[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by jmg

That's not the same scenario I described at all.

Originally Posted by jmg

I would probably trust an environmental or chemical engineer over an electrical or mechanical engineer. I trust one role would be proficient in assessing the difficulty and plausibility of a project, and the other in whether or not the project is necessary. .

You state you will trust an (we need to do X) expert that says some need for X solution is valid. You say you will also trust an (this is how it will get done) expert that the proposal to address X will required Z time/resource. Correct?

When the (this is how it will get done) expert says Z can't be accomplished to address X as proposed, you then question his expert conclusion as if it were some opinion? Is it not then reasonable for others to question the conclusion of the (we need to do X) guy too?

Follow your own reasoning to conclusion, this thread is the result. If you only trust experts that agree with you, you aren't practicing science, you are practicing ideology.

[Equilibrandt]

It's incredibly intriguing that the "nah, this is impossible" crowd (and also climate change deniers, apparently) repeatedly refutes the idea of simply starting anything.

13 years is quite a while. I'm assuming every single one of you is rational enough to agree that there's some unthought-of advancement that could make this feasible in "X" amount of time.

The crowd shouting that EVs are not the future (and that we shouldn't take any steps now to make change) seem to be the same crowd that would have an absolute aneurysm if they were forced to buy a mild-hybrid 4-cyl because of ICE emission constraints.

So let me ask: those of you who can't (or refuse to) get behind the EV wave:

In the event we kept improving ICE engines to meet more and more strict emissions (which anyone with an engineering degree knows is virtually impossible on the combustion side, so the deficit must be offset by the EV portion of the engine), are you truly stating that you'd take some triple-catted AMG 4-cyl with a hybrid system (the most power 4 pot in the world is AMG's turbo M139 making 400 hp) over a 500+ hp EV?

It seems like it's less and less about power and more about hugging gasoline, which is quite odd for an enthusiasts' forum.

[Equilibrandt]

Also something that struck me as very funny:

> posters above discount the idea of hypothetical battery advancements, grid improvements, etc
> posters then tout the merit of hypothetical improvements to ICE (like novel metals for thermal dissipation and weight savings)

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by Equilibrandt

I'm assuming every single one of you is rational enough to agree that there's some unthought-of advancement that could make this feasible in "X" amount of time.
.

You want to bet your farm on non-existent technology. Go for it.

You want to bet everyone else's too?

Is that rational?

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I'm not sure about it being a bombshell claim, but it's the same point about controlling climate change. Trying to control the Earth's climate by controlling anthropogenic climate source inputs can't be backed up either. H2ODoc claims we have it figured out, but when pressed, he has no specifics.

That was my point with making such a statement. It's all prediction rather than actuality. When the politicos start messing with my income and lifestyle, they need to bring actualities and specifics. It's a fair request.

It's not that I don't have the specifics, it's that they're easily knowable. All the information is out there for you and everyone else to read. I don't want to play link ping-pong. Really, the climate is changing because of the increasing concentrations of GHGs that come from our combustion of fossil fuels. And this really has been expected for a very long time. It didn't get controversial until we realized we needed to do something about it.

It's like evolution, it's real and makes some people uncomfortable. Some people deny it's real, but I'm not going to post links to Darwin's work or Gould's, or Dawkins etc. It's there, go read it. If you still don't believe, I think it's not an issue of education or information, but something else. Rational ignorance or deliberate ignorance maybe. It's real, it happens, and interestingly enough, there are likely important evolutionary origins to it (important to our survival at some point).

But no, posting a bunch of linked to what is or should be uncontroversial links is not my things (OK, sometimes I succumb).

I mean this not in a snarky way, but conversationally and respectfully.

[Equilibrandt]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

You want to bet your farm on non-existent technology. Go for it.

You want to bet everyone else's too?

Is that rational?

Deflection of the century. I'll go ahead and put you in the "praying for a non-existent technological advancement in ICEs" camp.

It's asinine to sit here and say, "let's do nothing, let's continue on as we are right now." ICEs can't get good enough.

[x622]

Originally Posted by jmg

I think you've misunderstood. I can only speak for myself, but I already know there are complications. When you bring these issues up, I don't think "we can't reach our goal, because this problem is difficult, complicated and will take a long time."

I say "How do we solve this problem so we can reach our goal."

An act of congress making it easier for
- FastTrack permitting and clear regulatory hurdles for new generation to be built out, and not just renewables

- Some sort of eminent domain or something to get tranches of new conductor strung (This one will be the hardest)

- Regulatory changes in the Power Pools, increasing staffing to get pool studies done in a reasonable and timely fashion

- Sweeping federal regulatory changes unshackling the utilities from renewables and instead allowing them to make the best decision for the given location in terms of efficiency and grid mix diversity (Right now they're being paid off to sequester carbon baseload for renewables around the US)

- Sweeping state regulatory changes combined with working with all of the various generation companies to ramp and expand

- A commission started to analyze the various costs of generation in particular locations with a mind of driving down overall cost and increasing efficiency rather than "just be green"

- Some sort of liaison between the CARB and the people who produce the power, these guys have no goddamn idea what they're asking and that much is clear, with a clear publicly available plan to achieve this


I think even starting with the last point would be a good step. But I hope this short list clears up why I'm such an alarmist about this because it needs to start now, not in 2-5 or 10 years in order to be ready.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by Equilibrandt

Deflection of the century. I'll go ahead and put you in the "praying for a non-existent technological advancement in ICEs" camp.

It's asinine to sit here and say, "let's do nothing, let's continue on as we are right now." ICEs can't get good enough.

Go for it, I've said nothing of increasing ICE's efficiency here, nor "lets do nothing" either. Putting me in such a group will make your position much easier to comprehend and defend for you.

Here is a magic wand for you to use to solve your grid problems.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by x622

An act of congress making it easier for
- FastTrack permitting and clear regulatory hurdles for new generation to be built out, and not just renewables

- Some sort of eminent domain or something to get tranches of new conductor strung (This one will be the hardest)

- Regulatory changes in the Power Pools, increasing staffing to get pool studies done in a reasonable and timely fashion

- Sweeping federal regulatory changes unshackling the utilities from renewables and instead allowing them to make the best decision for the given location in terms of efficiency and grid mix diversity (Right now they're being paid off to sequester carbon baseload for renewables around the US)

- Sweeping state regulatory changes combined with working with all of the various generation companies to ramp and expand

- A commission started to analyze the various costs of generation in particular locations with a mind of driving down overall cost and increasing efficiency rather than "just be green"

- Some sort of liaison between the CARB and the people who produce the power, these guys have no goddamn idea what they're asking and that much is clear, with a clear publicly available plan to achieve this


I think even starting with the last point would be a good step. But I hope this short list clears up why I'm such an alarmist about this because it needs to start now, not in 2-5 or 10 years in order to be ready.

I totally agree. Too many people say "we shouldn't do this because we can't" as opposed to "here's what we need to do."

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by x622

An act of congress making it easier for
- FastTrack permitting and clear regulatory hurdles for new generation to be built out, and not just renewables

- Some sort of eminent domain or something to get tranches of new conductor strung (This one will be the hardest)

- Regulatory changes in the Power Pools, increasing staffing to get pool studies done in a reasonable and timely fashion

- Sweeping federal regulatory changes unshackling the utilities from renewables and instead allowing them to make the best decision for the given location in terms of efficiency and grid mix diversity (Right now they're being paid off to sequester carbon baseload for renewables around the US)

- Sweeping state regulatory changes combined with working with all of the various generation companies to ramp and expand

- A commission started to analyze the various costs of generation in particular locations with a mind of driving down overall cost and increasing efficiency rather than "just be green"

- Some sort of liaison between the CARB and the people who produce the power, these guys have no goddamn idea what they're asking and that much is clear, with a clear publicly available plan to achieve this


I think even starting with the last point would be a good step. But I hope this short list clears up why I'm such an alarmist about this because it needs to start now, not in 2-5 or 10 years in order to be ready.

We will need to add considerably to the labor force too. One of the problems that has kept our grid poorly maintained is lack of skilled labor and lack of engineering labor. it takes 5 years minimum to acquire the base/entry level skill set needed to work in the industry, and much longer to be highly proficient.

Also, the fact of the matter is not everyone is qualified or cut out for this kind of work anyway.

If we think the people already running things have time to spare for these kinds of overhauls, who in turn will do the work they can barely get done now? Many already work mandatory overtime just to keep the lights on. In my utility, the largest single factor preventing us from achieving our corporate goals is labor shortages and training gaps. More money won't fix those problems, and neither will some new technology.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I don't believe humans have a material effect on the Earth's climate that will either decrease or increase our time on the planet.

I disagree and so do many people I know that do have masters degrees and are on the cutting edge of environmental and chemical science, like new frontier stuff, not staff worker at a food company or something.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I fully support the study of climate change, yet I do not think we have a level of precision where we can act in an attempt to control the climate. I find it fascinating EVERY climate model predicts a catastrophic future. I find it fascinating people just accept the presumption homo sapiens will inhabit the Earth for the remainder of time. The fossil record indicates otherwise. What climate fearers are saying is we humans now know how to behave in such a manner that we can counteract the forces of natural climate change. Because to remain inhabitants of Earth as homo sapiens for the remainder of time the climate must be made static. The geological record indicates otherwise.

When a scientist or group of scientists presents the data and methodology that proves humans can make the climate static, then I'll start to consider anthropogenic climate change is outside of the natural progression of the planet's climate.

You have several disputable assumptions:

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I find it fascinating people just accept the presumption homo sapiens will inhabit the Earth for the remainder of time.

Very few people I have spoken to actually believe this. That sounds more like what like-minded people say about about people who disagree with them. It's a straw man argument.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

What climate fearers are saying is we humans now know how to behave in such a manner that we can counteract the forces of natural climate change.

Not counteract natural climate change, but reduce anthropogenic climate change. Those are two very different things.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Because to remain inhabitants of Earth as homo sapiens for the remainder of time the climate must be made static.

"Static" climate in the true definition of the word is impossible. Perhaps you are misunderstanding what people mean when we need to curb anthropogenic climate change.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

When a scientist or group of scientists presents the data and methodology that proves humans can make the climate static, then I'll start to consider anthropogenic climate change is outside of the natural progression of the planet's climate.

You've assigned something impossible as a condition, it's little wonder why your position is so dogmatic.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

We will need to add considerably to the labor force too. One of the problems that has kept our grid poorly maintained is lack of skilled labor and lack of engineering labor. it takes 5 years minimum to acquire the base/entry level skill set needed to work in the industry, and much longer to be highly proficient.

Agreed. Not sure why this information means to do nothing as an alternative as suggested in other posts. The sooner the better.

[G MONEY]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

We will need to add considerably to the labor force too. One of the problems that has kept our grid poorly maintained is lack of skilled labor and lack of engineering labor. it takes 5 years minimum to acquire the base/entry level skill set needed to work in the industry, and much longer to be highly proficient.

Also, the fact of the matter is not everyone is qualified or cut out for this kind of work anyway.

If we think the people already running things have time to spare for these kinds of overhauls, who in turn will do the work they can barely get done now? Many already work mandatory overtime just to keep the lights on. In my utility, the largest single factor preventing us from achieving our corporate goals is labor shortages and training gaps. More money won't fix those problems, and neither will some new technology.

Sounds like a lot of Starbucks employees will be looking for work🤣😉

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by jmg

Agreed. Not sure why this information means to do nothing as an alternative as suggested in other posts. The sooner the better.

Who is advocating for "do nothing" though?

[jmg]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

You want to bet your farm on non-existent technology. Go for it.

You want to bet everyone else's too?

Is that rational?

False dichotomy. No one is "betting the farm", or maybe we disagree with what that term means.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Who is advocating for "do nothing" though?

Do you?

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by jmg

False dichotomy. No one is "betting the farm", or maybe we disagree with what that term means.

Does "Go all in" fit better? Isn't that what the mandate says? Past 2035, there are no other options for purchase new, right?

Originally Posted by jmg

Do you?

Have I ever?

[CarsAndGuitars]

Originally Posted by jmg

False dichotomy. No one is "betting the farm", or maybe we disagree with what that term means.

If production and sale of ICE vehicles are being ended in 13 years then:

- production will be slowed as the deadline approaches, making supply smaller and prices higher
- to minimize costs, ICE infrastructure - fuel stations / oil change businesses, parts warehouses, etc - will be maintained to a bare minimum and shuttered as demand wanes (business economics 101)
- ICE engineering jobs will be minimized and/or eliminated - along with those highly skilled professionals (hopefully) moving on to other industries
- factories and other production infrastructure will be retooled or abandoned and replaced.

How do you reverse each of the above casualties of a hard changeover to EVs?

I work in software development. We do more than write code. Part of every release is a ROLLBACK PLAN, which is discussed and validated before each and every release. What if things don't go as expected? What if it is a big thing, or one small thing that has a snowball effect? If we need to, we can rollback some or all of the code, effectively undoing the errant part of the release.

With or without a plan to go forward, California and the other lemming states need a CTRL-Z keystroke combination. If they don't have it, they are betting the farm.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

You state you will trust an (we need to do X) expert that says some need for X solution is valid. You say you will also trust an (this is how it will get done) expert that the proposal to address X will required Z time/resource. Correct?



When the (this is how it will get done) expert says Z can't be accomplished to address X as proposed, you then question his expert conclusion as if it were some opinion? Is it not then reasonable for others to question the conclusion of the (we need to do X) guy too?

No that's not what I am saying at all. If Z cannot be accomplished, then, other options for Z should be explored. Z cannot say X is invalid, because X in my scenario isn't the action we must take, but that there is need for action.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

If you only trust experts that agree with you, you aren't practicing science, you are practicing ideology.

I trust experts to be experts at what they do.

If someone is an expert at farming and says X (we need more water for their crops), but the engineer says there is no way to Z (transport enough water) to keep the crops alive.

The inability to Z (transport enough water) doesn't change the fact that X (we need more water for their crops).

The solution, then, is for the engineer to build or invent the aqueduct to solve for Z (transport enough water).

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by G MONEY

Sounds like a lot of Starbucks employees will be looking for work🤣😉

But will they pass the entrance exams? We can't find qualified people. Starting wage in my area of specialty is $55.18 and hour, and rises to $61.22 after 2 years OJT training, but almost no one passes our entrance exam.

We as a society just aren't embracing trade skills, and few college programs teach these perquisites anymore. This will get worse before it gets better. We keep rising wages, but it doesn't produce more qualified candidates. I recently had to dumb our test down just to get applicants past the first hurdle.

[CarsAndGuitars]

Originally Posted by jmg

No that's not what I am saying at all. If Z cannot be accomplished, then, other options for Z should be explored. Z cannot say X is invalid, because X in my scenario isn't the action we must take, but that there is need for action.




I trust experts to be experts at what they do.

If someone is an expert at farming and says we need more water for their crops, but the engineer says there is no way to transport enough water to keep the crops alive, the inability to make it possible doesn't change the fact that the crops need to be watered. The solution, then, is for the engineer to build or invent the aqueduct.

That is totally oversimplifying and not reality.. What if you have a group of "experts" and there is disagreement among the group? You as a non-expert are eventually going to "rationalize" the information and choose a side, or wait and hope the group reaches consensus.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by jmg

No that's not what I am saying at all. If Z cannot be accomplished, then, other options for Z should be explored. Z cannot say X is invalid, because X in my scenario isn't the action we must take, but that there is need for action.

Saying it can't be done has nothing to do with saying X is invalid.

I trust experts to be experts at what they do.

If someone is an expert at farming and says we need more water for their crops, but the engineer says there is no way to transport enough water to keep the crops alive, the inability to make it possible doesn't change the fact that the crops need to be watered. The solution, then, is for the engineer to build or invent the aqueduct.

Build an aqueduct to extract what water? Engineers can't made water from nothing. Focused on the cart and ignoring the horse that pulls it?