Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Pprior]

I'm with you, in both regards

[bigd]

Proto -- I am behind this 100% "Personally, I'd rather get rid of all subsidies - both for carbon energy industry and alternative fuels "until you went here "and price the downstream effects into the energy in question." The big problem with this is how do we determine who is at fault. We can talk all we want about climate change, however, with logic, you can refute that CO2 is the cause. Smog, heck most of it comes from China in Cali. One person wanted to talk about runoff from oil of roads, when I pointed out that salt causes much more environmental damage than any other substance and wanted to know if he would like to stop using it on roads, he didn't like that (yes he lives up north. - "carbon fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) don't pay for downstream effects" We both know that coal produces far more negative effects than gas and NG. A lot of sources will tell you that EV actually has a greater negative effect than gas. Yes that is changing as more coal plants are converted to NG or renewable energy. That is why I say patience :-) not a punishment tax (reality is renewable could not handle the power needed (at this point) However, the down stream affect can be refuted in so many ways. Not saying nothing negative comes from the Fossil fuel, the point of all of it is stop the GW stuff and all that. Make the arguments about the torque for example, "Harley is left behind in the silent wake of my disappearing FX." now that gets their attention. If you read my 1st post in this Proto, I think I said you handled it rather well on that other site. Proto, you are right, I forgot I had to set you straight in that other forum LOL.

[NoiseBoy]

You make a good point bigd, in your usual long-winded way  If you did a list with positives on one side and negatives on the other for both ICE and EV bikes the EV would come out on top in the vast majority of cases (excepting those that travel very long distances in short periods which must be rare).

When I bought my Zero GW was of no concern to me at all, I wanted one because it was better for my needs than any available gas bike.  More recently I have seen the benefits to my asthma of not breathing in fumes all the time so I am now pushing EV's because they improve air quality, my power comes from Nuclear but even with the coal fired stations, at least the pollution is outside our towns and cities.  I still believe that EV's are cleaner overall but all the reports are basically guesswork.  I have yet to see a convincing argument either way, (they all omit the fact that the statistics they use are for new vehicles and that catalytic converters, piston seals etc. degrade over time) so will agree that avoiding the issue and focussing on the positives is the way to go.

[Richard230]

I got into a little pissing match recently regarding my Zero (as I was trying to promote the advantages of electric motorcycles), with a fellow that lives in Utah, on the BMW motorcycle forum that I frequent.  His big complaint (so he says) is that he doesn't want the government subsidizing EV purchases and will never buy a vehicle that is partially paid for by his taxes.  I guess he never heard of corporate tax breaks, government bail-outs of auto companies and financial institutions and subsidizes for ethanol to be used in gasoline.  (Along with thousands of other examples of his tax money in action.     )  Some people just want everyone to buy gasoline and resent anyone who travels without doing so, I guess.   

[oobflyer]

I tried really hard to step out of this debate - not really one to get involved in conflict or enjoy confrontation... but I couldn't stop myself. I apologize in advance for escalating this....

Really the main point is we need to refine the argument and point out all the positives of electric motorcycles and stop bashing the oil if you really want to promote it

Accentuate the positive, I agree... but ignore the global climate crisis caused by the fossil fuel industry... the global climate crisis that threatens the very existence of life on earth? Really? Who, in this 21st century, thinks that we should be doing anything less than making the most rapid transition possible from fossil fuels to renewable energy?

I am not been controversial, just pointed out a fact that so many miss speak about (I don't think it is intentional) Oil companies receive money from the govt. When you say I don't like my money going to the oil.... A lot of people who are knowledge stop listening because they know it isn't true.

There are no taxpayer subsidies like the solyndra debacle to oil companies, there just aren't.

I won't keep going back and forth here - I have no idea where this denial of basic facts comes from - anyone can google "tax subsidies/oil industry" and see for themselves. The fact that the federal government subsidizes the oil/coal industry is a very important part of the debate and should be included in any discussion of future energy policy. Again - the debate isn't whether we are subsidizing the oil/coal industry - the question is should we subsidize the oil/coal industry, while simultaneously trying to deal with the effects of climate change.

The answer is, in my opinion, of course not, it simply doesn't make sense.

I'm sure that most readers of this forum understand this - after all, part of the reason we ride electric bikes is to do our part to help heal our planet. Zero, Brammo, and others tout the zero emissions aspect of the technology on their websites - the makers of these bikes are quite cognizant of the dangers of burning fossil fuel. The fact that electric bikes are also high-tech, energy-efficient and fun is a win-win-win bonus.

One final apology for being long-winded and dragging this issue out. Perhaps I should never have started this thread....

[WindRider]

I just like to ride electric motorcycles because they are great fun to ride.   

 

[kensiko]

The fact that electric bikes are also high-tech, energy-efficient and fun is a win-win-win bonus.

That

[Richard230]

Speaking of EV haters, it appears that Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear fame may be looking for another job if he opens his big mouth again:

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/05/05/jeremy-clarkson-bbc-warning-nword/?cps=gravity

[CliC]

Accentuate the positive, I agree... but ignore the global climate crisis caused by the fossil fuel industry... the global climate crisis that threatens the very existence of life on earth? Really? Who, in this 21st century, thinks that we should be doing anything less than making the most rapid transition possible from fossil fuels to renewable energy?

Well, count me in that group. Aside from my being agnostic in the belief that "the global fossil fuel industry", and not normal geologic cycles, are causing the earth's temperature to rise, and that that phenomenon will doom us all in 100 years or less, my experience tells me that any knee-jerk "solution" to a problem rarely turns out good.

I like EVs because I feel they are superior technology, and that physics generally favors them, or will in the long run. And my Zero is a lot of fun.

But another thought occurs to me: I can generate my own power (solar and batteries). I can't refine my own fossil fuels. So if climate change alarmism (whether right or wrong in the end) becomes sufficiently prevalent that government policy causes fossil fuels to become scarce, at least I can get around with the EV.

(This same situation may also cause the power grid to become less reliable, given that nuclear is seemingly not being considered much as a renewable alternative, so being able to generate my own electricity may become doubly important.)

As a side note, I also believe that subsidies in general should be eliminated. I'm OK with a little research into diversity of energy sources, though whether the federal government is capable of effectively managing that (hello, Solyndra) is debatable at best.

[bigd]

"Accentuate the positive, I agree... but ignore the global climate crisis caused by the fossil fuel industry" Well lets work from where we agree. Again, I agree that people on here (I don't know how many or care really lol) are GW alarmist. However, if we all take a deep breath and go back to the main point of my post, who are you directing the argument to. Is the only ones you want buying an electric is the global alarmist, then keep using that argument. I propose that we use the arguments that are backed up with facts, the positives strengths of EV. Hey, if you get others that are not in the GW cult to convert you are helping your cause in a back hand way  . Now lets stop this argument "Oil companies receive money from the govt" I have said the get tax benefits as businesses do. However, I cant think of any way to make it more plain. The govt does not send the oil companies money like they did Solyndra. Unless you count the energy for the economical disadvantage (and do we want to stop that one). Even your own links will tell you that. Big difference. I agree we should have a flat tax on all businesses. period. Ill let you decide the rate  .

"One final apology for being long-winded and dragging this issue out. Perhaps I should never have started this thread.... " I see nothing wrong with expressing your opinion in a positive way and you have. I also say that you didn't cause them to read it as those evil oil companies caused me to use gas today "caused by the fossil fuel industry". Besides, You are not long winded as I was informed I was that person on this site  . Noisy, I cut it short for you LOL

[Richard230]

This is a fun Top Gear video:   

It even stars Jeremy and he seems to be warming up to electric vehicles - or at least electric sport cars.   

[oobflyer]

Interesting use of the word "Alarmist" - hadn't heard that one - hilarious!

I think it speaks to the suboptimal level of science literacy in the U.S. - e.g. when an electrical engineer says that the anode of a battery is the positive terminal and the cathode of a battery is the negative terminal - no one says, "I don't believe it!"

But when a climate scientist places a thermometer into the ocean and records increasing temperatures - it somehow becomes a matter of "belief". Puzzling. I believe this is a uniquely American phenomenon. Hopefully the majority of our elected leaders have some basic science literacy... I know - that's a lot to hope for!

[CliC]

I think it speaks to the suboptimal level of science literacy in the U.S. - e.g. when an electrical engineer says that the anode of a battery is the positive terminal and the cathode of a battery is the negative terminal - no one says, "I don't believe it!"

But when a climate scientist places a thermometer into the ocean and records increasing temperatures - it somehow becomes a matter of "belief". Puzzling. I believe this is a uniquely American phenomenon. Hopefully the majority of our elected leaders have some basic science literacy... I know - that's a lot to hope for!

Apples and oranges. There's a difference in sticking a thermometer in the ocean and recording some temperature rise, and claiming that it is 100% the result of man- made CO2. The former is a measurement, and is generally absolute and repeatable (assuming the instrument is in good working order). The latter is a theory. It's the theory part I have a bit of an issue with.

[bigd]

"Apples and oranges. There's a difference in sticking a thermometer in the ocean and recording some temperature rise, and claiming that it is 100% the result of man- made CO2. The former is a measurement, and is generally absolute and repeatable (assuming the instrument is in good working order). The latter is a theory. It's the theory part I have a bit of an issue with." Not to mention that the temperature in that same place has varied over the 100, 1000, or billions (depending on your thought) years both up and down, but now it is CO2 and before it was weather cycle. 

[BrianTRice@gmail.com]

It's not the temperature measurements, it's the statisticians running multiple regression models and eliminating every potentially-correlating factor except for civilization-driven burning at scales not possible before.

If we're going to be pedantic like that, let's point out that it's hypotheses which are testable statements, and theories which are testable statements which have been tested and are more accurate than previous theories. Civilization-driven climate change through burning at scales not possible before is about as tested as any such hypothesis can be, so it's a real theory and you can use it to make basic statistical predictions and forecasts (note: climate, not weather).

Whatever. If you have the impulse to debate this on an EV forum, your priorities don't make sense. Go ride.