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."
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.
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.
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.