I used ships, as in multiple ships, not a singular ship.
1 Like
Again your narrowly defined “pollution” isn’t what you or the article is implying. Autos never were much with respect to sulfur dioxide emissions. This article is very misleading.
I stand by what I posted. And that’s why we have so many skeptics.
This thread is a mistake.
Another politics driven cesspool of a conversation waiting to happen.
Slow mode and landfill, here we come.
It’s possible we reach that point but it’s a long ways off. Utilities need to have enough power generation capacity for peak of peak times. That’s weekdays between 3pm-6pm from memorial day to labor day.
Theoretically solar might make a dent in needed generation capacity but the need for power even when it’s very hot and overcast means utilities arent going to be able to shed large amounts of generation capacity any time soon.
Which is all to say we are decades off from overnight time of use plans going away. EVs just don’t draw that much power compared to normal peak daytime usage.
I charged for a night on my current plan before I made the switch to a TOU plan and it was $6 for a full charge vs $2.50 on the TOU. Which is pretty significant for a jeep 4xe that only has 20-25 miles of electric range. Just wondering when the world has shifted to full ev adoption, if electric rates will look just like our current gas rates. Will we swap the opec cartel for the local energy mafia?
Pollution is pollution, doesn’t matter what the chemical’s name is. I’m not against EVs, but cars make up such a small proportion of total pollution compared to areas we could actually be investing money and change.
With which devil may I make that Faustian bargain, today?
tons of really good news coverage the past week on Energy and Climate, better than anything this thread will yield. But glad people are starting to wake up.
It’s all bad, it’s not all the same. How far it travels depends on what it being polluted. And ”pollution” doesn’t really speak to the effects of acquisition in many cases (lithium for those batteries is currently a nightmare to extract, but the extraction isn’t so much pollution).
1 Like
My father worked for a CT utility for 20 years and now is on board of our local town municipal electric company. First time I’ve ever heard him called a mafioso 
. I kid I kid
But this is very region dependent. Where I live charging the Jeep’s battery even without TOU would cost about $2.25.
1 Like
No the implied conclusion was that a handful of cruise ships were far worse for the environment/global warming than 260 million cars. The conclusion is clearly WAY wrong except for one cherry-picked item of which autos really don’t count for…
Again these dishonest statistics are why many are skeptical.
2 Likes
You can always pay a little more and choose a green energy supplier. At least with PSEG you can.
1 Like
I don’t think anyone is skeptical of EVs, especially as renewable energy becomes more prevalent, and just that there are other sources of significant pollution that should have a larger focus, namely large corporations.
Genuine question: is that actually the case?
1 Like
Let me know if this answers your question:
The EPA has identified six pollutants as “criteria” air pollutants because it regulates them by developing human health-based and/or environmentally-based criteria (science-based guidelines) for setting permissible levels. These six pollutants are carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen oxides, ground-level ozone, particle pollution (often referred to as particulate matter), and sulfur oxides
Nothing is greener than Nuclear
3 Likes
Not quite. Even if all the pollutants listed are significant, I was more wondering if they can be further classified by effect on humans and/or environment (and if one pollutant has more of an impact than others), mode of production, “dispersibility,” how “common” they are, and how easily they can be replaced/removed.
Wouldn’t expect you personally to know that, but maybe there’s an environmental scientist on the board who’s reading this thread. 
2 Likes
Interesting that you went with a CDC link instead of EPA in a thread discussing the environmental impacts of EVs. They don’t even mention CO2 which is the GHG most responsible for global warming. That’s not to say SO2 or particulate matter are good for the environment but they are only an indirect cause of global warming. I don’t believe cruise ships emit much CO2 (I could be wrong) and I think that’s what other posters were trying to point out.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases
Also, I’m not the environmental scientist that @paranoidgarliclover is looking for.
1 Like
I am sure that is all findable, but I don’t want to take the time to dive down that rabbit hole. From the research I have seen, carbon is more harmful to the environment long-term while sulfurs are more immediate health concerns.
I wasn’t exactly sure what the poster was asking. I just used the CDC link since it was one of the first that came up with a list of pollutants. They are more focused on health risks than climate change. A cruise ship’s CO2 is the same as about 84,000 cars per day (if my math is correct, 31 million cars per year per cruise ship. There are 49 large passenger ships, so that is the equivalent of 1.5 billion cars per year of CO2). This is assuming the info here is correct: Cruise Ship Pollution: A Tale of Titanic Tyranny
I did think the air quality was better in So.Cal during pandemic lock down. Im sure that had to do with tons of factors, but there were days without seeing the smog which was nice.
As for the gas power plants, as long as the pollution is in someone elses back yard LOL.
1 Like
No, and I certainly had no expectation that you would. 