Why electric cars will take over sooner than you think

[Rigby5]

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

What you see in the media is not engineers, so you can't find an engineering consensus in the media.
You can only do that by talking to other engineers, since engineers are notorious for not talking to the media.
Not that the media would understand them anyway.

But you can understand the science easily.
Go back to the basic problem.
Which is that we are running out of fossil fuel and need an alternative energy source.
Does an EV solve that?
No, not at all.
In fact, EVs greatly increase energy consumption, since you add the extra waste of having to charge and discharge batteries, not to mention carrying all that heavy additional weight, as well as finding, mining, and processing all those rare earth elements.
EVs just switch locations for where the fossil fuel in consumed, from in the car to at a remote power plant.
And that just adds transmission losses.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

No, solar can't solve the problem.
And if you start lining all the fields with photovoltaic cells, you will destroy what little is left of nature.
If you want a renewable energy source, it is not photovoltaic.
Far better is bio fuel, like ethanol, palm oil, etc.
Not only does that produce oxygen, but some habitat for wild life.

EVs are vastly too inefficient, using more than twice the energy of bio fuel, being far more expensive, and weighing over 3 times as much. You are never going to get plane in the air on batteries, but they already are running jets on bio fuels.

 

[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

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.

Like I said, they are too heavy and are unnecessary anyway. Race cars are uncomfortable. You, as the driver are immobilized in a hard seat that has been molded to your body in the higher end series, or is simply as supportive as possible in the lesser series. I use Recaro seats because they give me the best compromise.

Normal people will not willingly endure the discomfort of a five point harness. If they were no airbags would be needed. The two systems do the same job. The five point harness is significantly better at the job, but not nearly as comfortable so is only used by drivers who need them.

 

[HappyJoy]

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

What you see in the media is not engineers, so you can't find an engineering consensus in the media.
You can only do that by talking to other engineers, since engineers are notorious for not talking to the media.
Not that the media would understand them anyway.

But you can understand the science easily.
Go back to the basic problem.
Which is that we are running out of fossil fuel and need an alternative energy source.
Does an EV solve that?
No, not at all.
In fact, EVs greatly increase energy consumption, since you add the extra waste of having to charge and discharge batteries, not to mention carrying all that heavy additional weight, as well as finding, mining, and processing all those rare earth elements.
EVs just switch locations for where the fossil fuel in consumed, from in the car to at a remote power plant.
And that just adds transmission losses.

I use a 5 point harness in my SxS and there is noway grandma is going to go through that ordeal everytime she gets in or out.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Marketing is in control of cars and has been for decades, not engineers.
For example, look at the AVs like the Tesla, where 2 guys recently died because they believed the AV lies and both got into the back seat, leaving the car to drive itself.
Look at the foolish things marketing has done to cars, like the AC controls.
I had a 96 Dodge van I always kept the AC easily running myself. The most it ever needed was a freon recharge every 5 years or so. A switch, belt, compressor, clutch, seal, fan, condenser, evaporator, or anything it needed was easy.
So what did marketing do to AC?
Comparing the Dodge with my 2006 Jetta, they put it under microprocessor control.
Now there is no clutch and they use an expensive internal bypass valve under computer control, so you can't diagnose anything.
The $5 switch turns into a $500 microprocessor board that supposedly keeps the temp exactly constant, (something no one wants or needs).
Just talk to the engineers.
They will rail one for hours about how marketing has screwed up everything.
It is not engineers who wanted to put in the interlock system so you had to push on the brake and put it in park to start the car.
It is not engineer who want doors to lock electrically over 10 mph.
These are all additional fragile points of failure engineers hate.

 

[Rigby5]

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

What you see in the media is not engineers, so you can't find an engineering consensus in the media.
You can only do that by talking to other engineers, since engineers are notorious for not talking to the media.
Not that the media would understand them anyway.

But you can understand the science easily.
Go back to the basic problem.
Which is that we are running out of fossil fuel and need an alternative energy source.
Does an EV solve that?
No, not at all.
In fact, EVs greatly increase energy consumption, since you add the extra waste of having to charge and discharge batteries, not to mention carrying all that heavy additional weight, as well as finding, mining, and processing all those rare earth elements.
EVs just switch locations for where the fossil fuel in consumed, from in the car to at a remote power plant.
And that just adds transmission losses.

I use a 5 point harness in my SxS and there is noway grandma is going to go through that ordeal everytime she gets in or out.

A raising and lowering padded bar in front of you, pivoting from the top back of the seat, would be much easier and provide far more contact surface area in case of a collision. You don't need a harness at all. The only advantage of a harness is that if a collision makes the release fail, you can always cut a harness, but a padded bar would need more means of assuring exit.

 

[HappyJoy]

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

What you see in the media is not engineers, so you can't find an engineering consensus in the media.
You can only do that by talking to other engineers, since engineers are notorious for not talking to the media.
Not that the media would understand them anyway.

But you can understand the science easily.
Go back to the basic problem.
Which is that we are running out of fossil fuel and need an alternative energy source.
Does an EV solve that?
No, not at all.
In fact, EVs greatly increase energy consumption, since you add the extra waste of having to charge and discharge batteries, not to mention carrying all that heavy additional weight, as well as finding, mining, and processing all those rare earth elements.
EVs just switch locations for where the fossil fuel in consumed, from in the car to at a remote power plant.
And that just adds transmission losses.

I use a 5 point harness in my SxS and there is noway grandma is going to go through that ordeal everytime she gets in or out.

A raising and lowering padded bar in front of you, pivoting from the top back of the seat, would be much easier and provide far more contact surface area in case of a collision. You don't need a harness at all. The only advantage of a harness is that if a collision makes the release fail, you can always cut a harness, but a padded bar would need more means of assuring exit.

Dude, nobody wants moving padded bars in their cars.

 

[Rigby5]

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

What you see in the media is not engineers, so you can't find an engineering consensus in the media.
You can only do that by talking to other engineers, since engineers are notorious for not talking to the media.
Not that the media would understand them anyway.

But you can understand the science easily.
Go back to the basic problem.
Which is that we are running out of fossil fuel and need an alternative energy source.
Does an EV solve that?
No, not at all.
In fact, EVs greatly increase energy consumption, since you add the extra waste of having to charge and discharge batteries, not to mention carrying all that heavy additional weight, as well as finding, mining, and processing all those rare earth elements.
EVs just switch locations for where the fossil fuel in consumed, from in the car to at a remote power plant.
And that just adds transmission losses.

I use a 5 point harness in my SxS and there is noway grandma is going to go through that ordeal everytime she gets in or out.

A raising and lowering padded bar in front of you, pivoting from the top back of the seat, would be much easier and provide far more contact surface area in case of a collision. You don't need a harness at all. The only advantage of a harness is that if a collision makes the release fail, you can always cut a harness, but a padded bar would need more means of assuring exit.

Dude, nobody wants moving padded bars in their cars.

I would, when the alternative is an explosive charge ready to do off in your face.
Even the explosive does not increase and turn the bag into deadly shrapnel, it can still break your neck if you happen to be leaning in too close.

 

[2aguy]

Remember all that screaming and pearl clutching Republicans did over LED lightbulbs?

whatever happened to all that?

seems like a lot of

it wasnt LEDs you idiot. It was the compact fleurescwnt bulbs with the lead that

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

So....Philadelphia bought electric buses.....for a million dollars a piece....now all of those buses have been pulled......

A million dollars a bus.....and they pulled them from use.....

The stupidity of the green meanies is endless...

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is one of the deep-blue cities that’s been priding itself in leading the charge against climate change for years now. Back in 2016, they decided to establish a position as an early adopter of electric vehicle technology on a large scale to reduce their carbon footprint. The city purchased 25 electric buses from a company called Protera at a staggering price tag of nearly one million dollars apiece and put them into operation. But barely four years later, every one of the buses had been pulled from service and is deemed unusable. What went so horribly wrong to produce such a result? As the Free Beacon reports this week, just about everything that could go wrong did go wrong.

More than two dozen electric Proterra buses first unveiled by the city of Philadelphia in 2016 are already out of operation, according to a WHYY investigation.
The entire fleet of Proterra buses was removed from the roads by SEPTA, the city’s transit authority, in February 2020 due to both structural and logistical problems—the weight of the powerful battery was cracking the vehicles’ chassis, and the battery life was insufficient for the city’s bus routes. The city raised the issues with Proterra, which failed to adequately address the city’s concerns.
The city paid $24 million for the 25 new Proterra buses, subsidized in part by a $2.6 million federal grant.

Philadelphia's electric bus fleet has disappeared

hotair.com

 

[Rigby5]

Remember all that screaming and pearl clutching Republicans did over LED lightbulbs?

whatever happened to all that?

seems like a lot of

it wasnt LEDs you idiot. It was the compact fleurescwnt bulbs with the lead that

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

So....Philadelphia bought electric buses.....for a million dollars a piece....now all of those buses have been pulled......

A million dollars a bus.....and they pulled them from use.....

The stupidity of the green meanies is endless...

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is one of the deep-blue cities that’s been priding itself in leading the charge against climate change for years now. Back in 2016, they decided to establish a position as an early adopter of electric vehicle technology on a large scale to reduce their carbon footprint. The city purchased 25 electric buses from a company called Protera at a staggering price tag of nearly one million dollars apiece and put them into operation. But barely four years later, every one of the buses had been pulled from service and is deemed unusable. What went so horribly wrong to produce such a result? As the Free Beacon reports this week, just about everything that could go wrong did go wrong.

More than two dozen electric Proterra buses first unveiled by the city of Philadelphia in 2016 are already out of operation, according to a WHYY investigation.
The entire fleet of Proterra buses was removed from the roads by SEPTA, the city’s transit authority, in February 2020 due to both structural and logistical problems—the weight of the powerful battery was cracking the vehicles’ chassis, and the battery life was insufficient for the city’s bus routes. The city raised the issues with Proterra, which failed to adequately address the city’s concerns.
The city paid $24 million for the 25 new Proterra buses, subsidized in part by a $2.6 million federal grant.

Philadelphia's electric bus fleet has disappeared

hotair.com

Same thing happened in Albuquerque, NM.
The program was called ART, (Albuquerque Rapid Transit), and they bought a bunch of electric buses at a very high price, that never worked.
Cost $133 million.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Remember all that screaming and pearl clutching Republicans did over LED lightbulbs?

whatever happened to all that?

seems like a lot of

it wasnt LEDs you idiot. It was the compact fleurescwnt bulbs with the lead that

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

So....Philadelphia bought electric buses.....for a million dollars a piece....now all of those buses have been pulled......

A million dollars a bus.....and they pulled them from use.....

The stupidity of the green meanies is endless...

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is one of the deep-blue cities that’s been priding itself in leading the charge against climate change for years now. Back in 2016, they decided to establish a position as an early adopter of electric vehicle technology on a large scale to reduce their carbon footprint. The city purchased 25 electric buses from a company called Protera at a staggering price tag of nearly one million dollars apiece and put them into operation. But barely four years later, every one of the buses had been pulled from service and is deemed unusable. What went so horribly wrong to produce such a result? As the Free Beacon reports this week, just about everything that could go wrong did go wrong.

More than two dozen electric Proterra buses first unveiled by the city of Philadelphia in 2016 are already out of operation, according to a WHYY investigation.
The entire fleet of Proterra buses was removed from the roads by SEPTA, the city’s transit authority, in February 2020 due to both structural and logistical problems—the weight of the powerful battery was cracking the vehicles’ chassis, and the battery life was insufficient for the city’s bus routes. The city raised the issues with Proterra, which failed to adequately address the city’s concerns.
The city paid $24 million for the 25 new Proterra buses, subsidized in part by a $2.6 million federal grant.

Philadelphia's electric bus fleet has disappeared

hotair.com

Same thing happened in Albuquerque, NM.
The program was called ART, (Albuquerque Rapid Transit), and they bought a bunch of electric buses at a very high price, that never worked.

They worked in Seneca south Carolina

 

[2aguy]

Remember all that screaming and pearl clutching Republicans did over LED lightbulbs?

whatever happened to all that?

seems like a lot of

it wasnt LEDs you idiot. It was the compact fleurescwnt bulbs with the lead that

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

So....Philadelphia bought electric buses.....for a million dollars a piece....now all of those buses have been pulled......

A million dollars a bus.....and they pulled them from use.....

The stupidity of the green meanies is endless...

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is one of the deep-blue cities that’s been priding itself in leading the charge against climate change for years now. Back in 2016, they decided to establish a position as an early adopter of electric vehicle technology on a large scale to reduce their carbon footprint. The city purchased 25 electric buses from a company called Protera at a staggering price tag of nearly one million dollars apiece and put them into operation. But barely four years later, every one of the buses had been pulled from service and is deemed unusable. What went so horribly wrong to produce such a result? As the Free Beacon reports this week, just about everything that could go wrong did go wrong.

More than two dozen electric Proterra buses first unveiled by the city of Philadelphia in 2016 are already out of operation, according to a WHYY investigation.
The entire fleet of Proterra buses was removed from the roads by SEPTA, the city’s transit authority, in February 2020 due to both structural and logistical problems—the weight of the powerful battery was cracking the vehicles’ chassis, and the battery life was insufficient for the city’s bus routes. The city raised the issues with Proterra, which failed to adequately address the city’s concerns.
The city paid $24 million for the 25 new Proterra buses, subsidized in part by a $2.6 million federal grant.

Philadelphia's electric bus fleet has disappeared

hotair.com

Same thing happened in Albuquerque, NM.
The program was called ART, (Albuquerque Rapid Transit), and they bought a bunch of electric buses at a very high price, that never worked.

I know someone who drives a school bus. The daily route covers 91 miles. This is in a cold state, so they would have to do the morning route, plug in the bus, or they woudn't be able to do the rest of the route........especially when the bus is used for other things during the day.....in the cold, that would cut how efficient the battery is.....

The dream of electric cars is likely never going to happen.....some real technology will come along and make battery cars unnecessary.....

 

[airplanemechanic]

solar, wind,)

these two unreliable.

Hydro and nuclear I'm in. Let's get them moving. Shit, even natural gas is cleaner. The grid still isn't big enough. nor will it ever be for what they are proposing. never will be. it's a wet dream.

They want to make 18 wheelers electric. Can you imagine the load on the grid from just ONE TRUCKSTOP with 100 trucks plugged in? That would draw more energy than a small city. There are currently over 3 million 18 wheelers on the road.

 

[2aguy]

solar, wind,)

these two unreliable.

Hydro and nuclear I'm in. Let's get them moving. Shit, even natural gas is cleaner. The grid still isn't big enough. nor will it ever be for what they are proposing. never will be. it's a wet dream.

They want to make 18 wheelers electric. Can you imagine the load on the grid from just ONE TRUCKSTOP with 100 trucks plugged in? That would draw more energy than a small city. There are currently over 3 million 18 wheelers on the road.

Don't worry.......there will be so many solar and wind farms ......there won't be any actual food farms, since the solar and wind will use up all that land....

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Just watched a Dodge Hellcat eat a Tesla Plaid for lunch.

Give me the muscle car

 

[HappyJoy]

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

What you see in the media is not engineers, so you can't find an engineering consensus in the media.
You can only do that by talking to other engineers, since engineers are notorious for not talking to the media.
Not that the media would understand them anyway.

But you can understand the science easily.
Go back to the basic problem.
Which is that we are running out of fossil fuel and need an alternative energy source.
Does an EV solve that?
No, not at all.
In fact, EVs greatly increase energy consumption, since you add the extra waste of having to charge and discharge batteries, not to mention carrying all that heavy additional weight, as well as finding, mining, and processing all those rare earth elements.
EVs just switch locations for where the fossil fuel in consumed, from in the car to at a remote power plant.
And that just adds transmission losses.

I use a 5 point harness in my SxS and there is noway grandma is going to go through that ordeal everytime she gets in or out.

A raising and lowering padded bar in front of you, pivoting from the top back of the seat, would be much easier and provide far more contact surface area in case of a collision. You don't need a harness at all. The only advantage of a harness is that if a collision makes the release fail, you can always cut a harness, but a padded bar would need more means of assuring exit.

Dude, nobody wants moving padded bars in their cars.

I would, when the alternative is an explosive charge ready to do off in your face.
Even the explosive does not increase and turn the bag into deadly shrapnel, it can still break your neck if you happen to be leaning in too close.

Yeah, except that's not most airbags as the ones that were a danger have been recalled. Also, again 50k lives. At least you don't have a problem with government mandated seat belts.

 

[badger2]

Remember all that screaming and pearl clutching Republicans did over LED lightbulbs?

whatever happened to all that?

seems like a lot of

it wasnt LEDs you idiot. It was the compact fleurescwnt bulbs with the lead that

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

So....Philadelphia bought electric buses.....for a million dollars a piece....now all of those buses have been pulled......

A million dollars a bus.....and they pulled them from use.....

The stupidity of the green meanies is endless...

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is one of the deep-blue cities that’s been priding itself in leading the charge against climate change for years now. Back in 2016, they decided to establish a position as an early adopter of electric vehicle technology on a large scale to reduce their carbon footprint. The city purchased 25 electric buses from a company called Protera at a staggering price tag of nearly one million dollars apiece and put them into operation. But barely four years later, every one of the buses had been pulled from service and is deemed unusable. What went so horribly wrong to produce such a result? As the Free Beacon reports this week, just about everything that could go wrong did go wrong.

More than two dozen electric Proterra buses first unveiled by the city of Philadelphia in 2016 are already out of operation, according to a WHYY investigation.
The entire fleet of Proterra buses was removed from the roads by SEPTA, the city’s transit authority, in February 2020 due to both structural and logistical problems—the weight of the powerful battery was cracking the vehicles’ chassis, and the battery life was insufficient for the city’s bus routes. The city raised the issues with Proterra, which failed to adequately address the city’s concerns.
The city paid $24 million for the 25 new Proterra buses, subsidized in part by a $2.6 million federal grant.

Philadelphia's electric bus fleet has disappeared

hotair.com

Same thing happened in Albuquerque, NM.
The program was called ART, (Albuquerque Rapid Transit), and they bought a bunch of electric buses at a very high price, that never worked.

I know someone who drives a school bus. The daily route covers 91 miles. This is in a cold state, so they would have to do the morning route, plug in the bus, or they woudn't be able to do the rest of the route........especially when the bus is used for other things during the day.....in the cold, that would cut how efficient the battery is.....

The dream of electric cars is likely never going to happen.....some real technology will come along and make battery cars unnecessary.....

Solar-electric is real technology. Each individual can take care of the temperature problem by installing rechargeable heat and insulated battery compartments. ICE addiction is going out of style, if not already out of style.

 

[2aguy]

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.

No, solar can't solve the problem.
And if you start lining all the fields with photovoltaic cells, you will destroy what little is left of nature.
If you want a renewable energy source, it is not photovoltaic.
Far better is bio fuel, like ethanol, palm oil, etc.
Not only does that produce oxygen, but some habitat for wild life.

EVs are vastly too inefficient, using more than twice the energy of bio fuel, being far more expensive, and weighing over 3 times as much. You are never going to get plane in the air on batteries, but they already are running jets on bio fuels.

Don't forget that little side benefit....fires. When an electric car crashes, the fire is incredibly difficult to put out......

Remember all that screaming and pearl clutching Republicans did over LED lightbulbs?

whatever happened to all that?

seems like a lot of

it wasnt LEDs you idiot. It was the compact fleurescwnt bulbs with the lead that

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

So....Philadelphia bought electric buses.....for a million dollars a piece....now all of those buses have been pulled......

A million dollars a bus.....and they pulled them from use.....

The stupidity of the green meanies is endless...

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is one of the deep-blue cities that’s been priding itself in leading the charge against climate change for years now. Back in 2016, they decided to establish a position as an early adopter of electric vehicle technology on a large scale to reduce their carbon footprint. The city purchased 25 electric buses from a company called Protera at a staggering price tag of nearly one million dollars apiece and put them into operation. But barely four years later, every one of the buses had been pulled from service and is deemed unusable. What went so horribly wrong to produce such a result? As the Free Beacon reports this week, just about everything that could go wrong did go wrong.

More than two dozen electric Proterra buses first unveiled by the city of Philadelphia in 2016 are already out of operation, according to a WHYY investigation.
The entire fleet of Proterra buses was removed from the roads by SEPTA, the city’s transit authority, in February 2020 due to both structural and logistical problems—the weight of the powerful battery was cracking the vehicles’ chassis, and the battery life was insufficient for the city’s bus routes. The city raised the issues with Proterra, which failed to adequately address the city’s concerns.
The city paid $24 million for the 25 new Proterra buses, subsidized in part by a $2.6 million federal grant.

Philadelphia's electric bus fleet has disappeared

hotair.com

Same thing happened in Albuquerque, NM.
The program was called ART, (Albuquerque Rapid Transit), and they bought a bunch of electric buses at a very high price, that never worked.

I know someone who drives a school bus. The daily route covers 91 miles. This is in a cold state, so they would have to do the morning route, plug in the bus, or they woudn't be able to do the rest of the route........especially when the bus is used for other things during the day.....in the cold, that would cut how efficient the battery is.....

The dream of electric cars is likely never going to happen.....some real technology will come along and make battery cars unnecessary.....

Solar-electric is real technology. Each individual can take care of the temperature problem by installing rechargeable heat and insulated battery compartments. ICE addiction is going out of style, if not already out of style.

It is only going out of style because dipshits are pushing a fantasy that is backed up by the democrat party press corp. The truth is that electric cars are environmentally more damaging than fossil fuel based cars.........

 

[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.

No, solar can't solve the problem.
And if you start lining all the fields with photovoltaic cells, you will destroy what little is left of nature.
If you want a renewable energy source, it is not photovoltaic.
Far better is bio fuel, like ethanol, palm oil, etc.
Not only does that produce oxygen, but some habitat for wild life.

EVs are vastly too inefficient, using more than twice the energy of bio fuel, being far more expensive, and weighing over 3 times as much. You are never going to get plane in the air on batteries, but they already are running jets on bio fuels.

Don't forget that little side benefit....fires. When an electric car crashes, the fire is incredibly difficult to put out......

Remember all that screaming and pearl clutching Republicans did over LED lightbulbs?

whatever happened to all that?

seems like a lot of

it wasnt LEDs you idiot. It was the compact fleurescwnt bulbs with the lead that

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

So....Philadelphia bought electric buses.....for a million dollars a piece....now all of those buses have been pulled......

A million dollars a bus.....and they pulled them from use.....

The stupidity of the green meanies is endless...

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is one of the deep-blue cities that’s been priding itself in leading the charge against climate change for years now. Back in 2016, they decided to establish a position as an early adopter of electric vehicle technology on a large scale to reduce their carbon footprint. The city purchased 25 electric buses from a company called Protera at a staggering price tag of nearly one million dollars apiece and put them into operation. But barely four years later, every one of the buses had been pulled from service and is deemed unusable. What went so horribly wrong to produce such a result? As the Free Beacon reports this week, just about everything that could go wrong did go wrong.

More than two dozen electric Proterra buses first unveiled by the city of Philadelphia in 2016 are already out of operation, according to a WHYY investigation.
The entire fleet of Proterra buses was removed from the roads by SEPTA, the city’s transit authority, in February 2020 due to both structural and logistical problems—the weight of the powerful battery was cracking the vehicles’ chassis, and the battery life was insufficient for the city’s bus routes. The city raised the issues with Proterra, which failed to adequately address the city’s concerns.
The city paid $24 million for the 25 new Proterra buses, subsidized in part by a $2.6 million federal grant.

Philadelphia's electric bus fleet has disappeared

hotair.com

Same thing happened in Albuquerque, NM.
The program was called ART, (Albuquerque Rapid Transit), and they bought a bunch of electric buses at a very high price, that never worked.

I know someone who drives a school bus. The daily route covers 91 miles. This is in a cold state, so they would have to do the morning route, plug in the bus, or they woudn't be able to do the rest of the route........especially when the bus is used for other things during the day.....in the cold, that would cut how efficient the battery is.....

The dream of electric cars is likely never going to happen.....some real technology will come along and make battery cars unnecessary.....

Solar-electric is real technology. Each individual can take care of the temperature problem by installing rechargeable heat and insulated battery compartments. ICE addiction is going out of style, if not already out of style.

It is only going out of style because dipshits are pushing a fantasy that is backed up by the democrat party press corp. The truth is that electric cars are environmentally more damaging than fossil fuel based cars.........

Microorganisms are being used to recycle lithium, and all recycling tech needs to be in the U.S. and out of commie hands. People will be seeing solar panels working in December on moving EVs.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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

Rolling Blackouts Possible Friday As Statewide Flex Alert Issued