The Electric Vehicle (EV) discussion thread (Merged) (6 Viewers)

Dago

Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
7,727
Reaction score
12,148
Offline
That is also true of our energy grid in general though. We have a long way to go before all homes/factories/malls/etc. use sustainable energy sources. I see the same argument when people detract from cryptocurrencies saying they have a large carbon footprint.

Why put down EVs saying that they aren't truly zero emission because of the power grid they run on? The vehicles themselves are zero emission (similar to how cryptocurrencies don't inherently produce greenhouse gases), so the argument is just distracting. You want to have a conversation about how to get the power grid off fossil fuels, great, we can talk about that.
It's not a distraction at all

It's idiocy to disregard what consequences are involved in making or disposing of an item. By your logic, the plastic in the ocean doesn't matter because that comes after it's used so it doesn't matter

What is logical is to make an apples to apples comparison from start to finish (and I am willing to bet that EVs still win)

Anything else is just biased, willfully ignorance
 

Dago

Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
7,727
Reaction score
12,148
Offline
I'm that butt crevasse. I live on EV forums where folks who don't have EVs spew disinformation and ignorance about their operation. Many folks operate on the presumption that since it doesn't function exactly like a gas car, it is wholly unacceptable.

Why do people feel the need to express that something that they don't use, and likely don't understand, won't work for them? You don't see me, as a guy, going into wedding dress forums stating that wedding dresses don't work for me.

For each 1 person that accurately diagnosis the EV landscape for themselves and states that something doesn't work for them, there are 100 others who are clueless to the process that are influenced by that report. The only way to combat that flood of information that may not apply to them is to push back with the facts.

Unfortunately it's human nature to describe when something doesn't work. It drowns out the silent majority where everything works just fine.

So, folks can say what they want, of course. But don't expect to just get a free ride because EVs don't happen to work for you at this time. Every expectation that gets set in that scenario pushes EV adoption back because it requires a set of technologies that may never come in at a reasonable price point. I will continue to point out where EVs, in their current form, can work for the vast majority of drivers, and not few outliers with virtually impossible needs.

SFIAH
So what you are saying is you have no facts or statistics....just a stupid, inane metaphor that plays on gender stereotypes regarding traditional wedding attire?

Got it
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2001
Messages
27,487
Reaction score
73,615
Location
Earth
Offline
Sounds like a cop out answer from someone with vested interest in ICEs thriving. The energy source is not the inherent fault of an EV. We need to reduce all forms of fossil fuel burning, not just cars. EVs address just part of the problem, yes, but they shouldn't take blame or be discarded for not solving the whole problem.

Battery recycling technology will continue to improve as there is more funding and motivation to do so. Humans have been harnessing the power of the sun for tens of thousands of years. You are right though, everything is finite and even the sun will burn out some day.
Just came across this and thought it plays into your point. I've always heard the emissions total is suspect for EV's, but if these folks are right one could anticipate hundreds of thousands of lower emissions miles.

 

Kegger

Up North
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
3,432
Reaction score
1,756
Offline
It's not a distraction at all

It's idiocy to disregard what consequences are involved in making or disposing of an item. By your logic, the plastic in the ocean doesn't matter because that comes after it's used so it doesn't matter

What is logical is to make an apples to apples comparison from start to finish (and I am willing to bet that EVs still win)

Anything else is just biased, willfully ignorance
Thanks for the reply, though I don't appreciate being called an idiot. I also don't follow your argument. What consequences am I disregarding? The consequences of generating electricity by burning fossil fuels?
 

Dago

Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
7,727
Reaction score
12,148
Offline
Thanks for the reply, though I don't appreciate being called an idiot. I also don't follow your argument. What consequences am I disregarding? The consequences of generating electricity by burning fossil fuels?
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?
 

DaveXA

I love the Lord!
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
37,415
Reaction score
25,619
Age
50
Location
Vienna, VA via Lafayette
Offline
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?
There's that word...obtuse. :hihi:
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2001
Messages
27,487
Reaction score
73,615
Location
Earth
Offline
If true, this could be huge.

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.

 

Kegger

Up North
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
3,432
Reaction score
1,756
Offline
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?
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.
 

Dago

Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
7,727
Reaction score
12,148
Offline
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.
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?"
 

FullMonte

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Dec 23, 2002
Messages
5,823
Reaction score
3,796
Age
53
Location
Shreveport/Bossier City
Offline
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?"

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.
 

Dago

Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
7,727
Reaction score
12,148
Offline
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.
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
 

DaveXA

I love the Lord!
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
37,415
Reaction score
25,619
Age
50
Location
Vienna, VA via Lafayette
Offline
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.

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.
 

Dago

Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
7,727
Reaction score
12,148
Offline
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.
This is the ridiculous thing

I support EVs as well....I made the thread on the EV trucks but unless you are a blind adherent you get bashed. Not one person has logically or reasonably addressed very real concerns....just insults and downvotes

The truly idiotic thing is that the blind supporters don't even realize that they are hurting EV adoption by ignoring those issues and bashing people who want EVs but are concerned about those issues
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

 

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom