Reality check on electric cars

[Port Tack]

Fossils aren't gaseous. Natural gas is methane. Fossils aren't hydrocarbons. Fossils don't burn. They aren't used as fuel.

"Fossils" and "Fossil fuels" are two different things dumbshit and all fossil fuels contain hydrocarbons and can be found in the solid, liquid or gas states.

Natural gas is a fossil fuel energy source. The largest component of natural gas is methane, a hydrocarbon with one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms (CH4). Natural gas also contains smaller amounts of the natural gas liquids ethane, propane, butane, and pentane which are also hydrocarbons as well as the non-hydrocarbon gases carbon dioxide and water vapor.

Millions to hundreds of millions of years ago, the remains of plants and animals (such as diatoms) built up in thick layers on the earth’s surface and ocean floors, sometimes mixed with sand, silt, and calcium carbonate. Over time, these layers were buried under sand, silt, and rock. Pressure and heat changed some of this carbon and hydrogen-rich material into coal, some into oil (petroleum), and some into natural gas.

The remains of plants and animals were the "fossils". The pressure and heat changed them from fossils to carbon and hydrogen-rich materials known as fossil fuels.

You idiots are incredible trying to convince others that oil, coal and natural gas are not fossil fuels primarily made up of hydrocarbons.

 

[Port Tack]

EVs create dirtier air than ICEs. You still haven't learned any physics.

Try taking a gas engine car and an electric car and put them in a closed garages with a couple conservatives and let them run and see which one lasts longer.

Myth #2: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of battery manufacturing. FACT: The gas emissions associated with an electric vehicle over its lifetime are significantly lower than those from an average gasoline-powered vehicle, even when accounting for manufacturing

Sorry asshole, you are wrong again.

 

[Into the Night]

People like you will have to be forced to do the right thing. There you go , making up statistics again.

You are not the King, Sock. You can't project YOUR problems on anybody else either. You don't get to force anyone to do anything.

 

[Into the Night]

Protecting the environment.

What are you 'protecting the environment' from??

There are no traces of dictatorship in this.

You want to force people through your own dictats. That's dictatorship, Sock.

Biden did not start this program.

Irrelevant.

Who is the dictator?

YOU are trying to be.

Your emotionalism makes your beliefs false.

You are describing yourself again, Sock. You cannot project YOUR problems on anybody else.

 

[Into the Night]

I can't believe i'm having this discussion with such an ignoramous. Coal may contain a host of impurities but it's primary make-up is hydrocarbons. Why the fuck do you think it burns.

Hilarious!

Coal is not oil. Coal is not natural gas. Coal is not a hydrocarbon. It is not a fossil either. Coal is primarily carbon, an element. It burns because it can combine with oxygen in an exothermic reaction. Many elements can do this, such as sulfur, potassium, sodium, lithium, phosphorus, etc. NONE of these elements are hydrocarbons (a compound).

Redefinition fallacy. False authority fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Terry pickup trucks do not work 100% of the time. Convertibles do not work 100% of the time. Sports cars do not work 100% of the time.

No ICE vehicle worked 100% of the time when they were still newer to market.

You have such irrational hate you just cannot stop being stupid.

A thing is not of no value because it does not work 100% of the time and yet you idiots keep pushing this argument.

I have never advocated forcing everyone in an EV. You can buy a early 1900's EV today and you can buy an early 1900's ICE today, and you can buy both new. The market has always had choices and certainly will until EV technology improves such that they can go everywhere (cold weather, etc) that an ICE vehicle can. As those technology issues are solved the reason you will see ICE become novelty cars will be Insurance and other costs. not government.

The opposite is already happening, Kewpie. The EV market is crashing (again). Seems they aren't as popular as you think. Attempting to deny the government mandates and heavy subsidies for EVs and their charging systems is just ignoring what is. EVs are NOT new technology, Luddite. Insurance costs a lot more for an EV too. You are ignoring that as well.

 

[Into the Night]

Bingo. Obviously YOU "get it".

I have to get to work and back every single day, even in harsh Winter conditions. An ICE vehicle can serve that purpose for me; an EV can't. I sometimes take longer trips that can amount to hundreds of miles, needing to quickly refuel and quickly continue on my way again. An ICE vehicle can serve that purpose for me; an EV can't.

I recently traveled just over 1000 miles across open desert. No EVs. They can't handle that road. No chargers. Just a few cheesy gas stations.

 

[Into the Night]

No i can speak for others

No, you can only speak for you. Omniscience fallacy.

using the Stats I already provided prior, and again a portion below, because i am speaking to data and facts.

You have no data. The link you provided is an opinion piece. It is not data.

It is you who cannot speak for others, as you try to, as you only offer your feelings.

F=mA is not 'feelings', Kewpie. Neither is the energy use of EVs. They use about twice the energy of a gasoline car going the same distance. EVs have limited range. Gasoline cars have effectively infinite range, since it only takes a few minutes to refuel them. Gasoline cars are a lot cheaper too. That's not emotions or feelings, Kewpie.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

States and cities are instrumental in the EV clean air movement. The national government does supply part of the funding. Detroit used to have electric streetcars. The lobbying power of the Big 3 removed them. Lyingfish is still doing it. I guess lies pay the better than telling the truth. https://www.transportation.gov/urba...of transit battery,the U.S. transit bus fleet.

Wrong. In Detroit's case, street cars simply became uncompetitive with alternatives in transportation. The Detroit streetcar system was privately owned, not government run, and wasn't going to operate at a perpetual loss like modern government run public transit does. One of the biggest killers was as the city grew and changed over time, streetcar systems were fixed and inflexible so they couldn't quickly and cost effectively change with them. Detroit switched to a publicly owned streetcar system in 1922, and that too did in the system due to the inefficiency of government.
This was a common failing of these systems and often the cause of their demise.

Yes, in LA General Motors and Firestone colluded to get rid of the "Big Red" streetcar system and replace it with busses, but even if the streetcar system had remained, it would have operated at increasingly large losses as the LA region grew.

In the US, unlike say, Europe, most cities grew to become automobile-centric rather than walkable / public transit friendly. In Asia, land area is often limited and kept cities walkable and public transit friendly. In Europe, most cities were pre-automobile so they remained walkable and public transit friendly.

Today in the US we have a movement on the Left to try and reshape US cities into walkable and public transit friendly, but that horse has left the barn. It isn't going to happen, and that's why US public transit is so expensive and shitty--It simply doesn't serve a spread out car-centric city and never can.

 

[Into the Night]

Your stupidity is your issue. You, like Marjorie Greene are just too stupid to understand why.

Mantra 1a.

An EV does not have to work for the "remainder" to be good for the vast, vast majority of people.

You don't get to speak for everyone, Kewpie. You only get to speak for you.

Again this is the same myth Terry spins which if not good for all then they are not good.

He's not 'spinning a myth'.

Pickups are not good for all.

They seem to be favored by a lot of people though. The Ford F150 is the best selling vehicle in the world.

They cannot be parked easily and in some cases at all in city downtown areas.

Sure they can.

They cost wayyyyy more than a sedan if you want comparable comfort to sedan for a family of 4 or more.

Most sedans are very uncomfortable for 4 people to sit in. So are pickup trucks. If you want to seat 4 or more, get yourself an SUV.

They burn way more gasoline.

Not particularly. They actually get pretty decent mileage these days, thanks to advanced FADEC engines.

Very impractical for many, many people thus by your logic not good at all.

Ford sales figures disagree with you.

Same for sports cars and convertibles.

Why are you trying to argue that EVs are good for everyone? Why are you trying to justify the mandates and heavy government subsidies for them?

Most people do not own EV's because only 1 car company was really offering any broad choice in what you could buy.
As more car companies offer more choice what you see is a mass of people continually moving into EV's.

The EV market is crashing (again), Kewpie. People are rejecting them yet again.

 

[Into the Night]

Ever heard of a steam engine?

External combustion engines these days use coal, oil, natural gas, or even wood or trash.

 

[Into the Night]

But commuting is their biggest need by FAR.

Who are 'they'??

So most people get great benefit from EV's.

...such as?

Outside commuting EV's are still great for most of the remaining needs.

...such as?

it is really only a tiny number of long road trips across mostly rural State areas where EV's are not ideal and that is such a tiny number of trips to be near meaningless and those people who do them should not buy an EV.

Apparently you are completely unaware of the world outside your little city.

Other super cold weather States are really the only other issue for the current technology. Again a tiny percent of all drivers who should just buy something else.

A battery is an electrochemical device, Kewpie. It is always affected by the cold. There is no 'magick technology' that will change this. ALL chemical reaction rates are reduced in colder temperatures.

And again most people do not drive EV's as most manufacturers are only in the early part of their adoption curve and had very few EV offerings.

40 years isn't good enough?
The EV market is crashing Kewpie, yet again.

 

[Into the Night]

False...i have provided stats and data and you have just made shit up.

You are describing yourself again, Kewpie. You can't blame YOUR problem on anybody else!

People make buying decisions largely based on the BULK of their driving needs.

You seem to ignore the cost, availability, or convenience of an item.

I have had need for a Pick up truck or SUV or mini van on some occasions, but that small need does not force me to buy one when using it for the 80% of my driving would be impractical.

We balance our needs and realize a vehicle DOES NOT have to cover all needs 100%.

Pickup trucks, Mini vans, and SUVs are not impractical for those who need them, even if 20% of the time they are not as good as a sedan or other option.

You just have a brain addled way of thinking of things like Terry where your entire argument is trying to point at where EV's are not ideal as a way to say they are not good options.

There is a reason why, even pre EV there are so many different types of vehicles and not just one. Because no one is ideal for everyone and their needs. Different people have differing driving needs and EV's fit in perfectly for one of the biggest one, the most people do. The Home/work/errands around town, and the few hours weekend getaway. It is only a tiny percent of people who have needs beyond that.

An EV is not a body design, Kewpie.

 

[Into the Night]

Norway, which is not exactly balmy has adopted EVs bigly. my son and I drive electrics in Michigan. Cold weather is not a problem. Michigan is working on roads that will recharge EVs as they drive over them.

You are making shit up again, Sock. You don't live in Norway nor Michigan.
No one is working on or building any such road. Such a road is quite impractical, due to the energy losses and the conditions any road must endure.

Cold weather ALWAYS reduces the charging rates of an EV, even to the point in some cases of reducing it to near zero.

 

[Into the Night]

Explain what you think are the trips that the average family or person in the USA would struggle to make with an EV today that is not on an extreme cold weather day, ...or not doing 5 hour or more hours drive across mostly rural areas?

Explain what percent of their driving in a year you think that drive above would constitute?

RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

So, how much pollution should we allow?

He can't even name this so called 'damage' or 'pollution'.

 

[Into the Night]

Sure. FOr sake of argument, since battery life (hours use) does decline, i am choosing to not argue that even though you are correct, and it is not that they are not useable, they are just less then optimal in that circumstance.

One whole side of my family lives in Canada, and some of them the coldest parts, and yet you still see no shortage of EV's up there.

I am trying to get gfm to focus, on the areas where it is ideal and the typical drive it is ideal for which suits the vast majority of the population.

he seems to have imagined a world where an average family can own an EV SUV, use it daily for work, school, errands, but they have this outside life driving in ways an EV just fails at and i want him to explain what those trips look like in his mind. I am quite certain he will dodge and avoid just answering that question as he knows he is wrong, and stupid.

There would be only a tiny amount of city living people who could not use an EV for 100% of their normal driving. Maybe once every few years they are going to do a road trip across Utah and for that they can use their gas savings and just rent another vehicle to pile the miles on.

The wonderful 'gas savings' are not all that great, since charging at EV stations cost money as well. The so-called 'savings' is eaten up by additional hotel costs since EV range is limited. The high price of an EV vs a gasoline vehicle does NOT pay for itself in 'gas savings'. All you do is create inconvenience for yourself as you constantly worry about where your next charge is going to be.

Many roads, especially in the West, or even in Canada, have NO charging stations along them. The wimpy range of an EV, it's high cost, and it's inability to travel many roads is it's own undoing.
Less than 1% of the cars on the road are EVs. The EV market is crashing yet again, and for much of the same reasons.

 

[Into the Night]

Except your post is a lie.

Person 1 is : a person who drives to work, school, errands around town and short weekend trips all within a few hours. That is BY FAR the biggest part of the populace and an EV is perfect for them.

But by all means try and answer the below with regards to most people and families and explain what percent of their driving you think an EV could not meet for them and what the specifically looks like.

He quite clearly described person #1, and YOU don't get to redefine it.

EVs have very limited towing capability. Most of them have NO towing capability. Those that CAN tow anything have severely reduced range doing it, and that ability is limited to light utility trailers (not heavily loaded).

There are a few EV trucks that can haul a bigger trailer, but only with impractical range.

Less than 1% of the cars on the road are EVs. There's a reason. The EV market is also crashing. There's a reason.

 

[Into the Night]

Repetitions that are true, fact and proven will be repeated in the face of lies.

Repetition fallacy (chanting). Repetition does NOT making something True. Repetition is NOT a proof. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Repetition does NOT make anything a fact. A 'fact' is NOT a Universal Truth nor a proof. Learn what 'fact' means. Redefinition fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

LIe.
I am the one admitting they are not great for all people in all times.

Blatant lie.

LIe.
You are the one trying to force a conclusion.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again. You cannot project YOUR problems on anybody else!

LIe.
You create a unique instance, your Person 3 but you add in he needs to fuel in 20 minutes or less, because you believe that disqualifies EV's from that category.

It does.

LIe.
How many people in that category have some imperative that they need to fuel in 20 minutes or less.

Quite a few it turns out. Check out the traffic at any local gas station.

LIe.
What about the person in the EV who meets that category but unlike the person with ICE who has to stop for fuel,

BOTH vehicles need to 'stop for fuel'. Fueling an EV just takes a lot longer and has reduced range.

LIe.
and faces those long ICE lineups that were pictured above,

What long lineups? I never have to wait to fuel. There are certainly lines for EV chargers though, with each one taking a good 20 minutes or more on the charger! That can easily turn into a wait of HOURS.

LIe.
the EV buzzes on by laughing at those lining up for gas, as he charged at home?

TANSTAAFL. You still have to charge an EV, and it might not be at home.

LIe.
Once again my argument is ALL these scenarios exist, and not all are ideal for EV's nor ICE but EV's suit the vast VAST majority of the average families every day driving.

An opinion, based on your biased little view in your little city. You don't even have any idea how supplies GET to that city!

LIe.
And i am correct.

You have already shown otherwise.

LIe.
You have to hand craft some very specific scenarios (driving in remote area, need to charge in 20 minutes or less) to try and make EV's not look ideal.

His scenarios weren't that specific. Stop making shit up. Divisional fallacy.

LIe.
What you cannot do and will not even try is simply explain the type of trip an average family takes, and how often, that an EV would not suit, even if not ideal, it would be plenty good enough.

He actually explained it quite well. Argument of the Stone fallacy.