Plug - in hybrids are the car industries Wolf in Sheep's Clothing Has anyone heard anything about this headline I saw ?

[Mark Gregory]

Driving up emissions: Polluting plug-in hybrids are the car industry’s 'wolf in sheep’s clothing' spewing out two and a half times more CO2 in real life than reported from lab tests

• Hybrid vehicles are run off of a combination of battery power and combustion 
• Greenpeace and Transport & Environment ran their own tests on hybrid cars
• This said they emit 188.3 grams of CO2 per mile, not 70.8 grams as advertised
• The UK will be banning new sales of petrol and diesel vehicles in the near future 
• Environmental groups are calling for hybrid cars to be added to this prohibition

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2020 by Mark Gregory (see edit history)

[Matt Harwood]

I'm sure everyone who hates electric and hybrid cars will take this as justification that they actually are the worst thing since polio. (This is where you spike the football in righteous celebration.)

 

I'd also assume that many of those same people don't like news sources that tell them things they don't want to hear. (This is where you say all news has an agenda and none of it can be trusted.)

 

Keeping all that in mind, note that these tests were done by Greenpeace, ostensibly in order to add hybrids to the list of things they want to ban. (This is where you say environmentalists are the real bad guys and maybe make fun of that girl from Sweden.)

 

Finally, the tests don't suggest hybrids are equal to or worse than regular internal combustion cars, only that they're not quite as clean in the real world as they are in a laboratory simulation. (See #2.)

 

Did I cover it all?

[CarNucopia]

My reaction? Posting a headline without a link seems like trolling. 🤷‍♂️

[auburnseeker]

3 minutes ago, Matt Harwood said:

news sources that tell them things they don't want to hear. (This is where you say all news has an agenda and none of it can be trusted.)

Well many have been known to twist the facts to such a degree that the story becomes entirely different than what actually happened when all the "Footage" is released or the entire quote is released.  With creative editing or the omission of just the right words and facts,  can make something seem entirely different than what it was. 

Fortunately the mixed blessing that it is,  social media lets the other videos or actual clips of the person talking or event taking place come out,  that lets some media's clear omission of the facts or strictly one perspective reporting be vetted in pretty short order.

If they would just present all the facts up front and let the people search out the truth or decide for themselves we would have alot less tension around.

I'm also done with anonymous sources or ones not given authorization to talk on the subject,  so of course they have to remain anonymous as well.  Journalism in this country is terrible at best,  and most likely criminal if really investigated. 

Especially when we are being told that what we clearly just saw is not what it appears to be, yet we have the events leading up to and including the point they are showing,  often with the omission of important facts that put many of the events in context. 

[Matt Harwood]

Actually, not to be argumentative, but anonymous sources aren't really anonymous--when a reporter uses "an anonymous source," it's not just some guy who sent an E-mail in the middle of the night and made a claim but they have no idea who it is or what his credentials might be. Before any reputable news agency will publish something using anonymous sources, those sources are vetted and double-checked, and in a vast majority of the cases, the person's identity is known to the reporter and probably his editor but they are not publishing that information for a variety of reasons, usually safety. It was decades before the identity of "Deep Throat" was known, yet everything he said was 100% true. Obviously there were reasons for protecting such a person's identity.

 

Anonymous sources are not used to invent false stories where there are none, but rather to corroborate stories that already exist using someone with information to share but who might not be safe sharing such information.

 

It seems on the face of things that anonymous sources are a problem and create confusion in the layman because they suggest that there's trickery afoot, but as with many things that cause friction in our country, the truth and the perception are not related. Many times the truth turns out to be reasonable, if not politically expedient. Easier to just say that when things you don't like are provided by anonymous sources, it's someone with an axe to grind making up lies (and therefore you are free to disregard what they're saying). That's not really how it works in high-level national news organizations of any type. Most take this very seriously.

 

Sourcing is Journalism 101 and one of the most important aspects of a free press in a free country, which is why the Founding Fathers made it the very first amendment they wrote. People who go into the profession don't do it because of the money and glory (there is none) and nobody lasts long if they're liars or manufacturing sources. It just doesn't happen, particularly at the national level.

 

Not agreeing with news isn't the same as it being untrue.

[dustycrusty]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54170207      Is this the possible source?

 

Ho-Hum.

Nobody says they are pollution free, but the article confirms they are the LEAST polluting method to mechanically power a vehicle.

If they get their batteries charged from a conventional, coal-fired power source then yes, they will have a larger carbon emission footprint. If they use a solar or wind or hydroelectric or a nuclear powered generator, the amount of primary pollution will vary accordingly.

[auburnseeker]

Seems quite often when pressed to the grindstone,  the anonymous source part and credentials fall short.

 

I can think of one kid, in now what is a very famous incident,   that went head to head with the media (in court) that reported what they perceived to be the facts and drove those home to their viewers (a major network news network) before they learned the true facts of the case.  Well they settled out of court for what is likely a very large sum of money considering the original suit and ear to ear grin on the kid when I recently saw him on TV.   Maybe if this happened more often,  we would have less speculative or agenda driven media and more confirmed facts being reported. 

 

That one case alone should prove how little to trust any news agency.  We have seen it time and time again, especially in recent times. 

[8E45E]

12 minutes ago, Matt Harwood said:

Actually, not to be argumentative, but anonymous sources aren't really anonymous--when a reporter uses "an anonymous source," it's not just some guy who sent an E-mail in the middle of the night and made a claim but they have no idea who it is or what his credentials might be. Before any reputable news agency will publish something using anonymous sources, those sources are vetted and double-checked, and in a vast majority of the cases, the person's identity is known to the reporter and probably his editor but they are not publishing that information for a variety of reasons, usually safety. 

 

Anonymous sources are not used to invent false stories where there are none, but rather to corroborate stories that already exist using someone with information to share but who might not be safe sharing such information.

 

It seems on the face of things that anonymous sources are a problem and create confusion in the layman because they suggest that there's trickery afoot, but as with many things that cause friction in our country, the truth and the perception are not related. Many times the truth turns out to be reasonable, if not politically expedient.

Back in the seventies, many local radio stations would pay cash for the best newstip of the year. I know our one local radio station paid $1000, which was a fair chunk of change then, considering a brand new Chevrolet was $3000 at the time.  One can bet before awarding that kind of money to someone anonymous with a newstip, they would have definitely confirmed the story was 100% correct.

 

Craig

[Matt Harwood]

3 minutes ago, auburnseeker said:

Seems quite often when pressed to the grindstone,  the anonymous source part and credentials fall short.

 

I can think of one kid, in now what is a very famous incident,   that went head to head with the media (in court) that reported what they perceived to be the facts and drove those home to their viewers (a major network news network) before they learned the true facts of the case.  Well they settled out of court for what is likely a very large sum of money considering the original suit and ear to ear grin on the kid when I recently saw him on TV.   Maybe if this happened more often,  we would have less speculative or agenda driven media and more confirmed facts being reported. 

 

That one case alone should prove how little to trust any news agency.  We have seen it time and time again, especially in recent times. 

 

If you're referencing the case I think you are, it never made it to court and I'm not sure a settlement is necessarily vindication--I have paid people to go away even when I don't have to simply because it's easier, faster, and cheaper than fighting. And if this is the case that I think it is, I should note that the second suit the plaintiff filed against a different news outlet was tossed by a judge on merit and was not re-filed, suggesting they knew it was a long shot anyway. Again, just because you like the way it went in one situation and didn't like the way it went in the other doesn't mean both didn't happen. It isn't ever black-and-white.

 

The system is not perfect, I'll give you that. News agencies are responsible for policing themselves and some do it better than others (anyone remember Jason Blair making up a source for his big break at the New York Times? Brian Williams and Bill O'Reilly lying about being in war zones? All fired for betraying the public trust and making shiat up). Liars do lie and mistakes happen, of course, but to assume that a mistake by an individual means ALL news is complicit isn't a reasonable conclusion. Some news organizations do seem to care about the facts more than others, but the fact that heads roll when someone lies means it isn't commonplace and it is taken seriously.

 

It's no different than you making a mistake on your old car and because of it, I assume that you're a poor mechanic who shouldn't own old cars. That's not a reasonable deduction, especially since there's other evidence that you're a fine mechanic and because of it, your opinions and knowledge can be trusted. One mistake does not a hack make.

 

Writing all media off as liars lying simply means a person is free to make up whatever facts and interpretations they want, and that doesn't help them become better informed--it just gives them the freedom to believe whatever they want. Given the choice between uncomfortable truths or comforting lies, most folks choose the comforting lies.

[Bhigdog]

As to the integrity and objectivity of the media all one has to do is watch a live speech or utterance by a certain leader and then tune in a couple of different tv networks or read a couple of different leading newspapers and listen to what you have actually witnessed be parsed, edited, massaged, and spun to convey the desired narrative.....bob

 

 

 

 

[padgett]

Media has never been really accurate just it used to be called "dime novels". Have been so many mistakes about things I know that treat it all as entertainment and not fact.

Edited September 17, 2020 by padgett (see edit history)

[ply33]

Wow, it isn’t taking long for this thread to go off track.

 

5 hours ago, Matt Harwood said:

Did I cover it all?

 

From my reading of the article, I think you did.

 

5 hours ago, dustycrusty said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54170207      Is this the possible source?

 

That is where I first saw it the other day.

 

My interpretation of the article is that that plug-in hybrids act like hybrids if they are not plugged in. And when running as a hybrid they get about the same fuel economy as a hybrid. Which is pretty obvious.

 

And, apparently, there are people who will buy a plug-in hybrid even when they don't live where they can plug it in and maybe they never intend to plug it in. This brings down the average plug-in hybrid fleet fuel economy. Thus the headline and scare wording in the article.

 

My guess is that sales of plug-ins for non-plug-in use might be due to tax reasons (sometimes the after tax rebate cost of a plug-in is lower than the cost of the non-plug-in of the same car). Tax rebates for plug-in hybrids might be a valid point for discussion. But then the tax law carve outs for any industry, including the petroleum industry, could be points for discussion too. However that is all, nearly by definition, a discussion about political decisions.

 

Disclosure: I have a plug-in hybrid which I charge it at home. Given my retired status and the current Covid-19 restrictions on things, I haven't much need to drive it out of town so I am getting somewhere around 1000 miles per 10 gallon fill up as most of my mileage is well within the EV range of the car.

 

By my calculation, my EV cost per mile works out to about the equivalent of $1.50/gal if I was buying gas. Needless to say, you can't buy gas for that price anywhere near where I live. (Your situation will be different based on your local cost of gasoline and your local cost of electrical power.) So leaving the politics out of it, I just consider my plug-in hybrid to be an economy car and an economy car is what I want for a modern daily driver.

[Guest]

I have a hybrid. 

 

[JamesR]

3 minutes ago, GregLaR said:

I have a hybrid. 

 

 

 

LOL!! OH, THAT'S GOOD!!!😆

[auburnseeker]

I think we know why that case never went to court.  If they really thought they were in the right,  they would have used every resource to nail that kid to the wall and ruin his life like they righteously thought they were in the beginning.  Seems they were completely wrong about that kid and the events that led up to that point,  including the motive of the savior they were holding in high esteem.  Seems to be a common case we see over and over again. 

We know that kid had nowhere near the resources of that news network. 

When I see the media reporting on a peaceful protest while stuff is literally burning in the background and they keep mentioning how it's peaceful,  I know I am being fed a complete lie and all credibility is gone. 

 

You can relate any of this to our cars or laws governing our cars.  If they can so easily distort the truth about so many things we have seen lately,  then what do you think they will do if they decide to put their resources against the ownership or enjoyment of old cars.  Anyone can say it won't happen,  but look around and see how many things that we never thought would happen have and often without any say from the legislature or people that elected them.

Edited September 17, 2020 by auburnseeker (see edit history)

[JamesR]

Today's media: It's kind of like the old social studies experiment in high school where the teacher has a couple of students run into class unannounced and do something outrageous, then has the rest of the class write down what they saw. Everyone sees something different. Whenever I hear something of a political nature in the news, I often feel like I'm at a trial listening to attorneys presenting their client's case rather than listening to journalists presenting information to the best of their ability, and that's a shame. We've probably come to the point where political news should be treated as advocacy from one side of the spectrum or another, and (just as with a trial) we need to get multiple perspectives in order to arrive at the truth. Again, what a shame. OTOH, such a strategy has worked for our legal system for centuries. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the news can't be biased.

 

Anyway, to keep my post from being too off topic...I really don't see the coming electric car phenom as something so horrible. I actually found the idea of electric cars pretty cool when I was a kid and played around with HO scale racing cars. You could really hop those cars up and they'd blow away the standard units you got from Aurora. I remember getting some custom job from a small maker with an ultra lightweight lexon McLaren body on it. No one could touch me with that car. ;)

[Guest]

I miss the big 12 lane slot car tracks that all the kids could visit in just about every town in America. More fun than any arcade.

Building your own slot car chassis, choosing a body, tires, paint scheme, etc.

[JamesR]

Large scale slot cars...what an era specific hobby. I would've liked to been involved in that stuff, but all the tracks around here lasted about five or six years and that was it. By the time I was old enough to afford big slot cars, there was no place (in our town) to race them, so we settled for the HO tracks in our homes.

[Guest]

I thought about building a retro slot car track here in Palm Springs at the same complex where my bar and restaurant are located. But the kids today don't have much of a car cluture attitude. So all my "kids" would be in their 60's. 😄

[JamesR]

If you do that, I PROMISE you I'll buy a slot car, fly out to Palm Springs, and race on your track. But I'm guessing that won't be enough to keep your enterprise going.  😄

[nickelroadster]

I call electric cars "coal burners"

[rocketraider]

Shhhhh! Don't tell the green power crowd! They think electricity comes from elves working in hollow trees, like Keebler cookies!😲

 

Having spent my adult life in the power generation binness, I can tell you a lot of horror stories about "green" and "renewable" power sources. Suffice to say that if you ever saw a wind turbine fail and melt it's way to the ground, you might not think wind power is the answer any more.

[ply33]

2 hours ago, nickelroadster said:

I call electric cars "coal burners"

 

An EV or a plug-in hybrid in my area isn't using any coal generated electricity.

 

The most recent document I can find in a quick search is for 2018. At that time my local electrical company claimed the following mix of generation:

 

Renewable: 43%

Coal: 0%

Large Hydroelectric: 0%

Natural Gas: 29%

Nuclear: 0%

Other: <1%

Unspecified: 27%

 

("Unspecified" is described as meaning "electricity from transactions that are not traceable to specific generation sources.").

 

Things vary quite a bit by region, but nationally coal is less than 25% of the current electrical generation. It might be more accurate to call them "natural gas burners" instead of "coal burners".

 

1 hour ago, rocketraider said:

Shhhhh! Don't tell the green power crowd! They think electricity comes from elves working in hollow trees, like Keebler cookies!😲

 

Having spent my adult life in the power generation binness, I can tell you a lot of horror stories about "green" and "renewable" power sources. Suffice to say that if you ever saw a wind turbine fail and melt it's way to the ground, you might not think wind power is the answer any more.

 

Anytime you are dealing with industrial scale power when things go wrong they can go very badly wrong. Not sure it matters that much what the source of the power is. It really does make sense to have competent professionals running the power grid.

[charlier]

On 9/18/2020 at 12:48 AM, plymouthcranbrook said:

What I find interesting is the idea of cars powered by fuel cells.  Sound like a really good way to provide transportation.  Maybe someday .http://www.fchea.org/transportation

 

 

 

 

Yes, this technology is interesting.

 

Actually, the city I live near here in Eastern Pennsylvania used a few fuel cell busses in their fleet from the early 1990s until 2005. Back in 1996 the Summer Olympics in Atlanta borrowed all these busses to use during the Olympics. After 2005 they went with hybrid busses (diesel/electric) which I still see the more current versions of these busses on the roads around here these days. Basically, someday is now and has been for almost 30 years, at least where I live. 

 

Charlie

Edited September 19, 2020 by charlier (see edit history)

[Mark Gregory]

The ban is also being expanded to hybrid cars and plug-in hybrids, which had not been included under the original proposals.

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40726868

[Mark Gregory]

[rocketraider]

The idea of the general public operating or fueling a hydrogen-fueled vehicle scares hell out of me.

 

That link makes it sound ridiculously simple. Take it from one who has seen a hydrogen explosion and recovered a co-worker's body. You do not want untrained people handling the stuff.

[JACK M]

5 hours ago, charlier said:

Basically, someday is now and has been for almost 30 years,

 

 

I remember all the hype, never happened.

[Peter Gariepy]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54170207

 

[Peter Gariepy]

 

On 9/17/2020 at 6:26 AM, auburnseeker said:

Seems quite often when pressed to the grindstone,  the anonymous source part and credentials fall short.

 

I can think of one kid, in now what is a very famous incident,   that went head to head with the media (in court) that reported what they perceived to be the facts and drove those home to their viewers (a major network news network) before they learned the true facts of the case.  Well they settled out of court for what is likely a very large sum of money considering the original suit and ear to ear grin on the kid when I recently saw him on TV.   Maybe if this happened more often,  we would have less speculative or agenda driven media and more confirmed facts being reported. 

 

That one case alone should prove how little to trust any news agency.  We have seen it time and time again, especially in recent times. 

 

SOURCE or DETAILS?

[JACK M]

5 hours ago, charlier said:

Basically, someday is now and has been for almost 30 years,

 

 

I remember all the hype, never happened.

[Peter Gariepy]

15 hours ago, rocketraider said:

I can tell you a lot of horror stories about "green" and "renewable" power sources. Suffice to say that if you ever saw a wind turbine fail and melt it's way to the ground, you might not think wind power is the answer any more.

 

Seriously? The rare catastrophic wind turbine failures are always in extremely rural areas, with virtually no loss of life or long standing issues. Compare them to the following:

 

• Chernobyl - cleanup cost to date:  $68 billion dollars and will go on for 100s years. (including billions paid by US taxpayers) Official deaths=31, Unofficial deaths=60,000.
• Fukushima - cleanup cost to date:  $100 billion dollars and will go on for 100s years.
• 3 Mile Island - cleanup cost to date: $1 billion dollars
• Exxon Valdez oil spill - cleanup costs:  $2 billion dollars
• Coal mine deaths - 100,000 (conservatively)
• Deepwater Horizon oil spill - cleanup costs:  $14 billion dollars
• and most recently... abandoned gas wells leaking methane

 

And this is a very short list.  Happy to provide source on all of these but Google is a click away.

 

I'd much rather see a wind turbine fail than these energy failures above.

 

Sorry, but you are simply wrong.  Wind Power is EXPONENTIALLY more safe than virtually all other sources.

Your comment shows your complete ignorance of the costs of other energy sources.

 

Bet you think global warming is a hoax too?  🙄

[Peter Gariepy]

15 hours ago, rocketraider said:

Shhhhh! Don't tell the green power crowd! They think electricity comes from elves working in hollow trees, like Keebler cookies!

 

 

Both untrue and inflammatory. 

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Peter Gariepy said:

 

Seriously? The rare catastrophic wind turbine failures are always in extremely rural areas, with virtually no loss of life or long standing issues. Compare them to the following:

• Chernobyl
• Fukushima
• 3 Mile Island
• Exxon Valdez oil spill 
• Coal mine deaths
• Deepwater Horizon oil spill
• and most recently... abandoned gas wells leaking methane

 

And this is a very short list.  Happy to provide source on all of these but Google is a click away.

 

I'd much rather see a wind turbine fail than these energy failures above.

 

Sorry, but you are simply wrong.  Wind Power is EXPONENTIALLY more safe than virtually all other sources.

This is correct.

We have hundreds if not a few thousand wind turbines here in the Palm Springs area. Failure rate is very low and they are quite remote from any populated areas. 

While they may change the landscape some, they aren't that difficult to look at compared, say to a nuclear reactor.  Only downside locally, is that when they first started installing them here, we were promised super low power rates. Then deregulation came along, so all the turbine power now heads onto the grid and we're stuck with SoCal Edison and paying some of the highest rates in the nation. Just to give you an idea, my restaurant is about 3,500 square feet. In the summer time when we use the most power here, my power bill is about $4,500 a month. My friend, who has a much larger restaurant up the street at 18,000 square feet, pays over $20K per month for his power. I would love it if we could tap into this affordable wind driven source.

Anyone here want to buy a nice, successful bar and restaurant in a sunny, sub-tropical climate?

[Peter Gariepy]

 

1 hour ago, JACK M said:

 

I remember all the hype, never happened.

 

Renewable energy is VERY REAL:
  

Iceland and Norway get basically 100% of their power from clean energy.  USA gets 4.5%.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/267233/renewable-energy-capacity-worldwide-by-country/

 

To put that 4.5% in perspective... that amount of energy would have powered the entire country in 1970.

 

Educate yourself before blinding calling it hype.

[auburnseeker]

3 hours ago, Peter Gariepy said:

 

 

SOURCE or DETAILS?

It's been reported by many sources that he settled out of court I don't have the exact links at this moment.  You can't tell me he just dropped the case.  This goes back to the common sense thing i was talking about.  

Ray Charles could clearly see he was slandered by the media.  He even had death threats made against him.  Busy sourcing parts for my Dodge right now as I tackle another hurdle in a restored car that was all ready to go to chase down the exact source. That's why we have the net.

[Peter Gariepy]

Below is an abridged and edited version of my response to a private message i received on this issue. Thought it worth sharing here:

 

---

 

Global warning is NOT about agendas or politics. Nor is it about anyone trying to make us feel guilty for taking our gas guzzling antique cars out to get ice cream. Its SO MUCH BIGGER THAN THAT!

 

If your car suddenly increased in temperature and filled with smoke wouldn't you pull over and take notice? Or would you say to the passengers in the car with you they have an agenda and would you continue to drive?  Thats exactly what the deniers are doing.

 

We have problem, a problem that needs to be addressed.... global warming. It doesn't take a climatologist to see it. Look at the fires on the west, or the record temperatures in LA and Death Valley, Or the storms in the Atlantic (5 at once!), or the temperature of the seas, or the world average temperatures, or CO2 levels, or the loss of ice in the north pole, or the almost complete loss of glaciers. My examples may be anecdotal, but add them all up, and combine them with what is basically unanimously agreed upon by the scientific community - and we have global warming.  Green energy is part of the solution.

 

To discount all efforts to stop global warming because of a failed wind turbine or ill conceived hybrid vehicles is ludicrous. 

Let's pull our heads out of our respective orifices, acknowledge the problem, and seek solutions.

 

"The first step in solving a problem is to recognize that it does exist."

--Zig Ziglar

 

[auburnseeker]

The problem is not matter what we do, Mother nature will do what she wants and all our efforts will be in vain. The carbon footprint of the fires right now is bigger than I'll bet the citizens of this country will be for the next several years. Be good stewards of the environment but maintain a balance between decimating our economy to become green and making the country prosper enough to compete against countries that couldn't care less, or one day you will wake up to find out they just surpassed you and are now in control.  It's like waging a war.  If you play on a more civilized playing field than the enemy under the guise that they will play fair because you are,  they will ultimately win or you will face incredible levels of casualties they don't.  The American revolution comes to mind.  Do you want to be the British troops in neatly formed columns or do you want to be the guys nailing your troops from the shadows. 

[Bhigdog]

Hard and verifiable data indicates the Earth has been warming of late. Hard and accepted data also indicates the Earth has both cooled and warmed repeatedly, as it pleased, without the hand of Man's influence.

It is likely that Man's contribution of late is having some effect on climate.

That's where the facts end and the speculation begins. Said speculation is rife with political, professional, financial, and ego driven agendas.

Just as figures don't lie. Liars can most assuredly figure.

Believe any settled "facts" at your own peril.

Said "facts" are as likely to be spun bullshit as spun gold.......................Bob

 

 

Edited September 18, 2020 by Bhigdog (see edit history)

[JamesR]

There has to be a way to harness all that heat energy stored up in black interiors with the windows rolled up on hot summer days...and maybe also harness energy from the SCREAMS of the people wearing shorts who sat in them. (It seems to me that screams should be a valid source of energy: I usually feel pretty worn out after screaming too long. 😄)