End of the gas engine?

Maybe it was the guy I met a half dozen years ago. Said he was from Milan and worked for Versacci, on his way to airport, needed to get rid of a half dozen "genuine leather Versacci coats" cheap. Of course they were fake and made of plastic and there were big holes in his story. Searched online later and found his whole long running con man trick.

 

Theoretically yes but I just do not trust the agreement with the Chinese. I think we are dependent upon them enough now for our general economy and increasing that with dependence for battery components does not seem prudent. This is a joint venture between Ford and a Chinese company. Sure there are some American jobs no doubt but what is the long term trade off?

At the end of the day we may have some additional jobs but the larger picture is we have increased our dependence on them for the natural resources to make these batteries which will be imported.

I will attempt to stop there as to prevent anything to be taken out of context.

 

On the particular details of your concerns, I think that ship sailed a long time ago. If ford will be making batteries here with US workers, it just sounds like perhaps the tide is turning.

 

There's a huge amount of lithium in Maine (one deposit estimated at 11 million tons of ore with a higher concentration of lithium than anywhere else in the world) that they can't mine because of state mining regulations. Of course, lithium is on its way out of vogue for batteries anyway.

As for 'trusting' the Chinese, if China stopped exporting to the US, it would be the end of them (and us). as for the Lightning and not buying it because of the link to Chinese batteries, what are you going to buy instead that has no Chinese components?

 

What are the mining regulations preventing extracting the lithium in Maine?

I do not understand why we would want to become increasingly dependent on a foreign government for resources when we are already dependent on them for so many other consumer products and medications as well, not long ago antibiotic availability.

Maybe it’s just me but I think being independent and self sufficient is wise. Like my investments I prefer not to have all my eggs in one basket.

 

Lithium extraction development in California.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanoh...electric-vehicles-salton-sea/?sh=6ed5f0534f63

Ford is securing lithium supplies from several sources.
https://www.electrive.com/2023/05/23/ford-secures-lithium-for-future-electric-cars/

 

I work in an industry that supports this technology, specifically vacuum jacketed piping for cryogenics and hydrogen refueling skids are the application.

real world the fuel cell will win out due to efficiency, but cell or hydrogen combustion (people like the vroom sound and feel) will most likely be the future.

dozens of engineers I’ve talked to see no other way, compressed gas is magical

 

what no one is talking about is the 3 reasons we don’t have to worry about China long term:

- their market is heavily dependent on a real estate industry that is all smoke and mirrors.

- the declining availability of able bodied workers in the coming decades

- end of the day the pollution and apathy toward human life will catch up to them. whether it be ecological damage or global pressure, the things that gave them a competitive advantage are eroding and seemingly perpetuate one another’s decline.

 

California is a dump. It's where you take your money to die

 

I don't want them to start mining this lithium, as a Mainer, I'd rather wait to see where things go in the next few years, then make a decision on destroying the environment to make more batteries to save the environment.

 

no one talks about emissions and impact at sourcing battery raw materials, just that ICE causes harm and EVs are 0 emissions and therefore just better for the environment. As you mentioned that is not necessarily true.

 

I currently work in a high school and have been supporting a science class lately, let's just say I bet they don't ask me to help in that class again.

 

Is there real, genuine proof that man-made global warming is true? By this, I mean proof that the Earth is unusually warm when compared across millennia? Proof that, because of us, it's warmer than it's ever been?

 

Extraction has it's own environmental impact for sure but it pales in comparison to processing/refining, which is why the US sends it overseas because we are mostly unwilling to deal with that from a domestic environmental policy standpoint.

 

tesla is going with refinery here IIRC
Yeah this is the link I could find for it. I think it has plans for multiple refineries, to better control the supply.
https://www.tesla.com/blog/tesla-lithium-refinery-groundbreaking

 

Thanks for the link. This is a very encouraging development.


...first industrial deployment of an acid-free lithium refining route. This process eliminates the use of hazardous reagents and byproducts in favor of more inert options. The byproduct from this facility, a mixture of sand and limestone, is useful in the production of construction materials, making beneficial use of traditional waste streams.

 

I think it's impossible to think we have no effect on the planet. Are we causing doom and gloom, well there is only one way to find out, wait and find out. Well, I really don't want my kids and grandkids to have a planet in the crapper, when I can do little things to reduce my impact, and if we all put some effort into doing things in more ecological way, then maybe shit will be ok.

 

Simple answer is no. There is zero proof we are affecting the overall climate. There is a plethora of biased studies that say yes, but thats the outcome theyre looking to see. Is it possible? Of course. The problem is that we simply don't have the data over time to properly analyze our effect. Think of it like this: If you hold a match inside an oven thats heating up, is it the oven thats heating itself or the match you're holding thats heating it? Could that match be making a difference on the inevitable heating of the oven? Possible, but unlikely. Remember from 5th grade science when it was taught that weather balances itself? That evidence still holds true, yet somehow we are unbalancing it without any evidence. Bullshit.

The Earth has been on a warming trend for about 15000 years. Glacial recession and other geological evidence point to this. What is in fact a problem is pollution. That doesn't impact the earth(it is just fine without life as we know it), but that does affect us. Pollution seems like it would be what people get riled up about, but its pushed aside in talks. Why? Why else? Not enough profit. Which is the real motivator behind all this antique technology being brought out again. Don't forget, EVs are older tech than ICEs. EVs are just dumb. A step backwards for humanity and a step forward for control of it. How many EV companies are pushing products built for personal autonomy without any outside control? Exactly.

 

Just wondering what kind of authority or evidence you would need to believe human activity is affecting climate change.
97% of climate scientists?
NASA?
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/?t

 

take it for what it's worth. for me, I just say how about we just stop polluting as much as humanly possible, address egregious polluters (china/india), and the inconvenient truths about "renewable" energies, namely the immense amount of pollution, environmental destruction, and human misery (child slavery) caused by the extraction of rare earth elements needed for EV's.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle/

 

I don’t think any country is ready to punish either India or China. We send more business their way and let balloons fly across our land without any repercussions.

 

I don't think anyone denies that climate change is real. I think the question was whether or not we're causing it.

I saw a program years ago where some scientists cored into the ocean floor to try to study the Earth's climate history. They found that there had been sudden spikes in temperature way before humans were here. So, it's possible the rising temperature right now is just another one of those cycles.

 

Authority? None. Not one. I am not aware of any "authority" thats is benevolent. As such, I ALWAYS believe or do the opposite of whatever any "authority" says. Especially if its our completely corrupt and criminal government or its subservient, bureaucratic shitheads. Has worked out extremely well for me these past 60 odd years. In case you didn't know NASA is 100% corrupt and should never be trusted in any way.

Evidence? I will accept evidence that is true. Those 97% of scientists are 100% of the liars falsifying, omitting, and using selective data to push their paycheck requirements. These are the same people who said in the 70s that by 2000 Florida would be underwater. Or, that hurricanes will get more frequent and stronger. Usually they say that stupidity right after a severe storm hits that preceded an unusually low amount of what they claim. Classic fear-mongering on an uninformed public. I have read a good majority of that horseshit you linked. Even as a non-climate scientist its easy to spot the problems in their studies. Especially the omission of data points. Its even easier to just "follow the money." Until someone can release a method or formula that anyone can use as proof, there is none. Thats called science by the way. So, as soon as any person can say, "if we don't limit x, then y will happen by Z" and its accurate and provable, I'll believe that we are having an incalculable affect on the "climate." Which means we aren't doing much.

Besides all that, don't you think if CO2 was such a big concern the "authorities" would setup huge carbon capture devices everywhere? They'd limit manufactures from building new cars and instead insist on refurbishing old ones? Theyd end the wars they start for profit? Maybe pushed alternative fuels starting in the 60s when all this rhetoric started? Or even they'd do anything in their personal lives to limit their own impact?

There are 1000 different ways to reduce carbon that doesn't force the public to completely change their lives or buy some new junk that pretends to help while making things worse. Yet none is even suggested, let alone pushed. Perhaps people should be more open minded and not believe something simply because a Daddy-figure says so.

 

Its a fact. The climate is, and always has been changing. The earth has been warming since the Younger Dryas. It would be doing so whether we built factories or not.

 

I’m asking about evidence, proof. Not what the claimed preponderance of opinions is, or what these or those experts say. Experts are wrong all the time.

My brain and a tiny bit of research tells me that accurate recording of temperatures doesn’t go back much more than 160 years. Thermometers simply differed too much to be reliable down to tenths of a degree or smaller. And it’s even more recently before any of this could be compiled into something intended to give a picture of the earth’s temperatures. I simply don’t see how temperatures over thousands of years and millions of square miles can be accurately deduced today. They certainly weren’t measured in any way. So there’s no real way to know if the earth is hotter than it’s ever been.

 

I would probably be labeled a climate denier simply because I disagree with certain legislation being pushed and/or passed. That being said, this is probably my biggest issue - the fact that accurate data hasn't been around long enough to form an accurate model. Obviously some of the ones in use are not accurate since Florida isn't yet underwater and hopefully those will become more accurate as more data accumulates.

On the flip side, I also look at the planet as an engine of sorts. The fact is, we can't expect to drain every drop of oil from the crust and expect there to be no effect. I understand the vast majority of the crust is covered in water but there is a reason we don't put water in our engines. Same goes for burning all of that oil into the atmosphere. To say there is NO effect seems a bit short sighted but going back to my original argument, I just don't believe there is enough long term data to draw an accurate conclusion.

I completely agree with several previous posts that state pollution should be kept under control - the fact we had rivers that could be set on fire (I think in the '70s?) is the reason for things like the EPA and Clean Water Act which have benefited our country. There are pros and cons to everything - the answer typically lies in the middle.

 

I don't see combustion engines going away within 100 years let alone 12 or 27 years. Maybe passenger vehicles in the US that aren't needed for towing, but commercial and world wide I wouldn't hesitate to say it wont happen. To get away from ICE you have to have a reliable power grid everywhere, which most countries don't. Toyota might not sell a gas engine here in 40 years, but they'll still be selling them abroad to places like Somalia that don't even have a functioning government let alone a vast power grid.

If by some miracle every person had access of electricity everywhere in the world by 2035 or 2050, ICE still wouldn't go away because of rich people. The moment the last poor person ditches their ICE vehicle for an EV, rich people will suddenly start wanting combustion engines again for all the same reason they're drawn to mechanical watches like moths to a lantern.

They'll say EVs are soulless compared to combustion engines, they'll say that combustion engines' complexity and craftsmanship is so exquisite compared to a motor, they'll say that you can pass a combustion engine down to your son or whatever. The same bullshit us watch enthusiasts say to justify a 2000$ watch that doesn't even keep good time will be applied to combustion engines too. And Ferrari will be there the same way Rolex was after the quartz crisis to sell obsolete technology to rich folks.

The phenomenon of climate change is real, and its causes are man made. The climate fluctuates naturally and gradually (there are some unpleasant exceptions), but that is different. When someone says "we're going to renewable energy to fight climate change" they're referring to the rapid change in global temperatures that is caused by human activity. And the heart of the problem isn't that the climate is changing, the problem is it's occurring too fast for the environment (and humans too) to adjust.

A lot of people on this thread won't believe this or don't believe this. And from my experience, arguing with these people is a waste of everyone's time. They'll keep moving the goal posts, disqualify relevant information because they dislike something about the source, or simply disagree on how the data should be interpreted or whether anything should be done. And they'll probably say the same thing about me. So it's not worth it.

 

Yet here we are trying to have a civil discussion

 

I don't really see this discussed but along with the industrial revolution, which is typically linked with man made climate change arguments due to carbon emissions, we also had an explosion of RF technology. Isn't that essentially the way microwaves work? Could it possibly be the huge rise in RF technology (cell phones, radar, etc) the past 75 years or so that are exciting the molecules in the atmosphere and causing a slight rise in temperature? Just spitballing, and correlation is not causation, but another data point that should possibly be looked at

 

As a poor person, I totally disagree. I will never "want" an EV. Ever. You nailed it. Because they are soulless, and all the other reasons you listed. Especially long term value. Its not bullshit reasoning at all. Its called passing wealth. If you can't pass your investments down, you're giving your money and your heirs' to strangers. Sounds like "you'll own nothing & like it" rhetoric. Also, a motor will never be "obsolete technology." Its simply a device that transfers stored into kinetic energy. Even if there is newer, more efficient ways of doing things, it doesn't make the previous version obsolete. Ya know, because people like them. People still build scale steam powered engines. Because they enjoy it. Is it okay for you or some corporation(government) to decide what others can and should have? How pure fucking evil is that?

And since you outed yourself as a cultist with your derogatory "these people" let me explain it clearly. You don't have to "believe" things that are real and true. As soon as you provide evidence that what you "believe" is real is, in fact, real nobody will deny it. Or at least no reasonable person. Show us proof, show us how it works. We'll believe it. It is that simple. We are waiting on the proof. Ya know, like reasonable people do.