Not putting the gas engine to bed yet.

Greenpeace is using lawyers to sue car companies into removing gas?
So much for following the science....
Basically...... Its..... do as we say or we will punish you with law suits.

I love this, if you can afford a good lawyer it's rhetorical hyperbole. If not you are a liar.


"Last year Resolute launched a racketeering lawsuit in the United States, alleging that Greenpeace and its allies had engaged in defamatory and fraudulent behaviour in order to enrich themselves from donations. The company accused it of faking photos, and fabricating evidence of Resolute's misdeeds.

Greenpeace has now admitted that it engaged in "rhetorical hyperbole." It said in a court motion that its words about forest destruction "can be describing figurative, rather than literal destruction."

It also admitted that its claims "do not hew to strict literalisms or scientific precision" and are "non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion."

I am all for cleaning up for our descendants (and ourselves) - wondering about a few things though. . .

“We” can’t afford to place all power transmission lines underground after hurricanes - it’ll take much more than that to create a “global grid” that will support everyone charging their ev’s at home by 2030 or 2050- even in the most developed countries in the world. Oh, and as far as emissions goes, how will that electricity be generated with minimal greenhouse gas creation/nuclear fission waste?

Instead of filing lawsuits, perhaps “powers” and “parties” should focus on addressing the monumental tasks, like perfecting fusion by 2030 (or at all) . . .or figuring out how to create/cleanly use element 115.

I understand Element 115 shows real promise

I happen to like green peas they taste great with pork chops

Worried this topic is running a very fine line between automotive and political discussion, so hopefully it doesn't go off the rails...

Don't get me wrong, im all for electric cars. I followed the development of Tesla since before they were even a company and am seriously considering the VW ID.4 as my next purchase for my wife (I was waiting on the ID BUZZ but the last spy photos seem like they may have destroyed the styling)

BUT

Suing automakers? really? They are supplying what is currently a perfectly legal product and it is the drivers that are actually burning the gas and creating the emissions. Why dont they sue the gasoline producers/retailers, i mean its their product that actually turns into the harmful emissions, or sue every driver on the planet maybe. To me either one of those makes more sense than suing an automaker.

Just remember these are the same people who protest offshore oil rigs in plastic canoes

i think there will be a place for hybrid vehicles in the overlap period.
there is a problem in places like aus, in rural/country areas.
distances are big like the usa with less population.
think midwest but a lot emptier.

battery and range issues (as well as cost) have held back electric vehicle adoption here.
i understand mazda have kept rotary technology alive in the tech lab.
a rotary can be made to run cleanly and with fuel efficiency if kept at constant revs.
these were previously its two biggest drawbacks.
a rotary generator, electric engined hybrid has very real advantages in aus in the near term at least until batteries get even better.

the rotary can also be made to run easily on a range of fuels that make it possible to see a future there. i'm not sure but i believe hydrogen is a possibility. though a hydrogen tank and storage is every bit as cumbersome as electric charging and storage infrastructure. more likely some kind of synthetic or biofuel? but they can certainly clean up a rotary run within the strict parameters of a set constant rev operation, which assists with carbon tax penalties that are likely to come at the end of this decade.

i think the greenpeace legal thing is more a stunt than anything else.
the governments themselves are making the moves and the legislation is the one that counts.

the point about plastics made above is a good one. i believe the boat that greta thernburg made her way across the atlantic in had a high composites content which might have escaped her attention. more so than the end of petroleum as a fuel is the problem of plastics. it strikes me as remarkable there has been so little comment in relation to teslas in that regard. i guess there will be some kind of move into starch based plastics. but it is the elephant in the room.

Hybrids make sense, and not the plug in ones.
When we recently saw the power companies ask customers to turn off AC and stop charging cars during the heat wave in Seattle, a well established city, it makes me wonder how massive the investment will be to upgrade the power grids to support electric cars.

I bet we will see CA step up to burying more lines because it’s cheaper than the law suits from fires they have caused…then we all get to see if it can work.

9 years to plan and upgrade the US power grid is unrealistic.

Hybrids work, and get everyone to step up to 50 mpg…let’s aim for that first.

Environmentalists, the people that think it's good to create electricity from burning trees because it's "renewable". There are over 200 bio-matter electricity plants in the US alone.

But why not skip the perfectly reasonable interim hybrid cars and go straight to the expensive EVs and the crazy expensive infrastructure upgrades to meet that goal.

I'm sure there are a few better things to spend a few trillion dollars on that would result in more than a roughly 2% drop in ghg, I just don't have time to read about all of it.

If I did the math right, 1 trillion dollars would just about buy enough solar panels to power the entire US this year. It would solve the grid problem and stationary batteries should be cheaper to make.

https://www.industryweek.com/technology-and...arbon-footprint

"Every major carmaker has plans for electric vehicles to cut greenhouse gas emissions, yet their manufacturers are, by and large, making lithium-ion batteries in places with some of the most polluting grids in the world. "

Then you need to charge it.

Just bought
a used Ford Fusion Hybrid because my wife's VW diesel decided to self destruct way too soon. Older ones have given me huge miles but the 2009 "emissions scandal car" has been a pain. I'm liking the hybrid, would have preferred a plugin but bought what I bought. The plugin thing is viable depending where you live.

Solar may not work everywhere, but we've been blown away by the system we installed last year. The system is making 170% of our need, rather than the 108% targeted.

We only got to solar by first considering a whole-house generator. Home battery + solar was similar money out of pocket, quieter, cleaner, safer (no fuel storage or extra NG lines), self-contained, more likely to work after an earthquake, and a way to eliminate our dependence on PG&E. Our primary motivator was keeping our business going during PG&E's safety outages. Unanticipated upsides include A/C run by the sun, a monthly bill fixed at 2020 electric rates, and no more bills after 2030. We can also charge an EV or plug-in without the grid if we decide to add one at some point.

The fact that I still thought solar tech was about where it was in the 1980s (in other words, not all that viable…) is indicative of bigger problems with consumer education—and it's clear that PG&E would like to discourage residential solar. Thankfully, its recent effort to do so failed miserably. While solar and home batteries ain't perfect (nothing is…), their time has come in a lot of places, IMHO. It's worth looking into…

I think that Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will be more viable in the future, especially for larger vehicles.

Hydrogen house and vehicles
Greg W.