wyx087

Simple answer is not to wait around for 100%. That car can charge to 80% in 20min with the right charger. Of course, the car/driver may not be smart enough to nav to the right charger. For my car, the only time I needed to stay for longer than 30min at a supercharger was at Fort Williams before I drove into a CPS-only area. Every other time ~20 minutes was more than enough to get to the next stop. Actually, I could have driven directly into Skye if we had destination charging at the airbnb. Destination charging is the key to ease of EV ownership. Public charging is only required when the car can't recharge while I recharge.

One thing is certain, direct replacing petrol station with rapid charging hub is stupid and costly, just like hydrogen. Destination AC slow charging is what makes EV magically cheap and makes life super easy. I think the 300,000 public charger number is from here, 2022 goal: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tenfold-expansion-in-chargepoints-by-2030-as-government-drives-ev-revolution This is the right ratio, need slow AC charger everywhere.

How’s your all season holding up in the snow? I’d thought the snow socks should go on front wheel with AWD cars? Tesla AWD when off road is enabled, does drive all 4 wheels. So should do as well as other AWD cars.

Data telemetrics company for "transport solutions" have recently released a comprehensive report on how long EV batteries last: How Long do Electric Car Batteries Last? What 10,000 EV Batteries Tell Us | Geotab

New Y here in UK, "launch edition" for £61k with a few extras pre-configured. On sale at same time as old model on their website. Looks like the expensive launch edition is to clear stock of old model. Within a few years that extra spent for launch edition will mean diddly squat.

Agree, GHG is not the only cause. But is is the current major contributing cause and it is man made, thus we can do something about it. Using 1 year in 1 small country as indication of a global overall trend is vastly different to complex climate models used by scientists. Using those models, they have come up with a list of future actions. Missing those actions will set us on to a path that is more likely to lead to worse outcome. It is like compound interest when saving money. 2% above inflation may not seem much over 1 year, but the earlier that money is banked, the bigger final amount. The earlier the climate action is started in earnest, the bigger effect it will have in reducing temperature rise many years later.

One year (2025) downward prediction for one small country does not equate to a trend. While it's true that the climate has experienced natural fluctuations like the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, the current rate and extent of climate change is unprecedented. The speed at which temperatures are rising today is far faster than past natural changes, and scientific consensus attributes much of this acceleration to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels. These human-driven emissions are causing an enhanced greenhouse effect, overwhelming the natural processes that have shaped the climate over centuries. I must say, I'm not a scientists, I don't feel my argument carries weight. So I can only refer to what experts have concluded: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1116619109 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226931555_The_Changing_Climate_Past_Present_Future https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49799235_The_Anthropocene_a_new_epoch_of_geological_time_INTRODUCTION

Apologies, minced my words, I meant: Mitigation costs less than adoption. Mitigation - reduce, reuse and recycle. net zero, etc. Adoption - accept current trajectory and sentence future generations to live in the aftermaths (dramatised wording) I think we are way past avoidance stage. Risk management 101: the earlier the risk is managed, the cheaper the cost. I sense there is great difference in opinion on management of aforementioned risk. It's perfectly normal to have different opinions as it affects all of us. Good to have debate. Look at what we as global collective have successfully achieved when action is required: saving the O zone layer What happened to the world's ozone hole? - BBC Future I think and hope similar can be achieved with man-made climate change.

There are avoidable disasters and there are unavoidable disasters. It's all about how we (human) manage both so that the cost to continued survival is not too great. As pointed out earlier, mitigation costs less than avoidance.

It is a compound effect. With temperature rise, it comes melting adding water + water thermal expansion. 65 cm is quite a lot of sea level increase, when you consider most beach don't have 1 meter height difference from its land edge to the sea edge (sorry, don't know technical term). This means many existing sea defences will require costly upgrades. Whilst I am all for Darwin evolution in action. I am not sure the rate of change is suitable for evolution. It's not as simple as change = evolution, therefore we don't need to worry about climate change. Looking back 2000 years, how much have different specious changed? Had there been sufficient changes over that relatively long human history? The rate of change over last 100 years far exceeds change over last 2000 years. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-2000-years-of-earths-temperatures-in-one-simple-chart-and-copycat-misinformation/

That's one location, you said it in your post "no sign of a rising sea level there". Is it at all representative of a global phenomenon? In your second reason of same post, you talked about ground level shifting, could the first and second be related? This is why we need average across many many data sources, because data from 1 or 3 locations doesn't tell us enough.

Global average will be far less skewed than, for example, measure at your anecdotal sinking locations. Even if there are outliers. Regardless, the evidence from multiple sources are clear that sea level is rising across the world. Unless you have evidence to the contrary?

NASA satellite measurement: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/?intent=121 Uni of Hawaii sea level data from global average measurements: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level

Precisely. I'm just saying, to non-EV driving audience, don't judge based on personal preferences and needs. EV are super flexible with the way it charges. Troublesome AC charging does not mean anything for DC rapid charging when going somewhere.

If need to be somewhere, I definitely wouldn't use any AC charging to save a bit. Need a lot more wind and nuclear. Current wholesale gas price is through the roof due to low wind generation and high gas demand. If we build renwables for these low periods then we'll have enough to get us through winter without being slave to gas prices. I'm on gas tracker, this week is more expensive than price cap.

Very good question: why not adapt? Health and well-being of human race depends on a stable climate. Global inequality and mass migration will vastly increase as climate change affects each location differently. The WHO details how climate change exacerbates health risks, such as heat stress, respiratory issues, and the spread of diseases like malaria. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health Economic cost of mitigating climate change is said to be far less than long term economic cost of adapting to climate change. https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/publication/the-economics-of-climate-change-the-stern-review/ IPCC better summaries other effects of climate change in 7 executive summary chapters: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/ I personally would prefer UK climate to continue. We are seeing ever increasing number of heat waves and ever stronger storms. Whilst it is possible to adapt just as people have adapted to all kind of climate around the world. But unlike people moving to other climates, adapt to changing climate will not be a choice. Consequently, as always, the burden to adapt will most affect the poorest (those who won't frequent a car owners' forum) For example, we are considering air-air heat pump (aka air-con) units. Just waiting for possible changes to the BUS grant. After that, I'd have no problem dealing with heat waves, I have adapted. But we won't stop seeing increase in heat wave deaths: https://taking.care/blogs/resources-advice/the-main-causes-of-uk-heatwave-deaths Not everyone have the capability to adapt.

Risk management and dealing with battery related fires are being developed. I think it's safe to assume all fire fighting forces around the world is well aware a different approach is required to fighting battery fire. Let's not forget there is a lot more accidents during development of fossil fuel... errr... as fuel: List of industrial disasters - Wikipedia

I don't think a country can say anything. The current government (or administration) of USA are politicising climate change in order to justify their oil policy (nothing new here). No doubt this govnment stance will affect public perception. But none of it changes the what is really happening in the atmosphere. I totally agree on your last statement on all aspects. But before other comment's, let's only focus on climate change policies here.

Excellent point, the policy change is indeed a very clear signal where Trump administration stands. The stance of politician will not change the overwhelming scentific consensus. It will change general public's view of this topic and policies being used. There is a huge difference between the two.

Man-made climate change, often referred to as anthropogenic climate change, is the result of human activities that have significantly altered the Earth's atmosphere and climate system. This phenomenon is supported by overwhelming scientific consensus and a vast body of evidence from multiple disciplines, including atmospheric science, oceanography, and ecology. Here are the key reasons why man-made climate change is considered real: Increased Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The primary driver of anthropogenic climate change is the increased concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs), particularly carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), and nitrous oxide (N₂O), in the atmosphere. Since the Industrial Revolution, human activities such as burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), deforestation, and agricultural practices have significantly increased the levels of these gases (IPCC, 2021). CO₂ levels, for example, have risen from approximately 280 ppm (parts per million) in pre-industrial times to over 400 ppm as of recent measurements (Le Quéré et al., 2018). Correlation with Fossil Fuel Use: The rise in atmospheric GHGs closely correlates with the increase in fossil fuel consumption since the 19th century. Fossil fuel combustion releases large quantities of CO₂ and other pollutants, which trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere. This has been substantiated by studies showing that specific isotopic ratios of carbon in the atmosphere show a clear shift towards the ratios characteristic of fossil fuels, providing strong evidence of their contribution. (Lipp et al., 2009). Global Temperature Rise: The Earth's average surface temperature has risen by about 1.2°C since the late 19th century, a trend that aligns with the increase in GHG concentrations (NASA, 2023). The warming of the planet is consistent with predictions made by climate models that incorporate both natural and human influences. While natural factors (such as volcanic eruptions and solar variability) also influence climate, the observed warming can only be fully explained by considering human-induced GHG emissions (IPCC, 2021). Ocean Warming and Acidification: The world's oceans have absorbed much of the excess heat from global warming, leading to rising sea surface temperatures and ocean acidification. Ocean acidification, caused by increased CO₂ absorption, has been linked to the decline of marine life, including coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). These changes are consistent with the patterns expected from anthropogenic CO₂ emissions. Melting Ice and Rising Sea Levels: Observations show that glaciers and polar ice caps are melting at an accelerated rate, contributing to rising sea levels (Church et al., 2013). The melting of Arctic sea ice and the Greenland ice sheet, along with thermal expansion of seawater, are major factors driving the rise in global sea levels. These trends are aligned with climate models that predict the impacts of warming driven by human activities. Scientific Consensus: The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening and that human activities are a major contributing factor. Reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), based on the review of thousands of peer-reviewed studies, consistently find that human activities are the dominant cause of observed global warming (IPCC, 2021). Multiple independent lines of evidence, including the study of ice cores, tree rings, and climate models, reinforce the conclusion that human activities have a significant impact on global temperatures. Observed Changes in Weather Patterns: Along with rising temperatures, there is an observed increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, including heatwaves, hurricanes, droughts, and heavy rainfall. These changes are consistent with predictions of climate models that show how human-induced warming influences weather patterns (Coumou & Rahmstorf, 2012). References: Church, J. A., et al. (2013). Sea level change. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ Coumou, D., & Rahmstorf, S. (2012). A decade of weather extremes. Nature Climate Change, 2(7), 491–496. https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1452 Hoegh-Guldberg, O., et al. (2007). Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science, 318(5857), 1737-1742. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1152509 IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/climate-change-2021-physical-science-basis-working-group-i-contribution-sixth Lipp, J. A., et al. (2009). Attribution of recent atmospheric CO2 increases to fossil fuel combustion. Nature Geoscience, 2(5), 253–256. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide Le Quéré, C., et al. (2018). Global carbon budget 2018. Earth System Science Data, 10, 2141–2194. https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/10/2141/2018/ NASA. (2023). Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. https://climate.nasa.gov/ / In conclusion, man-made climate change is real and driven by human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. This conclusion is supported by decades of scientific research, data, and analysis from various disciplines. The impacts of climate change are already being observed globally, and the scientific community agrees on the urgent need for mitigation and adaptation strategies to address the challenges posed by this phenomenon. Addressing man-made climate change requires immediate and sustained action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate its impacts. This includes transitioning to renewable energy sources, improving energy efficiency, protecting and restoring ecosystems, and adopting sustainable practices. Global cooperation is essential, as the effects of climate change are felt worldwide, transcending borders and affecting every aspect of society. Governments, businesses, and individuals must work together to implement policies and solutions that reduce our carbon footprint and protect the planet for future generations. The longer we delay, the more difficult and costly the solutions will become. Linking back to cars forum, what type of vehicle has vastly improved energy efficiency and available for mass adoption today? battery electric vehicles. But due to risk of misunderstanding on this forum, here are a few declarations: - This is a thread on climate change, so that this type of discussions would not take over other threads. - I have zero interest in forcing people to make any changes and I have zero power to do so. - I do not wish to push any product or services. I do not have any financial interest in this area. - I have zero interest in your opinion, just as I have not stated my opinions on man-made climate change. Unless you have published peer-reviewed papers on climate change. - But very welcome your opinions on climate related government policy - I do not wish to get everyone driving BEV, it is simply not suitable for 100% of people right now. As a reminder, there's 10 years to go for 2035 ZEV-only new vehicle sales and many more years of ICE vehicle on the road after that.

Reporting are saying all car makers meet the 2024 ZEV mandate, zero fines: All carmakers in UK to escape fines for missing electric car sales targets in 2024 | Automotive industry | The Guardian Biggest shortfall (and purchased credit from others) are: Suzuki Group, Ford Group and Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi. VAG had a small shortfall. Update on Autotrader numbers for <100 miles 2024 cars: (click on filters and select fuel type to see the numbers) New & Used Cars for Sale - Auto Trader UK At time of posting, 1405 EV / 7425 total for sale = 18.9%, seeing a decrease in proportion of EV's on sale compared to last time sample was taken.

Ah the good old days, where charging was free and early adopters were friendly. It was a tight nit community. Nowadays, Tesla seems to have been bought by BMW and Audi drivers. Niro and Leaf 40 by taxi drivers. 😜

During very early days with Leaf in the first winter, there was free rapid charging a junction away along M1 from where I work. I tested both ways when I drive there. One is driving sedately to conserve energy, the other is (when safe to do so) constantly changing from max power to max regen. During winter, ambient and battery temperature had significant effect on rapid charging rate. The return battery temp was one bar higher most of the time and return after latter run was noticeably more efficient than the former drive out. But I think it's only worth considering if there is free charging. Otherwise it's wasted time and effort, not to mention efficiency gain are not going to be enough to gain back energy used during that run. Tesla only heats their battery when pre-condition from AC or if there is spare heat energy in the system. Just like Leaf, during coldest days I've seen battery at around 5c. Difference is Tesla uses heat scavenging to move any excess heat into battery once cabin is up to temperature. So just like ICE cars, Tesla's cold efficiency in short runs are atrocious. But long runs are super efficient, I almost got 4 mi/kWh on Friday over 110 miles, extrapolated range of ~270 miles at ~5c.

Haha, very nice. Although true for me, I'm not such a snowflake to care what other people think of my transportation choice. Besides, Tesla and SpaceX are much more than Musk. There's a whole team of amazing engineers behind the brands to pursuit the original mission statements.

I am not seeing a disproportionate number of 2024 EV on Autotrader. (See previous post) Therefore, I wonder who is footing the bill for storage and depreciation of those vehicles. If what numerous car dealer social media saying are true. Do people stockpile last year’s iPhones? EV are like that and tech moves quickly, so why do people stockpile fast depreciating asset with higher mandate this year?