Solar panels are relatively low efficiency. I’m sure if they were energy dense we’d have them on every EV roof and there wouldn’t be many complaints about them.
Interesting electrification analysis article
- Thread starter SubieRubyRoo
- Start date
Low mid 20 percent range.
I've read that the maximum theoretical efficiency of silicon solar panels is about 33%. The limitation has something to do with a level of physics beyond my comprehension.
You do realize that every living plant on the planet is an automatic, free carbon sequestration, right? The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more robust growth plants experience. Same thing with a measly 0.3*C increase in temps over the past 40 years.
Not once have I ever seen a plant in the arctic tundra outgrow a plant in an equatorial rainforest. Have you?
I won't be drawn into the ridiculous argument you've raised. I've simply stated that the author was incorrect with that one fact, easily verifiable from multiple sources.
I could care less about electric vs ice. My problem is the overloards taking my freedom of choice away. Telling me what I can and can't purchase by pushing their regulations. That's my 2 cents.
The article you posted looks like typical kook fringe lunacy.
It looks like China has managed to produce more than half of the US produced since 1751 since 1950.
I’ve posted it before but we’re about 50 years too late on that with the automobile. I personally think emissions regulations have done a lot to clean up the air and as they tighten it’s going to be hard to do certain things. This last jump might have been a bit much. The easiest way to keep ICE with tighter emissions is smaller more efficient cars.
Relatively cheap fuel has allowed us to ignore smaller cars. People seem to want the most they can get no matter what. If fuel got unnessarily expensive that would change things. I’m sure that would drive more EV adoption and smaller more efficient vehicles.
Weird. This article says a study by University of Illinois Chicago (pretty solid research place, even if I dislike the city’s politics) says 94% of ALL temperature-related deaths are from cold weather. Makes you wonder about the official narrative that the oceans are going boil, eh?
https://phys.org/news/2020-08-cold-weather-accounts-temperature-related-deaths.html
UIC study report said:
Emphasis mine. Cold was responsible for 19 out of every 20 “climate-related” deaths in Illinois over a decade, and I doubt anyone would consider Illinois a particularly frigid place to live.
Tighter vehicle emissions regulations have done nothing to improve air quality for about 99% of the land area of the country.
Unfortunately AmericanThinker.com is conservative biased . So article merit comes into question and “data” harder to swallow when tweaked, twisted or torqued a bit to support agenda.
So you’re stereotyping authors unknown to you simply by where the article was published, and discounting the mountains of government and private data that was used to support the article’s thesis?
The way I read that article, the only “agenda” was, “the data shows there’s no support for forced mandate conversion to EV; let the consumer decide what best fits their budget and personal goals, since the ICE/EV argument as far as climate impact goes, is entirely moot due to the insignificance of scope, and clearly not justified when considering the expansive financial expenditure of taxpayer monies.”
There’s zero political twisting when saying “everyone suffers under these provably unjustifiable policies.”
So you’re agreeing that ICE cars have less than 1% impact overall for emissions and air quality, and further regulations or removal of ICEs will not change the results? Cool, we agree. Leave ICEs alone!
Not stereotyping, the article list published by author leans in certain manner so you pick your facts to support your “thesis” so you can get paid and your thoughts out there.
In case you are curious:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_(statistics)
Last edited:
It sure has for dense populations. I guess though that we should rip our cats off in flyover country.
Perhaps, but for a large percentage of people they sure have. America is a large land mass with population centered in major cities.
Yeah there's people who will take them off for free at night. No one replaces them, just have the exhaust shop weld in a pipe, putting in a nother converter is an additional few hundred dollars and it will just get removed again.
Doesn't make it the right thing to do. I was amazed by that when I tuned my car that everyone made sure to tell me to get a tune that allowed a cheap upgrade for the catless tune. I'm not pulling the cat, I don't want to smell the results of an uncatted car. It's horrible and illegal for a reason. The fact is in all of these areas that do not have emissions testing is that it will never keep the car off the road.
The top things that effect pollution where I am are farming and weather and a few times a year I smell the oil wells from around Lubbock, tx.
Only thing the ice needs to compete and beat electric cars well into the 21st century is it's own optional tiny hybrid battery pack.
That's not even close to accurate. Realistically the average person just needs to stop buying trucks when they don't tow and that would be more of a shift than switching to EVs. The problem isn't that we need EVs, but that we need the average person just to not be gluttonous pigs and that would save the ICE vehicle within emission standards. We could even have fast ICE vehicles that are still efficient in this case. There's still a decent amount under our noses, but they're dying off as every person thinks they need an SUV or truck to survive in this world and it's just not the case. I would love it if everyone actually saw the merit in hot hatches. We'd all have fun, spend less in fuel, have nearly the same interior space, and take about 2k lbs per vehicle off the road.