O'Reilly Backs Electric Cars. What An Idiot

[martybegan]

I don't see the practicality of electric vehicles for mass use. It's charged, meaning that the electricity has to come from some place, such as a power company. It might be okay for someone with a house and garage but not an apartment dweller with no off street parking. Or even someone that has to park in a parking structure. It's impossible for any long distance driving.

It's still a vanity accessory and will be for many years.

People said the same thing about the television.

You don't have to circle for 30 minutes a night to park your television.

 

[Pogo]

Last night I was watching Bill O'Reilly for the first time in a week and one of the first topics of discussion was his support of electric cars. The Tesla was the car he focused on the most.

He said it's all good because an electric car doesn't pollute. Well, not immediately, but he's ignoring a glaring fact about electric cars.

We just went through one of the coldest Winters in the last 20 years. How does he expect a car that runs on a battery to run when the ambient temperature drops below 20 degrees. How does this car provide heat for the occupants and not die in the middle of a trip to work?

Anyone who knows about batteries knows that they become unable to produce much of a charge in extremely cold weather. Turn on the heater and a car that has a max range of 50 miles dies at 15 or 20 miles. Next thing you know we have thousands of people stranded in a cold car in a blizzard.

O'Reilly is such an idiot.

So you're gonna dictate that EVs can only be used in extremely cold weather and then crow "idiot".

Good plan there. Guess car owners are too stupid to figure that out for themselves. Good thing you're here to think for 'em.

 

[Pogo]

The concern isn't over the vehicles, the concern is that once these things get even close to viable for a select group of tasks groups are going to push for all sorts of governmental disincentives towards ICB vehicles in the name of saving "Gaia." Of course the vehicles would be a step down from ICB's or even hybrids for certain tasks, but our usual progressive environmental buddies will not be dissuaded by that.

No offense, but that seems like about the worst reason to oppose technological progress that I've ever heard.

Who's opposing the progress? I'm fine if some upper middle class family can afford one as a 2nd car for commuting to and from work. What I worry about is meddling environmental busybodies calling for the day of ICB to be over, and if you want one because you can 1) only afford 1 car or 2) have a long commute, well then shucks, you COULD use an electric, but you are some stubborn knuckle dragger, and you get to pay extra for the "privilege" of driving around one of those pollution machines.

To me they will not be viable ICE replacements until they can be charged as easily as filling up a tank of gas. That's a technological challenge, not a deal breaker.

That ain't the idea. Never was. This fantasy of battery filling stations is wrongheaded and doomed to failure.

The vast majority of our total driving is local commutes. THAT's where you use the EV. When you need to take a long trip, you break out the ICE. Presto, you've cut 70-80% of your fossil fuel burning. An EV cannot and will never replace that sustained operation and it's ludicrous to try to make it mimic an ICE simply because "that's what we're used to".

 

[martybegan]

No offense, but that seems like about the worst reason to oppose technological progress that I've ever heard.

Who's opposing the progress? I'm fine if some upper middle class family can afford one as a 2nd car for commuting to and from work. What I worry about is meddling environmental busybodies calling for the day of ICB to be over, and if you want one because you can 1) only afford 1 car or 2) have a long commute, well then shucks, you COULD use an electric, but you are some stubborn knuckle dragger, and you get to pay extra for the "privilege" of driving around one of those pollution machines.

To me they will not be viable ICE replacements until they can be charged as easily as filling up a tank of gas. That's a technological challenge, not a deal breaker.

That ain't the idea. Never was. This fantasy of battery filling stations is wrongheaded and doomed to failure.

The vast majority of our total driving is local commutes. THAT's where you use the EV. When you need to take a long trip, you break out the ICE. Presto, you've cut 70-80% of your fossil fuel burning. An EV cannot and will never replace that sustained operation and it's ludicrous to try to make it mimic an ICE simply because "that's what we're used to".

Your operating under the assumption of a family that can afford two+ vehicles, and can afford to have an ICE car just sitting around for long trips.

 

[Pogo]

Who's opposing the progress? I'm fine if some upper middle class family can afford one as a 2nd car for commuting to and from work. What I worry about is meddling environmental busybodies calling for the day of ICB to be over, and if you want one because you can 1) only afford 1 car or 2) have a long commute, well then shucks, you COULD use an electric, but you are some stubborn knuckle dragger, and you get to pay extra for the "privilege" of driving around one of those pollution machines.

To me they will not be viable ICE replacements until they can be charged as easily as filling up a tank of gas. That's a technological challenge, not a deal breaker.

That ain't the idea. Never was. This fantasy of battery filling stations is wrongheaded and doomed to failure.

The vast majority of our total driving is local commutes. THAT's where you use the EV. When you need to take a long trip, you break out the ICE. Presto, you've cut 70-80% of your fossil fuel burning. An EV cannot and will never replace that sustained operation and it's ludicrous to try to make it mimic an ICE simply because "that's what we're used to".

Your operating under the assumption of a family that can afford two+ vehicles, and can afford to have an ICE car just sitting around for long trips.

... and?

Actually thinking about it practically, unless one takes long trips regularly, it would prolly make more sense to just rent one for that occasional interstate drive. After all your EV is now serving the vast majority of your needs.

 

[manifold]

The concern isn't over the vehicles, the concern is that once these things get even close to viable for a select group of tasks groups are going to push for all sorts of governmental disincentives towards ICB vehicles in the name of saving "Gaia." Of course the vehicles would be a step down from ICB's or even hybrids for certain tasks, but our usual progressive environmental buddies will not be dissuaded by that.

No offense, but that seems like about the worst reason to oppose technological progress that I've ever heard.

Who's opposing the progress? I'm fine if some upper middle class family can afford one as a 2nd car for commuting to and from work. What I worry about is meddling environmental busybodies calling for the day of ICB to be over, and if you want one because you can 1) only afford 1 car or 2) have a long commute, well then shucks, you COULD use an electric, but you are some stubborn knuckle dragger, and you get to pay extra for the "privilege" of driving around one of those pollution machines.

To me they will not be viable ICE replacements until they can be charged as easily as filling up a tank of gas. That's a technological challenge, not a deal breaker.

Do you honestly believe we'd be better off with zero government regulations on the auto industry?

Was it really catastrophic when leaded gasoline was phased out?

How much of a fit are you pitching over Tesla getting bullied by the government into adopting the "dealership" model?

 

[martybegan]

That ain't the idea. Never was. This fantasy of battery filling stations is wrongheaded and doomed to failure.

The vast majority of our total driving is local commutes. THAT's where you use the EV. When you need to take a long trip, you break out the ICE. Presto, you've cut 70-80% of your fossil fuel burning. An EV cannot and will never replace that sustained operation and it's ludicrous to try to make it mimic an ICE simply because "that's what we're used to".

Your operating under the assumption of a family that can afford two+ vehicles, and can afford to have an ICE car just sitting around for long trips.

... and?

Actually thinking about it practically, unless one takes long trips regularly, it would prolly make more sense to just rent one for that occasional interstate drive. After all your EV is now serving the vast majority of your needs.

Thats a loss of freedom that comes from having a vehicle that can travel as far as you want to whenever you want to. No thank you.

If i were to only have 1 car it would be an ICE or at a minimum a hybrid.

 

[martybegan]

No offense, but that seems like about the worst reason to oppose technological progress that I've ever heard.

Who's opposing the progress? I'm fine if some upper middle class family can afford one as a 2nd car for commuting to and from work. What I worry about is meddling environmental busybodies calling for the day of ICB to be over, and if you want one because you can 1) only afford 1 car or 2) have a long commute, well then shucks, you COULD use an electric, but you are some stubborn knuckle dragger, and you get to pay extra for the "privilege" of driving around one of those pollution machines.

To me they will not be viable ICE replacements until they can be charged as easily as filling up a tank of gas. That's a technological challenge, not a deal breaker.

Do you honestly believe we'd be better off with zero government regulations on the auto industry?

Was it really catastrophic when leaded gasoline was phased out?

How much of a fit are you pitching over Tesla getting bullied by the government into adopting the "dealership" model?

That's not the federal government, its state governments, and its a racket thats been around for decades.

Your first line is argumentum ad absurdum, and will be ignored as such.

Unleaded gasoline did not restrict cars to a 300 mile driving radius followed by a multi-hour re-charge.

 

[Katzndogz]

I don't see the practicality of electric vehicles for mass use. It's charged, meaning that the electricity has to come from some place, such as a power company. It might be okay for someone with a house and garage but not an apartment dweller with no off street parking. Or even someone that has to park in a parking structure. It's impossible for any long distance driving.

It's still a vanity accessory and will be for many years.

People said the same thing about the television.

Television signals are transmitted and picked up by a receiver, the antenna on a television set. When electricity is transmitted like television or radio signals and picked up by an antenna on a car I'll agree with you.

 

[manifold]

Who's opposing the progress? I'm fine if some upper middle class family can afford one as a 2nd car for commuting to and from work. What I worry about is meddling environmental busybodies calling for the day of ICB to be over, and if you want one because you can 1) only afford 1 car or 2) have a long commute, well then shucks, you COULD use an electric, but you are some stubborn knuckle dragger, and you get to pay extra for the "privilege" of driving around one of those pollution machines.

To me they will not be viable ICE replacements until they can be charged as easily as filling up a tank of gas. That's a technological challenge, not a deal breaker.

Do you honestly believe we'd be better off with zero government regulations on the auto industry?

Was it really catastrophic when leaded gasoline was phased out?

How much of a fit are you pitching over Tesla getting bullied by the government into adopting the "dealership" model?

That's not the federal government, its state governments, and its a racket thats been around for decades.

Your first line is argumentum ad absurdum, and will be ignored as such.

Unleaded gasoline did not restrict cars to a 300 mile driving radius followed by a multi-hour re-charge.

I've already moved on from the technological elements of this discussion since we both agree that it will eventually get there.

I'm trying to understand what your beef is with the government regulating the auto industry, which they've been doing since the advent of the automobile.

As for the distinction between federal and state government oppression, oppression is oppression IMO.

 

[martybegan]

Do you honestly believe we'd be better off with zero government regulations on the auto industry?

Was it really catastrophic when leaded gasoline was phased out?

How much of a fit are you pitching over Tesla getting bullied by the government into adopting the "dealership" model?

That's not the federal government, its state governments, and its a racket thats been around for decades.

Your first line is argumentum ad absurdum, and will be ignored as such.

Unleaded gasoline did not restrict cars to a 300 mile driving radius followed by a multi-hour re-charge.

I've already moved on from the technological elements of this discussion since we both agree that it will eventually get there.

I'm trying to understand what your beef is with the government regulating the auto industry, which they've been doing since the advent of the automobile.

As for the distinction between federal and state government oppression, oppression is oppression IMO.

Regulating ICE vehicles out of existence isn't regulation, its a ban by other means, and that is what I am concerned about.

 

[manifold]

That's not the federal government, its state governments, and its a racket thats been around for decades.

Your first line is argumentum ad absurdum, and will be ignored as such.

Unleaded gasoline did not restrict cars to a 300 mile driving radius followed by a multi-hour re-charge.

I've already moved on from the technological elements of this discussion since we both agree that it will eventually get there.

I'm trying to understand what your beef is with the government regulating the auto industry, which they've been doing since the advent of the automobile.

As for the distinction between federal and state government oppression, oppression is oppression IMO.

Regulating ICE vehicles out of existence isn't regulation, its a ban by other means, and that is what I am concerned about.

Wouldn't that depend on how technologically advanced electric motors have become?

 

[Mojo2]

Last night I was watching Bill O'Reilly for the first time in a week and one of the first topics of discussion was his support of electric cars. The Tesla was the car he focused on the most.

He said it's all good because an electric car doesn't pollute. Well, not immediately, but he's ignoring a glaring fact about electric cars.

We just went through one of the coldest Winters in the last 20 years. How does he expect a car that runs on a battery to run when the ambient temperature drops below 20 degrees. How does this car provide heat for the occupants and not die in the middle of a trip to work?

Anyone who knows about batteries knows that they become unable to produce much of a charge in extremely cold weather. Turn on the heater and a car that has a max range of 50 miles dies at 15 or 20 miles. Next thing you know we have thousands of people stranded in a cold car in a blizzard.

O'Reilly is such an idiot.

You have a point!

It is undeniable.

But, I believe Big Bill is right to praise EV's on the basis that more money going into a new technology helps that technology develop.

If people didn't buy millions of iPhones the technology would have slowed in developing subsequent related devices.

BTW, interesting fact I learned from El Rushbo: The bigger screened communication devices, iPhones and iPads came about NOT because of the demand for the larger screens, but because the demand for longer useful battery life in these smaller screen devices was only to be solved by using larger batteries!

So, our 5 - 10" + screen electronic devices are only possible because of the demand for electronic devices to have 8+ hour run times before needing to be charged.

Interesting, huh?

Also, anyone interested in Tesla should watch the 60 Minutes segment, from this past Sunday, on Tesla & SpaceX founder Elon Musk.



People living in the Sun Belt and Hawaii and California will keep Tesla in business.

And right now, business is BOOMING.

Good.

 

[mudwhistle]

Last night I was watching Bill O'Reilly for the first time in a week and one of the first topics of discussion was his support of electric cars. The Tesla was the car he focused on the most.

He said it's all good because an electric car doesn't pollute. Well, not immediately, but he's ignoring a glaring fact about electric cars.

We just went through one of the coldest Winters in the last 20 years. How does he expect a car that runs on a battery to run when the ambient temperature drops below 20 degrees. How does this car provide heat for the occupants and not die in the middle of a trip to work?

Anyone who knows about batteries knows that they become unable to produce much of a charge in extremely cold weather. Turn on the heater and a car that has a max range of 50 miles dies at 15 or 20 miles. Next thing you know we have thousands of people stranded in a cold car in a blizzard.

O'Reilly is such an idiot.

So you're gonna dictate that EVs can only be used in extremely cold weather and then crow "idiot".

Good plan there. Guess car owners are too stupid to figure that out for themselves. Good thing you're here to think for 'em.

Sorry, fuck-nuts, I'm saying the opposite. They can only operate at peak efficiency under optimum conditions.

Cold weather isn't the only drawback mentioned.

 

[martybegan]

I've already moved on from the technological elements of this discussion since we both agree that it will eventually get there.

I'm trying to understand what your beef is with the government regulating the auto industry, which they've been doing since the advent of the automobile.

As for the distinction between federal and state government oppression, oppression is oppression IMO.

Regulating ICE vehicles out of existence isn't regulation, its a ban by other means, and that is what I am concerned about.

Wouldn't that depend on how technologically advanced electric motors have become?

In that case if we get motors that could charge as fast as a gassing up and run as fast and as long as ICE's then they would take over on their own, just as ICE's took over for horses.

Electric cars reduce around 70% of the routine maintenance of a vehicle, no oil changes, no air filter changes, no tune ups. It requires a simpler transaxle/transmission system. No exhaust system.

At that point they would be sellers without any government actions at all.

 

[Mojo2]

And in the 60 Minutes video I posted he mentions the plan for a nationwide (?) network of FREE solar powered recharging stations.

 

[Pogo]

Your operating under the assumption of a family that can afford two+ vehicles, and can afford to have an ICE car just sitting around for long trips.

... and?

Actually thinking about it practically, unless one takes long trips regularly, it would prolly make more sense to just rent one for that occasional interstate drive. After all your EV is now serving the vast majority of your needs.

Thats a loss of freedom that comes from having a vehicle that can travel as far as you want to whenever you want to. No thank you.

If i were to only have 1 car it would be an ICE or at a minimum a hybrid.

How is that a "loss of freedom"??

Our hypothetical driver has an EV for his/her everyday commuting to work/school/errands, and an ICE (or if impractical, access to a rental ICE) for his/her long trips. He/she goes to all the same places they always did, except now isn't spewing CO and particulates into the air. And as you pointed out, is saving money on unneeded maintenance.

What got lost? Other than some air pollution?

And I assume "at minimum" means "at maximum"?

 

[Pogo]

I don't see the practicality of electric vehicles for mass use. It's charged, meaning that the electricity has to come from some place, such as a power company. It might be okay for someone with a house and garage but not an apartment dweller with no off street parking. Or even someone that has to park in a parking structure. It's impossible for any long distance driving.

It's still a vanity accessory and will be for many years.

People said the same thing about the television.

Television signals are transmitted and picked up by a receiver, the antenna on a television set. When electricity is transmitted like television or radio signals and picked up by an antenna on a car I'll agree with you.

Televisions run on electrical power like anything else. The passive reception of energy in the air is irrelevant. You can't run anything on that. Unless you're Nicola Tesla.

 

[Pogo]

Last night I was watching Bill O'Reilly for the first time in a week and one of the first topics of discussion was his support of electric cars. The Tesla was the car he focused on the most.

He said it's all good because an electric car doesn't pollute. Well, not immediately, but he's ignoring a glaring fact about electric cars.

We just went through one of the coldest Winters in the last 20 years. How does he expect a car that runs on a battery to run when the ambient temperature drops below 20 degrees. How does this car provide heat for the occupants and not die in the middle of a trip to work?

Anyone who knows about batteries knows that they become unable to produce much of a charge in extremely cold weather. Turn on the heater and a car that has a max range of 50 miles dies at 15 or 20 miles. Next thing you know we have thousands of people stranded in a cold car in a blizzard.

O'Reilly is such an idiot.

So you're gonna dictate that EVs can only be used in extremely cold weather and then crow "idiot".

Good plan there. Guess car owners are too stupid to figure that out for themselves. Good thing you're here to think for 'em.

Sorry, fuck-nuts, I'm saying the opposite. They can only operate at peak efficiency under optimum conditions.

Cold weather isn't the only drawback mentioned.

In your post it is.

I understand you're desperately seeking something to argue, and coming up with the frigid-day scenario in order to toss the baby out with the bath water.
That's like saying "I won't leave the house because I could get hit by lightning". Technically true, but not rational.

 

[Plasmaball]

An Average American drives 32.877 miles per day.

A fully charged Tesla Battery runs for 300 miles, or 912% higher than the average person is driving.

When the heat is on full blast, it will drop the battery's life by 25 miles over the 300 mile life, or 275 miles, or 836.45% more than an Average Citizen drives.

Hopefully that addresses your concerns why O'Reilly would endorse such a car.

facts..they burn