EV pickup range while towing

[formulanone]

If we could make a vehicle that ran on whataboutisms, we'd have a perpetual motion machine.

[SEWIGuy]

If we could make a vehicle that ran on whataboutisms, we'd have a perpetual motion machine.

LOL...yup...

[mgk920]

Do you have a source that they even considered there to be a pollution problem?

Pictures of manure piling up along the streets of New York is the source.  It even has a name... "The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894".  It was a real shit-show back then.

When archeologists were excavating Pompeii a few decades ago, they found that the local Roman city officials there and then had set raised stones in the street intersections, spaced at intervals that allowed the wheels of horse-drawn carts to easily pass between them, in the pattern of modern-day painted crosswalks - and could not figure out why they did that.  A few short minutes of my thinking that through told me that that was so that the everyday local Romans could cross the streets without every time having go wading through the accumulated horse....

Mike

[tradephoric]

In Search of The Coming Ice Age (1978):

There is little doubt that someday the ice will return.  At least 8 times in the past million years, it has advanced and retreated with clockwork regularity.  If we are unprepared for the next advance, the result could be hunger and death on a scale unprecedented in all of history.  What scientists are telling us now is that the threat of an ice age is not as remote as they once thought.  During the lifetime of our grandchildren, arctic cold and perpetual snow could turn most of the inhabitable portions of our planet into a polar desert. 

Yet another fallacy you incorporate in this discussion.  If science was wrong once, they are clearly are wrong all the time. It's just logical dishonesty.

I wouldn't say they were necessarily wrong back then.  From the 1950s through the 1970s average temperatures were dropping.  The data was there to suggest that the world might be heading into an ice-age.  But that trend reversed and over the past 40 years recorded temperatures have been going up.  Now instead of an ice age all we hear about is global warming.  But are the smartest people in the room going to be caught off guard when the temperatures inexplicably begin to drop again?

It reminds me of economists that were projecting massive government surpluses in the late 1990s just before the dot com bubble burst.  The Congressional Budget Office were using baseline estimates assuming that the surpluses of the late 90s would continue in perpetuity. If economists have trouble projecting government surpluses/deficits than how can we reasonably expect climatologists to project what the temperature of the world is going to be in 100 years?  There are just way too many variables to predict and one bad assumption throws everything off.  Their word shouldn't be taken as gospel that is for certain.  But for some climate is their god and they become zealots, that if you don't believe everything they believe than you are trying to destroy the world. 

[hotdogPi]

While there were ice age predictions in the 1970s, they were in the minority. The majority still believed there would be more warming.
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

[CoreySamson]

Re. the methane vs. carbon dioxide debate:

Isn't methane a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide? Isn't that why governments have been pushing to reduce cattle emissions so hard as of late? I might be wrong.

[hotdogPi]

Isn't methane a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide? Isn't that why governments have been pushing to reduce cattle emissions so hard as of late? I might be wrong.

As I mentioned earlier, methane lasts 12 years in the atmosphere. This means if methane emissions stay constant, its effect will stay constant, since it's been much longer than 12 years. Carbon dioxide lasts much longer (300-1000 years), so if carbon dioxide emissions stay constant, its percentage in the atmosphere will continue to grow.

[tradephoric]

Here's a good write up explaining methane gas and how it impacts global warming.  Methane is basically much more potent than CO2 but escapes the atmosphere much quicker.

Focusing on carbon emissions is only half the battle — or 74 percent of total emissions to be exact — but, focusing on the percentage of total emissions is extremely misleading because it ignores global warming potential altogether.

We've seen that methane, which accounts for only 14 percent of emissions worldwide, traps up to 100 times more heat than carbon dioxide over a 5-year period. This means that even though carbon dioxide molecules outnumber methane 5 to 1, this comparatively smaller amount of methane is still 19 times greater a problem for climate change over a 5 year period, and 4 times greater over a 100 year period.

To put it another way, any methane molecule released today is 100 times more heat-trapping than a molecule of carbon dioxide, or potentially even higher according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

With the UN establishing various tipping points for irreversible climate change damage on the horizon, it's time that methane enters mainstream consideration. And better yet, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that livestock production is responsible for 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, while other organizations like the Worldwatch Institute have estimated it could be as much as 51 percent — it's time that we look beyond our gas tanks and on to our plates

https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/methane-vs-carbon-dioxide-a-greenhouse-gas-showdown/

[Rothman]

While there were ice age predictions in the 1970s, they were in the minority. The majority still believed there would be more warming.
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

It's useless arguing with tradephoric.  We should just rest assured that the bias inherent in his statements on roundabouts or climate change or whatever else at this point is as obvious as the big nose on my face.

[seicer]

No current electric pickup owner is going to tow for any significant distances. They'll use it to go back and forth to their office complex, posing as a fake cowboy on their way back to their suburban tract. Or it will be guided by a shopaholic with with an inferiority complex but will leave it plugged in longer than necessary just to piss off other EV owners.

Check back in 10-20 years.

It's why I am hoping that Ford and other automakers don't put all of their eggs into the EV basket. There will always be a need for alternate forms of propulsion, whether it's conventional gasoline, diesel, electric, or hydrogen fuel cells. EVs offer a lot of torque but not a lot of range, especially if you are hauling anything heavy or towing practically anything.

We tow a lot with our Toyota Tacoma, and it doesn't break the bank considering that all it can do and does. We can make it to our campsite and back on one tank. Considering the fueling infrastructure that currently exists, there would be no way that a truck could tow anything out to the campground and make it to any charging point. Campground regulations also prohibit EV charging because of the risk of fires.

[hotdogPi]

While there were ice age predictions in the 1970s, they were in the minority. The majority still believed there would be more warming.
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

It's useless arguing with tradephoric.  We should just rest assured that the bias inherent in his statements on roundabouts or climate change or whatever else at this point is as obvious as the big nose on my face.

I actually agreed with him on the stock market threads at the time. But yes, he's wrong about roundabouts and climate change. "Whatever else" was more of an opinion than right vs. wrong, but I still disagreed with him on that.

[Scott5114]

Don't forget the covid thread where he had all those cooked-up graphs showing that it was no big deal. "Only" a million people ended up dying of it after that.

[tradephoric]

Scott is the one that stated "horse emissions don't effect the weather".  They do... 

That's because horse emissions aren't responsible for the weather you're forecast to have tomorrow.

I can't afford a Tesla either, and wouldn't buy one if I could. I can't afford a Cadillac either. There are other manufacturers, though.

Scott suggested that a horse producing 20.7 kilgrams of methane gas per year is only a problem if everyone still rode a horse to work...

That's because horse emissions aren't responsible for the weather you're forecast to have tomorrow.

Unless it's a gift from the Trojans.

A horse produces 20.7 kilograms of methane gas per year.  Methane is a greenhouse gas that increases the potential for global warming.

Yeah, and if everyone still rode a horse to work that might be a problem.

After explaining that horses still produce kilograms of methane gas even when someone isn't using the horse as transport, he accuses my argument is horseshit.  So I guess horses don't produce methane gas when just chilling in the pasture? 

You do realize there are still horses in the world right?  They don't only produce kilograms of methane gas when pushing a buggy around. 

After posting a video about Bill Gates talking about bovine flatulence and how it is a large contributor to global warming, Scott was dismissive talking about how Salt Lake City is the capital of Utah and bringing up electric cows...

You do realize there are still horses in the world right?  They don't only produce kilograms of methane gas when pushing a buggy around. 

You do realize your argument is horseshit, right?

Bovine flatulence is a large contributor to global warming:

And Salt Lake City is the capital of Utah. So what?

I don't think anyone's planning on coming out with electric cows any time soon so it's not relevant to what's being discussed.

I could go on but just give me a litany of things I was wrong about in this thread and cite the post completely. 

[seicer]

I'm wondering what this has to do with EV's.

[Max Rockatansky]

Since we are talking about methane emissions from animal farts, does anyone know how much humans contribute to green gas emissions annually by way of farting?

[US 89]

I wonder if any college aged frat bro cows light their farts.

[tradephoric]

Since we are talking about methane emissions from animal farts, does anyone know how much humans contribute to green gas emissions annually by way of farting?

You seem to be teeing them up for a joke directed in my direction.  You can all get a good laugh at my expense! 

[Max Rockatansky]

Since we are talking about methane emissions from animal farts, does anyone know how much humans contribute to green gas emissions annually by way of farting?

You seem to be teeing them up for a joke directed in my direction.  You can all get a good laugh at my expense!

This thread keeps showing up on my list of threads with replies and seems to mostly be about farts now, so why not run with it?

[CtrlAltDel]

Since we are talking about methane emissions from animal farts, does anyone know how much humans contribute to green gas emissions annually by way of farting?

According to this, about half a million tons. So that works out to be 0.1% of the 500 million tons emitted per year from all sources.

[Max Rockatansky]

Since we are talking about methane emissions from animal farts, does anyone know how much humans contribute to green gas emissions annually by way of farting?

According to this, about half a million tons. So that works out to be 0.1% of the 500 million tons emitted per year from all sources.

So you're saying people don't need to be equipped with emission controls? 

[CtrlAltDel]

Since we are talking about methane emissions from animal farts, does anyone know how much humans contribute to green gas emissions annually by way of farting?

According to this, about half a million tons. So that works out to be 0.1% of the 500 million tons emitted per year from all sources.

So you're saying people don't need to be equipped with emission controls?

I don't really want to debate policy.

[seicer]

Since we are talking about methane emissions from animal farts, does anyone know how much humans contribute to green gas emissions annually by way of farting?

Where is Tim Brown at!?

[jdbx]

Since we are talking about methane emissions from animal farts, does anyone know how much humans contribute to green gas emissions annually by way of farting?

Where is Tim Brown at!?

I was thinking the same exact thing.  This is exactly the topic that would have summoned him back in the old misc.transport.road days.  I hope nobody brings up Federal Highways, then it's really gonna smell like mtr in here.

[Max Rockatansky]

Since we are talking about methane emissions from animal farts, does anyone know how much humans contribute to green gas emissions annually by way of farting?

Where is Tim Brown at!?

I was thinking the same exact thing.  This is exactly the topic that would have summoned him back in the old misc.transport.road days.  I hope nobody brings up Federal Highways, then it's really gonna smell like mtr in here.

I did some farting on Federal Highways not too long.  Granted, they were Federal Highways in Mexico and didn't involve a little green shrub.

[Scott5114]

Since we are talking about methane emissions from animal farts, does anyone know how much humans contribute to green gas emissions annually by way of farting?

Where is Tim Brown at!?

I was thinking the same exact thing.  This is exactly the topic that would have summoned him back in the old misc.transport.road days.  I hope nobody brings up Federal Highways, then it's really gonna smell like mtr in here.

I did some farting on Federal Highways not too long.  Granted, they were Federal Highways in Mexico and didn't involve a little green shrub.

There's probably much more farting going on along turnpikes with service areas. Especially if they have something like Taco Bell.