Donald Trump Says 'We Need Global Warming' as Extreme Cold Weather Approaches the Midwest

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

What is Trump's motivation for these kind of statements?

  • Trump is ignorant when it comes to climate science

    Votes: 39 81.3%
  • Trump is trying to keep his base ignorant

    Votes: 9 18.8%

  • Total voters
    48

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Why would anyone need to wait for a solar powered aircraft to fly carbon neutral?

Why would anyone have to pay $70K for a Tesla if they wanted a Tesla?

If you stopped trying to spin it would make your fundamental argument that change takes time and money and not everyone responds well to that more persuasive.

Instead, since you bolster your points with ignorance or outright lies it makes it seem you are trolling.

There seem to be two dogs in the fight so to speak. Some are insisting that a market can do the job. I say that is wishful thinking because markets are based on profits and corporations will not and cannot operate on a sustained model of loss. That's simply impossible. That requires the national ability for things to work.

Teslas, let's take them as an example. Their cars are heavier and more complex than needed. Engineers scratch their heads and have no idea why the extra weight and expense and other design flaws exist in them at all and they are many.

So let's say that those problems are fixed. There are still inherent problems with batteries as you know, but that does not mean they are brick walls. Polymer batteries have recently passed a major hurdle.

Here are some things.

What will pan or and what won't? By 2040 we should know and have things on the market at this rate. Too late, but hey, too bad.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Yep. I think that is going to be the biggest problem. There is an energy density that fossil fuel has that is very hard to match. Anything that can is not as easy to use.

But, its not to say that its not going to lose out in some areas. Electric cars are the future. They are often more efficient. So you can use less energy and do not need fossil fuel in those cases.

Fossil fuels are considerably more energy dense than current electric battery technology. No argument there, that is fact. And the technology to change yhat is still a long long ways away.
Electric's advantage here is packaging. Whereas ICE has strict packaging constraints, the entire electric drivetrain can be squashed nearly flat and put underneath the passenger cabin. Look at the Model 3, it has a spacious cabin, a large trunk in the rear, a decent trunk in front, and still has AWD and runs 11's. Try that in an ICE car.

And they're not just often more efficient, they are way more efficient. A typical ICE in good condition is about 30% efficient converting chemical energy to kinetic, at best. Electric is running around 50-60% efficient in the same conversion with almost the entire energy loss occurring at the power plants (the cars themselves are ~90% efficient, but that wouldn't be an apples to apples comparison).
 
Last edited:

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Too late.
You're going to have to bring that up with the people who think electric isn't worth it unless a guy making $15/hr can afford to buy one today that will beat a Ferrari around the Ring and fully recharge in less than a second in -60f weather.
 
Last edited:

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
Fossil fuels are considerably more energy dense than current electric battery technology. No argument there, that is fact. And the technology to change is still a long ways away.
Electric's advantage here is packaging. Whereas ICE has strict packaging constraints, the entire electric drivetrain can be squashed nearly flat and put underneath the passenger cabin. Look at the Model 3, it has a spacious cabin, a large trunk in the rear, a decent trunk in front, and still has AWD and runs 11's. Try that in an ICE car.

And they're not just often more efficient, they are way more efficient. A typical ICE in good condition is about 30% efficient converting chemical energy to kinetic, at best. Electric is running around 50-60% efficient in the same conversion with almost the entire energy loss occurring at the power plants (the cars themselves are ~90% efficient, but that wouldn't be an apples to apples comparison).

In terms of converting energy into work they are extremely efficient. But, I was talking about efficiency in total which is more. You cannot drive long distances as refueling is not as efficient because of things like their network.

But, as I said electric cars are the future no doubt. The main thing holding them back is storage. The motors are already way ahead.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
You're going to bring that up with the people who think electric isn't worth it unless a guy making $15/hr can afford to buy one today that will beat a Ferrari around the Ring and fully recharge in less than a second in -60f weather.

Recharging faster with extended range is here. It's a matter of production techniques. As far as $15 an hour? The vehicle created will be sold for a price below cost if necessary for that person to own. All they have to do is turn in their existing vehicle which would be recycled.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,648
26,746
136
Recharging faster with extended range is here. It's a matter of production techniques. As far as $15 an hour? The vehicle created will be sold for a price below cost if necessary for that person to own. All they have to do is turn in their existing vehicle which would be recycled.
Ducking car grabber.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,116
14,484
146
There seem to be two dogs in the fight so to speak. Some are insisting that a market can do the job. I say that is wishful thinking because markets are based on profits and corporations will not and cannot operate on a sustained model of loss. That's simply impossible. That requires the national ability for things to work.
Strictly speaking about power generation market forces are crushing coal. Natural gas solar and wind are all less expensive than coal which is pushing coal plants to close.
Teslas, let's take them as an example. Their cars are heavier and more complex than needed. Engineers scratch their heads and have no idea why the extra weight and expense and other design flaws exist in them at all and they are many.

I’m not sure where this is coming from. The weight is a natural consequence of the battery technology. To prevent thermal runaway the batteries need a cooling solution and to be armored against impacts.

Overall the car is less complex than a similar ICE car due to the simplicity of the motor and lack of gear train.

So let's say that those problems are fixed. There are still inherent problems with batteries as you know, but that does not mean they are brick walls. Polymer batteries have recently passed a major hurdle.

Here are some things.

What will pan or and what won't? By 2040 we should know and have things on the market at this rate. Too late, but hey, too bad.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
You're going to bring that up with the people who think electric isn't worth it unless a guy making $15/hr can afford to buy one today that will beat a Ferrari around the Ring and fully recharge in less than a second in -60f weather.

If you don’t care if products meet customer needs at a price they can afford with technology that actually exists and isn’t vaporware you might as well skip ahead and say we need fusion powered cars in 2 years. Interesting thing about the Manhattan Project is that we still fought WW2 with existing technology (guns). Seems like a better plan than yours of instead of waiting for the research breaker counter to fill on FutureTech1 and get automatic upgrades to electric cars because we have the DaVinci’s Workshop wonder of the world.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
I’m not sure where this is coming from. The weight is a natural consequence of the battery technology. To prevent thermal runaway the batteries need a cooling solution and to be armored against impacts.

Overall the car is less complex than a similar ICE car due to the simplicity of the motor and lack of gear train.

I don't even know where that comment of his came from. Teslas, like all electrics, are considerably less complex than ICE cars, with something like half the number of parts, and every engineer knows that the weight comes from the batteries.
There's some legitimate complaints about Tesla's bodywork, and some quality inconsistencies, but that's hardly unusual for a new manufacturer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paratus

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
If you don’t care if products meet customer needs at a price they can afford with technology that actually exists and isn’t vaporware you might as well skip ahead and say we need fusion powered cars in 2 years. Interesting thing about the Manhattan Project is that we still fought WW2 with existing technology (guns). Seems like a better plan than yours of instead of waiting for the research breaker counter to fill on FutureTech1 and get automatic upgrades to electric cars because we have the DaVinci’s Workshop wonder of the world.
I don't care that you can't understand that these vehicles are already in production, available to buy today, and are cost-competitive in their respective market segments.
But if you're really concerned about that guy making $15/hr, there are plenty of gently-used low mileage Nissan Leafs out there for $10k or less.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,133
30,084
146
Recharging faster with extended range is here. It's a matter of production techniques. As far as $15 an hour? The vehicle created will be sold for a price below cost if necessary for that person to own. All they have to do is turn in their existing vehicle which would be recycled.

I think we're also stuck on broken thinking that only the mechanical paradigm--ICE to electric to beyond--will change, and not the other major behavioral paradigms--so ownership model to on-demand rental model. Large parts of the world already live in dense, personal vehicle-unfriendly cities where owning a car is more of a burden than not. It is also a major space sink (thousands of acreage just for parking) that could be better utilized for more green space and more people-friendly, usable terrain.

There's always other mitigating factors that come with the new technology, often rarely calculated into projections that are used to determine such "what we will need and we we will need it" timelines. Hell, people no longer appear to learn to drive as it is, and far, far fewer of them clearly don't want to be driving (you see them on their fucking cellphones or shoving cheeseburgers into their faceholes when behind the wheel).

Automated fleets of cars (say you pay a monthly fee to Tesla or Ford or whoever), at your house within minutes and to pick you up later after dropping you off, charging itself and picking up other passengers, all on a mass beehive colony-like network such that roads are both barely populated but extremely efficient in terms of where each car needs to be going at any given time to maximize real usership, is sort of the golden dragon that people easily discount; I guess because it sounds "too hard." It isn't too hard. At this point, it's a hell of a lot easier to get there than it was when we were 10 years out from landing on the moon. We don't even have to solve the "how the eff are we supposed to escape earth's gravity"? level of problem. See, we actually have the technology that makes this work, now--so no need to design an impossible rocket engine within an impossibly short amount of time. Nothing that complicated currently exists in solving the fully automated auto fleet. Yes, tons of complicated software and better and better hardware are needed, but it took tons of complicated lines of code to just get to the moon (don't even think of landing)....and you know it? No one ever thought you could build a computer small enough, much less program it, to shove into that pod and control its orbital trajectory at that time...because it's the first time it was done. We don't have to worry about that part, either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thebobo