What cars do you consider to be tacky/ cringe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huge SUVs like the Chevy Suburban. Even if you have a bunch of kids, the size of this SUV is excessive and the gas mileage is horrible --15 mpg!!

I don't understand how so many educated people in this area can make the decision to buy these gas-guzzling vehicles. It isn't ignorance of the facts. These drivers (1) know that climate change is real; (2) know that SUVs are a non-trivial component of CO2 emissions; and (3) know that fossil fuels are a finite resource that could eventually be exhausted. Armed with this knowledge, I don't understand how educated people can purchase a big SUV.

Soon all these large SUV's and full size trucks will be electric. What will you have to complain about then?

This will be better than our present situation, but there will still be a lot of CO2 released in the production process. Some SUVs weigh more than 6000 pounds. This is more than twice as much as compact car. 6000 pounds -- and the associated CO2 -- is excessive.

We not only need to electrify the economy, but we need to downsize our houses and cars, and reduce our tendency to buy lots of stuff that we barely use and that toss in the rubbish bin. These changes are needed even in the absence of climate change. They are needed to reduce our energy requirements so that they can be served, in the long run, by renewable sources. Fossil fuels are finite and will not last forever. Nuclear power is also a finite resource.

Here is an excellent book written on sustainable energy rewritten by a British physicist named David MacKay. He has since passed away, but his ideas remain valid. The book examines if renewable resources -- developed to their theoretical full potential -- can satisfy our present level of energy consumption. The answer is clearly NO. So significant lifestyle changes are necessary or, alternatively, we need to gradually reduce the human population to a sustainable level.

<url>https://www.withouthotair.com/</url>

Thanks for the link but the answer from that link is not “clearly NO” but rather “most likely YES”. The estimates of renewable energy supply is just slightly (5-10 percent) less than demand. Given how crude these estimates are it is within the margin of error

A realistic estimate for the combine power provided by wind, solar and tides is trivial relative to our present rate of energy consumption. David MacKay brings nuclear into the picture to provide more power, but acknowledges that nuclear is not a renewable resource. He advocates for significant lifestyle adjustments such as smaller houses and apartments, mass transportation and bicycles. Here is one of his key conclusions, keeping in mind that he uses the U.K. as the focal point for his discussion:

"Let’s be realistic. Just like Britain, Europe can’t live on its own renewables. So if the aim is to get off fossil fuels, Europe needs nuclear power, or solar
power in other people’s deserts (as discussed on p179), or both."

In regard to "solar power in other people's deserts" -- namely, in the Sahara -- he acknowledges that this is tricky proposal given that the power would have to be transported great distances, across many political boundaries.

Realistic estimate of renewable energy is trivial? That is laughable. Things we take for granted today were completely unrealistic 100 years ago. Did he take into account that we’ll stick a solar panel on top of each SUV? Or cover the moon with solar panels and beam the energy to Earth?

You are joking about the solar panels on the moon, right?

And exactly how much energy do you think you can get from a solar panel on the top of an SUV, relative to the energy requirements of an SUV? An SUV is heavy and is not aerodynamic, so its energy requirements to accelerate and to maintain speed against air resistance are quite large. But let's suppose an SUV needs about 4 kilowatt hours per mile traveled, which is about the requirements of a Tesla. Suppose a typical SUV driver would like to drive 30 miles a day. So they need 30 * 4 = 120 KWH of power each day. Suppose that we cover the entire upward surface area (about 130 sq feet or 12 sq meters) of the SUV with solar panels that have 60% efficiency, which is double the level of the best panels today. On average, each square meter of the planet's surface receives solar energy of 170 watts per square meter (average across 365 days and 24 hours a day). Therefore, each day our solar-powered car will receive an energy of 170W * 24 hours * 60% efficiency * 12 sq meters = 30 KWH, which is only about 25% of the vehicle's daily energy needs. And keep in mind that this is just the usage of our vehicle, and does not include the production. And we are also heating and cooling our homes, growing our food, and manufacturing all of the many items that we use.

The author -- a well-respect physicist -- demonstrates that to replace fossil fuels with renewables (solar, wind, tides) would require vast areas of land. So much land, in fact, that it would compete with the land area we need for other things, such as growing our food and the areas where we place our houses, apartments and offices.

I suggest before quarrelling with the author's conclusions that you read his book.

Lol, you just proved my point. According to your calculations a solar panel on top of a car provides 25 percent of car energy needs. Car energy needs account for 40 percent of all energy needs. So, there you go you get the extra 10 percent of total energy needs you were missing.

Just read the book. I can tell you have read a couple of pages and that is it. The book is not long. You could already have made some progress with it in the time you have spent here on DCUM misstating the author's ideas.

The issue boils down to land area per capita, and the competing demands placed upon that land. When you add up all of our present energy and food needs, and the available land per capita, and the maximum potential energy per square meter provided by wind, solar and tides, you fall well short of the mark. The author concludes as follows:

"Let’s be realistic. Just like Britain, Europe can’t live on its own renewables. So if the aim is to get off fossil fuels, Europe needs nuclear power, or solar power in other people’s deserts (as discussed on p179), or both."

While the author's focus is on the UK and Europe, the same conclusions apply to the USA -- in fact, our situation is even worse because our present energy usage per capita is twice that of the UK.

My friend -- they are not my conclusions, but the conclusions of David MacKay, who I believe has a far greater grasp of the issue than you do.

David MacKay (were he still alive) would have a field day with your proposal to solve all of our problems via solar panels on the moon. I realize now that you were not joking about this idea -- you seem to seriously believe this is a possible solution.

As for my SUV calculations, you aren't fully comprehending the numbers. Even with a doubling of the efficiency of solar panels, solar panels can only produce about 25% of an SUVs power needs for a driver with very modest daily commute. This result most certainly doesn't work in favor of your argument. Furthermore, I'm not sure where you came up with the idea that personal vehicles represents 50% of total US energy needs. This just isn't true, particularly given that almost half of our energy needs are "embodied" within the many things that we import. All told, our energy needs are likely around 400 KWH per day per capita, while your proposal to place solar panels on an SUV will give us only about 30KWH of those needs. That is less than 10% of our power needs. But I take it that the other 90% of our power will come from the moon?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huge SUVs like the Chevy Suburban. Even if you have a bunch of kids, the size of this SUV is excessive and the gas mileage is horrible --15 mpg!!

I don't understand how so many educated people in this area can make the decision to buy these gas-guzzling vehicles. It isn't ignorance of the facts. These drivers (1) know that climate change is real; (2) know that SUVs are a non-trivial component of CO2 emissions; and (3) know that fossil fuels are a finite resource that could eventually be exhausted. Armed with this knowledge, I don't understand how educated people can purchase a big SUV.

Soon all these large SUV's and full size trucks will be electric. What will you have to complain about then?

This will be better than our present situation, but there will still be a lot of CO2 released in the production process. Some SUVs weigh more than 6000 pounds. This is more than twice as much as compact car. 6000 pounds -- and the associated CO2 -- is excessive.

We not only need to electrify the economy, but we need to downsize our houses and cars, and reduce our tendency to buy lots of stuff that we barely use and that toss in the rubbish bin. These changes are needed even in the absence of climate change. They are needed to reduce our energy requirements so that they can be served, in the long run, by renewable sources. Fossil fuels are finite and will not last forever. Nuclear power is also a finite resource.

Here is an excellent book written on sustainable energy rewritten by a British physicist named David MacKay. He has since passed away, but his ideas remain valid. The book examines if renewable resources -- developed to their theoretical full potential -- can satisfy our present level of energy consumption. The answer is clearly NO. So significant lifestyle changes are necessary or, alternatively, we need to gradually reduce the human population to a sustainable level.

<url>https://www.withouthotair.com/</url>

Thanks for the link but the answer from that link is not “clearly NO” but rather “most likely YES”. The estimates of renewable energy supply is just slightly (5-10 percent) less than demand. Given how crude these estimates are it is within the margin of error

A realistic estimate for the combine power provided by wind, solar and tides is trivial relative to our present rate of energy consumption. David MacKay brings nuclear into the picture to provide more power, but acknowledges that nuclear is not a renewable resource. He advocates for significant lifestyle adjustments such as smaller houses and apartments, mass transportation and bicycles. Here is one of his key conclusions, keeping in mind that he uses the U.K. as the focal point for his discussion:

"Let’s be realistic. Just like Britain, Europe can’t live on its own renewables. So if the aim is to get off fossil fuels, Europe needs nuclear power, or solar
power in other people’s deserts (as discussed on p179), or both."

In regard to "solar power in other people's deserts" -- namely, in the Sahara -- he acknowledges that this is tricky proposal given that the power would have to be transported great distances, across many political boundaries.

Realistic estimate of renewable energy is trivial? That is laughable. Things we take for granted today were completely unrealistic 100 years ago. Did he take into account that we’ll stick a solar panel on top of each SUV? Or cover the moon with solar panels and beam the energy to Earth?

You are joking about the solar panels on the moon, right?

And exactly how much energy do you think you can get from a solar panel on the top of an SUV, relative to the energy requirements of an SUV? An SUV is heavy and is not aerodynamic, so its energy requirements to accelerate and to maintain speed against air resistance are quite large. But let's suppose an SUV needs about 4 kilowatt hours per mile traveled, which is about the requirements of a Tesla. Suppose a typical SUV driver would like to drive 30 miles a day. So they need 30 * 4 = 120 KWH of power each day. Suppose that we cover the entire upward surface area (about 130 sq feet or 12 sq meters) of the SUV with solar panels that have 60% efficiency, which is double the level of the best panels today. On average, each square meter of the planet's surface receives solar energy of 170 watts per square meter (average across 365 days and 24 hours a day). Therefore, each day our solar-powered car will receive an energy of 170W * 24 hours * 60% efficiency * 12 sq meters = 30 KWH, which is only about 25% of the vehicle's daily energy needs. And keep in mind that this is just the usage of our vehicle, and does not include the production. And we are also heating and cooling our homes, growing our food, and manufacturing all of the many items that we use.

The author -- a well-respect physicist -- demonstrates that to replace fossil fuels with renewables (solar, wind, tides) would require vast areas of land. So much land, in fact, that it would compete with the land area we need for other things, such as growing our food and the areas where we place our houses, apartments and offices.

I suggest before quarrelling with the author's conclusions that you read his book.

Lol, you just proved my point. According to your calculations a solar panel on top of a car provides 25 percent of car energy needs. Car energy needs account for 40 percent of all energy needs. So, there you go you get the extra 10 percent of total energy needs you were missing.

Just read the book. I can tell you have read a couple of pages and that is it. The book is not long. You could already have made some progress with it in the time you have spent here on DCUM misstating the author's ideas.

The issue boils down to land area per capita, and the competing demands placed upon that land. When you add up all of our present energy and food needs, and the available land per capita, and the maximum potential energy per square meter provided by wind, solar and tides, you fall well short of the mark. The author concludes as follows:

"Let’s be realistic. Just like Britain, Europe can’t live on its own renewables. So if the aim is to get off fossil fuels, Europe needs nuclear power, or solar power in other people’s deserts (as discussed on p179), or both."

While the author's focus is on the UK and Europe, the same conclusions apply to the USA -- in fact, our situation is even worse because our present energy usage per capita is twice that of the UK.

My friend -- they are not my conclusions, but the conclusions of David MacKay, who I believe has a far greater grasp of the issue than you do.

David MacKay (were he still alive) would have a field day with your proposal to solve all of our problems via solar panels on the moon. I realize now that you were not joking about this idea -- you seem to seriously believe this is a possible solution.

As for my SUV calculations, you aren't fully comprehending the numbers. Even with a doubling of the efficiency of solar panels, solar panels can only produce about 25% of an SUVs power needs for a driver with very modest daily commute. This result most certainly doesn't work in favor of your argument. Furthermore, I'm not sure where you came up with the idea that personal vehicles represents 50% of total US energy needs. This just isn't true, particularly given that almost half of our energy needs are "embodied" within the many things that we import. All told, our energy needs are likely around 400 KWH per day per capita, while your proposal to place solar panels on an SUV will give us only about 30KWH of those needs. That is less than 10% of our power needs. But I take it that the other 90% of our power will come from the moon?

Just one more thought to add. It is tempting to use the following logic: if placing solar panels on SUVs gives us over 5% of our aggregate power needs, then all we need to do is find 20 times more space (5% * 20 = 100%) and we will have conquered the problem, assuming we can also continue to improve our batteries and electricity grid. MacKay examines this issue, and concludes that there just isn't enough suitable land area in the UK or Europe for this to work (his focus is on the UK and Europe, rather than the USA). Alternatively, we could place large solar arrays in locations like the Sahara desert (and transport the energy via a huge electrical grid to countries that need it), and place solar panels on every residential roof, and in all suitable areas that aren't presently used for farming. This will give us a fair share of our needs, but we are still likely to fall short unless we expand our nuclear capabilities and also cut our consumption. And nuclear -- while likely to last far longer than fossil fuels -- is not a renewable resource.

[Anonymous]

Nothing is a renewable source. The sun will expire or blow up in a few billion of years

[Anonymous]

Huge SUVs with car seats - the toupee of parenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing is a renewable source. The sun will expire or blow up in a few billion of years

Yes, but there is a big difference between a resource that will last a few billion years and one that might last a couple hundred.

If we are down to a time horizon of merely a few hundred years of non-renewable resources, that leaves us with little time to make a transition to renewables. If we get caught with our pants down, the available energy supply might be cut by 50% over a very short time period. This could lead to starvation and war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does anyone care what another drives; isn’t it just a continuation of mean spirited behavior carried over from the Middle School thread? You have too much free time to even think that something is”cringe”.

It’s called pocket watching. It’s something broke miserable people do. It’s a defense mechanism; a cope. See also all the dialogue about McMansions and new builds not being up to their standards. It’s always broke people in sh** shacks who can’t get approved for a new home loan. And also, the big thread about why attractive moms dress so nice at school events.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does anyone care what another drives; isn’t it just a continuation of mean spirited behavior carried over from the Middle School thread? You have too much free time to even think that something is”cringe”.

It’s called pocket watching. It’s something broke miserable people do. It’s a defense mechanism; a cope. See also all the dialogue about McMansions and new builds not being up to their standards. It’s always broke people in sh** shacks who can’t get approved for a new home loan. And also, the big thread about why attractive moms dress so nice at school events.

I have a high net worth, but I find massive SUVs to be cringe-worthy because they indicate a complete disregard for the climate and for CO2 emissions.

The upper middle class in this area is well-educated, so surely they understand the connection between their actions, CO2 and the climate. Yet they don't give a d*mn. They want ever-larger houses and cars, and they don't care about the consequences of their actions.

[Anonymous]

BMWs and large SUVs.

Because BMW drivers tend to be jerks and large SUV drivers seem to be unaware they are hogging the road, screwing up parking spaces, and wasting resources.

We could afford a giant SUV, but why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does anyone care what another drives; isn’t it just a continuation of mean spirited behavior carried over from the Middle School thread? You have too much free time to even think that something is”cringe”.

It’s called pocket watching. It’s something broke miserable people do. It’s a defense mechanism; a cope. See also all the dialogue about McMansions and new builds not being up to their standards. It’s always broke people in sh** shacks who can’t get approved for a new home loan. And also, the big thread about why attractive moms dress so nice at school events.

I have a high net worth, but I find massive SUVs to be cringe-worthy because they indicate a complete disregard for the climate and for CO2 emissions.

The upper middle class in this area is well-educated, so surely they understand the connection between their actions, CO2 and the climate. Yet they don't give a d*mn. They want ever-larger houses and cars, and they don't care about the consequences of their actions.

You’re not high net worth. You’re just jealous. Big house and big car triggers you because you’re probably also childless. Maybe you want to live in a cell and Uber or take public transport everywhere — well off people with families want space, privacy and comfort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does anyone care what another drives; isn’t it just a continuation of mean spirited behavior carried over from the Middle School thread? You have too much free time to even think that something is”cringe”.

It’s called pocket watching. It’s something broke miserable people do. It’s a defense mechanism; a cope. See also all the dialogue about McMansions and new builds not being up to their standards. It’s always broke people in sh** shacks who can’t get approved for a new home loan. And also, the big thread about why attractive moms dress so nice at school events.

I have a high net worth, but I find massive SUVs to be cringe-worthy because they indicate a complete disregard for the climate and for CO2 emissions.

The upper middle class in this area is well-educated, so surely they understand the connection between their actions, CO2 and the climate. Yet they don't give a d*mn. They want ever-larger houses and cars, and they don't care about the consequences of their actions.

You’re not high net worth. You’re just jealous. Big house and big car triggers you because you’re probably also childless. Maybe you want to live in a cell and Uber or take public transport everywhere — well off people with families want space, privacy and comfort.

I have about $7M in liquid assets, and no debts. I think that makes me high net worth. I have 2 children. My children are, in fact, one of the key reasons that I care about climate issues.

I have an intense dislike of for the extreme consumerism and the disregard for climate issues that pervades the upper middle class in this region.

I know this is very hard for you to understand, but not everybody shares your disregard for the future generations who must deal with the consequences of your excesses.

[Anonymous]

Life is too short and too uncertain to drive a car that doesn’t excite you or make you happy. Whatever you drive, whatever your taste, you owe it yourself to drive something you enjoy. You’re not getting another life when this one is over. So spend the time you have to spend behind the wheel driving something that makes you happy. If that’s a Prius, great. If it’s a Camry, good for you. If a Jeep Wrangler is your dream car, then get one. If you want to drive solo in a Suburban, do it. If you love Teslas, then drive what you love.

Just don’t suffer with some mundane car you don’t feel any passion for. Find something you care about. You’ll be dead one day, and dying with regret sucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Life is too short and too uncertain to drive a car that doesn’t excite you or make you happy. Whatever you drive, whatever your taste, you owe it yourself to drive something you enjoy. You’re not getting another life when this one is over. So spend the time you have to spend behind the wheel driving something that makes you happy. If that’s a Prius, great. If it’s a Camry, good for you. If a Jeep Wrangler is your dream car, then get one. If you want to drive solo in a Suburban, do it. If you love Teslas, then drive what you love.

Just don’t suffer with some mundane car you don’t feel any passion for. Find something you care about. You’ll be dead one day, and dying with regret sucks.

Reading your post makes me feel like I'm examining an alien species that is completely foreign to me. I cannot understand how somebody would care so deeply about a hunk of metal, or feel "passion" for their car.

I feel passion for my loved ones. I feel passion for my work. But I simply drive my car -- it doesn't occupy some special place in my heart, and I certainly won't be regretting my car choice when I'm laying on my death bed.

[Anonymous]

Did you take it from a personal development book and substituted a job with a car?

[Anonymous]

Prius

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Life is too short and too uncertain to drive a car that doesn’t excite you or make you happy. Whatever you drive, whatever your taste, you owe it yourself to drive something you enjoy. You’re not getting another life when this one is over. So spend the time you have to spend behind the wheel driving something that makes you happy. If that’s a Prius, great. If it’s a Camry, good for you. If a Jeep Wrangler is your dream car, then get one. If you want to drive solo in a Suburban, do it. If you love Teslas, then drive what you love.

Just don’t suffer with some mundane car you don’t feel any passion for. Find something you care about. You’ll be dead one day, and dying with regret sucks.

Reading your post makes me feel like I'm examining an alien species that is completely foreign to me. I cannot understand how somebody would care so deeply about a hunk of metal, or feel "passion" for their car.

I feel passion for my loved ones. I feel passion for my work. But I simply drive my car -- it doesn't occupy some special place in my heart, and I certainly won't be regretting my car choice when I'm laying on my death bed.

Why do you feel it’s necessary to insult me? I think that was uncalled for, and boorish of you. I didn’t attack you or anyone else. I just said “life is short, drive something you enjoy”. And for that you call me an alien? WTF is wrong with you?

We (most people anyway) spend a lot of time in our cars. Driving is a major part of many people’s day, good or bad. Cars are something most Americans relate to. For something that occupies a major part of your day and is typically the second most expensive item people buy in their lives (after housing) it’s not really an insignificant thing. It’s not too much to suggest that people should have a car they enjoy.

Yes, I have people in my life that I love. I don’t love a vehicle the same way. It’s an appliance for transportation. But given the amount of time we spend in those appliances it’s not unreasonable to want it to be something that makes you feel happy while you’re in it.

A normal person understands this intuitively. You don’t. I hope things get better for you.