Why electric cars will take over sooner than you think

[westwall]

g

Airbags have saved the lives of over 50k people. How many have they killed?

Again, not a single one, because permanent padding would have worked much better, been reliable, not exploded, etc.
There was never any rational reason for airbags, and they were always a dumb idea.

That padding existed before airbags so, no you'd be wrong again.

Also your article mentions that the guy in S.C. received recall notices and he ignored them. Very dumb thing to do.

Wrong.
I am talking about additional padding that was only tried experimentally.
Works much better.
There is a huge distance between you and the windshield.
That gives you time to accelerate towards it.
You need padding that prevents you from being able to hit the windshield, similar to an air bag, but does not deflate.
Like the padded bar they pull down over you in an amusement ride.

The padded bar on an amusement ride isn't feet away from you, it's an inch or less. The padding is more for comfort than protecting you as your inertia is stopped immediately by the bar.

Being thrown into padding going 60 miles an hour is probably better than nothing but not much.

That is what my point was.
The experimental padding they tested that worked better than airbags was close up.
The padding on a ride is not for comfort, but required lifesavers.
The bar in a car should be attached to your seat, not explode towards you from the dash.
If you are leaning forward, an explosive airbag can be deadly if if not malfunctioning.
Why do you think they don't let kids ride in the front any more?

Well, as soon as you demonstrate that some expert somewhere says to forego airbags for padding only...until then you're not really demonstrating anything.

Has anyone ever used airbags in race cars, amusement rides, airplanes, or anything else?

Nope. Too heavy. 5 point harness, and roll cages work far better anyway.

You mean too deadly.
When an airbag goes off, you can't see, and your hands are thrown off the wheel.
A formula for disaster really.
No one should ever want them.

Nope, too heavy. Racers care about speed and handling. The weight of an airbag slows you down, and screws up the handling.

I race. You clearly don't. A five point harness with a good seat and roll cage and you are safe from some very serious crashes.

Deceleration gee forces are the biggest cause of injury

 

[there4eyeM]

You mean like we STILL DO with oil companies.

I would add many of those oil companies don't pay a penny in federal income taxes.

You should absolutely LOVE oil companies, since they are providing the fuel to generate electricity for EVs. Evs aren't going anywhere without the oil companies.

Fossil fuels don't generate electricity in my state.

We use water, wind, solar and a small nuclear facility.

We started shutting down our last coal fired plant in 2005. I'm sure it's closed by now.

We started building one of the nation's largest wind farms in the 90s.

The result?

We generate more electricity than we use so we sell the excess to other states for a profit. If you live in one of those states, you're welcome for the cheap and clean energy.

We also have the second lowest electric rates in the country.

So my state doesn't need or want fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Untrue anywhere in the US.
Coal is the #1 electricity producer in ALL US states and most of the world.
Many states just do not know how their electricity is produced because it is part of an out of state grid.
It is never going to be possible to use only renewable resources any place in the world except on ocean shores, near high thermal sources, or where one does not mind killing fish.

So, if renewable sources can't supply all our needs, then we will use coal, or gas, or dried cow dung if we have to. We will maintain a reliable energy source of one kind or another. It will just be better for us if we can do that with renewable sources sooner. Nobody wants or expects a complete conversion to renewables before that is possible. Quit whining.

If it were only a matter of "need", things would be much different and easier to deal with. The problem with American discourse in this area is the confusion of "desired" with "required".

 

[BULLDOG]

I would add many of those oil companies don't pay a penny in federal income taxes.

You should absolutely LOVE oil companies, since they are providing the fuel to generate electricity for EVs. Evs aren't going anywhere without the oil companies.

Fossil fuels don't generate electricity in my state.

We use water, wind, solar and a small nuclear facility.

We started shutting down our last coal fired plant in 2005. I'm sure it's closed by now.

We started building one of the nation's largest wind farms in the 90s.

The result?

We generate more electricity than we use so we sell the excess to other states for a profit. If you live in one of those states, you're welcome for the cheap and clean energy.

We also have the second lowest electric rates in the country.

So my state doesn't need or want fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Untrue anywhere in the US.
Coal is the #1 electricity producer in ALL US states and most of the world.
Many states just do not know how their electricity is produced because it is part of an out of state grid.
It is never going to be possible to use only renewable resources any place in the world except on ocean shores, near high thermal sources, or where one does not mind killing fish.

So, if renewable sources can't supply all our needs, then we will use coal, or gas, or dried cow dung if we have to. We will maintain a reliable energy source of one kind or another. It will just be better for us if we can do that with renewable sources sooner. Nobody wants or expects a complete conversion to renewables before that is possible. Quit whining.

Going to electricity before electricity is renewable, only makes emissions much worse.
Nor does electricity allow for any reasonable totally renewable result eventually either, while bio fuel does.
So there is no point in going electrical.
It is inefficient.
Can you imagine trying to do ships, planes, or even EV trucks?
The would have no capacity to carry anything.
Batteries are way too heavy.

We already have diesel/electric ships and trucks, Electric power has already been proven to be more efficient than direct power by internal combustion. Why are you so afraid of progress? Do you think we will completely convert to battery powered electric before we have technology to match or better internal combustion? That's just silly.

Because what you just claimed isn't true. Electric power is more efficient in very limited circumstances. Over short distances electric powered vehicles are superior. There is no doubt of that. However, once you get beyond a mile the advantage swings to the internal combustion engine. Currently a Formula One race car can travel 190 miles, at full performance, on a single tank of regular gasoline. Formula E, can only manage 55 miles. And, they have to use TWO cars to do it.

So, calculate out the energy density involved, and get back to us with your claim of EV superiority.

If you want to discuss energy density, you should consider diesel electric freight trains. Those require serious energy density. Only a fool would think our currnt battery technology is as far as we will go with electric vehicles, and only an idiot would think we will switch to a new technology before it is able to meet the demand. Relax. Quit whining. It will be all right. We won't lose our means of transportation like you seem to fear.

Only a fool would think they can defy the laws of physics. Battery technology, and range, is not significantly greater than it was 100 years ago. Gasoline is the most energy dense fuel that normal people can acquire. A thimble full will propel a 3,000 pound car about 2 miles. No battery in the world can even come close.

You should tell GM, Ford, and all those other car manufacturers. I'm sure they would appreciate you letting them know all their engineers don't know what they are talking about. They will probably give you free cars for life for saving them all that money.

The government is TELLING them to do it. If EV'S were so great, the government wouldn't need to force you to use them

Like seat belts and airbags.

I hate airbags.
They are explosive, dangerous, and expensive.
If you wear glasses, they easily can cause blindness.
Permanent passive restraints make a lot more sense, like close dash or steering wheel padding.

glasses are plastic, and your full of it

So plastic shoved into your eyeball won't cause blindness?

{... During a collision, older-model auto airbags can deploy with such force that they can cause serious injuries to the eyes or even, in rare cases, blindness, say eye trauma specialists interviewed by WebMD. ...}

What Causes Eye Problems?

Get information on common eye and vision problems, such as conjunctivitis, retinal detachment, dry eyes, cataracts, and glaucoma.

www.webmd.com

{...

Rethinking airbag safety: airbag injury causing bilateral blindness​

...

Abstract​

A healthy 40-year-old man, restrained in the front passenger seat, suffered visually disabling blunt ocular trauma following spontaneous release of the passenger side air-bag module, during vehicular deceleration, without an automobile crash. Though the driver-side airbag was also released, the driver was unharmed. The passenger suffered bilateral hyphema, bilateral vitreous hemorrhage and suspected posterior scleral rupture in the left eye and also had an eyebrow laceration, from impact with the dashboard panel covering the air-bag module, which was detached by the force of airbag deployment. This is the first reported case from West Africa and the first case in which part of the airbag module detached to cause additional trauma. This report adds to the growing burden of evidence world-wide, for a review of the safety aspects of the automobile airbag. This case clearly illustrates that although airbags reduce mortality, they carry a high risk of ocular morbidity, even with seat belt restraint. ...}

Rethinking airbag safety: airbag injury causing bilateral blindness - PubMed

A healthy 40-year-old man, restrained in the front passenger seat, suffered visually disabling blunt ocular trauma following spontaneous release of the passenger side air-bag module, during vehicular deceleration, without an automobile crash. Though the driver-side airbag was also released, the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Airbags have saved over 50,000 lives. I doubt your "physics degree" has accomplished as much.

Airbags

Information from IIHS-HLDI on airbags

www.iihs.org

Wow so those 50,000 will never die?

Wrong.
What I said is that permanent padding works better.
For example, when the airbag explodes, it not only throws your hands off the wheel, but can break thumbs and fingers.
This can lead to a small rail accident that inflated the airbag, that totally makes you out of control and the car goes off a cliff.
If they just put additional padding closer to the person, they could give the better protection all the time, without the explosive charge in your face.

Saved over 50k lives, what have you done?

You mean like we STILL DO with oil companies.

I would add many of those oil companies don't pay a penny in federal income taxes.

You should absolutely LOVE oil companies, since they are providing the fuel to generate electricity for EVs. Evs aren't going anywhere without the oil companies.

Fossil fuels don't generate electricity in my state.

We use water, wind, solar and a small nuclear facility.

We started shutting down our last coal fired plant in 2005. I'm sure it's closed by now.

We started building one of the nation's largest wind farms in the 90s.

The result?

We generate more electricity than we use so we sell the excess to other states for a profit. If you live in one of those states, you're welcome for the cheap and clean energy.

We also have the second lowest electric rates in the country.

So my state doesn't need or want fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Untrue anywhere in the US.
Coal is the #1 electricity producer in ALL US states and most of the world.
Many states just do not know how their electricity is produced because it is part of an out of state grid.
It is never going to be possible to use only renewable resources any place in the world except on ocean shores, near high thermal sources, or where one does not mind killing fish.

So, if renewable sources can't supply all our needs, then we will use coal, or gas, or dried cow dung if we have to. We will maintain a reliable energy source of one kind or another. It will just be better for us if we can do that with renewable sources sooner. Nobody wants or expects a complete conversion to renewables before that is possible. Quit whining.

Going to electricity before electricity is renewable, only makes emissions much worse.
Nor does electricity allow for any reasonable totally renewable result eventually either, while bio fuel does.
So there is no point in going electrical.
It is inefficient.
Can you imagine trying to do ships, planes, or even EV trucks?
The would have no capacity to carry anything.
Batteries are way too heavy.

We already have diesel/electric ships and trucks, Electric power has already been proven to be more efficient than direct power by internal combustion. Why are you so afraid of progress? Do you think we will completely convert to battery powered electric before we have technology to match or better internal combustion? That's just silly.

Because what you just claimed isn't true. Electric power is more efficient in very limited circumstances. Over short distances electric powered vehicles are superior. There is no doubt of that. However, once you get beyond a mile the advantage swings to the internal combustion engine. Currently a Formula One race car can travel 190 miles, at full performance, on a single tank of regular gasoline. Formula E, can only manage 55 miles. And, they have to use TWO cars to do it.

So, calculate out the energy density involved, and get back to us with your claim of EV superiority.

If you want to discuss energy density, you should consider diesel electric freight trains. Those require serious energy density. Only a fool would think our currnt battery technology is as far as we will go with electric vehicles, and only an idiot would think we will switch to a new technology before it is able to meet the demand. Relax. Quit whining. It will be all right. We won't lose our means of transportation like you seem to fear.

Only a fool would think they can defy the laws of physics. Battery technology, and range, is not significantly greater than it was 100 years ago. Gasoline is the most energy dense fuel that normal people can acquire. A thimble full will propel a 3,000 pound car about 2 miles. No battery in the world can even come close.

You should tell GM, Ford, and all those other car manufacturers. I'm sure they would appreciate you letting them know all their engineers don't know what they are talking about. They will probably give you free cars for life for saving them all that money.

The government is TELLING them to do it. If EV'S were so great, the government wouldn't need to force you to use them

Like seat belts and airbags.

I hate airbags.
They are explosive, dangerous, and expensive.
If you wear glasses, they easily can cause blindness.
Permanent passive restraints make a lot more sense, like close dash or steering wheel padding.

glasses are plastic, and your full of it

Rigby "the physicist" thinks glasses are still made with glass? Yep, he's either full of it or just arrived in his time machine invention.

Wrong.
Did the articles about airbags causing blindness say it required glass lenses?

Your article references older airbags.

And you have not been reading about how airbags are killing people?
{...

South Carolina driver killed by exploding air bag inflator​

A driver in South Carolina is the latest person to be killed by an exploding Takata air bag inflator
ByThe Associated Press
April 21, 2021, 7:00 PM
• 3 min read
...
Takata used volatile ammonium nitrate to create a small explosion to inflate air bags in a crash. But the chemical can become more volatile over time when exposed to moisture in the air. The explosion can blow apart a metal canister and hurl shrapnel into the passenger compartment.
...}

South Carolina driver killed by exploding air bag inflator

A driver in South Carolina is the latest person to be killed by an exploding Takata air bag inflator

abcnews.go.com

How could anyone feel safer with an explosive charge in your face, about to go off from even a slight malfunction?

Airbags have saved the lives of over 50k people. How many have they killed?

Airbags are a great idea, but the Takata airbags were poorly designed and caused many deaths. I heard there was something about a metal ring that would shoot out and strike the driver in the head. There was a huge recall because they were used in so many different cars and trucks.

 

[frigidweirdo]

bad bad news for all authoritarian gas-stations like KSA, Muscovy, Venezuela , what will happened to them once oil (so no crazy jets full of cash landing on the roof of the Putin´s dacha) becomes what is coal today ?

"
....
We are in the middle of the biggest revolution in motoring since Henry Ford's first production line started turning back in 1913.
And it is likely to happen much more quickly than you imagine.
Many industry observers believe we have already passed the tipping point where sales of electric vehicles (EVs) will very rapidly overwhelm petrol and diesel cars....

Jaguar plans to sell only electric cars from 2025, Volvo from 2030 and last week the British sportscar company Lotus said it would follow suit, selling only electric models from 2028.

General Motors says it will make only electric vehicles by 2035, Ford says all vehicles sold in Europe will be electric by 2030 and VW says 70% of its sales will be electric by 2030."

Why electric cars will take over sooner than you think

The BBC's Justin Rowlatt explains why we are accelerating towards an electric car future.

www.bbc.com

Electric cars aren't eco-friendly contrary to they'd have you believe.

Mostly they're better for the IMMEDIATE environment

 

[kaz]

We are at least 50 years from getting even close to getting off fossil fuels. Anyone who believes otherwise is naïve as FUCK.

You could be right, but I doubt it will be that long. There are millions of gas and diesel vehicles on the roads, and all manufacturers aren't converting to electric. The transition will take several years, but I doubt it will be 50.

There are still several MAJOR hurdles to overcome

1) As people have pointed out, 2% of the market is electric. That means that fossil fuel plants will massively grow to charge the 98% and Democrats oppose actual solutions like fracking for natural gas and nuclear

2) Battery technology just isn't there to create enough batteries that last long enough and can be processed at end of life (dispose or recycle)

3) The cheapest electric cars are $50K. Again, 2% of the cars are now electric. Think of the cost of the other 98%.

We're a ways off, those are three MAJOR hurdles to clear

I'm sure there are more hurdles than that. Conversion to electric power won't happen until we have technology to meet the demands. Only a hysteronic idiot would think that will happen. All those major auto companies would never convert to electric vehicles if they thought fhey would lose market share to all the other companies that aren't converting yet.

Those are the same idiotic car companies that keep claiming they will next week have Autonomous Vehicles, when clearly is it NEVER going to happen. These car makers are notorious for false hype and pretending. They are likely checking out the market potential response to their own hype, than they are actually trying to create EVs.
EVs have a commuter niche, but there are lots of things they are bad at and will likely never do.
Like travel.

Again, like with diesel/electric, you fail to address the point.
EV does not have a power source.
We are running out of all fossil fuel, not just gasoline.
So then when someone suggest switching to batteries, that is saying nothing useful.
It does not at all explain how the batteries are supposed to be recharged.
So there is going to be no fuel to recharge the batteries with.
So switching to batters and EVs, is just a waste of time and money.
Stitch to the point, which is what are we going to do for energy?
At this point, bio fuel like ethanol or palm diesel oil makes more sense than fusion, solar, or wind.

Interesting that you think you are smarter than the groups of engineers employed by all those car manufacturers. Where did you get all your engineering degrees?

That's a pretty funny slam from the guy who thinks you know more about economics than all those economic and finance people . You think it's leftist lawyers who know more than any of them about economics despite clear evidence they are wrong and everything they say is political and self serving.

But I'll bit. I have seen no consensus from " the groups of engineers employed by all those car manufacturers." I don't agree with everything he said, but I've heard no consensus on EVs or self driving. Where are you getting there is a consensus? Or is this just all knowing leftist lawyers again?

 

[kaz]

We are at least 50 years from getting even close to getting off fossil fuels. Anyone who believes otherwise is naïve as FUCK.

You could be right, but I doubt it will be that long. There are millions of gas and diesel vehicles on the roads, and all manufacturers aren't converting to electric. The transition will take several years, but I doubt it will be 50.

There are still several MAJOR hurdles to overcome

1) As people have pointed out, 2% of the market is electric. That means that fossil fuel plants will massively grow to charge the 98% and Democrats oppose actual solutions like fracking for natural gas and nuclear

2) Battery technology just isn't there to create enough batteries that last long enough and can be processed at end of life (dispose or recycle)

3) The cheapest electric cars are $50K. Again, 2% of the cars are now electric. Think of the cost of the other 98%.

We're a ways off, those are three MAJOR hurdles to clear

I'm sure there are more hurdles than that. Conversion to electric power won't happen until we have technology to meet the demands. Only a hysteronic idiot would think that will happen. All those major auto companies would never convert to electric vehicles if they thought fhey would lose market share to all the other companies that aren't converting yet.

Those are the same idiotic car companies that keep claiming they will next week have Autonomous Vehicles, when clearly is it NEVER going to happen. These car makers are notorious for false hype and pretending. They are likely checking out the market potential response to their own hype, than they are actually trying to create EVs.
EVs have a commuter niche, but there are lots of things they are bad at and will likely never do.
Like travel.

Again, like with diesel/electric, you fail to address the point.
EV does not have a power source.
We are running out of all fossil fuel, not just gasoline.
So then when someone suggest switching to batteries, that is saying nothing useful.
It does not at all explain how the batteries are supposed to be recharged.
So there is going to be no fuel to recharge the batteries with.
So switching to batters and EVs, is just a waste of time and money.
Stitch to the point, which is what are we going to do for energy?
At this point, bio fuel like ethanol or palm diesel oil makes more sense than fusion, solar, or wind.

Interesting that you think you are smarter than the groups of engineers employed by all those car manufacturers. Where did you get all your engineering degrees?

Car makers have fine engineers, but you only see the marketing numbskulls, not the engineers.
No engineer would ever suggest an EV.

Mostly we hear from leftist lawyer politicians who think they are the experts in engineering, science and the economy. Facts belie their claim that they are. Democrats are the anti-science party, even the anti-math party. Everything they say about economics contradicts economics.

Now you're even the anti-engineering party? Everyone agrees! No, they don't. You are totally lying about their being a consensus on EVs, it's a very unsettled field. We are so far from going from 2% of toys to 98% universal usage

 

[badger2]

You mean like we STILL DO with oil companies.

I would add many of those oil companies don't pay a penny in federal income taxes.

You should absolutely LOVE oil companies, since they are providing the fuel to generate electricity for EVs. Evs aren't going anywhere without the oil companies.

Fossil fuels don't generate electricity in my state.

We use water, wind, solar and a small nuclear facility.

We started shutting down our last coal fired plant in 2005. I'm sure it's closed by now.

We started building one of the nation's largest wind farms in the 90s.

The result?

We generate more electricity than we use so we sell the excess to other states for a profit. If you live in one of those states, you're welcome for the cheap and clean energy.

We also have the second lowest electric rates in the country.

So my state doesn't need or want fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Untrue anywhere in the US.
Coal is the #1 electricity producer in ALL US states and most of the world.
Many states just do not know how their electricity is produced because it is part of an out of state grid.
It is never going to be possible to use only renewable resources any place in the world except on ocean shores, near high thermal sources, or where one does not mind killing fish.

So, if renewable sources can't supply all our needs, then we will use coal, or gas, or dried cow dung if we have to. We will maintain a reliable energy source of one kind or another. It will just be better for us if we can do that with renewable sources sooner. Nobody wants or expects a complete conversion to renewables before that is possible. Quit whining.

Going to electricity before electricity is renewable, only makes emissions much worse.
Nor does electricity allow for any reasonable totally renewable result eventually either, while bio fuel does.
So there is no point in going electrical.
It is inefficient.
Can you imagine trying to do ships, planes, or even EV trucks?
The would have no capacity to carry anything.
Batteries are way too heavy.

We already have diesel/electric ships and trucks, Electric power has already been proven to be more efficient than direct power by internal combustion. Why are you so afraid of progress? Do you think we will completely convert to battery powered electric before we have technology to match or better internal combustion? That's just silly.

Because what you just claimed isn't true. Electric power is more efficient in very limited circumstances. Over short distances electric powered vehicles are superior. There is no doubt of that. However, once you get beyond a mile the advantage swings to the internal combustion engine. Currently a Formula One race car can travel 190 miles, at full performance, on a single tank of regular gasoline. Formula E, can only manage 55 miles. And, they have to use TWO cars to do it.

So, calculate out the energy density involved, and get back to us with your claim of EV superiority.

If you want to discuss energy density, you should consider diesel electric freight trains. Those require serious energy density. Only a fool would think our currnt battery technology is as far as we will go with electric vehicles, and only an idiot would think we will switch to a new technology before it is able to meet the demand. Relax. Quit whining. It will be all right. We won't lose our means of transportation like you seem to fear.

Only a fool would think they can defy the laws of physics. Battery technology, and range, is not significantly greater than it was 100 years ago. Gasoline is the most energy dense fuel that normal people can acquire. A thimble full will propel a 3,000 pound car about 2 miles. No battery in the world can even come close.

Those who fail to define their petroleum addiction as a finite drug show that their collective IQ won’t pack a thimble, and will likely be the ones to further fuck up tha planet looking for their drug.

Yeah, you "peak oilers" have been telling us that for well over a century now. There are now more proven oil reserves than existed when I was born. And the lifeblood of an economy is not an addiction. An addiction is something that you can live without, in fact you live better without it. Oil, and all of the products that have been developed from it, has lengthened the life expectancy of mankind by years. It has made our life of ease, possible.

You may wish to live hand to mouth is a "sustainable" fantasy. But I don't. History is filled with "sustainable" civilizations.....that went extinct.

You will sooner or later have to ask yourself and answer correctly, if fossil fuel is or is not, a finite resource. At that point, you should likely have learned more about the Catholic religion and its stats for pedophilia.

Doesn't matter that fossil fuels are finite resource, because EVs also rely totally on fossil fuels as well.
Without a fusion breakthrough, the bio fuel is about the only choice left, and that is better ICE than EV.

Consumption matters that it’s fossil fuel. Your argument is circular reasoning. Whatever EV’s portion of fossil-fuel addiction, it’s being transmuted to construct a renewable energy system that weans itself from petroleum’s libidinal stupidity. Solar’s cup is half full, the Pimp’s is half empty.

 

[BULLDOG]

We are at least 50 years from getting even close to getting off fossil fuels. Anyone who believes otherwise is naïve as FUCK.

You could be right, but I doubt it will be that long. There are millions of gas and diesel vehicles on the roads, and all manufacturers aren't converting to electric. The transition will take several years, but I doubt it will be 50.

There are still several MAJOR hurdles to overcome

1) As people have pointed out, 2% of the market is electric. That means that fossil fuel plants will massively grow to charge the 98% and Democrats oppose actual solutions like fracking for natural gas and nuclear

2) Battery technology just isn't there to create enough batteries that last long enough and can be processed at end of life (dispose or recycle)

3) The cheapest electric cars are $50K. Again, 2% of the cars are now electric. Think of the cost of the other 98%.

We're a ways off, those are three MAJOR hurdles to clear

I'm sure there are more hurdles than that. Conversion to electric power won't happen until we have technology to meet the demands. Only a hysteronic idiot would think that will happen. All those major auto companies would never convert to electric vehicles if they thought fhey would lose market share to all the other companies that aren't converting yet.

Those are the same idiotic car companies that keep claiming they will next week have Autonomous Vehicles, when clearly is it NEVER going to happen. These car makers are notorious for false hype and pretending. They are likely checking out the market potential response to their own hype, than they are actually trying to create EVs.
EVs have a commuter niche, but there are lots of things they are bad at and will likely never do.
Like travel.

Again, like with diesel/electric, you fail to address the point.
EV does not have a power source.
We are running out of all fossil fuel, not just gasoline.
So then when someone suggest switching to batteries, that is saying nothing useful.
It does not at all explain how the batteries are supposed to be recharged.
So there is going to be no fuel to recharge the batteries with.
So switching to batters and EVs, is just a waste of time and money.
Stitch to the point, which is what are we going to do for energy?
At this point, bio fuel like ethanol or palm diesel oil makes more sense than fusion, solar, or wind.

Interesting that you think you are smarter than the groups of engineers employed by all those car manufacturers. Where did you get all your engineering degrees?

That's a pretty funny slam from the guy who thinks you know more about economics than all those economic and finance people you think you know more than every time you claim it's leftist lawyers who know everything about the economy, not then.

But I'll bit. I have seen no consensus from " the groups of engineers employed by all those car manufacturers." I don't agree with everything he said, but I've heard no consensus on this

To be honest, I haven't either. Logic tells me that all those car companies wouldn't make all those changes unless their engineers told them it was well within their capabilities. If they can't produce a marketable car, they will go out of business. I don't think they would take a chance on that without strong reason to believe they will be successful.

 

[badger2]

Yeah, what can 1 then then 3 degrees difference in temperature make? Certaunly not drought and severe weather patterns or iceless poles. Nothing to worry about. Im sure west of the Mississippi they will find water somewhere.

Except that EVs speed up global warming.
Batteries are lithium and that is very dirty and expensive to mine.
Not to mention heavy and hard to recharge.

Lithium can be recycled, and that recycling must be taken away from the communists.

 

[HappyJoy]

I would add many of those oil companies don't pay a penny in federal income taxes.

You should absolutely LOVE oil companies, since they are providing the fuel to generate electricity for EVs. Evs aren't going anywhere without the oil companies.

Fossil fuels don't generate electricity in my state.

We use water, wind, solar and a small nuclear facility.

We started shutting down our last coal fired plant in 2005. I'm sure it's closed by now.

We started building one of the nation's largest wind farms in the 90s.

The result?

We generate more electricity than we use so we sell the excess to other states for a profit. If you live in one of those states, you're welcome for the cheap and clean energy.

We also have the second lowest electric rates in the country.

So my state doesn't need or want fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Untrue anywhere in the US.
Coal is the #1 electricity producer in ALL US states and most of the world.
Many states just do not know how their electricity is produced because it is part of an out of state grid.
It is never going to be possible to use only renewable resources any place in the world except on ocean shores, near high thermal sources, or where one does not mind killing fish.

So, if renewable sources can't supply all our needs, then we will use coal, or gas, or dried cow dung if we have to. We will maintain a reliable energy source of one kind or another. It will just be better for us if we can do that with renewable sources sooner. Nobody wants or expects a complete conversion to renewables before that is possible. Quit whining.

Going to electricity before electricity is renewable, only makes emissions much worse.
Nor does electricity allow for any reasonable totally renewable result eventually either, while bio fuel does.
So there is no point in going electrical.
It is inefficient.
Can you imagine trying to do ships, planes, or even EV trucks?
The would have no capacity to carry anything.
Batteries are way too heavy.

We already have diesel/electric ships and trucks, Electric power has already been proven to be more efficient than direct power by internal combustion. Why are you so afraid of progress? Do you think we will completely convert to battery powered electric before we have technology to match or better internal combustion? That's just silly.

Because what you just claimed isn't true. Electric power is more efficient in very limited circumstances. Over short distances electric powered vehicles are superior. There is no doubt of that. However, once you get beyond a mile the advantage swings to the internal combustion engine. Currently a Formula One race car can travel 190 miles, at full performance, on a single tank of regular gasoline. Formula E, can only manage 55 miles. And, they have to use TWO cars to do it.

So, calculate out the energy density involved, and get back to us with your claim of EV superiority.

If you want to discuss energy density, you should consider diesel electric freight trains. Those require serious energy density. Only a fool would think our currnt battery technology is as far as we will go with electric vehicles, and only an idiot would think we will switch to a new technology before it is able to meet the demand. Relax. Quit whining. It will be all right. We won't lose our means of transportation like you seem to fear.

Only a fool would think they can defy the laws of physics. Battery technology, and range, is not significantly greater than it was 100 years ago. Gasoline is the most energy dense fuel that normal people can acquire. A thimble full will propel a 3,000 pound car about 2 miles. No battery in the world can even come close.

You should tell GM, Ford, and all those other car manufacturers. I'm sure they would appreciate you letting them know all their engineers don't know what they are talking about. They will probably give you free cars for life for saving them all that money.

The government is TELLING them to do it. If EV'S were so great, the government wouldn't need to force you to use them

Like seat belts and airbags.

I hate airbags.
They are explosive, dangerous, and expensive.
If you wear glasses, they easily can cause blindness.
Permanent passive restraints make a lot more sense, like close dash or steering wheel padding.

glasses are plastic, and your full of it

So plastic shoved into your eyeball won't cause blindness?

{... During a collision, older-model auto airbags can deploy with such force that they can cause serious injuries to the eyes or even, in rare cases, blindness, say eye trauma specialists interviewed by WebMD. ...}

What Causes Eye Problems?

Get information on common eye and vision problems, such as conjunctivitis, retinal detachment, dry eyes, cataracts, and glaucoma.

www.webmd.com

{...

Rethinking airbag safety: airbag injury causing bilateral blindness​

...

Abstract​

A healthy 40-year-old man, restrained in the front passenger seat, suffered visually disabling blunt ocular trauma following spontaneous release of the passenger side air-bag module, during vehicular deceleration, without an automobile crash. Though the driver-side airbag was also released, the driver was unharmed. The passenger suffered bilateral hyphema, bilateral vitreous hemorrhage and suspected posterior scleral rupture in the left eye and also had an eyebrow laceration, from impact with the dashboard panel covering the air-bag module, which was detached by the force of airbag deployment. This is the first reported case from West Africa and the first case in which part of the airbag module detached to cause additional trauma. This report adds to the growing burden of evidence world-wide, for a review of the safety aspects of the automobile airbag. This case clearly illustrates that although airbags reduce mortality, they carry a high risk of ocular morbidity, even with seat belt restraint. ...}

Rethinking airbag safety: airbag injury causing bilateral blindness - PubMed

A healthy 40-year-old man, restrained in the front passenger seat, suffered visually disabling blunt ocular trauma following spontaneous release of the passenger side air-bag module, during vehicular deceleration, without an automobile crash. Though the driver-side airbag was also released, the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Airbags have saved over 50,000 lives. I doubt your "physics degree" has accomplished as much.

Airbags

Information from IIHS-HLDI on airbags

www.iihs.org

Wow so those 50,000 will never die?

Wrong.
What I said is that permanent padding works better.
For example, when the airbag explodes, it not only throws your hands off the wheel, but can break thumbs and fingers.
This can lead to a small rail accident that inflated the airbag, that totally makes you out of control and the car goes off a cliff.
If they just put additional padding closer to the person, they could give the better protection all the time, without the explosive charge in your face.

Saved over 50k lives, what have you done?

You mean like we STILL DO with oil companies.

I would add many of those oil companies don't pay a penny in federal income taxes.

You should absolutely LOVE oil companies, since they are providing the fuel to generate electricity for EVs. Evs aren't going anywhere without the oil companies.

Fossil fuels don't generate electricity in my state.

We use water, wind, solar and a small nuclear facility.

We started shutting down our last coal fired plant in 2005. I'm sure it's closed by now.

We started building one of the nation's largest wind farms in the 90s.

The result?

We generate more electricity than we use so we sell the excess to other states for a profit. If you live in one of those states, you're welcome for the cheap and clean energy.

We also have the second lowest electric rates in the country.

So my state doesn't need or want fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Untrue anywhere in the US.
Coal is the #1 electricity producer in ALL US states and most of the world.
Many states just do not know how their electricity is produced because it is part of an out of state grid.
It is never going to be possible to use only renewable resources any place in the world except on ocean shores, near high thermal sources, or where one does not mind killing fish.

So, if renewable sources can't supply all our needs, then we will use coal, or gas, or dried cow dung if we have to. We will maintain a reliable energy source of one kind or another. It will just be better for us if we can do that with renewable sources sooner. Nobody wants or expects a complete conversion to renewables before that is possible. Quit whining.

Going to electricity before electricity is renewable, only makes emissions much worse.
Nor does electricity allow for any reasonable totally renewable result eventually either, while bio fuel does.
So there is no point in going electrical.
It is inefficient.
Can you imagine trying to do ships, planes, or even EV trucks?
The would have no capacity to carry anything.
Batteries are way too heavy.

We already have diesel/electric ships and trucks, Electric power has already been proven to be more efficient than direct power by internal combustion. Why are you so afraid of progress? Do you think we will completely convert to battery powered electric before we have technology to match or better internal combustion? That's just silly.

Because what you just claimed isn't true. Electric power is more efficient in very limited circumstances. Over short distances electric powered vehicles are superior. There is no doubt of that. However, once you get beyond a mile the advantage swings to the internal combustion engine. Currently a Formula One race car can travel 190 miles, at full performance, on a single tank of regular gasoline. Formula E, can only manage 55 miles. And, they have to use TWO cars to do it.

So, calculate out the energy density involved, and get back to us with your claim of EV superiority.

If you want to discuss energy density, you should consider diesel electric freight trains. Those require serious energy density. Only a fool would think our currnt battery technology is as far as we will go with electric vehicles, and only an idiot would think we will switch to a new technology before it is able to meet the demand. Relax. Quit whining. It will be all right. We won't lose our means of transportation like you seem to fear.

Only a fool would think they can defy the laws of physics. Battery technology, and range, is not significantly greater than it was 100 years ago. Gasoline is the most energy dense fuel that normal people can acquire. A thimble full will propel a 3,000 pound car about 2 miles. No battery in the world can even come close.

You should tell GM, Ford, and all those other car manufacturers. I'm sure they would appreciate you letting them know all their engineers don't know what they are talking about. They will probably give you free cars for life for saving them all that money.

The government is TELLING them to do it. If EV'S were so great, the government wouldn't need to force you to use them

Like seat belts and airbags.

I hate airbags.
They are explosive, dangerous, and expensive.
If you wear glasses, they easily can cause blindness.
Permanent passive restraints make a lot more sense, like close dash or steering wheel padding.

glasses are plastic, and your full of it

Rigby "the physicist" thinks glasses are still made with glass? Yep, he's either full of it or just arrived in his time machine invention.

Wrong.
Did the articles about airbags causing blindness say it required glass lenses?

Your article references older airbags.

And you have not been reading about how airbags are killing people?
{...

South Carolina driver killed by exploding air bag inflator​

A driver in South Carolina is the latest person to be killed by an exploding Takata air bag inflator
ByThe Associated Press
April 21, 2021, 7:00 PM
• 3 min read
...
Takata used volatile ammonium nitrate to create a small explosion to inflate air bags in a crash. But the chemical can become more volatile over time when exposed to moisture in the air. The explosion can blow apart a metal canister and hurl shrapnel into the passenger compartment.
...}

South Carolina driver killed by exploding air bag inflator

A driver in South Carolina is the latest person to be killed by an exploding Takata air bag inflator

abcnews.go.com

How could anyone feel safer with an explosive charge in your face, about to go off from even a slight malfunction?

Airbags have saved the lives of over 50k people. How many have they killed?

Airbags are a great idea, but the Takata airbags were poorly designed and caused many deaths. I heard there was something about a metal ring that would shoot out and strike the driver in the head. There was a huge recall because they were used in so many different cars and trucks.

Yep, like other car components they can fail/perform badly. Takata airbags appear to have been very poorly engineered.

 

[kaz]

We are at least 50 years from getting even close to getting off fossil fuels. Anyone who believes otherwise is naïve as FUCK.

You could be right, but I doubt it will be that long. There are millions of gas and diesel vehicles on the roads, and all manufacturers aren't converting to electric. The transition will take several years, but I doubt it will be 50.

There are still several MAJOR hurdles to overcome

1) As people have pointed out, 2% of the market is electric. That means that fossil fuel plants will massively grow to charge the 98% and Democrats oppose actual solutions like fracking for natural gas and nuclear

2) Battery technology just isn't there to create enough batteries that last long enough and can be processed at end of life (dispose or recycle)

3) The cheapest electric cars are $50K. Again, 2% of the cars are now electric. Think of the cost of the other 98%.

We're a ways off, those are three MAJOR hurdles to clear

I'm sure there are more hurdles than that. Conversion to electric power won't happen until we have technology to meet the demands. Only a hysteronic idiot would think that will happen. All those major auto companies would never convert to electric vehicles if they thought fhey would lose market share to all the other companies that aren't converting yet.

Those are the same idiotic car companies that keep claiming they will next week have Autonomous Vehicles, when clearly is it NEVER going to happen. These car makers are notorious for false hype and pretending. They are likely checking out the market potential response to their own hype, than they are actually trying to create EVs.
EVs have a commuter niche, but there are lots of things they are bad at and will likely never do.
Like travel.

Again, like with diesel/electric, you fail to address the point.
EV does not have a power source.
We are running out of all fossil fuel, not just gasoline.
So then when someone suggest switching to batteries, that is saying nothing useful.
It does not at all explain how the batteries are supposed to be recharged.
So there is going to be no fuel to recharge the batteries with.
So switching to batters and EVs, is just a waste of time and money.
Stitch to the point, which is what are we going to do for energy?
At this point, bio fuel like ethanol or palm diesel oil makes more sense than fusion, solar, or wind.

Interesting that you think you are smarter than the groups of engineers employed by all those car manufacturers. Where did you get all your engineering degrees?

That's a pretty funny slam from the guy who thinks you know more about economics than all those economic and finance people you think you know more than every time you claim it's leftist lawyers who know everything about the economy, not then.

But I'll bit. I have seen no consensus from " the groups of engineers employed by all those car manufacturers." I don't agree with everything he said, but I've heard no consensus on this

To be honest, I haven't either. Logic tells me that all those car companies wouldn't make all those changes unless their engineers told them it was well within their capabilities. If they can't produce a marketable car, they will go out of business. I don't think they would take a chance on that without strong reason to believe they will be successful.

So as someone who works in that realm between IT and Finance/Management, I can tell you it's not that simple.

Does not happen.

- IT goes to the business and tells them they can create things like self driving cars, for sure. The business is skeptical, but says OK, well, if you're sure, we'll figure out a market for it​

Does not happen

- The business goes to IT and says create self driving cars! If it's not possible, MAKE IT POSSIBLE! Why are you still in my office!​

Does happen

- The middle​

Sure, IT probably confirmed that it's likely feasible, but no, it doesn't mean they said no sweat either.

I do think it's feasible. They have self flying planes. It's not the same challenges, but it's highly complex. How long? Not sure.

Just when you specifically referred to the "consensus" of engineers I was like WTF? What consensus?

It doesn't take a consensus anyway, it just takes one to do it.

Batteries, price, using fossil fuel energy to charge them are the bigger challenges in my view

 

[HappyJoy]

Yeah, what can 1 then then 3 degrees difference in temperature make? Certaunly not drought and severe weather patterns or iceless poles. Nothing to worry about. Im sure west of the Mississippi they will find water somewhere.

Except that EVs speed up global warming.
Batteries are lithium and that is very dirty and expensive to mine.
Not to mention heavy and hard to recharge.

Lithium can be recycled, and that recycling must be taken away from the communists.

Yes, we as a country should be competing in renewable energy endeavors. However we unfortunately have to have that fight with one hand tied behind our backs thanks to conservatism. Or whatever it really is.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yeah, what can 1 then then 3 degrees difference in temperature make? Certaunly not drought and severe weather patterns or iceless poles. Nothing to worry about. Im sure west of the Mississippi they will find water somewhere.

Except that EVs speed up global warming.
Batteries are lithium and that is very dirty and expensive to mine.
Not to mention heavy and hard to recharge.

Lithium can be recycled, and that recycling must be taken away from the communists.

Yes, we as a country should be competing in renewable energy endeavors. However we unfortunately have to have that fight with one hand tied behind our backs thanks to conservatism. Or whatever it really is.

Why do you hate poor people?

 

[HappyJoy]

Yeah, what can 1 then then 3 degrees difference in temperature make? Certaunly not drought and severe weather patterns or iceless poles. Nothing to worry about. Im sure west of the Mississippi they will find water somewhere.

Except that EVs speed up global warming.
Batteries are lithium and that is very dirty and expensive to mine.
Not to mention heavy and hard to recharge.

Lithium can be recycled, and that recycling must be taken away from the communists.

Yes, we as a country should be competing in renewable energy endeavors. However we unfortunately have to have that fight with one hand tied behind our backs thanks to conservatism. Or whatever it really is.

Why do you hate poor people?

Why do you ask such moronic questions?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yeah, what can 1 then then 3 degrees difference in temperature make? Certaunly not drought and severe weather patterns or iceless poles. Nothing to worry about. Im sure west of the Mississippi they will find water somewhere.

Except that EVs speed up global warming.
Batteries are lithium and that is very dirty and expensive to mine.
Not to mention heavy and hard to recharge.

Lithium can be recycled, and that recycling must be taken away from the communists.

Yes, we as a country should be competing in renewable energy endeavors. However we unfortunately have to have that fight with one hand tied behind our backs thanks to conservatism. Or whatever it really is.

Why do you hate poor people?

Why do you ask such moronic questions?

Hum because I have an 8th grade education?

Seriously why do you hate poor people, when they need cheap power?

 

[HappyJoy]

Yeah, what can 1 then then 3 degrees difference in temperature make? Certaunly not drought and severe weather patterns or iceless poles. Nothing to worry about. Im sure west of the Mississippi they will find water somewhere.

Except that EVs speed up global warming.
Batteries are lithium and that is very dirty and expensive to mine.
Not to mention heavy and hard to recharge.

Lithium can be recycled, and that recycling must be taken away from the communists.

Yes, we as a country should be competing in renewable energy endeavors. However we unfortunately have to have that fight with one hand tied behind our backs thanks to conservatism. Or whatever it really is.

Why do you hate poor people?

Why do you ask such moronic questions?

Hum because I have an 8th grade education?

Seriously why do you hate poor people, when they need cheap power?

8th grade? Hmm, I'm beginning to wonder if you can count that high. When you decide to make a valid point let me know.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yeah, what can 1 then then 3 degrees difference in temperature make? Certaunly not drought and severe weather patterns or iceless poles. Nothing to worry about. Im sure west of the Mississippi they will find water somewhere.

Except that EVs speed up global warming.
Batteries are lithium and that is very dirty and expensive to mine.
Not to mention heavy and hard to recharge.

Lithium can be recycled, and that recycling must be taken away from the communists.

Yes, we as a country should be competing in renewable energy endeavors. However we unfortunately have to have that fight with one hand tied behind our backs thanks to conservatism. Or whatever it really is.

Why do you hate poor people?

Why do you ask such moronic questions?

Hum because I have an 8th grade education?

Seriously why do you hate poor people, when they need cheap power?

8th grade? Hmm, I'm beginning to wonder if you can count that high. When you decide to make a valid point let me know.

Still can't figure it out, why bother with you?

 

[HappyJoy]

Yeah, what can 1 then then 3 degrees difference in temperature make? Certaunly not drought and severe weather patterns or iceless poles. Nothing to worry about. Im sure west of the Mississippi they will find water somewhere.

Except that EVs speed up global warming.
Batteries are lithium and that is very dirty and expensive to mine.
Not to mention heavy and hard to recharge.

Lithium can be recycled, and that recycling must be taken away from the communists.

Yes, we as a country should be competing in renewable energy endeavors. However we unfortunately have to have that fight with one hand tied behind our backs thanks to conservatism. Or whatever it really is.

Why do you hate poor people?

Why do you ask such moronic questions?

Hum because I have an 8th grade education?

Seriously why do you hate poor people, when they need cheap power?

8th grade? Hmm, I'm beginning to wonder if you can count that high. When you decide to make a valid point let me know.

Still can't figure it out, why bother with you?

Yeah, I'm not living in a right wing fairyland, you're going to have to explain whatever bullshit somebody else pumped into your head. I could guess what you mean, I don't want to.

 

[Rigby5]

g

Airbags have saved the lives of over 50k people. How many have they killed?

Again, not a single one, because permanent padding would have worked much better, been reliable, not exploded, etc.
There was never any rational reason for airbags, and they were always a dumb idea.

That padding existed before airbags so, no you'd be wrong again.

Also your article mentions that the guy in S.C. received recall notices and he ignored them. Very dumb thing to do.

Wrong.
I am talking about additional padding that was only tried experimentally.
Works much better.
There is a huge distance between you and the windshield.
That gives you time to accelerate towards it.
You need padding that prevents you from being able to hit the windshield, similar to an air bag, but does not deflate.
Like the padded bar they pull down over you in an amusement ride.

The padded bar on an amusement ride isn't feet away from you, it's an inch or less. The padding is more for comfort than protecting you as your inertia is stopped immediately by the bar.

Being thrown into padding going 60 miles an hour is probably better than nothing but not much.

That is what my point was.
The experimental padding they tested that worked better than airbags was close up.
The padding on a ride is not for comfort, but required lifesavers.
The bar in a car should be attached to your seat, not explode towards you from the dash.
If you are leaning forward, an explosive airbag can be deadly if if not malfunctioning.
Why do you think they don't let kids ride in the front any more?

Well, as soon as you demonstrate that some expert somewhere says to forego airbags for padding only...until then you're not really demonstrating anything.

Has anyone ever used airbags in race cars, amusement rides, airplanes, or anything else?

Nope. Too heavy. 5 point harness, and roll cages work far better anyway.

You mean too deadly.
When an airbag goes off, you can't see, and your hands are thrown off the wheel.
A formula for disaster really.
No one should ever want them.

Nope, too heavy. Racers care about speed and handling. The weight of an airbag slows you down, and screws up the handling.

I race. You clearly don't. A five point harness with a good seat and roll cage and you are safe from some very serious crashes.

Deceleration gee forces are the biggest cause of injury

In a race car, you can relieve some of the G forces on the neck by spreading it out on a helmet mount attached to the shoulders.
Amusement parks do something similar by lowering a padded bar in front of and below you face.

But what is worst about an air bag is that it is going to explode with the first minor railing contract, and be totally deflated by the time you really need it because the air bag knocked your hands off the wheel and made you plow into a solid wall.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yeah, what can 1 then then 3 degrees difference in temperature make? Certaunly not drought and severe weather patterns or iceless poles. Nothing to worry about. Im sure west of the Mississippi they will find water somewhere.

Except that EVs speed up global warming.
Batteries are lithium and that is very dirty and expensive to mine.
Not to mention heavy and hard to recharge.

Lithium can be recycled, and that recycling must be taken away from the communists.

Yes, we as a country should be competing in renewable energy endeavors. However we unfortunately have to have that fight with one hand tied behind our backs thanks to conservatism. Or whatever it really is.

Why do you hate poor people?

Why do you ask such moronic questions?

Hum because I have an 8th grade education?

Seriously why do you hate poor people, when they need cheap power?

8th grade? Hmm, I'm beginning to wonder if you can count that high. When you decide to make a valid point let me know.

Still can't figure it out, why bother with you?

Yeah, I'm not living in a right wing fairyland, you're going to have to explain whatever bullshit somebody else pumped into your head. I could guess what you mean, I don't want to.

Strange now you ignore facts?