2-22-2020
Member Is Offline
|
|
New Chev Silverado base EV already sold out 1 year in advance, priced the same as the original F-150 Lightning Pro at just under 40,000 before
rebates. Luxury models run all the way up over 100,000 in price.
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/pictures/2024-chevy-silverado-...
|
|
|
Don Pisto
Banned
Posts: 1282
Registered: 8-1-2018
Location: El Pescador
Member Is Offline
Mood: weary like everyone else
|
|
without getting into the whole EV debate, that sure is a purdy work truck!
there's only two things in life but I forget what they are........
John Hiatt
|
|
|
JDCanuck
Super Nomad
Posts: 1669
Registered: 2-22-2020
Member Is Offline
|
|
This is the stripped down fleet model, similar to the original F-150 Lightning Pro. Due to high initial demand on the work vehicles, they will be
selling the "luxury" ones for much higher prices. North Americans love their luxury trucks, it seems.
Similar to the fleet model of the F-150 Lightning Pro, they should be able to buy these with full rebates for the cost of an inexpensive small car and
realize next to no, if any depreciation for the first 5 years on top of the reduced operating expenses to use them as work trucks.
[Edited on 5-19-2023 by JDCanuck]
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7084
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
I heard on the radio news that EVs chew up tires 30 to 50% faster cuz of the extra weight. Great!! More tire dust to breathe, more COPD. Unintended
consequences.
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18377
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by SFandH  |
I heard on the radio news that EVs chew up tires 30 to 50% faster cuz of the extra weight. Great!! More tire dust to breathe, more COPD. Unintended
consequences. |
E motos have much greater acceleration, so increased tire wear probably mostly from lead-foot driving
Woke!
“...ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America
will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
Prefered gender pronoun: the royal we
|
|
|
surabi
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4920
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by tomieharder |
Honey, how many times are you going to do your virtue signaling right after getting off the Airbus 300 you flew from Vancouver to Puerto Vallarta?
That plane consumed 4,500 gallons of fuel to carry your butt all that distance. That is 9 times what the average car in the US consumes in an entire
year of use.
/rquote]
First of all, addressing me as "Honey" is a misogynist's typical method of dismissing what a woman has to say.
Secondly, an airplane doesn't use 4500 gallons of fuel to transport me from Vancouver to Puerto Vallarta- it uses that much fuel to transport over 400
passengers, so about 10 gallons per person. And considering that most passengers weigh far more than I do, like double in this day and age of mass
obesity, it probably is more like 5 gallons per small person like me.
None of us is perfect when it comes to doing what we can to be environmentally conscious. That doesn't mean that suggesting and living in ways to
lessen our impact is "virtue-signalling" or that we have no right to discuss those things because we occasionally take an airline flight.
[Edited on 5-20-2023 by surabi]
[Edited on 5-20-2023 by surabi] |
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18377
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
a commercial airliner gets 40 to 100 mpg per pax.
2 to 4 pax in a 30 mpg car often gets mileage per pax than an airliner.
you people driving solo or double in a v8 pickup probably are less efficient than an airliner.
Btw, you jet setters get around 0.5 mpg per passenger when you fly private jets.
;;;
SOCIAL COST OF CARBON
The social cost of carbon (SCC) is an estimate of the cost, in dollars, of the damage done by each additional ton of carbon emissions. It also is an
estimate of the benefit of any action taken to reduce a ton of carbon emissions.
HOW IS THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON USED?
Policymakers who are weighing regulatory proposals that may increase or curb carbon emissions can use the SCC as an input to their decisions. For
example, if a policy to prevent one ton of carbon emissions costs less than the SCC, then the benefits of the policy outweigh the costs and it pays
for itself in the long run. If the policy is more expensive than the SCC, the costs outweigh the benefits. Currently, the federal governments of both
the U.S. and Canada, as well as several states, use the SCC when considering policy options.
The SCC has been used to determine fuel economy standards in the U.S., and five states require electric utility companies to consider the SCC in their
operations. Though these considerations might increase household and business expenses in the short term, if a policy costs less than the SCC, excess
carbon emissions in the long term would have cost society even more than the increased prices of goods in the short term.
WHAT ARE THE ESTIMATES OF THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON?
They vary. The Obama administration initially estimated the social cost of carbon at $43 a ton globally, while the Trump administration only
considered the effects of carbon emissions within the United States, estimating the number to be between $3 and $5 per ton. As it stands, the official
estimate from the Biden administration is $51, but in November 2022, the EPA proposed a nearly fourfold increase to $190. (The EPA is weighing public
comments on that proposal.)
——
Learn more:
Stanford explainer: Social cost of carbon
https://news.stanford.edu/2021/06/07/professors-explain-soci...
What are the greatest costs associated with carbon emissions?
The short answer: The greatest costs to an economy depend on its structure, but significant costs associated with carbon emissions include impacts on
agriculture, human health and labor productivity.
Longer answer: This is still debated. The costs depend to some degree on how an economy is structured. In many tropical countries, impacts on
agriculture are likely the most important. In industrialized countries such as the U.S., where agriculture is a small share of the overall economic
output, impacts on health and labor productivity are the most important effects.
For example, many studies now show very clearly that our productivity at work declines quickly as the temperature gets hot. If that happens to every
single person in an economy, even if the temperature has gone up only a little bit, economy-wide effects can be quite large.
There’s also very good research showing that hotter temperatures lead to worse health outcomes. Hot temperatures directly affect cardiovascular
function and that is linked with heat stroke and heat-related deaths. Homicides, suicides and traffic accidents also all go up in response to high
temperatures.
[Edited on 5-20-2023 by mtgoat666]
Woke!
“...ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America
will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
Prefered gender pronoun: the royal we
|
|
|
TMW
Select Nomad
Posts: 10659
Registered: 9-1-2003
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Member Is Offline
|
|
The EV chevy looks like the chevy Avalanche from the picture in the article.
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2462
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Delighted with 2024 and looking forward to 2025
|
|
Goat,
60 mpg Hybrid with 2 people and cargo goes from the 28th to Costco in Mexicali on 37L of gas!
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2462
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Delighted with 2024 and looking forward to 2025
|
|
Goat,
60 mpg Hybrid with 2 people and cargo goes from the 28th to Costco in Mexicali on 37L of gas!
|
|
|
tomieharder
Banned
Posts: 164
Registered: 10-21-2022
Member Is Offline
|
|
So then, Arizona has 16 coal-fired powerplants, which produce only 45% of the power demand, but 83% of the carbon dioxide emissions, so people like
Cooper can claim they are saving the environment by driving their EV, which they are charging with coal burning powerplants.
When are guys going to figure out that you don't have the complete story? How many tons of coal will need to be burned to produce the energy for your
EV trip to the border from the 28th? Hmmmmm?
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18377
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
Nomads drive 4x4 trucks! Driving a truck makes your pecker bigger!
Woke!
“...ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America
will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
Prefered gender pronoun: the royal we
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7084
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
Really? I'm gonna buy two! One-ton dually diesels, so I can tow my luxury 40-foot, triple axle, 5th-wheel pop-out condominium
to the beach and my 32-foot center-console fishing boat with triple 150 hp Honda outboards.
But hey, I have a low carbon footprint. I have 10 solar panels and 5 lithium batteries! 
I actually saw all of this stuff at Bahia Concepcion this past winter. Conspicuous consumption.
Consumerism is the root cause of atmospheric warming. You have to burn a lot of fossil fuel to make all the non-essential stuff people buy.
[Edited on 5-20-2023 by SFandH]
[Edited on 5-20-2023 by SFandH]
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2462
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Delighted with 2024 and looking forward to 2025
|
|
Goat,
Wrong as usual!
Frequent strenuous exercise not driving a big set of wheels is how you build up your body!
|
|
|
Cliffy
Senior Nomad
Posts: 986
Registered: 12-19-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
What is the cleanest "reliable" 24/7 power source available today?
Recycling its waste yields more usable material and lessens the total impact of the final waste product, except we can't do that because of a fear of
plutonium production. False hysterical fears governing policy.
I wonder how much CO2 humans and animals give off in relation to other emitters? Shall we include ants? The most numerous specie on the planet? I'm
asking, I don't know. Plants thrive on CO2 don't they?
Even in the article cited above there are "detractors" to it included in the article with cautious if not opposite views to the articles premise.
How long will it be before they are called "deniers" or heretics for their counter position? Scientists all but differing views.
Sounds like normal science to me
I wonder why that is a fear of one side of the question?
You chose your position in life today by what YOU did yesterday
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2462
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Delighted with 2024 and looking forward to 2025
|
|
Cliffy,
I believe that ants and termites are at the top of the CO2 list for multi-cell animals. They are also at the top of the list for Methane emission.
|
|
|
JZ
Select Nomad
Posts: 10546
Registered: 10-3-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
Scotland uses diesel generators to power wind farm.
https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2023/02/06/dozens-of-giant-t...
|
|
|
Cliffy
Senior Nomad
Posts: 986
Registered: 12-19-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
Has anyone here except me actually seen the thousands of wind machines off the European coast? Thousands of them
If the premise that they save on carbon emissions is true then there should be accessible data on cradle to grave cost vs electricity produced and a
prepaid for disposal scheme for when the all die (and they will), right now we have thousands of blades that can't be disposed of anywhere. What does
the future hold?
I've never heard that talked about.
Also in all my research I have never found any detailed information of how much ACTUAL time per day each wind generator actually produces electricity.
And I have searched for that data for over a decade. its not available.
Estimates are from 10% to 30% of the time they actually produce viable electricity.
My question still remains - What do we do (if we go total renewable wind and solar which is the current Holy Grail) at night when the wind doesn't
blow?
Also where doe we get the land for all the renewable generators? To go 100% we need to increase the current land mass devoted to them about 700%
Who's land you gonna put it on? Last I checked all the people in NE coast don't want them off their shore like they have in Europe.
Or is it like the current immigrant crisis- put them anywhere but in my city even if it is an "immigrant sanctuary",
Every proposed position has its draw backs.
Solve the issues before you mandate the program and you might get more support for your position.
You chose your position in life today by what YOU did yesterday
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7084
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
Iffy Cliffy,
All the questions you ask have been thought out to the Nth degree.
Keep reading.
I'm knowledgeable about the nuclear power industry. I'll try to answer any questions you may have about it that you can't find the answers to
yourself.
|
|
|
surabi
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4920
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy | hold?
My question still remains - What do we do (if we go total renewable wind and solar which is the current Holy Grail) at night when the wind doesn't
blow?
|
You keep asking this stupid question, which has been answered multiple times, and keep ignoring the answers. Are you purposely being obtuse, or does
it come naturally?
Your agenda is obviously not to gain understanding and information, but to come up with all kinds of reasons to oppose sustainable energy.
[Edited on 5-21-2023 by surabi]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
50
51
52
53
54
..
122 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
