Time is running out (California folk)

[jbaccell]

Except for the lawn mower all of my power yard tools are electric. If the lawn mower dies, I'll probably go electric there too, but since it is a Honda and only 10 years old, I imagine it will still be going in 2045. I have a fairly small lawn so battery wed wacker and (eventually) lawn mower is fine.

I do have some gas chainsaws, but they are a hold over from when we lived in the mountains and burned 3-5 cords of wood each winter. They are a nuisance to use for most of my current yard needs. I get the Stihl out, once or twice every couple of years.
For limbing the trees or the occasional large tree branch coming down, my 12" cordless Ryobi does fine. No making up small batches of 2 stroke mix, 50% of which ends up sitting around until it goes bad.




This is my biggest gripe with the push to all electric. It is just not thought out, it is the typical "we have to do something, and this is something".

Electric cars as small light commuters are great, but I've read several articles now that shows how the push to make large cars with ranges comparing to IC cars is missing the point.

The battery in a Tesla ranges from 1000-1700 lbs. The new electric Ford F150 has a battery weighing 1800lbs, that is half the weight of my Subaru Forester. Compare that to a Nissan Leaf, whose battery weighs in at 650lbs, and the current generation has a range of 150-200 miles.

This has impacts on cost where development of small practical electric commuters is being sidelined for more profitable luxury EVs. Crash safety, big heavy vehicles are more dangerous to other cars on the road. The simply not very efficient. All that weight requires additional power to operate, costs more and results in additional wear on both the car and the roads. There is also the additional hazard of lithium being a flammable metal, and very difficult to control. People thought VW Beetles were bad in a fire.

Of course part of this is the same logic that has people commuting solo in large SUVs.


Again a comparison between an IC and an EV. A Tesla Model 3 (the smallest Tesla, and not a particularly big car) weighs 4000lbs. A Hybrid Toyota Corolla is about the same size but only weighs 1900lbs. In an accident the Model 3 is like getting hit by a pickup truck.


This all in on battery power is sidelining research on other potential clean technology. Hybrids are now well developed, significantly cleaner than pure IC cars, but they are no longer good enough since they still burn something.


This ban on small engines is similar. Sure battery tools work for many, but there are places where small gas or diesel engines just can't be replace yet. I'm still waiting to see how they intend to replace IC generators with electric since you typically need them where you have no electricity...

We just had a bad storm pass through here a day ago. Lost power for over a day and my family and I were able to save the food in the fridge and get by thanks to my IC generator. What is going to replace that and have they considered important uses of the engines before banning them and forcing other ill thought and sometimes outright absurd ideas down our throats. Not to mention the costs associated with this but I guess, they don't care if we can afford it or not.

 

[7milesup]

Like it or not, the cleanest form of electricity generation is nuclear... Look at France, they seem to do just fine using it.

100% agree. This nation changed direction over the perceived disaster at Three Mile Island. That change in direction was a tragedy.

 

[toprecyler]

The easiest way to avoid landfills is to give the customer a discount for the new one when the old one is returned. The same thing is done for current lead acid car batteries. Currently the customer gets a discount of between $10.00 and $15.00 depending on the size of the battery returned. Over 98% of the lead acid batteries are recycled

In my mind, it is not a discount. It is a fine if you do not return the old one. Just like the pop bottle deposits in certain states.

The battery core charge is an add on tax, but I am not sure if the government gets the money or not.

But I know the State of Mi does collect the bottle deposit, and they have extra money that never gets refunded every year because not everyone will return the bottles for $.10 each. They think it is not worth their time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[skogkatt007]

This is 100% wrong.
You need to look at the RATE of change. This earth has NEVER experienced this RATE of change. That is not debatable.
Also, you cannot use "it snowed in June in (fill in the blank)" as an argument, because that is an outlier that means nothing in the history of Earth's climate.

The earth, throughout it's history, has had drastic environmental changes.

This is what science teaches us. If it's 100% wrong, it is then because the scientists are wrong.

Google "the year without a summer". Early 1800s. I brought it up to demonstrate how quickly the earth returns to it's norm.

 

[RJSakowski]

I once saw an article, ( think it was National Geographic), about archeological exploration in the cenotes in the Yucatan peninsula. The part that I notes was a casual mention of the evidence of water levels on the walls the cenote. Over the period of hundreds of thousands of years, the water level would rise and fall in a cyclic fashion. The nature of the water level was a sawtooth. The water level would rise slowly and then suddenly drop rapidly.

Three things struck mr about this. The cenotes are connected to the Gulf of Mexico via underground channels so the level of water reflects that of the Gulf and thereby, ocean levels. The first thought was what could cause a precipitous drop in water level in the ocean. My conclusion was sequestering the planet water in the form of ice on the land masses. Think ice age.

The second thought was how would humans survive on a planet largely covered with ice. Fifty thousand years ago, the few humans there were lived in caves, hunted for game and gathered what meager forage they could find and warmed themselves by fires fueled by branches they dragged in. How would more than 8 billion people fare under these conditions. Modern humans rely on power companies and natural gas producers to heat their homes. They rely on farm enterprises and distribution networks to provide their food. How would we even be able to produce enough food to feed 8 billion people. The answer is simple. Almost all of the 8 billion would die off. There would be wars such as the planet has never seen as people fight fight for their very survival.

The third thought was looking at the graph of the water level,we are currently at a point where we are about to fall off that precipitous cliff. We as species will be able to weather several degrees of global warming. We would not survive an ice age.

 

[7milesup]

The earth, throughout it's history, has had drastic environmental changes.

This is what science teaches us. If it's 100% wrong, it is then because the scientists are wrong.

Google "the year without a summer". Early 1800s. I brought it up to demonstrate how quickly the earth returns to it's norm.

You are missing the entire point. One summer, or one week or even one year means nothing. 100 years of drastic change does mean something. Keep on believing that we humans have not done anything and our planet will be fine. I don't care.

The Earth is currently in an icehouse state marked by geologically closely spaced fluctuations of climate, largely paced by astronomical variations and amplified by changes in greenhouse gas levels. The present interglacial state of the Holocene is very likely to soon attain levels of climatic warmth not seen for several million years, because of human modification of climate drivers, notably greenhouse gases.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780444635242000014

 

[Aaron_W]

The way I see it, far more thought needs to be done before forcing these ideas down people's throats. Like it or not, the cleanest form of electricity generation is nuclear... Look at France, they seem to do just fine using it.

Nuclear power has had a very effective smear campaign against it. So much so that research into nuclear power was all but eliminated in the US during the 1990s.

Nuclear waste is a non-issue. People have this idea that you can't do anything with the waste from a nuclear power plant, but there are different types of nuclear power, and waste from one is fuel for another. This is how the network of power plants works in France.

Accidents have been very rare, and real accidents mostly from bad actors. Three Mile Island was basically a non-event. Yes, they had a problem, but the system worked as it was supposed to, preventing any escape of radiation. It happened to have the bad luck to occur at the same time a major anti-nuclear film was released (The China Syndrome). The US Navy has been operating a fleet of nuclear ships and submarines since the 1960s and has a good safety record.

Chernobyl was never intended to be a power plant, it was a plant for making weapons grade material. This Soviets repurposed it to become a power plant, with a complete disregard for safety. Currently there is no cleaner power source than nuclear. The oil and gas and coal companies have spent a lot of money to support the anti-nuclear agenda.

Fukushima, Japan got hit with a major tidal wave and mistakes were made. Despite this it is nowhere near the disaster Chernobyl was.

Don't build nuclear power plants in Tsunami zones or on Earthquake faults, and follow well established safety rules and all is good.

 

[skogkatt007]

Ok. So ... have you planted any trees? Ever?

Have you lobbied congress to put pressure on China and India to curb their pollution? Have you?

Would it actually change anything if you did? Would it change their behavior that is?

Nope to all the above. Bye. I'm out.

 

[Shotgun]

We just had a bad storm pass through here a day ago. Lost power for over a day and my family and I were able to save the food in the fridge and get by thanks to my IC generator. What is going to replace that and have they considered important uses of the engines before banning them and forcing other ill thought and sometimes outright absurd ideas down our throats. Not to mention the costs associated with this but I guess, they don't care if we can afford it or not.

I currently have several rooms in my house to be run off solar. One of those rooms has the chest freezer in it. The inverter I have also accepts power from the grid, so I'm not "reliant" on solar. But, I'm also LESS reliant on the grid. My "generator" (to use the term loosely), also offsets grid usage, and has just about paid for itself over the last couple years. I also don't have to worry about maintaining fuel and oil changes.

The problems I've seen with solar has been the push by governments and big corps to keep control of everything. Instead of letting people install small systems to offset/decrease grid usage, the big push has been to cover your roof and feed back into the grid. . . for $50k. My system cost about $2k.

 

[7milesup]

Ok. So ... have you planted any trees? Ever?

Have you lobbied congress to put pressure on China and India to curb their pollution? Have you?

Would it actually change anything if you did? Would it change their behavior that is?

Nope to all the above. Bye. I'm out.

Boooo.

And yes.