Just because the narrative about electric cars v. combustion cars, or "climate change" itself is not supported by the evidence doesn't mean that electric cars are bad at all. On the contrary, electric cars are perfectly fine. They have advantages over combustion, just like combustion has advantages over electric. They are perfectly compatible technologies with different use cases.
It is the beliefs surrounding the whole thing that is shit.
It isn't the cars that are bad, and the sentiment is good. The truth is that the batteries aren't efficient, are short-lived, expensive to produce, materials to build them are difficult to acquire and the acquisition is toxic to the environment and people. Then you have to deal with disposal. Maybe the sodium-ion version will help turn a corner in the tech, but I don't foresee EV's being a universal solution.
Are there problems with batteries? Absolutely. Are there problems with solar panels? Absolutely. Are there problems with petroleum pollution? Absolutely. Suggesting that the toxicity of electric cars is worse than petro is not supported by the evidence. Just because the toxicity of electric cars isn't addressed and the toxicity of petro is overblown doesn't mean that petro is the clear winner. Far from it.
I didn't say that EVs were a universal solution. On the contrary, I said the opposite, so I guess we agree on that. But to suggest that EVs are bad, just because they aren't as good as they are pushed is a false narrative, an opposite stance that has nothing to do with reality, or least nothing to do with the evidence I have seen (and I look all the time).
Petroleum is the clear winner. The EROI is simply too high on it to even consider electric batteries.
Even if you dont consider the sourcing and production of electric batteries, you have the losses from charging ba take into account. First, you are generating power via coal (more co2 production plus more actual pollution than gas or diesel to start) then you are generating about 1.3x the power thats being stored in your battery
If you are too hot or too cold, your batteries discharge less efficiently continuous versud just until it stabilzes to an operating temperature.
The use case for them "winning" on co2 and real pollution reduction is if they are in coastal California and hooked to an energy grid powered exclusively by nuclear.
EVs win on torque and power applied to the road. Ironically, if you were to put a small disel generator in instead of a battery, youd come closer to "winning" with an EV.
The EROI is simply too high on it to even consider electric batteries.
From what I have seen this is not a true statement. However, even if it is true, it doesn't account for the engineering process.
In engineering you iterate. IF (big "if") the EROI is higher on EVs at the moment, the only way to change that is to produce products that are as good as they can be right now, and iterate the product, and/or the infrastructure (battery recycling e.g.) until it becomes as good as or better. This is exactly how Tesla does business (or at least how they appear to do business. Who knows what is really happening behind the scenes). Even if your assessment is correct now, it may be woefully incorrect in the long term, given the nature of how Tesla is leading this... charge.
First, you are generating power via coal (more co2 production plus more actual pollution than gas or diesel to start)
A great deal of the energy that goes into electric cars comes from the sun directly. Now, not everyone cares about that, but people that own EVs that I know do (at least the two people I know who own Tesla's, the one person I know with a Prius doesn't, so YMMV).
Regardless, owning electric has the distinct advantage over petro in that you don't have to buy your fuel, you can harvest it yourself, and many people do.
if you were to put a small disel generator in instead of a battery, youd come closer to "winning" with an EV.
Yes, a hybrid with a generator running at peak carnot efficiency is an excellent use of electric engines and (fewer) batteries, with the potential for the best of both worlds. I have always thought it a crime that such designs were not used.
As for your efficiency issues, we could talk about all sorts of such issues with petro vehicles as well. Battery degradation and recycling are imo the biggest two problem with EVs. Both of those are engineering issues, with massive pushes to solve. Having said that, the people who really run the world don't want those issues solved, and that is why they exist. That is not a fundamental problem with EVs, but with "the system."
The same people who keep down battery tech and push pollution are also the same people who keep Cold Fusion tech from being worked on, which would put both petro and our current type of electrical systems (and indeed, the entire power production infrastructure of the world) out of business.
If people have independent power, which cold fusion (or LENR, or whatever you want to call it) would provide for everyone in the world, then the PTB lose a huge piece of their control. It's not about money, it's about control. Money is just one path to it, it is not the only one. That is why we have problems with batteries (most of those problems were solved long ago). That is why we have a world pushing for EVs without talking about the problems, or overamplifying petro problems. Because it's all about control. It's all about creating the illusion, and keeping people stuck within it.
If the lines of communication have been truly made free (which it appears they have), all of these issues will go away very soon. What was once forbidden and taboo (cold fusion) is now almost mainstream, or at least it has been mentioned by those who would have just a couple years ago called it "crackpot nonsense."
"From what I have seen this is not a true statement." It is true.
"In engineering you iterate." In engineering you iterate on the best solution. When a new solution appears, you compare it to whats already in use and you discard what is less effective. You dont force people to use it because 'one day' it'll be a contender.
"Yes, a hybrid with a generator running at peak carnot efficiency is an excellent use of electric engines"
Thats not a hybrid. Its a diesel powered vehicle with electric motors instead of a traditional drive train.
"As for your efficiency issues, we could talk about all sorts of such issues with petro vehicles as well."
Hand waving. State them. 'My' efficiency issues are well know loss via transmission and conversion. These are not 'engineering' issues.
"Battery degradation and recycling are imo the biggest two problem with EVs. Both of those are engineering issues, with massive pushes to solve."
These are problems we haven't solved in 100 years of battery technology. Next to no battery are easy to dispose of.
All of your hand waving about PTB ignore the actual issues with battery driven EVs. Even if everything you said was 100% true (heres where your 'big IF' goes, btw) why should we adopt a crippled technology and suffer it's use just to make the PTB happy? Release the secrets - or better, build a business that exploits them - to make awesome EV tech for everyone.
As for cold fusion, thats a pipe dream. If you want high capacity, widely distributed power, start using LFT.
You dont force people to use it because 'one day' it'll be a contender.
You are conflating two completely different issues. Problems with forcing someone to use a certain tech says absolutely nothing about whether or not the technology is good or bad, or what the specific problems are with it.
Thats not a hybrid. Its a diesel powered vehicle with electric motors instead of a traditional drive train.
I stated explicitly "fewer batteries." That's a hybrid. I stated explicitly "the best of both worlds." Ignoring what I said to push an agenda is exactly what you are accusing others of doing.
Hand waving. State them.
I suggest "hand waving" is the pot calling the kettle black, but OK.
Pollution is a huge problem. Catalytic converter disposal is a huge problem (really just a subsection of pollution, but whatever). Have you ever been to a junkyard? The waste is incredible. Oil from cars gets into the water system. The production of gasoline is incredibly polluting. I could do this all day. Just because the CO2 narrative is (mostly) bullshit, doesn't make the pollution issues go away.
These are problems we haven't solved in 100 years of battery technology.
These are problems we have solved. There are many different types of batteries that don't really have any pollution issues at all and/or are infinitely recyclable. Li-ion, with their super high energy density are not among those battery types, so for EVs we haven't solved the problem (at least not in the public sphere). There is however all sorts of tech that has solved these problems that could be applied to EVs, it just isn't allowed to be produced. When you read about "the next best thing" (solutions to the problems) there is always the caveat of "economies of scale" issues. However, once you appreciate there is only one corporation in the world, and that corporate monopoly doesn't want these problems to be solved, which keeps them purely in academia, you can appreciate why the "problems haven't been solved in 100 years." (really only 30 years, since Li-ion hasn't been around that long). That single corporation gives these solutions the "economies of scale" issues because they are the economy at every scale.
Yes, it really is a massive conspiracy. Read that link.
All of your hand waving about PTB ignore the actual issues with battery driven EVs.
Read the link in the previous paragraph. It is completely obvious. No "ifs," "ands," or "buts" about it.
why should we adopt a crippled technology and suffer it's use just to make the PTB happy?
We shouldn't. NEVER ONCE DID I SUGGEST WE SHOULD. This is me calling foul on your statements. I am not saying "lets all drive EVs." I didn't imply it, I think that would be terrible. I think you are not being honest with your criticisms, and blowing everything far out of proportion with what is suggested by the actual evidence, and are mostly just repeating the rhetoric that critics use to create "opposition" beliefs.
Look, it's not just the beliefs, the current design of electric cars is, as I've stated before, complete shit. They need to stop using dangerously flakey oversized laptop batteries as their power source, and instead use something much more sensible. But for now, their bad reputation is completely warranted.
Looking at your evidence, I see that one car caught fire in a hurricane. One car. There is mention of "tons" in a tweet, but there is no evidence of more than one single car.
Is there a potential catastrophic failure mode for EVs in a hurricane? It would seem the answer to that question is yes. The failure mode in the case of the evidence you presented cost "thousands of gallons of water." Oh no...
No loss of life, just some water.
You know what we call that? A successful test and a design problem that will be fixed in the next iteration.
Look, I'm not saying they are perfect. I said the opposite, but your assessment of "complete shit" is not supported by any evidence you have shown, or that I have seen anywhere else (and I look all the time). From what I can tell, every single Tesla Fire is pushed by the media. Petro car fires are never talked about, yet happen much more often, even relative to the number of cars. That doesn't mean I don't agree that fires are an issue. I absolutely agree, but anecdotal evidence of catastrophic failure modes is not evidence of "complete shit." That is what you expect of any new technology.
There are many benefits to EVs. There are many benefits of Petrol's. They are complementary techs. Neither is perfect, both are toxic. We need to start having honest conversations about both of them, rather than suggesting that one side is clearly better than the other when that is simply not true, and is instead a repeat of rhetoric designed to give people their respective beliefs.
I know about 6 or so owners of electric vehicles, first three months is awesome, a year later they don’t know why they bought these pain in the asses lol.
These kinds of responses feel like nothing more than a simple "no u" to the crazy people who make the "gas cars are worth nothing, absolutely terrible, and should be banned while electric cars are perfect!" types of claims. An inversely extreme response to an extreme position.
I bought a 2nd gen Prius for a 110 mile one way commute. Got 47 mpg. My son in laws owns one that is only a couple miles. He drives less than 10 miles a day BOTH ways to work. Guess what his milage is? Yep you got it 47. Now, thruth be said my 47 was highway and his is in town. Almost 20 years and no increase to speak of. Tell me again they don't want us on fossil fuels. This is a movie!
Hybrids are the best deal so far. My 1st Prius (325,000 before it got totaled) completely paid for itself in gasoline savings. So I bought another one. Half price with the accident settlement.
With hybrids you still pay more upfront for the extra complexity and will have to buy a new battery every decade or so. Whether it actually saves you any money depends on how many city miles you drive. Gas is cheap, batteries and car repair are expensive, that's why the internal combustion engine is still king.
actually electric cars are simply bad for the environment. From the mining and the environmental / human costs involved for the materials to the source of the electricty, they are actually a net energy loss. Yes they can serve a niche market. BUT the real agenda is to ban the ICE then to say well we just dont have enough capacity to build or charge a car for everyone, so no vehicle for you.
actually electric cars are simply bad for the environment.
Such statements help nothing and only incite negative emotional responses. In other words, they always do more harm than good. When presented without any evidence whatsoever, they aren't just harmful, they are also ludicrous.
Electric cars are not "simply" anything. Just like petro cars, or any other technology is not "simply" anything. There are issues with all of our technology. The realities of pollution for all of our technical processes are hidden from public discourse to guide it in specific directions. That works on both sides of every conversation. Everything is presented to create beliefs, to drive division, all sides divorced from the actual truth.
Not to detract from the fact that EVs are rather lame, but this is just as wrong as California banning gas vehicles. Let the market choose, not government.
Eh, this is why we loose. I used to be free market and gov should let you decide but fuck the commies. That attitude is half the reason why we are where we are. Live and let live doesn’t work when people are trying to destroy you
We literally power a quarter of the country, to the point that California is trying to solve their energy crisis by building a huge wire from Wyoming to Southern California
That wire is being built in conjunction with a wind farm, because Wyoming has a lot of wind. Which is why I nearly died after a 26ft box truck I was driving got flipped on I-80 during a windstorm
For decades CA leftists have intentionally pushed the margin to bully other states into adopting their insanity -- and if not companies will just comport to CA rules because it's easier to have one product than two. The 'no ICE engines' is one of those.
This is no less pure politics but why not? Either fight back or get beat up. I'm completely over the standard conservative position where we tie ourselves into knots debating the logic and science while the left kicks sand at us and runs off with the win. The best and right response to insane policy is to stop it, not to get into nuances.
... or this is the first of several issues on which the republic will split; if so, that also will destroy the globalist plan. They need everyone to comply; if there's any bastion of freedom then The Plan fails because people have something to compare their squalor to.
It'll never pass. Wyoming is too culturally bought into defending liberty. If you want to buy an EV in a state where it's worthless, that's your right. They don't make it a practice to outlaw stupidity.
The technology is out there to make ethanol fuel out of bacteria using large ponds or tanks; combine that with natural gas and we could still get off crude oil without resorting to electric cars.
Ev’s are just not great in Wyoming. The winters are sometimes brutal, so you’ll have reduced capacity. Charging stations are far and few in between unless you have one at your house. However, some of them will be charged using coal.
We have the shortest average commute of any state in the country. Our towns get pretty dense, then nothing
Yeah, dont drive down I-80 during a blizzard... doesnt mean that a EV for Laramie or Cody or Sheridan, or even Gillette/Casper as a commuter car isnt practical. The only reason an electric bike isnt practical is due to the cold, but there are enough people with DUIs that make it a thing anyways.
Let's see how good the batteries hold up to wind chill of -20.
Wind chill and heat index does not matter for vehicles, the actual temp matters. They arent having to deal with water making a phase change for temperature control, unlike humans.
Unlike gas cars for which one can plug in electric block heaters, batteries all lose charge because of electrochemical sensitivity to cold.
...why the fuck do you think you cant have a battery heater?
And garaging happens because crackheads steal copper, so you keep your home charger in your garage. Not that big of a deal because a garage is cheap to build here.
The lithium chemistry is sensitive to thermal runaway when charging, so the dynamics of a heated system would make charging at cold night somewhat complicate
...a thermostat is a fucking simple invention, it exists in every fridge you own
No, you don't understand thermal runaway. It's complicated. By the time you detect that something is nearing too hot, it can be too late to correct
They don't need to detect nearly too hot, they need to prevent too cold. Prevent the battery from getting below 40 degrees for instance. If battery below 40, heat battery slowly until battery is 40. It isn't trying to keep it at an ideal 80
It isn't a heater to maintain ideal conditions it is a heater to prevent the worst damage. The worst damage is on the opposite end of the spectrum from the issues you are talking about. I am an engineer too, I have just also used a barbecue to make sure a semi starts. You are the embodiment of why I despise all engineers that are under 50. Your over intellectual idiots that do not understand process variation under real world conditions
In wind chill, it can be more complicated than just evaporative cooling of human skin. Other surfaces also can be cooled by wind. ANY wind will carry off higher-energy air molecules from a surface regardless of whether there can be water-based evaporative coolin
No. A car left out in the cold without a heater will be damn near ambient regardless. Wind chill doesnt matter because it wont go below the actual temperature. 0 degrees with -20 wind chill vs 0 degrees with 0 wind chill has damn near zero effect on the car as both cars will be a red cunt hair away from 0.
hahaha electric cars are shit.
not really fair, shit can be useful to grow plants, thereby helping control CO2 levels.
More CO2 grows plants, too.
Non-Yahoo!link:
https://www.teslarati.com/wyoming-phase-out-evs-2035/
Agreed. I wish people would quit giving shit a bad name. 😂😂🤣
I use chicken and rabbit SHIT to grow all my garden plants in this dense as hell kentucky red clay. It works like a fuking dream!
People should stop talking sh*t about sh*t.
Should we call it dookie?
Rabbit is even better than chicken
But does it taste like chicken?
Lol! Actually rabbit is tougher than chicken and has to be cooked with more care. However I was speaking about the fertilizer worth
Touché.
Just because the narrative about electric cars v. combustion cars, or "climate change" itself is not supported by the evidence doesn't mean that electric cars are bad at all. On the contrary, electric cars are perfectly fine. They have advantages over combustion, just like combustion has advantages over electric. They are perfectly compatible technologies with different use cases.
It is the beliefs surrounding the whole thing that is shit.
It isn't the cars that are bad, and the sentiment is good. The truth is that the batteries aren't efficient, are short-lived, expensive to produce, materials to build them are difficult to acquire and the acquisition is toxic to the environment and people. Then you have to deal with disposal. Maybe the sodium-ion version will help turn a corner in the tech, but I don't foresee EV's being a universal solution.
As I have long said, as long as it's batteries supplying the power, electric cars will remain an urban niche market.
Now, if someone comes up with a reliable self-contained power source...
Fuel cells. EM is working to convert Tesla to fuel cells by next year.
They should have been based on fuel cells from the beginning... but... oh well.
Electric cars based on fuel cells should be a viable competitor to combustion engines... we will see.
Are there problems with batteries? Absolutely. Are there problems with solar panels? Absolutely. Are there problems with petroleum pollution? Absolutely. Suggesting that the toxicity of electric cars is worse than petro is not supported by the evidence. Just because the toxicity of electric cars isn't addressed and the toxicity of petro is overblown doesn't mean that petro is the clear winner. Far from it.
I didn't say that EVs were a universal solution. On the contrary, I said the opposite, so I guess we agree on that. But to suggest that EVs are bad, just because they aren't as good as they are pushed is a false narrative, an opposite stance that has nothing to do with reality, or least nothing to do with the evidence I have seen (and I look all the time).
Petroleum is the clear winner. The EROI is simply too high on it to even consider electric batteries.
Even if you dont consider the sourcing and production of electric batteries, you have the losses from charging ba take into account. First, you are generating power via coal (more co2 production plus more actual pollution than gas or diesel to start) then you are generating about 1.3x the power thats being stored in your battery
If you are too hot or too cold, your batteries discharge less efficiently continuous versud just until it stabilzes to an operating temperature.
The use case for them "winning" on co2 and real pollution reduction is if they are in coastal California and hooked to an energy grid powered exclusively by nuclear.
EVs win on torque and power applied to the road. Ironically, if you were to put a small disel generator in instead of a battery, youd come closer to "winning" with an EV.
From what I have seen this is not a true statement. However, even if it is true, it doesn't account for the engineering process.
In engineering you iterate. IF (big "if") the EROI is higher on EVs at the moment, the only way to change that is to produce products that are as good as they can be right now, and iterate the product, and/or the infrastructure (battery recycling e.g.) until it becomes as good as or better. This is exactly how Tesla does business (or at least how they appear to do business. Who knows what is really happening behind the scenes). Even if your assessment is correct now, it may be woefully incorrect in the long term, given the nature of how Tesla is leading this... charge.
A great deal of the energy that goes into electric cars comes from the sun directly. Now, not everyone cares about that, but people that own EVs that I know do (at least the two people I know who own Tesla's, the one person I know with a Prius doesn't, so YMMV).
Regardless, owning electric has the distinct advantage over petro in that you don't have to buy your fuel, you can harvest it yourself, and many people do.
Yes, a hybrid with a generator running at peak carnot efficiency is an excellent use of electric engines and (fewer) batteries, with the potential for the best of both worlds. I have always thought it a crime that such designs were not used.
As for your efficiency issues, we could talk about all sorts of such issues with petro vehicles as well. Battery degradation and recycling are imo the biggest two problem with EVs. Both of those are engineering issues, with massive pushes to solve. Having said that, the people who really run the world don't want those issues solved, and that is why they exist. That is not a fundamental problem with EVs, but with "the system."
The same people who keep down battery tech and push pollution are also the same people who keep Cold Fusion tech from being worked on, which would put both petro and our current type of electrical systems (and indeed, the entire power production infrastructure of the world) out of business.
If people have independent power, which cold fusion (or LENR, or whatever you want to call it) would provide for everyone in the world, then the PTB lose a huge piece of their control. It's not about money, it's about control. Money is just one path to it, it is not the only one. That is why we have problems with batteries (most of those problems were solved long ago). That is why we have a world pushing for EVs without talking about the problems, or overamplifying petro problems. Because it's all about control. It's all about creating the illusion, and keeping people stuck within it.
If the lines of communication have been truly made free (which it appears they have), all of these issues will go away very soon. What was once forbidden and taboo (cold fusion) is now almost mainstream, or at least it has been mentioned by those who would have just a couple years ago called it "crackpot nonsense."
We live in exciting times.
"From what I have seen this is not a true statement." It is true.
"In engineering you iterate." In engineering you iterate on the best solution. When a new solution appears, you compare it to whats already in use and you discard what is less effective. You dont force people to use it because 'one day' it'll be a contender.
"Yes, a hybrid with a generator running at peak carnot efficiency is an excellent use of electric engines" Thats not a hybrid. Its a diesel powered vehicle with electric motors instead of a traditional drive train.
"As for your efficiency issues, we could talk about all sorts of such issues with petro vehicles as well." Hand waving. State them. 'My' efficiency issues are well know loss via transmission and conversion. These are not 'engineering' issues.
"Battery degradation and recycling are imo the biggest two problem with EVs. Both of those are engineering issues, with massive pushes to solve." These are problems we haven't solved in 100 years of battery technology. Next to no battery are easy to dispose of.
All of your hand waving about PTB ignore the actual issues with battery driven EVs. Even if everything you said was 100% true (heres where your 'big IF' goes, btw) why should we adopt a crippled technology and suffer it's use just to make the PTB happy? Release the secrets - or better, build a business that exploits them - to make awesome EV tech for everyone.
As for cold fusion, thats a pipe dream. If you want high capacity, widely distributed power, start using LFT.
You are conflating two completely different issues. Problems with forcing someone to use a certain tech says absolutely nothing about whether or not the technology is good or bad, or what the specific problems are with it.
I stated explicitly "fewer batteries." That's a hybrid. I stated explicitly "the best of both worlds." Ignoring what I said to push an agenda is exactly what you are accusing others of doing.
I suggest "hand waving" is the pot calling the kettle black, but OK.
Pollution is a huge problem. Catalytic converter disposal is a huge problem (really just a subsection of pollution, but whatever). Have you ever been to a junkyard? The waste is incredible. Oil from cars gets into the water system. The production of gasoline is incredibly polluting. I could do this all day. Just because the CO2 narrative is (mostly) bullshit, doesn't make the pollution issues go away.
These are problems we have solved. There are many different types of batteries that don't really have any pollution issues at all and/or are infinitely recyclable. Li-ion, with their super high energy density are not among those battery types, so for EVs we haven't solved the problem (at least not in the public sphere). There is however all sorts of tech that has solved these problems that could be applied to EVs, it just isn't allowed to be produced. When you read about "the next best thing" (solutions to the problems) there is always the caveat of "economies of scale" issues. However, once you appreciate there is only one corporation in the world, and that corporate monopoly doesn't want these problems to be solved, which keeps them purely in academia, you can appreciate why the "problems haven't been solved in 100 years." (really only 30 years, since Li-ion hasn't been around that long). That single corporation gives these solutions the "economies of scale" issues because they are the economy at every scale.
Yes, it really is a massive conspiracy. Read that link.
Read the link in the previous paragraph. It is completely obvious. No "ifs," "ands," or "buts" about it.
We shouldn't. NEVER ONCE DID I SUGGEST WE SHOULD. This is me calling foul on your statements. I am not saying "lets all drive EVs." I didn't imply it, I think that would be terrible. I think you are not being honest with your criticisms, and blowing everything far out of proportion with what is suggested by the actual evidence, and are mostly just repeating the rhetoric that critics use to create "opposition" beliefs.
FACT: The lithium for electric car batteries comes DIRECTLY from child slavery.
EV mfgrs and fanboys and fangirls always try to glide right over this inconvenient non-starter.
EVERYTHING has such issues. Our entire system is FUBAR. Calling it out for EVs exclusively is a strawman.
Look, it's not just the beliefs, the current design of electric cars is, as I've stated before, complete shit. They need to stop using dangerously flakey oversized laptop batteries as their power source, and instead use something much more sensible. But for now, their bad reputation is completely warranted.
Looking at your evidence, I see that one car caught fire in a hurricane. One car. There is mention of "tons" in a tweet, but there is no evidence of more than one single car.
Is there a potential catastrophic failure mode for EVs in a hurricane? It would seem the answer to that question is yes. The failure mode in the case of the evidence you presented cost "thousands of gallons of water." Oh no...
No loss of life, just some water.
You know what we call that? A successful test and a design problem that will be fixed in the next iteration.
Look, I'm not saying they are perfect. I said the opposite, but your assessment of "complete shit" is not supported by any evidence you have shown, or that I have seen anywhere else (and I look all the time). From what I can tell, every single Tesla Fire is pushed by the media. Petro car fires are never talked about, yet happen much more often, even relative to the number of cars. That doesn't mean I don't agree that fires are an issue. I absolutely agree, but anecdotal evidence of catastrophic failure modes is not evidence of "complete shit." That is what you expect of any new technology.
There are many benefits to EVs. There are many benefits of Petrol's. They are complementary techs. Neither is perfect, both are toxic. We need to start having honest conversations about both of them, rather than suggesting that one side is clearly better than the other when that is simply not true, and is instead a repeat of rhetoric designed to give people their respective beliefs.
I know about 6 or so owners of electric vehicles, first three months is awesome, a year later they don’t know why they bought these pain in the asses lol.
This.
These kinds of responses feel like nothing more than a simple "no u" to the crazy people who make the "gas cars are worth nothing, absolutely terrible, and should be banned while electric cars are perfect!" types of claims. An inversely extreme response to an extreme position.
Of course neither are accurate as you point out.
I bought a 2nd gen Prius for a 110 mile one way commute. Got 47 mpg. My son in laws owns one that is only a couple miles. He drives less than 10 miles a day BOTH ways to work. Guess what his milage is? Yep you got it 47. Now, thruth be said my 47 was highway and his is in town. Almost 20 years and no increase to speak of. Tell me again they don't want us on fossil fuels. This is a movie!
Hybrids are the best deal so far. My 1st Prius (325,000 before it got totaled) completely paid for itself in gasoline savings. So I bought another one. Half price with the accident settlement.
With hybrids you still pay more upfront for the extra complexity and will have to buy a new battery every decade or so. Whether it actually saves you any money depends on how many city miles you drive. Gas is cheap, batteries and car repair are expensive, that's why the internal combustion engine is still king.
actually electric cars are simply bad for the environment. From the mining and the environmental / human costs involved for the materials to the source of the electricty, they are actually a net energy loss. Yes they can serve a niche market. BUT the real agenda is to ban the ICE then to say well we just dont have enough capacity to build or charge a car for everyone, so no vehicle for you.
Such statements help nothing and only incite negative emotional responses. In other words, they always do more harm than good. When presented without any evidence whatsoever, they aren't just harmful, they are also ludicrous.
Electric cars are not "simply" anything. Just like petro cars, or any other technology is not "simply" anything. There are issues with all of our technology. The realities of pollution for all of our technical processes are hidden from public discourse to guide it in specific directions. That works on both sides of every conversation. Everything is presented to create beliefs, to drive division, all sides divorced from the actual truth.
Not to detract from the fact that EVs are rather lame, but this is just as wrong as California banning gas vehicles. Let the market choose, not government.
Based and capitalist-pilled.
Yep! Let the market (CONSUMERS) choose
Eh, this is why we loose. I used to be free market and gov should let you decide but fuck the commies. That attitude is half the reason why we are where we are. Live and let live doesn’t work when people are trying to destroy you
Yeah, it's funny and all, but tell the gov to stay tf out of our lives. We can buy and sell whatever we want, wherever we want (within reason).
Yep, as long as you're not buying children or some other shit like that, the government should fuck off.
Ev fires are extremely dangerous. That's definitely grounds for prohibiting them from the roads.
EVs probably don't do well in the winters there. But it could also be their electric supply.
We literally power a quarter of the country, to the point that California is trying to solve their energy crisis by building a huge wire from Wyoming to Southern California
I did not know that. So that's how they can "pretend" that their solar panel work so well.
That wire is being built in conjunction with a wind farm, because Wyoming has a lot of wind. Which is why I nearly died after a 26ft box truck I was driving got flipped on I-80 during a windstorm
Wind turbines too! Glad you survived that flip.
Wyoming you rock pedes!
For decades CA leftists have intentionally pushed the margin to bully other states into adopting their insanity -- and if not companies will just comport to CA rules because it's easier to have one product than two. The 'no ICE engines' is one of those.
This is no less pure politics but why not? Either fight back or get beat up. I'm completely over the standard conservative position where we tie ourselves into knots debating the logic and science while the left kicks sand at us and runs off with the win. The best and right response to insane policy is to stop it, not to get into nuances.
... or this is the first of several issues on which the republic will split; if so, that also will destroy the globalist plan. They need everyone to comply; if there's any bastion of freedom then The Plan fails because people have something to compare their squalor to.
It'll never pass. Wyoming is too culturally bought into defending liberty. If you want to buy an EV in a state where it's worthless, that's your right. They don't make it a practice to outlaw stupidity.
A state doing something more than two years out? Consider me surprised.
All symbolic.
The technology is out there to make ethanol fuel out of bacteria using large ponds or tanks; combine that with natural gas and we could still get off crude oil without resorting to electric cars.
Natural gas is practical, ethanol likes water and water destroys engines.
What about race cars and methanol? They seem to run pretty good with it at the Indianapolis 500.
Race cars are ok paying 40 dollars a gallon for fuel.
Or we stay on crude
People that modify their cars/engines to use fuel alternatives usually end up dead.
I'm always confused by this community of supposed discerning minds gobbling the anti EV cock....tail.
This site needs to hold a convention on Elon Musk. He used to be disliked, now he is seemingly adored, but he is on every end of the spectrum.
u/#kek
Ev’s are just not great in Wyoming. The winters are sometimes brutal, so you’ll have reduced capacity. Charging stations are far and few in between unless you have one at your house. However, some of them will be charged using coal.
Every state should. Elon. Maybe they can send all the teslas to space.
That’s what they were designed for.
We have the shortest average commute of any state in the country. Our towns get pretty dense, then nothing
Yeah, dont drive down I-80 during a blizzard... doesnt mean that a EV for Laramie or Cody or Sheridan, or even Gillette/Casper as a commuter car isnt practical. The only reason an electric bike isnt practical is due to the cold, but there are enough people with DUIs that make it a thing anyways.
Then you get the slush kicked up by big rigs coating your windshield. We had to pull off I-80 a few times to clear it off.
Wind chill and heat index does not matter for vehicles, the actual temp matters. They arent having to deal with water making a phase change for temperature control, unlike humans.
...why the fuck do you think you cant have a battery heater?
And garaging happens because crackheads steal copper, so you keep your home charger in your garage. Not that big of a deal because a garage is cheap to build here.
...a thermostat is a fucking simple invention, it exists in every fridge you own
They don't need to detect nearly too hot, they need to prevent too cold. Prevent the battery from getting below 40 degrees for instance. If battery below 40, heat battery slowly until battery is 40. It isn't trying to keep it at an ideal 80
It isn't a heater to maintain ideal conditions it is a heater to prevent the worst damage. The worst damage is on the opposite end of the spectrum from the issues you are talking about. I am an engineer too, I have just also used a barbecue to make sure a semi starts. You are the embodiment of why I despise all engineers that are under 50. Your over intellectual idiots that do not understand process variation under real world conditions
No. A car left out in the cold without a heater will be damn near ambient regardless. Wind chill doesnt matter because it wont go below the actual temperature. 0 degrees with -20 wind chill vs 0 degrees with 0 wind chill has damn near zero effect on the car as both cars will be a red cunt hair away from 0.
Is that intentional suicides, or does it include accidental deaths?
I've never heard of that.
Kevin Costner starring as Kevin Costner.