Into the Night
Verified User
Fossils aren't used for fuel. Fossils do not burn.
Please describe this so-called 'damage'.
Reality check on electric cars
- Thread starter Stringfellow Hawk
- Start date
Fossils aren't used for fuel. Fossils do not burn.
Please describe this so-called 'damage'.
Into the Night
Verified User
Please define this so-called 'pollution'.
They are basing their decisions on the 98 percent of scientists who believe global warming is a fact and we need to act. You are a conspiracy nut and your beliefs have no value. You accept the positions of a tiny group because it suits your ill-founded preconceptions. https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/#:~:text=Each year for the past,as the “ozone hole”.
Last edited:
Port Tack
Verified User
Go fuck yourself asshole.
Port Tack
Verified User
If burning hydrocarbons isn't damaging why don't you go fire up your car in your garage and sit in it for a few hours
Port Tack
Verified User
Noone not govt or anyone else is forcing EVs on anyone or outlawing alternatives.
Port Tack
Verified User
Ignorant shitheads tend to think like you.
QP!
Verified User
No it is not. You do not understand what the fallacy says and could NEVER make the case my point falls in to it. I give REASONS why you are wrong, which separates it from that fallacy.
You need to define "forced" as you are using it there as i am quite certain you are misusing the word and do not know what you are talking about.
As long as gov't has been subsidizing ICE and Oil and Gas for over 100 years and STILL DOES, then yes they should subsidize EV's. There needs to be a level playing field.
(this is where you lie, and pretend ICE and O&G receive no subsidies and flee the thread when I pin with you the first of about 15 direct undenyable subsidies such as 'discount or free land' to O&G or ICE Manufacturer bailouts, that you say 'are not subsidies' but refuse to explain how they are not when they directly put tax payer money in the corporations hands enriching their shareholders. We always get to this point. You refuse to anser how they ARE NOT subsidies, you then flee the thread and come back to make the same claim later that ICE and O&G do not get subsidies)
I agree. The market and particularly Insurance will do that, quite effectively over time.
Thx. But EV's and Green Energy clearly make you angry generally and they lead you to lie and misrepresent in your irrational rage.
I don't want to force you to buy one. I have said EV's are not for everyone and are not the best option YET for all needs, but with the tech improvements coming down the pipe, i am certain they will outperform ICE in near all areas, if not all and the only reason to have ICE will be for novelty, much like driving a 1920's car is now.
You have that backwards.
You have a right to not care about Global Warming or "environmental bullshit' But what you do NOT have a right to do, and i know you Magats hate this, is to say to others...
'since i do not give a shit about toxic gases and pollutants i refuse to drive a car with a catalytic converter and will remove it. If you do not like, stay home or away from me and my driving'.
Terry, you being old and miserable and not caring about harm you do to the kids coming up and the environment DOES NOT give you a right to harm the broader society and we have EVERY right to make you use a catalytic converter and not otherwise do things to foster global warming or unnecessary pollution.
QP!
Verified User
^^^The guy complaining wrongly about the No True Scotsman fallacy is now using a version of it. FLOL.
So your post above Terry, is saying 'scientists do not have a 100% track record and have been initially got some things wrong, thus now we should always assume they are wrong, and instead you should listen to people like me, Terry'.
Terry, no one gets more stuff wrong here daily than you, so why do you not apply that same criteria to yourself.
And once again you demonstrate how you and others magats will NEVER understand the scientific process.
It is NOT wrong for scientists to come up with any position or theory based on the evidence 'they have at the time' and extrapolating that into a position.
So for instance if we get a new Novel deadly virus, that looks like a Ebola variant and scientists acting on the early data of the similarities to EBola, say 'avoid bodily fluid exchanges as that seems to be the transmission method', and then later as more data comes in they change that guidance, they WERE NOT WRONG, to make that first assessment.
You magats WILL NEVER understand that, and as you did with Covid, you will point to each change and think it is a reason to NOT trust any science that comes after.
That is so profoundly stupid and such a complete misunderstanding of the scientific process which BY ITS DESIGN is supposed to start theories, that are often wrong or incomplete and then to adjust constantly and update as latter data comes in.
(The above is why you should NEVER speak on science, Terry in the same way you know you should never speak on new technology)
QP!
Verified User
I left this part of the exchange out the last time but as it is yet another example of your stupidity and ignorance, I will address it.
Battery tech in EV's in the same way as your cell phone, is optimal for the battery at about an 80% charge. You actually lose if you continually do more.
So a "partial charge" of 80% is actually the recommended "full charge" you want and there would be no reason to seek more. Most smart EV chargers shut off before they give you more.
So, NO, saying fast EV charging technology TODAY now allows for charges in as fast as 20 minute is not "fantasy" and those times are ONLY getting shorter, with each advancement.
Obama bailed out GM and Chrysler. What gas and oil companies were bailed out?
There was no gov't money supporting gas and oil companies.
Credits for new clean vehicles purchased in 2023 or after
$2,500 base amount
Plus $417 for a vehicle with at least 7 kilowatt hours of battery capacity
Plus $417 for each kilowatt hour of battery capacity beyond 5 kilowatt hours
Up to $7,500 total
https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/credits-for-new-clean-vehicles-purchased-in-2023-or-after
Like I said, the GF didn't get any incentives when she bought her new car. Nor did I when I bought mine (7 yrs. ago).
QP!
Verified User
Yes as have other POTUS. What is your point? I have said these types of bailouts have been happening for decades. It is not a partisan thing. A bail out is a form of subsidy to the company and its stakeholders. It is using taxpayer money, so the company and its stakeholders do not have to find private money. Just as Wall Street was bailed out with taxpayer money.
Terry is arguing that ICE has never received any subsidies such as bailouts, which is why i raise this point
My point has been that O&G and ICE for 100 years have enjoyed various FORMS of of incentives, tax bailouts, and subsidies. That does not mean they all enjoy, each and every aspect. I am not claiming O&G get bailouts but they do enjoy numerous other forms of subsidies.
This is both stupid and a lie. O&G along with Farming have historically been two of the highest subsidized areas in US history, and i can and have cited dozens of scholarly articles from both left and right think tanks discussing all the various forms of subsidy (ie, State or Federal below market land rate charges, etc).
There is no real debate over whether O&G has and does receive various forms of subsidy, and the only debate is some people believe the subsidies are a positive over all. Which is the argument the gov't makes when it gives any subsidy, which if true or not, still means the subsidy exists.
Terry is deny these subsidies exist.
And again, i will point out that your ICE vehicle has over 100 years of various subsidies ALL READY built in to its price.
When they bailed out the ICE industry with tax payer money, that meant that those same auto manufactures DID NOT have to find that money privately and amortize that cost over years in the form of price increases to the vehicles.
So while you POINT AT the EV subsidies you think unfair TODAY, you ignore ICE subsidies you have enjoyed since you began driving.
QP!
Verified User
Subsidies include various things RB and 'still paying taxes' DOES NOT mean you did not get a subsidy.
Surely you realize if you buy a plot of land in a community at market rates to operate your business from but then a competitor buys the land next door, which is govt land, and the gov't greatly discounts it to market rates and gives that business a bunch of write off they did not give you, then that business was just subsidized to compete against you.
You understand that right RB?
So RB, are you going to play the game Terry is that if you like the industry you will just deny any subsidy, is in fact a subsidy?
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Okay, so let's say that you have a Chevy Bolt. It has a manufacturer's suggested range of 247 miles on a full charge. So, charging it to 80% means that in actuality you only have a range of roughly 198 miles (under ideal conditions). It takes longer than a half an hour to charge a battery up to 80%.
Winters in Wisconsin can get pretty brutal, and it's not unheard of for an EV to lose 40% of its range under such conditions. That puts the Bolt's range down to roughly 118 miles. My ICE vehicle, during the same conditions, has no issue getting 300 miles of range (but said range is effectively unlimited for the life of the vehicle, as it only takes a handful of minutes to fill up the tank from empty to full and be back on the road again... EV's take MUCH longer than that to get back on the road again... usually hours... sometimes not at all, like Chicago residents experienced this Winter).
What you are talking about is fantasy. It doesn't happen in the real world (at least atm).
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Even 98% of climate scientists are not in agreement, and aside from that, unlike you I'm going on their track record. They've gotten so much so wrong, and are ignoring so much else--that they've found--in favor of nothing but CO2 that ANY reasonable person would doubt them. A psychic could make better predictions!
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Multiple U.S. States Are Implementing ICE Vehicle Bans
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/features/multiple-u-s-states-are-implementing-ice-vehicle-bans
These Are the States Banning New Sales of Gas and Diesel Vehicles
https://caredge.com/guides/states-banning-ice-cars
An Overview of Federal Government Support for Electric Vehicles
https://www.instituteforenergyresea...ral-government-support-for-electric-vehicles/
QP!
Verified User
NO ONE says an EV is ideal in every location and under every condition.
I live in a downtown condo in a warm climate, and a pickup has no use for me. That does not mean it is not of great value to other. A small 2 seat convertible can make sense to many in downtown life while not making sense for a rural person.
So we need to stop putting forth this painfully stupid argument of trying to point out areas where an EV is not great, as if that means they have no value.
The vast, VAST, VAST majority of commutes in America are the home/work/errand/local getaway type all within a few hours commute from home. An EV is perfect for those and better than ICE, as most people can charge at home or work or the hotel and never need to remote charge.
And on those long 'weekend getaway' drives they may make the exception and charge to 100%. When i am going on a long flight i charge my phone to 100% instead of the 80% it is set to. But 99% of the time i leave my phone settings to go to 80% as that is all i need, which is the same for EV drivers and the typical commute.
it is NOT fantasy and absolutely does happen. You are stupid and have no clue what you are talking about. Many of the newer model EV's absolutely can and do charge in approximately 20 minutes and as the technology continues to improve the older models will update because it is a huge competitive advantage to offer buyers.
QP!
Verified User
But you get everything right, amiright Terry? We should listen to you and Marjorie Greene and ignore those scientists.
Do you understand Terry, that the scientific process is NOT considering whether something will be found to right or wrong, after the fact, when more data comes in?
For instance when scientists plot how close a meteor will come to impacting earth (as they have done with thousands of near earth objects) they post the range they determine using TODAYS data.
Tomorrow, it will be closer and they will have more data and that can and does, often change their prior stated range. And so on and so on.
Magats, like you Terry, capture any one day as if complete and when the scientists change based on new incoming data they say 'see they were wrong. They know nothing and are not be trusted. Trust me, Terry instead'.
That is because Magats, like you Terry, are stupid and have no comprehension that the scientific process allows for change and does not label that change as 'right or wrong'.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
No, but we should expect scientists to get it right at least some of the time, and more importantly, that decision makers take every alternative seriously. Science says anywhere up to 15% of anthropogenic warming is caused by aircraft contrails. The fix is easily implemented at very low costs. Yet this source is ignored. The more I look at the problem the more it screams politics and the less it appears to be science.
Given the costs and social upheaval involved, the process better damn well be right. It isn't worth betting the farm on a very flimsy bet.
Irrelevant to the discussion. What we're talking about with Gorebal Warming is a McNamara fallacy in progress, not something clearly doable as measuring the velocity and position of a meteorite. Doing the latter is no different from measuring the position of an airplane, ship, missile, or anything else.
Irrelevant too.
Magats, like you Terry, capture any one day as if complete and when the scientists change based on new incoming data they say 'see they were wrong. They know nothing and are not be trusted. Trust me, Terry instead'.
I comprehend the science quite well. It's true believers, like you, who take near religious faith that the scientists have it right when they can't even predict the simplest things on Gorebal Warming. I'm looking at their results to date while you are still stuck believing their predictions.