The really HUGE elephant in the room and one that everyone fears to address, or even acknowledge, is the issue of over-population by our benighted species. At the rate that it is growing and along with the wants of all of those folks, let alone their needs, your grandchildren and great grands are going to be living in a horror of a world in just a short time. I wish them well as they look back at this generation and its many failures to anticipate where we are driving this world. Copy and paste http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ for numbers, shocking.

Please look at the small print....Developed countries are having a decline in birth rate, Third world countries have both an increase in births and a habit of mass murder every decade so net increase is not quite discussed.

Data is wonderful, just so long as you understand that it is a tool designed to show what somebody wants, rather than what you don't want.

on the point of the OP....eventually we will understand that those who work on PC's do not need to commute to work. As people become more 'entertained' at home and insular, there will be fewer vacation destinations and distrust of being in the great outdoors. As the number of poor explode, car choice will not be an issue. On-line shopping even negates 'going out'. Actual shopping in real shops isn't going to be profitable to sellers or buyers.
City dwellers are already living in the tower blocks that house their employer and benefit from cafe's and shops subsidized by their rent. Cities are and will continue to expand by the use of mixed use buildings.
The increase in 12v technology could actually negate the 220v use in both home and industry. Thus allowing greater 'public transport' in urban areas. There is no reason why homes could not be run on a 12v system now, without the need of batteries.

As for a horse......great idea. On a whole host of reasons.

A constant comment "Save out Planet" .... Do you really believe it needs saving?? Do you really imagine that a bunch of humans can destroy the planet????? Do you really believe that all these events( as listed constantly by the frightened climate change believers) have not happened in the past????? If you really believe this baloney then you owe it to yourself to study all aspects of this controversy; because those I talk to and read know very little when you question them on their beliefs. Name 3 deniers; 3 believers; hockey stick ; greenhouse gasses; rubisco; anthropogenic; computer modeling; etc etc.........

Same old baloney 90+ scientists....haha; did you see glacier park 300 years ago???? the deniers are more emphatic than ever.. relent ...haha I bet you believe Al Gore too...So far you sound like a record of the muttering of the fright doctors. Show me some real PROOF that all these events are caused by us. Are we really that powerful??? If so the DENiers should be easily able to wipe out the baloney pushers...... Just for your info did you know that we are entering a cooling period???? gotta go my shoes are filling up with warm water......and that ain't pee.........Thanks

There have been quite a few views (over 3000) of my posting from zerohedge.com last Monday about the problems electric cars faced during the polar vortex. A few comments were the not-unexpected ad-hominem type insinuating you should not trust a "right-wing" site.

That is unfortunate because the unveiling of the Green New Deal this week suggests it is time to have an honest debate about the tradeoffs involved in ridding the world of carbon emissions.

I suspect few would consider the American Automobile Association and CNBC to be right wing sites. It is hard to imagine running a car in -20F conditions without wanting some internal heat.

For your further understanding:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/06/aaa-confirms-what-tesla-bmw-nissan-ev-owners-suspected-of-cold-weather.html

AAA confirms what Tesla, BMW, Nissan electric car owners suspected — cold weather saps EV range. Even turning on the car drains power

The AAA study appears to be the first to have used standard, repeatable methodology to confirm the problem.

AAA tested the BMW i3s, the Chevrolet Bolt EV, the Nissan Leaf, the Tesla Model S and the Volkswagen e-Golf.
Paul A. Eisenstein | @DetroitBureau
Published 16 Hours Ago Updated 1 Hour Ago
CNBC.com


Hoping to increase the appeal of their battery-electric vehicles, automakers have begun rolling out an assortment of "long-range" models, such as the Tesla Model 3, Chevrolet Bolt EV, Jaguar I-Pace and Nissan Leaf Plus.

Under ideal conditions, these products can deliver more than 200 miles per charge and, in some cases, even 300. But as many owners discovered last week as winter storms slammed much of the country, cold weather does not qualify as "ideal." A new AAA study finds that when the thermometer dropped to 20 degrees Fahrenheit, range fell by an average of 41 percent on the five models it tested.

"We found that the impact of temperature on EVs is significantly more than we expected," said Greg Brannon, AAA's director of automotive engineering.

Some EV drivers — including this correspondent — recently found that range can drop by half when the mercury tumbles into negative territory. The AAA study appears to be the first to have used standard, repeatable methodology to confirm the problem and compare the effect of winter temperatures on different models.

Several surprises emerged from the research, according to Brannon, starting with the fact that the impact on range was pretty much uniform among the cars tested: the BMW i3s, the Chevrolet Bolt EV, the Nissan Leaf, the Tesla Model S and the Volkswagen e-Golf.

"It's something all automakers are going to have to deal with as they push for further EV deployment because it's something that could surprise consumers," said Brannon.

Different factors can affect the loss of range, he and other experts have noted. Simply turning on the electric vehicles AAA studied in 20 degree weather revealed a 12 percent loss in range. On a vehicle like the Chevy Bolt, with an EPA rating of 238 miles per charge, that would drop range to 209 miles. But that part of the test assumed operating the vehicle with cabin heat and seat heaters turned off.

Brannon said using climate control revealed an even bigger surprise: Range dipped by an average 41 percent — which would bring an EV like the Bolt down to just 140 miles per charge.

The problem is that unlike a car with an internal combustion engine that can warm the cabin with waste heat, EVs have to tap into their batteries to power the climate control system.

Part of the problem, he said, is that "lithium-ion batteries like the same sort of temperatures that we do, around 70 degrees."

Much below that and the chemistry that's used to store energy runs into various problems. Among other things, battery components develop increased resistance that limits how much power they can hold, as well as how fast a battery pack can be charged or discharged, said Timothy Grewe, chief engineer for electric propulsion systems at General Motors.

Grewe has experienced sharp reductions in the range of his own Chevy Bolt, but he also said there are ways to limit the impact of cold weather. That includes storing a battery car in a garage, preferably one that's heated. And wherever it is parked, it helps to keep the EV plugged in. Onboard electronics will prevent overcharging. But many battery vehicles are programmed to use some of the energy from the grid to keep the battery pack warm, improving its efficiency.

Motorists are also advised to "precondition" their EVs, Grewe and Brannon said. That means heating up the cabin while still connected to the grid, rather than drawing energy from the battery pack. Most new battery-electric vehicles have custom smartphone apps that allow a driver to switch on cabin heat remotely when plugged in. Commuters can even preprogram the system to automatically start at a particular time of day.

While cold weather is especially hard on range, batteries also don't like hot weather, said Brannon. "Much like when it's cold, in hot weather EVs suffer some decrease in range, but not as much as in the cold."

The AAA study found range fell 4 percent from EPA numbers at 95 degrees. But, again, that number was assuming the motorist didn't mind sweating. Turn the climate control system down to 70 degrees, AAA found and range fell by 17 percent.

Tesla emailed a statement that disputed AAA's findings, saying the report exaggerates the impact that cold weather has on its electric vehicles' range. The company didn't provide data saying how much range is lost in cold temperatures.

"Based on real-world data from our fleet, which includes millions of long trips taken by real Model S customers, we know with certainty that, even when using heating and air conditioning, the average Model S customer doesn't experience anywhere near that decrease in range at 20 degrees Fahrenheit," the company said in a statement. "And the decrease in range at 95 degrees Fahrenheit is roughly 1 percent."

One thing that EVs and conventional vehicles have in common is that energy efficiency — whether measured by range or miles per gallon — can be affected by a variety of factors. These can include your driving style, as well as the terrain.

Do a lot of hill climbing and you're going to use energy faster. EVs, however, are especially sensitive to any accessory drawing power, whether the car's climate control or even headlights, meaning that driving at night, whatever the weather, will hurt range.

R

Please - not another climate chant denier - even the hard-core deniers are beginning to relent in the face of indisputable evidence. I for one have studied all aspects of this issue in detail, and like 90+ percent of scientists, I believe the data I see - that 2015, 16, 17 and 18 are the hottest years since we’ve been accumulating data. Here in NC, the numbered days above the average and days below the average in temperature have doubled since 2008. Satellite imagery clearly show Glacier and ice pack melt at the poles. It’s no accident that sea passages that were proverbially blocked by ice in the winter are now open to sea traffic. I don’t need to take anyone’s word for it - I can download LandSat and other satellite images and see it for myself. Now it is certainly true that there have been cyclical temperature changes in earth’s past, but I think it’s becoming indisputable that we are contributing to climate change. Since many of the US major cities are coastal cities, even a foot or two of sea level drive can cause extensive and expensive consequences.

There isn't a great deal of denial that the climate changes. However, the "Greens" insisted that the world was cooling in the 70's, then warming in the 90's, and having lost both arguments, have shifted the argument to climate change. They've even falsified weather data studies to support their case, and in doing so, have lost credibility with huge numbers of folks. Politicizing science is not a good idea, nor is using a term like "scientific consensus", especially when the 94% was based on a badly conducted poll.

The climate on earth has been changing for good and bad for around 4 billion years. A great deal of the previous change, i.e. before homo erectus, was due to various phenomena such as asteroid/meteor collisions with the earth, huge volcanic eruptions, and the solar wind. Since man's ascendance, we still have the same causal factors mostly external to man's presence.

Some of the greatest air pollution has come from eruptions of Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Vesuvius, Mt. Etna, Krakatoa, etc. There's even geologic/vulcanologic of massive eruptions in the area of Yellowstone National Park; and there, one is overdue.

We also have huge geopolitical problems, especially with the China and India. They're growing their economies, and the hell with the rest of the world. Their contributions to global pollution far outweigh anything by the U.S.

As to alternative fuel usage, developing countries can't afford green technology on any level. A country can't escalate its growth from 3rd World, even to 2nd World, without using fossil fuels, whether oil or coal based.

There isn't a great deal of denial that the climate changes. However, the "Greens" insisted that the world was cooling in the 70's, then warming in the 90's, and having lost both arguments, have shifted the argument to climate change. They've even falsified weather data studies to support their case, and in doing so, have lost credibility with huge numbers of folks. Politicizing science is not a good idea, nor is using a term like "scientific consensus", especially when the 94% was based on a badly conducted poll.

The climate on earth has been changing for good and bad for around 4 billion years. A great deal of the previous change, i.e. before homo erectus, was due to various phenomena such as asteroid/meteor collisions with the earth, huge volcanic eruptions, and the solar wind. Since man's ascendance, we still have the same causal factors mostly external to man's presence.

Some of the greatest air pollution has come from eruptions of Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Vesuvius, Mt. Etna, Krakatoa, etc. There's even geologic/vulcanologic of massive eruptions in the area of Yellowstone National Park; and there, one is overdue.

We also have huge geopolitical problems, especially with the China and India. They're growing their economies, and the hell with the rest of the world. Their contributions to global pollution far outweigh anything by the U.S.

As to alternative fuel usage, developing countries can't afford green technology on any level. A country can't escalate its growth from 3rd World, even to 2nd World, without using fossil fuels, whether oil or coal based.