- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 12,501
- Reaction score
- 22,800
Online
Such a good wordThere's that word...obtuse.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Such a good wordThere's that word...obtuse.
Dr. Rachid Yazami, the creator of the graphite anode, a key lithium-ion battery technology, is developing a technique that will allow an electric vehicle to be charged in just 10 minutes. A breakthrough in these qualities will mark a turning point in electric mobility, as it will effectively equate the time spent charging the vehicle’s battery to the time spent refilling conventional gasoline.
Now when a Dodge truck catches fire it will be even harder to put out...
Ok, so driving an electric car requires electricity, which has to come from somewhere. Right now, a lot of it is generated by burning fossil fuels. Should we not drive electric vehicles because of that? It really irritates me when people throw their hands in the air and say "well there's nothing we can do so we might as well keep going with the status quo" rather than trying to find solutions to hard problems. Switching from ICEs to electric motors is an incremental improvement, and not one to be downplayed because of the source of the energy (which is orthogonal). Solving the energy grid power sources is a separate incremental improvement.No you are ignoring the consequences of any choice you agree with while only paying attention to the consequences of those you are against
Just like I didn't call you an idiot, I said a particular choice is idiocy. They aren't the same thing at all
Would you prefer obtuse?
Everything you just said is completely irrelevant if the power grid cannot support a majority of vehicles being electric and, if that is the case, they are not two separate issues. One cannot happen without the otherOk, so driving an electric car requires electricity, which has to come from somewhere. Right now, a lot of it is generated by burning fossil fuels. Should we not drive electric vehicles because of that? It really irritates me when people throw their hands in the air and say "well there's nothing we can do so we might as well keep going with the status quo" rather than trying to find solutions to hard problems. Switching from ICEs to electric motors is an incremental improvement, and not one to be downplayed because of the source of the energy (which is orthogonal). Solving the energy grid power sources is a separate incremental improvement.
Everything you just said is completely irrelevant if the power grid cannot support a majority of vehicles being electric and, if that is the case, they are not two separate issues. One cannot happen without the other
And still not addressing the issues of supply of necessary components or disposal of them after their useful life is over
Let me sum up how this conversation is going
"Electric is looking pretty awesome, but some of us have these valid concerns that are backed by fact on the difficulties of wide scale adoption."
"WHY DO YOU HATE ELECTRIC VEHICLES AND THE ENVIRONMENT?"
I see.The issue with those problems is that they are growing pains. If there was wide scale adoption of EVs, you would see increases in technology, battery life would get longer and longer, and the power grid would begin to adjust (also, if there was wide scale adoption in EVs, you would likely also see an increase in solar and wind energy being used in the grid).
It's like I asked someone recently. If you could purchase a car today that was comparable in cost to a standard gas powered car that was powered 100% by electricity, that could run 1,000 miles on a single 4 hour charge, and would cost you pennies per charge, would you buy one? Well, the only way we'll ever get to a car like that is by more and more adoption of EVs that are currently on the market.
The issue with those problems is that they are growing pains. If there was wide scale adoption of EVs, you would see increases in technology, battery life would get longer and longer, and the power grid would begin to adjust (also, if there was wide scale adoption in EVs, you would likely also see an increase in solar and wind energy being used in the grid).
It's like I asked someone recently. If you could purchase a car today that was comparable in cost to a standard gas powered car that was powered 100% by electricity, that could run 1,000 miles on a single 4 hour charge, and would cost you pennies per charge, would you buy one? Well, the only way we'll ever get to a car like that is by more and more adoption of EVs that are currently on the market.
This is the ridiculous thingI would think we're running a bit too close to full production in terms of energy output for our electric grid enough times per year that a significant increase in EV usage would make an already worsening problem much worse. I'm not sure solar and wind are going to be enough to offset the growth in EV usage if it's substantial in the short term.
I'd argue that a gradual approach allowing us to accommodate the additional EV in a feasible manner is the way to go.
Unless we address the current crumbling enegy infrastructure, talking about making EVs truly mainstream is moot.
And this is coming from someone who is generally supportive of EV development.
No, it wouldn't magically fix itself. But, if we had a majority of the population who were jumping on the EV bandwagon, then we would also have a majority of the population who were pushing for renewable energy sources (it seems that those two things are currently pushed by the same people). If we had seen a majority of the population pushing for renewable energy, we would see more and more of it coming along.I see.
So the answer is that if an already strained and antiquated electrical grid suddenly saw a huge jump in demand it would magically fix itself.
So glad that you cleared that up and provided facts to back up that opinion
I would think we're running a bit too close to full production in terms of energy output for our electric grid enough times per year that a significant increase in EV usage would make an already worsening problem much worse. I'm not sure solar and wind are going to be enough to offset the growth in EV usage if it's substantial in the short term.
I'd argue that a gradual approach allowing us to accommodate the additional EV in a feasible manner is the way to go.
Unless we address the current crumbling enegy infrastructure, talking about making EVs truly mainstream is moot.
And this is coming from someone who is generally supportive of EV development.
I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe that green energy could meet our existing energy needs, much less meet our needs with the majority of Americans driving EVsNo, it wouldn't magically fix itself. But, if we had a majority of the population who were jumping on the EV bandwagon, then we would also have a majority of the population who were pushing for renewable energy sources (it seems that those two things are currently pushed by the same people). If we had seen a majority of the population pushing for renewable energy, we would see more and more of it coming along.
I think you misinterpreted what I said. I wasn't saying that if tomorrow everyone decided to adopt EVs that we'd be ok. What I was getting at was that if EVs had been adopted by the majority of the population, then we likely would have seen the type of push towards increasing the power grid to go with that.
I get that, but the increase in the power grid, or at the very least, increase in efficiency of EVs to the point that it taxes the current infrastructure less has to occur well before we see anywhere near close to a majority of the population adopt EVs.No, it wouldn't magically fix itself. But, if we had a majority of the population who were jumping on the EV bandwagon, then we would also have a majority of the population who were pushing for renewable energy sources (it seems that those two things are currently pushed by the same people). If we had seen a majority of the population pushing for renewable energy, we would see more and more of it coming along.
I think you misinterpreted what I said. I wasn't saying that if tomorrow everyone decided to adopt EVs that we'd be ok. What I was getting at was that if EVs had been adopted by the majority of the population, then we likely would have seen the type of push towards increasing the power grid to go with that.
Me either, but it could be our new infrastructure. I imagine building that out will be a very lucrative industry. Oil still has a place for a while. It's no longer going to be the gold standard though.I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe that green energy could meet our existing energy needs, much less meet our needs with the majority of Americans driving EVs
Next step...For those that are interested, this is a summary of where we are with fusion research.
Four ways to fusion: The pros and pitfalls of our nuclear power pursuit
For nearly a century, scientists have been tantalized by the prospect of attaining an inexhaustible source of energy through nuclear fusion. Unfortunately, engineering a controlled environment where atomic nuclei can continuously fuse under extreme pressure and temperature to produce energy that we…newatlas.com
While there are several methods that are being looked at as being superior to the traditional system that uses a tokamak, the new ITER fusion system that is supposed to go online in 2025 will be a massive step forward as it will be the first fusion generator that provides more energy than it takes to power it....in this case 10x more
Exciting stuff