The reality is that the picture you paint is a function of choice, not the "laws of physics." There is nothing wrong with EVs. On the contrary, it is a great technology. Stored electricity vehicles were destroyed as an industry in the first part of the 20th century by the PTB because of their desire to control energy consumption (economic manipulation) and to create the World Wars (gasoline is a lot better than electricity for wars). Thus they pushed "fossil fuels" (a misnomer) as the best energy solution for transportation because it gave them more control.
the batteries hold them back.
We don't need to create batteries the way we do. We don't need to use the materials we use. There is all sorts of tech that we choose not to use or explore (further develop). We don't even need to store our electric energy in a chemical battery at all. There are ALL SORTS of methods of storing electricity. You can even store it in gasoline, or hydrogen, or water, or biodiesel, or all sorts of other fuels. You can store it in spinning discs, which if done correctly, can provide excellent handling characteristics for cars. We have that technology and it is excellent, but we choose not to use it. The amount of ways we can use EV tech to make better transportation systems is staggering. We don't because it "isn't economically advantageous," but that's total bullshit, or only half the picture. It isn't economically advantageous because the PTB don't want it to be.
The mining is highly destructive to the land and they are mined with child labor.
The current EV tech is designed to exploit people. But so is the current gasoline tech. Indeed, it took a hundred years of slave labor in developing gasoline tech to get to the point where it's exploitative qualities are more well hidden than our EV tech. Any new disruptive industry goes through the "slave" stage. Gasoline went through it overtly before, and it is still going through it, just not in America. EVs are going through it in a more obvious way now, but only by choice.
Gasoline still is not what supporters of it suggest. Electric motivation is not "the devil" to gasolines "angel." They are both fubar, neither because they have to be, but because the PTB want them to be, on both counts. The exploitation is a feature not a bug.
That is the "Reality" of the situation. Pushing one side, or deriding the other, misses the Big Picture of the nature of our Reality: to wit, there are a lot of evil people that manipulate all sides of technology, and every conversation about it, to control the world.
I agree. EVs are great technology - but their apex would be an EV tied to a diesel generator running at optimal RPM providing the electricity. Then you can get the best of both worlds.
Sadly, this design will never see the light of day.
Also, cars - all of them - are being setup to be controlled by the government. A government back door was mandated as part of the new CAFE standards.
their apex would be an EV tied to a diesel generator running at optimal RPM providing the electricity
I disagree with this being "their apex," but I do agree this would be a substantial improvement over the current Li ion battery system that is currently pushed. It would also be trivially easy to implement.
Getting a diesel engine, which can run on anything, even fuel you can make from plants you grow in your garden (if you have a big enough garden), running at the optimal thermal cycle, would provide all sorts of transportation advances. The energy density (cost/volume and weight per usable watt-hour) of such a set up, as well as the pollution level is superior to all other systems we currently use in the mainstream, even if it's not necessarily the "best possible" with current tech.
I meant Apex as more "best of all possible trade offs". If we go with all tech available to us, we can get better, but you lose out in other areas - at least in our current world. 20 years of development in any direction could wildly change things.
It gives us a mature power plant tech ology, coupled with a fairly safe and stable fuel, which is quickly replaced when low/out, using already in place infrastructure, that runs an EV, which has some good pluses over mechanical ICE driven systems.
A lot of energy storage options we have lack a lot of usefulness for car and transport in areas like transportability, stability, or size requirements.
The reality is that the picture you paint is a function of choice, not the "laws of physics." There is nothing wrong with EVs. On the contrary, it is a great technology. Stored electricity vehicles were destroyed as an industry in the first part of the 20th century by the PTB because of their desire to control energy consumption (economic manipulation) and to create the World Wars (gasoline is a lot better than electricity for wars). Thus they pushed "fossil fuels" (a misnomer) as the best energy solution for transportation because it gave them more control.
We don't need to create batteries the way we do. We don't need to use the materials we use. There is all sorts of tech that we choose not to use or explore (further develop). We don't even need to store our electric energy in a chemical battery at all. There are ALL SORTS of methods of storing electricity. You can even store it in gasoline, or hydrogen, or water, or biodiesel, or all sorts of other fuels. You can store it in spinning discs, which if done correctly, can provide excellent handling characteristics for cars. We have that technology and it is excellent, but we choose not to use it. The amount of ways we can use EV tech to make better transportation systems is staggering. We don't because it "isn't economically advantageous," but that's total bullshit, or only half the picture. It isn't economically advantageous because the PTB don't want it to be.
The current EV tech is designed to exploit people. But so is the current gasoline tech. Indeed, it took a hundred years of slave labor in developing gasoline tech to get to the point where it's exploitative qualities are more well hidden than our EV tech. Any new disruptive industry goes through the "slave" stage. Gasoline went through it overtly before, and it is still going through it, just not in America. EVs are going through it in a more obvious way now, but only by choice.
Gasoline still is not what supporters of it suggest. Electric motivation is not "the devil" to gasolines "angel." They are both fubar, neither because they have to be, but because the PTB want them to be, on both counts. The exploitation is a feature not a bug.
That is the "Reality" of the situation. Pushing one side, or deriding the other, misses the Big Picture of the nature of our Reality: to wit, there are a lot of evil people that manipulate all sides of technology, and every conversation about it, to control the world.
I agree. EVs are great technology - but their apex would be an EV tied to a diesel generator running at optimal RPM providing the electricity. Then you can get the best of both worlds.
Sadly, this design will never see the light of day.
Also, cars - all of them - are being setup to be controlled by the government. A government back door was mandated as part of the new CAFE standards.
You know. For safety.
That’s the way train engines work isn’t it? Diesel powering electric motors?
And boats, too.
I disagree with this being "their apex," but I do agree this would be a substantial improvement over the current Li ion battery system that is currently pushed. It would also be trivially easy to implement.
Getting a diesel engine, which can run on anything, even fuel you can make from plants you grow in your garden (if you have a big enough garden), running at the optimal thermal cycle, would provide all sorts of transportation advances. The energy density (cost/volume and weight per usable watt-hour) of such a set up, as well as the pollution level is superior to all other systems we currently use in the mainstream, even if it's not necessarily the "best possible" with current tech.
I meant Apex as more "best of all possible trade offs". If we go with all tech available to us, we can get better, but you lose out in other areas - at least in our current world. 20 years of development in any direction could wildly change things.
It gives us a mature power plant tech ology, coupled with a fairly safe and stable fuel, which is quickly replaced when low/out, using already in place infrastructure, that runs an EV, which has some good pluses over mechanical ICE driven systems.
A lot of energy storage options we have lack a lot of usefulness for car and transport in areas like transportability, stability, or size requirements.
You might like this diesel-electric semi then.
I'm already aware of Edison's efforts. I find them a good step.
But I'm pretty much waiting to see them bought out by another company financed by the government because its not an approved use of EV tech.