Reality check on electric cars

[Nordberg]

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!

That is simply wrong. AND nobody is forcing you to buy an RV. They will be on the streets for your whole lifetime. You can buy old ICEs cars right now. Go buy a Studebaker. You can do it.

 

[QP!]

No, but we should expect scientists to get it right at least some of the time,...

Lets focus on that statement Terry as i think you honestly have zero clue what the scientific process entails and what 'right' means in that context.


So lets take an example of brand new and horribly deadly virus landing on US shore and the first few bodies found dead.

The scientists look at it and with only preliminary data at this point, (looking at the symptoms of death such as bleeding out orifices) they think it looks a lot an Ebola variant and they fear it is.

Based on that, and what they think is an immediate need to act they immediately tell people to be extra careful not to contact blood and fluids. they also tell people they do not think this is passed by breath.

As more data comes in, it shows it is not an Ebola varient or even anything really close. They also find that blood and fluids are not how it transmits.


What do you, Terry...

- say about the initial guidance and science these scientists gave out
- think they were wrong about and should have not said it, since it did not prove correct after they got more data
- is this what you call 'not getting it right' and a reason you believe then not to trust these scientists or science in general

 

[IBDaMann]

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

Rope isn't damaging either. Please put a noose around your neck.

 

[Into the Night]

They are basing their decisions on the 98 percent of scientists who believe global warming is a fact and we need to act.

The Ozone Hole is not Global Warming, Sock. They are two different religions. They both stem from the Church of Green, however. YOU believe in all three of these fundamentalist style religions, so I suppose it's easy for you to get confused on which one is being discussed at the time.

You are a conspiracy nut and your beliefs have no value.

The Democrat party is a conspiracy. You belong to and support it. The conspiracy nut is YOU. I guess that means, by your own definition, that your beliefs have no value.

You accept the positions of a tiny group because it suits your ill-founded preconceptions.

You are describing yourself again. Again, by your own definition, your beliefs have no value.

https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/#:~:text=Each year for the past,as the “ozone hole”.

The ozone 'hole' is still there and still appears at each pole during the winter of that pole. It is completely NORMAL for that hole to be there, and it forms every winter for that pole. It may vary in size somewhat depending on the upper air winds at that pole at the time.

CFCs do not react with ozone. You can put them into a tank of ozone and nothing happens.

You cannot speak for everyone. You can only speak for you. There was never any '98% of scientists'. Stop making up numbers and using them as 'data'. It's a fallacy.
'Global Warming' is not even defined. It therefore cannot even be a fact. 'Warming' from when to when? How was this temperature measured? It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Learn what 'fact' means. It does NOT mean 'Universal Truth' or 'proof'.

 

[Into the Night]

Go fuck yourself asshole.

Can't do it, Sock. I happen to be a man, and never was surgically altered to have both a penis and a vagina.

 

[Into the Night]

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

I'd rather be driving it then wasting fuel sitting in a garage.
Burning hydrocarbons produces primarily water and carbon dioxide. Both naturally occur in the atmosphere. Both are absolutely required for life to exist on Earth.

So what is the 'damage'?

 

[Into the Night]

Noone not govt or anyone else is forcing EVs on anyone or outlawing alternatives.

Blatant lie. EVs, their batteries, and their charging stations; are being heavily subsidized and even mandated today (particularly charging stations). Both Biden and the SDTC want to mandate them by 2025.

 

[Into the Night]

Ignorant shitheads tend to think like you.

Mantra 1a and Argument of the Stone fallacy. You'll have to do better, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

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 are correct he used the wrong fallacy. The fallacy he should've called is the Argument of the Stone fallacy and the Redefinition fallacy. Your 'reasoning' is fallacious.

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.

Redefinition fallacy (forced<->void). 'Forced' as used in this instance, means government mandates and the taking of wealth by force to subsidize EVs, their batteries, and their chargers. In other words, 'force' here means fascism and communism being imposed to support the religion of the EV (otherwise known as the Church of Green). This is unconstitutional, as it violates the 1st amendment.

As long as gov't has been subsidizing ICE and Oil and Gas for over 100 years and STILL DOES,

It does not. You are hallucination again.

then yes they should subsidize EV's.

Communism doesn't work. It is based on theft.

There needs to be a level playing field.

Communism isn't a level playing field. It is based on theft and favoritism.

(this is where you lie, and pretend ICE and O&G receive no subsidies

No lie. They 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'

Not subsidies.

to O&G or ICE Manufacturer bailouts,

Communism doesn't work. The 'bailouts' was the government gaining control of General Motors, converting them to essentially Government Motors. GM manufactures both ICE and EVs.

that you say 'are not subsidies' but refuse to explain how they are not

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.

when they directly put tax payer money in the corporations hands enriching their shareholders.

They do not. They.

We always get to this point.

You are not making any valid points.

You refuse to anser how they ARE NOT subsidies,

Argument of the Stone fallacy. He already answered this question, and so have I. RQAA. Stop mindlessly repeating questions.

you then flee the thread and come back to make the same claim later that ICE and O&G do not get subsidies)

Hallucination. He didn't flee at all. ICE and gasoline does not receive subsidies. EVs, their batteries, and the charging systems do. Charging systems are already being mandated. EVs will be mandated by 2025 in the SDTC and this is also what Joe Biden wants. The EU is mandating them by 2035 and is already mandating charging stations (and property owner expense!).

I agree. The market and particularly Insurance will do that, quite effectively over time.

Nope. Otherwise, mandates and subsidies are completely unnecessary. Currently, less than 1% of the cars on the road are EVs, and the EV market is crashing.

Thx. But EV's and Green Energy clearly make you angry generally

No, the mandates and subsidies make him angry, and justifiably so. The BS you keep spewing probably also makes him angry. I don't blame him.

and they lead you to lie and misrepresent in your irrational rage.

You are describing yourself again, Kewpie.

I don't want to force you to buy one.

Blatant lie.

I have said EV's are not for everyone

Blatant lie.

and are not the best option YET for all needs,

You are being a Luddite again. You are ignoring the advancements made in the internal combustion engine and in the vehicles that use them. The battery used in EVs hasn't changed it's chemistry since the mid 80's. They are still Li-ion batteries.

but with the tech improvements coming down the pipe,

None.

i am certain they will outperform ICE in near all areas,

Nope. EVs use almost twice the energy of a reasonably efficient ICE vehicle to travel the same distance. You are AGAIN forgetting the lost energy (as heat) in power generation, transmission, and distribution to power that charger, and the lost energy in the battery itself during BOTH charging and discharging cycles. You are also ignoring the effects of drag and Newton's equation F=ma. EVs are much heavier than an ICE of the same size.

if not all and the only reason to have ICE will be for novelty,

Hallucination. Less than 1% of the cars on the road are EVs. The EV is the novelty, and a Luddite form of it.

much like driving a 1920's car is now.

You are describing EVs again. EVs, by the way, are OLDER than gasoline vehicles, yet the gasoline vehicles won out. Why?

You have that backwards.

No, that's YOU again.

You have a right to not care about Global Warming or "environmental bullshit'

You are going to have to define these terms. You never specied 'global warming' from when to when. You never specified 'environmental bullshit'.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. Not even a Magick Holy Gas like carbon dioxide. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

But what you do NOT have a right to do, and i know you Magats hate this, is to say to others...

MAGA isn't a person.

He can say what he wants. You can't stop it.

'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'.

Define these 'toxic gases'. Define these 'pollutants'.
The catalytic converter on vehicles today do not remove or reduce any pollutant. The only reason they are there is because the government says they have to be there.

EGR systems (a simple bit of plumbing and a valve) reduced both unburned gasoline vapors and NOx gases leaving the tailpipe, and the resulting smog they they could form when exposed to UV light by combining with ozone.
Because of this simple bit of plumbing, smog isn't anywhere near the problem it used to be.

The catalytic converter does essentially nothing to prevent smog formation and never did. It DOES convert carbon dioxide (an odorless and colorless gas) to sulfur dioxide (a colorless and odorous gas that forms sulfuric acid during rain or 'acid rain'). Rains is, of course, naturally slightly acid. The water does not turn alkaline until it flows over soil on it's way to the sea.

Terry, you being old and miserable

He is certainly not miserable. You seem to be describing yourself again. I do not know his age, and I really don't care.

and not caring about harm you do to the kids

Void argument fallacy. What is this so-called 'harm'?

You are also describing yourself again. It is YOU supporting things like abortion.

coming up and the environment DOES NOT give you a right to harm the broader society

More of this buzzword bullshit. Define your terms.

and we have EVERY right to make you use a catalytic converter

There's that socialist 'we' again. No, you don't have any such right.

and not otherwise do things to foster global warming

Catalytic converters or the lack of them do not cause the temperature of the Earth to increase. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

or unnecessary pollution.

Buzzword fallacy. Define this 'pollution'.

 

[Into the Night]

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'.

Science isn't scientists. It isn't people at all. There is no 'track record'.

Terry, no one gets more stuff wrong here daily than you, so why do you not apply that same criteria to yourself.

Self referential. You are describing yourself.

And once again you demonstrate how you and others magats will NEVER understand the scientific process.

MAGA isn't a person. Science isn't a 'process' or a 'procedure'.

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.

A theory is not 'extrapolated'. It is simply a theory.

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.

Yes they were. Their first assessment, which formed a theory, was falsified. That's called being wrong.

You magats WILL NEVER understand that,

MAGA isn't a person.

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.

Covid is not science. It is a virus series. Covid19 was one such virus in that series.

That is so profoundly stupid and such a complete misunderstanding of the scientific process

Science is not a 'process' or a 'procedure'.

which BY ITS DESIGN is supposed to start theories,

Science is not 'starting theories'. Any religion can do that! Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Religions are made up of some initial nonscientific theory, with arguments extending from that.

that are often wrong

If a theory of science is falsified, it is utterly DESTROYED. It is wrong.

or incomplete

Each theory of science is complete. No theory of science may be based on a fallacy. This is also known as the internal consistency check.

and then to adjust constantly

A falsified theory is DESTROYED. It is not 'adjusted'. It simply no longer exists as a theory.

and update

A falsified theory is DESTROYED. It is not 'updated'. It simply no longer exists as a theory.

as latter data comes in.

Science is not data. All data is the result of observations, and all observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.
ANY bit of conflicting evidence falsifies the theory. It is DESTROYED. It no longer exists at all.

(The above is why you should NEVER speak on science,

This is YOUR problem. You cannot project YOUR problem on to anybody else.

Terry in the same way you know you should never speak on new technology)

EVs are NOT new technology. They are based on 40 year old technology. Current gasoline cars are using the latest computer and FADEC technology to get the efficiency and reliability they have.

Stop being a Luddite.

 

[IBDaMann]

Lets focus on that statement Terry as i think you honestly have zero clue what the scientific process entails

.
Let's focus on your statement, as I think you honestly have zero clue about anything involving science.

So lets take an example of brand new and horribly deadly virus landing on US shore and the first few bodies found dead.

I have a better idea. Let's use COVID as an example. i.e. a mild flu virus, being the flu of the annual season except that the DNC decided to fuck with everybody and instill panic, which is what they do ... so they gave the flu of 2019 a name, i.e. COVID, instead of calling it the flu of the flu season. Totally scientifically illiterate dumbshits like you fell for it and panicked on cue.

The scientists look at it and with only preliminary data at this point,

No thientiths looked at anything. The DNC ordered widespread panic and you OBEYED and did your part.

Based on [the DNC's panic plan]

they immediately tell people to PANIC and to double mask and remain six feet from any other people and to rush to get experimental injections and to shut down every local ma&pa business in order to strike a major blow against capitalism ... and you OBEYED and did your part.

As more data comes in,

There was no data, only falsified records.

 

[Port Tack]

To argue that burning hydrocarbons is "damaging" is asinine, indicative of a science illiterate who dropped out of high school and who is bent over furniture and reamed every day by the DNC before being allowed to go to bed at night and before being allowed to start the day in the morning.

I am a scientist asshole, with over 30 years experience.

 

[Port Tack]

Fossils aren't used for fuel. Fossils do not burn.

Please describe this so-called 'damage'.

Fossil fuels asshole, you obviously don't know what those are after claiming natural gas wasn't one.

 

[IBDaMann]

I am a scientist asshole, with over 30 years experience.

I don't believe you. I think you are scientifically illiterate. I'll let you demonstrate this to the board.

Why is burning hydrocarbons "dangerous"? Does it cause greenhouse effect?

 

[IBDaMann]

Fossil fuels asshole, you obviously don't know what those are after claiming natural gas wasn't one.

Tell me, what fuel do fossils use? An actual scientist would have known that the correct category for natural gas is "hydrocarbons," along with petroleum, methane, propane, octane, butane, etc...

What fuel do you believe that fossils use, mithter thuper-thmart thientitht (who doesn't even know what hydrocarbons are)?

M O R O N

 

[gfm7175]

NO ONE says an EV is ideal in every location and under every condition.

Meh. Speak for yourself. So you aren't saying it? Then at least you're being honest about that bit of it. My main point is that, while EVs do have their place and can make sense for some people, for most people they just plain don't make sense (aren't practical), and to pressure (or even force) people into using them is just plain bullshit. Subsidizing them (because they aren't competitive on their own accord) is also just plain bullshit. There's a reason why the average Joe who is still in California is fleeing that dictatorship while he still can.

I live in a downtown condo in a warm climate,

... and if you don't travel long distances at a time (mostly sticking within the city or neighboring areas), then an EV might work out fairly well for you if you can afford it. However, for the majority of people, they just plain don't work for their needs. That's why the vast majority of people do not own one.

and a pickup has no use for me.

Makes sense. I personally wouldn't mind having one every now and then, but I've been getting by without one because most of the time I don't really have a need for one.

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.

Correct.

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.

EVs can work quite well for some people's needs. However, they don't meet most people's needs.

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.

I wouldn't say that. There are lots of businesses that have vehicles that drive all over heck within a single day. EVs do not work for those people. There are also people who live in cold climates during Winter and need to be able to get into their cars, get them started, and get to work and back. They might also need to travel a fair bit of distance under cold conditions. That doesn't work so well with EVs; that works much better with ICEs. Some people fairly regularly drive hundreds of miles in a single day; EVs can't handle that in the manner that ICEs can. Some people perform work with their vehicles (towing, hauling, etc). EVs can't do that, while ICEs can. EVs are much more expensive to purchase, maintain, and service than ICEs are. ICEs just plain make the most sense for most people, and pressuring or otherwise forcing people onto EVs is just plain bullshit. Let them be available, but don't pressure or force people into switching over to them. If EVs are soooooo great, then people will make the switch all on their own. But they aren't, so people haven't done so, ergo the "you're gonna use an EV, damnit!" type of legislation that you've seen pop up in California and elsewhere. THAT sort of thing is what people are pissed off about with regard to EVs, not that they exist or aren't good in all situations.

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.

Must not be too "long" then, because charging EVs up takes forever.

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.

Nope, they don't charge up in 30 minutes (let alone 20 minutes). That's fantasy. You can partially charge them up in that time, but not fully. And most people do not make use of the absolute fastest chargers, so again, fantasy. It's not what's actually happening in people's day to day lives.

 

[QP!]

Meh. Speak for yourself.....

No I will speak for MOST people.

Again the data shows that vast, VAST majority of peoples driving commutes are of the type Home/School/Errands/Weekend Getaways, which are all within a few hours commute at most. Perfect for EV's for the vast VAST majority of peoples driving and where the person would never need to charge anywhere but at home or work.

Trips of 4-5 hours or more, where you might start to need to look for a charger tend to only be a handful of trips of years, for most and even then rapid charging while hitting the bathroom and grabbing snacks is easy and convenient. Or have an EV as your first car (typical commute) and have your second car for the outlier trips.

Trips that are longer or for those outliers who do not fit the 'typical commuter', they should just not buy an EV or buy a hybrid.

 

[QP!]

...

Nope, they don't charge up in 30 minutes (let alone 20 minutes). That's fantasy. You can partially charge them up in that time, but not fully. And most people do not make use of the absolute fastest chargers, so again, fantasy. It's not what's actually happening in people's day to day lives.

and to this point you are just stupid.

Todays technology (Rapid Charge) can and does charge in 30 minutes. No fantasy at all. They charge them to 80% which is exactly what people want and even if they could charge them to 100% in 15 minutes they would not do it, just as your cell phone shuts down charging at 80% on modern phones.

I can't fix stupid so you will continue to deny reality but Fast charging will soon be the norm because the drivers will see it as such a competitive advantage.

 

[Nordberg]

No I will speak for MOST people.

Again the data shows that vast, VAST majority of peoples driving commutes are of the type Home/School/Errands/Weekend Getaways, which are all within a few hours commute at most. Perfect for EV's for the vast VAST majority of peoples driving and where the person would never need to charge anywhere but at home or work.

Trips of 4-5 hours or more, where you might start to need to look for a charger tend to only be a handful of trips of years, for most and even then rapid charging while hitting the bathroom and grabbing snacks is easy and convenient. Or have an EV as your first car (typical commute) and have your second car for the outlier trips.

Trips that are longer or for those outliers who do not fit the 'typical commuter', they should just not buy an EV or buy a hybrid.

Over 80 percent of Americans commute under 50 miles a day.
Chevy did an advanced study of people's driving habits before they offered the Volt in 2013.
The Volt came with an ICE engine to relieve miles anxiety.

 

[QP!]

Over 80 percent of Americans commute under 50 miles a day.
Chevy did an advanced study of people's driving habits before they offered the Volt in 2013.

I know.

But people like gfm are committed to the lie that for most people and their drives EV's are not good. It is the opposite. it is only a real small percent of the population that they do not suit.

The work/home/errands around town, 50 miles or less, covers the vast majority. In the next ring are people who are weekend drivers going to cabin or family members or friends, typically living within 2-3 hours. the rest who rive more and further are small minority of the US. More rural, or otherwise outliers and not the norm, commute wise.