Today, would you buy an EV vehicle.

[jyoutz]

Exactly. As they remove base load generation and become more dependent on solar and wind, you'll find out the hard way (and so will I) what is going to go down. Europe is already learning the hard way when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow, things go dark.

Me, I'm along for the ride and I suspect it will be bumpy.

That’s why most utilities don’t put all their eggs in one basket. Most utilities also operate natural gas turbines for power generation in addition to renewables.

 

[nickfank]

Where can you buy an EV for $20,000?
Who's trying to change the world? I just want to go back to 2020.

Both were used. $14K for the 2016 Soul with 25,000 miles on it, $25K for the 2019 Bolt with 5,000 miles on it. Both have transferable warranties covering the electrical parts for 100,000 miles or 10 years. It wasn't hard to find them, I just had to be willing to try.

Re: Changing the world. Turns out you can't go back, but you can make good decisions about the future, and that changes your world at the very least.

 

[nickfank]

Not quite. That so-called subsidy has been debunked.

I've got no issue with someone choosing to use whatever works for them to cut coats, but stop pretending you are saving the world or that your tiny operation can be used by everyone. Population densities in the cities means that there is not enough area to gather solar or wind energy to be self-reliant.

Here's my source for the subsidies. Eagerly awaiting your source that debunks it. Fossil Fuel Subsidies

I agree that we can't power cities off of solar. Hoping people will get over their fear of nuclear to solve that problem.

However, this being a forum for tractor owners, I thought it was safe to assume we aren't city dwellers.

 

[Torvy]

Here's my source for the subsidies. Eagerly awaiting your source that debunks it. Fossil Fuel Subsidies

I agree that we can't power cities off of solar. Hoping people will get over their fear of nuclear to solve that problem.

However, this being a forum for tractor owners, I thought it was safe to assume we aren't city dwellers.

Go back and read the posts before. Another poster was kind enough to post the info refuting that bunk. Smh

 

[nickfank]

I am merely providing the known science.....the bottom line for how much C02 affects global warming is probably not "settled" as the claim insists. So I stand with continuing the science and not using skewered modeling that has political motives with hysterical hype designed to extract money out of our country. So why should we blow up our economy and support a theory yet to be proven?

graphs do show that CO2 increases in the atmosphere follow the warming of the planet, but the supposed global consensus says man made Co2 is causing it to warm. I consider myself a conscious environmental citizen so I don't deny global warming I just question the impact of reducing these very small quantities of man-made c02 make a difference in climate change. Right now that just doesn't seem logical.

The 0.26 % is the rounded data after the "forcing affect" of C02 gets factored in.....Water vapor is quite variable and C02 is pretty constant and so they (the real scientists) pretty much conform to Co2 driving this effect but just how much this plays depends on a man made formula with the science still on going. This may never be known?

some interesting info; Back in the 1930's C02 levels were approximately 250 ppm. Science says that anything below 200 PPM plant life on earth begins to suffer. Oddly enough we are greener today in spite of deforestation than we were back them...current C02 levels are at approx. 420 PPM. I suppose that might trigger the alarmists as it once did me. But given what I now know about how much is man made vs natural I take a step back. The oceans and land masses are sinks for C02 and plant life thrives on it. (they pump as much as 1200 ppm into greenhouses artificially bumping up the plants photosynthesis process=fast growing and more vibrant results.

So science in progress is where I am at. Remember it was suppossed to be past the point of no return in 2005, then they shifted from global warming to climate change (it actually cooled for several years and is still below levels in the 1930's).......I am not ignorant to the fact that man can alter the natural order of things IE the carbon cycle, but I don't like political interference calling the shots. as for the car-earth comparison. Well the only thing natural in the car version is the sun itself and that's a pretty massive disproportionate item of comparison. You open the windows and it will cool it down or you drive down the road and add some circulation, things change quite a bit. The global climate is much more complex and has a natural occurring carbon cycle, and weather, so I'm not denying a hot car sitting in the sun, just think the comparison is a reach.

Given that 97% of the scientific community disagrees with most of what you've said above, I'm skeptical, but willing to look at your sources. Maybe I'll learn something.

The truth is that we are well past the point of no return, so that prediction was true. This isn't reversible. The question isn't whether we'll hit the wall, but whether anyone cares enough to ease off the accelerator.

Re: The car/earth comparison. You made the claim that something that comprises less that 1% of a system is insignificant. I provided a counter example that just happened to be related to the greenhouse effect, but the world is full of counter-examples to the notion that something small can be safely ignored. Matches are small, but you can burn a house with one. One gram of polonium will kill 50 million people. Small doesn't equal safe to ignore.

 

[Torvy]

The IMF’s Outlandish Claims About Energy Subsidies - IER

Last week the IMF released a report that called on governments around the world to stop subsidizing energy. Initially we…

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org

Here you go. The so-called subsidies are hogwash. They are literally saying that because they think oil companies should pay higher taxes, that the difference is a subsidy. Words mean things. A subsidy is the opposite of a tax. That is when the government literally pays to encourage a behavior. Oil is taxed on both the production and the consumption side the literal opposite of subsidies.

'Green energy' is subsidized. Fossil fuels are taxed. Stop spreading disinformation.

 

[nickfank]

Go back and read the posts before. Another poster was kind enough to post the info refuting that bunk. Smh

Found it. Thanks for pointing that out. So, if I correct my numbers to include *direct* subsidies only, then the fossil fuel industry is only receiving 5 times as much as renewables. That's so much better!

Fossil fuels are subsidized.

 

[nickfank]

The IMF’s Outlandish Claims About Energy Subsidies - IER

Last week the IMF released a report that called on governments around the world to stop subsidizing energy. Initially we…

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org

Here you go. The so-called subsidies are hogwash. They are literally saying that because they think oil companies should pay higher taxes, that the difference is a subsidy. Words mean things. A subsidy is the opposite of a tax. That is when the government literally pays to encourage a behavior. Oil is taxed on both the production and the consumption side the literal opposite of subsidies.

'Green energy' is subsidized. Fossil fuels are taxed. Stop spreading disinformation.

I agree that I was incorrect in comparing indirect subsidies.

If you compare only *direct* subsidies, fossil fuels still get more that renewables, it's just a smaller multiplier.

 

[California]

Here's one of many articles explaining the problem.

Scientists urge the world to wake up as yet another dire climate record is broken

Despite decades of warnings, we are "still racing at top speed towards a global catastrophe", scientists say

www.thecanary.co

Some quotes:
"Pre-industrial levels of CO2 were around 280ppm. As NASA has pointed out, levels in the 1950s hovered around 317ppm. in 2021 it was 419ppm. ...CO2 is now at levels that “our species has never experienced before”.

In the distant past – four million years ago – CO2 levels were similar to our current ones, but sea levels were five to 40 metres higher. The world was also three to four degrees hotter, and it had no people either.


The western US, [California!] for example, is currently facing what NASA warns is one of its worst ever droughts.

With climate change, it seems like the dominoes are beginning to fall.
We get warmer temperatures, we get less precipitation [rain] and snow. The reservoirs start drying up, then in a place like the West, we get wildfires.
... watching this slow motion catastrophe unfold.

Every day, global heating pushes a little harder on Earth and human systems. Every day they get a little closer to failure. Time to shift into #EmergencyMode and make ending the fossil fuel industry and stopping Earth breakdown our top priority.

---End of quotes.----

Yeah California is becoming dryer. Worldwide, as well. Bangladesh, Africa, etc are already hit hard.

And the process continues with no end in sight. This isn't cyclical as some might tell you.

 

[nickfank]

With many manufacturers now advertising ev, even in trucks (Ford Lightning, CyberTruck, Rivian) would you invest in an EV vehicle? If everything moves to electric, when do you think you would switch to an ev -- or maybe Hybrid. The future of gas and diesel looks questionable.

I bought a new truck in 2021. Things are changing. The V8 engine is almost a thing of the past. When do you think, as you shop for a new vehicle, you will consider EV as your best choice? Will that happen when you want to keep your truck 6-8 years and gas stations might become difficult to find?

Then there are EV tractors.

Just curious. Thought this when looking for a new truck.

Sorry that this devolved into a flame war. (And ashamed that I joined in fanning the flames. I'll stop)

My simple answer to your actual question is that I already own two EVs and I bought the second because I had a great experience with the first one. The only drawback is that I love tinkering with machines, and they work so well that changing the tires and wiper blades is all I ever get to do. (At over 60K miles, I haven't even had to change the brake pads.) I don't plan to ever buy another ICE car or truck. Really looking forward to electric trucks becoming more available.

I've read a lot of strong opinions on this thread from apparent experts. My inexpert opinion is based solely on driving an EV every weekday for about 3 years.