Reality check on electric cars

No I will speak for MOST people.
You can't. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy.
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.
What data? You have shown NO data whatsoever. Remember, you must also show who collected this data, when it was collected, for what purpose, and the actual unbiased raw data (no paywall).
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.
EVs' ain't cheap. They are also very inefficient, using almost twice the energy of a gasoline car to go the same distance. There is also a greater fire risk during charging or with the car just sitting there.
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.
You have shown NO data. What 'outlier'? What 'typical commuter'? A hybrid is a gasoline powered car. An EV is not.
 
screenshot_20231228-190859-png.1504727
 
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.

Nope. It does not charge the car in 30 minutes. 80% of charge is not charged.
Fast charging stations require current...a lot of it. I suppose you don't notice that large transformer feeding some eight stations...or the rectifier bay...or the regular bay...
You obviously don't consider ANYTHING that provides power to that charging station either.

Now if you like charging your EV at a rapid charger (and paying for it!), that's your decision.
 
^^^
Sybil thinks he can become a professional in anything in about a minute.

All Magats do.

This is the Marjorie Greene magat age, where she brags about being in a House briefing with many of the worlds leading experts and she shouts them down, telling them they are wrong, and she has read counter information on the internet.

that is what you see Terry and other magats do here on almost every technology discussion.

They simply wave their hands and say all the top corporations, all the top paid scientists, all the top VC's spending Billions pursuing advancements is something to be dismissed as "wish casting" or "fantasy" and we are told to accept their position that no advancements will be achieved and what you see in terms of where the technology is today, is all that will ever be achieved.

They push this view that their guess is more informed than Corporations, Scientists, and top VC's who all believe breakthru's are not just coming but close to being achieved based on smaller scale proofs, that they are trying to prove can be achieved at scale. All this in the face of history providing few (maybe none) such examples of mass commercialization waves of ANY technology not being followed by years and decades of significant improvements.

Considering EV's are already competitive with ICE in all but a few ways, and better for many people in a lot of ways, it is fair to say, that if EV tech advancements continue to pile up, that ICE simply will not even be close to competitive with EV's in the future as ICE is mature and big advancements are almost non existent now.
 
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.

Argument from randU fallacy. You have no data. Show me the data, who collected it and when, and the ACTUAL UNBIASED RAW DATA. No paywall. The data must be publicly available and it must unbiased raw data.

A hybrid is not an EV. It is a gasoline powered car.
 
No, you don't. You are simply making up the same thing as The Sock. I must assume you are also The Sock.
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.
Try English. It works better.
it is only a real small percent of the population that they do not suit.
You have no data. Argument from randU fallacy.
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.
Who are 'they'?
Argument from randU fallacy.
 
No i can speak for most people,
You can't. You can only speak for you. Omniscience fallacy.
since the data shows MOST PEOPLE's daily driving patterns and averages.
What data? Void reference fallacy.
You try to speak for most people when you say EV do not fit most, but you are simply wrong. You can only speak for yourself.
He never made any such claim. Fallacy fallacy.
 
All Magats do.

This is the Marjorie Greene magat age, where she brags about being in a House briefing with many of the worlds leading experts and she shouts them down, telling them they are wrong, and she has read counter information on the internet.

that is what you see Terry and other magats do here on almost every technology discussion.

They simply wave their hands and say all the top corporations, all the top paid scientists, all the top VC's spending Billions pursuing advancements is something to be dismissed as "wish casting" or "fantasy" and we are told to accept their position that no advancements will be achieved and what you see in terms of where the technology is today, is all that will ever be achieved.

They push this view that their guess is more informed than Corporations, Scientists, and top VC's who all believe breakthru's are not just coming but close to being achieved based on smaller scale proofs, that they are trying to prove can be achieved at scale. All this in the face of history providing few (maybe none) such examples of mass commercialization waves of ANY technology not being followed by years and decades of significant improvements.

Considering EV's are already competitive with ICE in all but a few ways, and better for many people in a lot of ways, it is fair to say, that if EV tech advancements continue to pile up, that ICE simply will not even be close to competitive with EV's in the future as ICE is mature and big advancements are almost non existent now.
The MAGAts are dragging the US down to Third World shithole style politics. Sad.
 

And as always when LyingFish repeats this most stupid of points in a clear inability to understand why it is not only, not a good point against EV's, but is instead damning against ICE...


...16-25 EV fires out of about 2,500,000 = about 0.002% (there is some ambiguity on the number!) This suggests that ICE cars are 30 times more likely to catch fire...

cite
 
Amd again you are just stupid.
Mantra 1a.
EV's work for the bulk of driving most people do.
Argument from randU fallacy. You don't get to speak for everyone.
Pickup trucks do not work in numerous cases for lots of people.
The Ford F150 happens to be the best selling vehicle in the world. Did you know that? Source: Ford Motor Co. Sales figures. Comparative sales figures.
Convertibles do not work in numerous cases for lots of people. Sedans do not work in numerous cases for lots of people.
They are also popular vehicles. The Tesla Model 3 happens to be a sedan. Most sedans are gasoline powered.
That is WHY they make different vehicles for DIFFERENT people and DIFFERENT uses.
You are trying to equate vehicle body design with the engine (or motor). False equivocation fallacy.
You say 'aha but EV's do not work for X' as if that has meaning. You think it has meaning as you are stupid.

It does have meaning. You are just ignoring it. Argument of the Stone fallacy.
 
States and cities are instrumental in the EV clean air movement.
EVs create dirtier air than ICEs. You still haven't learned any physics.

The lobbying power of the Big 3 removed them.
Nope. It was their waste, unnecessarily huge price tag, logistical horror and fuel inefficiency that whisked them right into the trash heap.

I guess lies pay the better than telling the truth.
Is that why you have become so good at it?
 
Back
Top