Recent comments in /f/UpliftingNews

focoloconoco t1_jbcb6qc wrote

Reply to Navy renames warship after Black sailor, statesman by citytiger

Internet advice:

Naming boats is a tradition since it is believed long ago that naming boats after god and goddess' name would bring luck to travel and good fortune. The wrong name was the difference between good luck and being lost at sea. Changing the name of a ship has historically been considered bad luck.

Why is it bad luck to change the name of a vessel? Boats change hands all the time, and what was a perfect name for one owner can't possibly be the perfect name for you. Many boaters and sailors, though, insist changing the name brings bad luck. If you must change it, you should perform a ceremony first to ensure good luck.

3

Spire_Citron t1_jbcassh wrote

Reply to comment by Dashdor in Podcaster saves boy and his brothers from being abused by their adoptive father by montanoj88

Well, some of the information we do know she would have had is quite unique. Like it sounds like the boy told her how many adopted kids the man had, and that they were all boys, which surely can't match up to too many different people. She would have also known that the boy who called was turning 18 within a few days. It was quite a long call so I imagine the details she had would have been enough to narrow in on the correct person if she was able to get in touch with people with access to the right databases.

6

upL8N8 t1_jbc3x6m wrote

Reply to comment by FarmhouseFan in New data shows 1 in 7 cars sold globally is an EV, and combustion engine car sales have decreased by 25% since 2017 by FarmhouseFan

First, the statistics you showed in your headline aren't representative of one another. ICEVs dropped in sales largely because overall auto demand dropped. Only in the last year or two did EV production and sales really pick up. Sure, those sales played a part in helping to reduce ICEVs, but we we still have a long way to go.

Second, EVs do still emit and pollute. We not only need to zero out our global emissions, but also sequester carbon in our atmosphere to get to where we need to be.

Third, the auto industry, lead by Tesla, is taking us down the slowest possible route if the goal is rapid emissions reduction... largely because of government corruption in the form of tax credits, tax abatements, other forms of direct funding and loans, and tradable (aka saleable) carbon credits. Lovingly referred to as "subsidies". Frankly, Tesla (spokescompany for EVs and leading EV producer) would have died without these subsidies, and even if they somehow managed to survive, they wouldn't be anywhere close to the dominant position they're in today. Their sales would likely be a fraction of where they're at. When I think of a realistic technology saving the day... I typically think of technologies that don't need all taxpayers footing the bill so some a-hole CEO at the top can suddenly amass so much wealth as to become the richest person on the planet...

We definitely have to get the 1.4 billion ICEVs off the roads as fast as possible and replace them with plug-in vehicles... or better yet, with alternative forms of transit... yet we're battery cell supply limited and choosing to use up most of those battery cell resources on long range BEVs. Essentially the slowest and least efficient way to rapidly reduce emissions. PHEVs and HEVs would be far quicker; but they're treated like the red headed stepchildren of the auto industry. Today, if we used all of the battery cells to produce only long range BEVs, we could produce 8.2 million long range BEVs per year. (Down from 10.6 million BEVs + PHEVs produced in 2022) If we used all the BEV cells instead to produce PHEVs, we could produce 36.5 million PHEVs and 45 million HEVs... with the same number of batteries. It could have completely removed new ICEV production from the equation last year..

As to what mrchaotica said... if rather than spending all our resources and time on plug-in EVs (aka more automobiles), we instead spent those resources on re-defining transportation by building the necessary infrastructure to reduce overall driving miles, we wouldn't even need to replace all the cars on the planet to rapidly reduce emissions. A PEV (e-bike, e-scooter, EUC, e-sk8) use a tiny percentage of the overall materials and battery cells of a plug-in electric car, especially long range BEVs, and use a tiny percentage of the energy per mile in comparison. If we really cared about rapidly reducing global emissions and pollution, there's your solution.

Less energy for transportation means all of the renewable energy we're producing on our grid can more quickly replace fossil fuel power plants, given that electricity demand wouldn't increase anywhere near as much as it is with needing to charging plug-in EVS every night that use over 6x as much energy to travel a mile.

Combine that with strategies like working from home, 4 day work weeks, lower highway speed limits to improve the efficiency of every car on the road, and carbon taxes to push people to lower their emissions, and we'd have a workable strategy that would be making huge impacts today. Instead we're putting all of our hopes and dreams on the sllloooowwww rollout and expansion of EV automobile production...

I'll tell you this much... at the rate we're going... it'll take a helluva long time to replace all 1.4 billion ICEVs on this planet with long range BEVs. Again, 8.2 million last year.... 1.392 billion ICEVs to go.

1

FarmhouseFan OP t1_jbc3p74 wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in New data shows 1 in 7 cars sold globally is an EV, and combustion engine car sales have decreased by 25% since 2017 by FarmhouseFan

I understand that. Holy shit. However, because cars are a thing (just like guns, which are horrible for society) and people very much like and want cars, we have cars. Move on. I FULLY support the idea of creating a massive, green, and functional public transport system. Call me when they get going on it, until then:

Are EV's better for the environment than traditional ICE cars?

Yes or No.

1