Mostly OT post follows.
GRA wrote:Like many Californians my age I've been interested/involved in environmental issues since the Santa Barbara blowout in 1969, and energy security since Desert Shield, which was when I got seriously involved in designing and selling off-grid (PV/Wind/microhydro) systems. If I weren't interested in environmental or energy security issues, do you think I'd have done that or be:
Living in a small (ca. 325 sq. ft.) downtown studio within walking distance of my routine errands and do my local travel by bicycle and regional by electrified mass transit, or years ago decided to put off taking any more out of state road trips or flying anywhere until I can do so in a ZEV or at least using sustainably produced biofuels, instead of:
living in a large multi-bedroom house filled with lots of energy-sucking appliances and crap I don't need, having kids and driving everywhere, and flying frequently?
No, Guy. I'm talking about your interest in an EV. At least I assume you are interested, since you are very active on this forum.
Of course I'm interested.
GetOffYourGas wrote: All of your lifestyle choices are to be commended. I *try* to a degree, but nothing like you have done, and I applaud you for it.
No, I was talking about EVs. That they meet your transportation *requirements* is a given. That they meet them as well as your ICEV does and do so at a lower cost (purchase and fuel/maintenance) is where the rest of your argument breaks down.
They don't have to meet them at a lower
cost, just a comparable one, if they are to replace ICEs for the general public (and me). Personally, I'd be perfectly happy to give up car ownership entirely, and the day that I have access to a long range ZEV from a mobility service will be the day I seriously start considering doing just that. Thankfully the millennials are less enamored of car ownership than preceding generations, and assuming that trend continues, then EVs combined with AVs will radically reduce the size of the fleet, if not the number of vehicles built or miles traveled.
GetOffYourGas wrote:You want an EV for cheaper transportation, and that's all. You don't want to sacrifice anything in the process. Not that there's anything wrong with that - plenty of people feel that way. And when the EVs get to that point, we will see a huge spike in adoption.
No, I want an EV for ZEV transportation at comparable cost, although lower would be great. But if ZEVs don't provide comparable capability at a comparable(or lower) price, then absent government mandates or a major spike in the price of oil the general public simply won't switch. Here's about the capability we need, but at a price most people can afford:
Life with Tesla Model S: coast to coast in a new 100D (and how it differed from my old 85)
GetOffYourGas wrote:As for seeing having children as an "undue" stress on the environment, let's just say that we don't see eye-to-eye there. I'm glad that your parents didn't feel that way, too.
If they had I wouldn't be around to care, and you wouldn't care either, but thanks for the thought
They did limit themselves to me, though, although for other reasons. But it's not children per se that I'm worried about, it's the number of human beings, as we
are the major source of environmental stress.
Around 1804 the world's population first reached 1 billion; 2b in 1927 (123 years); 3b in 1960 (33 years, and close enough to my birth year to serve as a base case); 4b in 1974 (14 years), 5b in 1987 (13 years); 6b in 1999 (12 years); 7b in 10/2011 or 3/2012 (13 years), and as of last Dec. was estimated to be 7.6b, or an 153.33+% increase in my lifetime. The rate of growth is finally slowing, but even so most projections for 2050 (which I have a reasonable chance of living to see) are in the 9 to 10.6b range before the population (hopefully) stabilizes and then starts decreasing.
In my own case, most of one side of my family are Catholic, so my decision not to have kids only partially compensates for their fecundity.