All of which I agree with. But I have a very specific grudge against EVs: the lithium-ion batteries. They are a catastrophic fire hazard. Lithium is so combustible, its fire cannot be extinguished. It will burn the oxygen out of water, carbon dioxide, and sand. It will burn the fluorine out of halon or halotron. The only way to put it out is to smother it with molten metal, and a Class D fire extinguisher does just that. But God forbid one of these decides to light off in your garage at home, or in a parking garage. Or at a charging park. I don't know why insurance companies are not raising hell over them. (They are also much heavier than a normal car, due to the ton of battery pack, leading to greater wear and tear on the vehicle and the roadways.)
As for their rationale, "climate change" (formerly "global warming") is a feeble hoax, and I'm saying that as someone who has run the radiation transfer analysis of the Greenhouse Effect. The Effect is real, it is salubrious, and it is essentially already maxxed-out. Adding more CO2 will do nothing. My deduction is that NASA is using the wrong analytical approach...in order to prop up a pre-determined political position. If people were serious about fuel efficiency, they would do better to adopt hybrid vehicles. Huge increase in mpg and carries energy in the highest specific energy manner: hydrocarbon fuel.
All of which I agree with. But I have a very specific grudge against EVs: the lithium-ion batteries. They are a catastrophic fire hazard. Lithium is so combustible, its fire cannot be extinguished. It will burn the oxygen out of water, carbon dioxide, and sand. It will burn the fluorine out of halon or halotron. The only way to put it out is to smother it with molten metal, and a Class D fire extinguisher does just that. But God forbid one of these decides to light off in your garage at home, or in a parking garage. Or at a charging park. I don't know why insurance companies are not raising hell over them. (They are also much heavier than a normal car, due to the ton of battery pack, leading to greater wear and tear on the vehicle and the roadways.)
As for their rationale, "climate change" (formerly "global warming") is a feeble hoax, and I'm saying that as someone who has run the radiation transfer analysis of the Greenhouse Effect. The Effect is real, it is salubrious, and it is essentially already maxxed-out. Adding more CO2 will do nothing. My deduction is that NASA is using the wrong analytical approach...in order to prop up a pre-determined political position. If people were serious about fuel efficiency, they would do better to adopt hybrid vehicles. Huge increase in mpg and carries energy in the highest specific energy manner: hydrocarbon fuel.