Reality check on electric cars

Poor Richard Saunders said:
fallacy fallacy!
The fallacy fallacy occurs when someone, usually Into the Night, claims another poster is using fallacies in order to make themselves look more intelligent than they actually are.
Click to expand...
Denial of logic. Mockery.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Your claim that a battery requires 10-12 hours to be fully charged is a made up number on your part.
Click to expand...
Nope. The source information is from Tesla.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I can charge a lithium AAA battery in under an hour.
Click to expand...
Tesla does not use a AAA battery. Contextomy fallacy.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Anyone can do that.
Click to expand...
Meh.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Charging a batter is dependent on the power you can supply the battery in a given time compared to the total power it needs to reach a full charge.
Click to expand...
Semantics fallacy. Contextomy fallacy.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Several factors can affect this. But to claim a battery always requires 10-12 hours is a ridiculous made up number on your part.
Click to expand...
Contextomy fallacy.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Anyone that has ever had a dead car battery knows they don't have to drive around for 10-12 hours to recharge it once they get their car started.
Click to expand...
Contextomy fallacy.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
You clearly don't understand the real world let alone science.
Click to expand...
You clearly like to wander off topic.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
It's all some magic made up fallacy to you.
Click to expand...
A fallacy is not magic. Redefinition fallacy.


Try to stay on topic.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
This site takes a fairly opposed view to anhydrous ammonia but shows that even with accidents it isn't that unsafe

https://www.foreffectivegov.org/is-...caused an estim ated $3.5 million in damages.


Anhydrous ammonia is a health hazard but not particularly a fire hazard. It is also stable meaning it won't explode.

anhydrous-ammonia-hazardous-material-sign-s-7873.png


It's basically the reverse of gasoline which is a minor health hazard and a major fire hazard.

gasoline-hazard-warning-flammable-sign-k-9587.png
Click to expand...

You really should look at the warning signs you just posted. You are still wandering from the topic.
 
Looks like a game changer for Tesla. Bigger individual cells, no troubles tabs, and internal structure that reduces heat losses.

 
Jim Eagle said:
Looks like a game changer for Tesla. Bigger individual cells, no troubles tabs, and internal structure that reduces heat losses.

Click to expand...

Not a game changer, but certainly a more efficient cell. Less is going into waste heat and more is going into moving the car. It will be interesting to see how this improves the range of the car in actual use, as opposed to EPA guesses. Of course, there is still the problem of long charge times.
 
Into the Night said:
Not a game changer, but certainly a more efficient cell. Less is going into waste heat and more is going into moving the car. It will be interesting to see how this improves the range of the car in actual use, as opposed to EPA guesses. Of course, there is still the problem of long charge times.
Click to expand...

and with fuel prices going through the roof, the recharging costs will also go through the roof. electric cars are not the answer because there is no way to recharge millions of them with our current electrical grid, and the grid is powered mostly by oil, coal, and natural gas.
 
redfish said:
and with fuel prices going through the roof, the recharging costs will also go through the roof. electric cars are not the answer because there is no way to recharge millions of them with our current electrical grid, and the grid is powered mostly by oil, coal, and natural gas.
Click to expand...

There is that as well. It's why I call the electric car the 'coal fired car'.
 
the gasoline cost savings are more than offset by the recharging costs. if your gas bill goes down by $200 and your electric bill goes up by $200 what have you accomplished? Saved the world, right? Duh, not even close.
 
redfish said:
the gasoline cost savings are more than offset by the recharging costs. if your gas bill goes down by $200 and your electric bill goes up by $200 what have you accomplished? Saved the world, right? Duh, not even close.
Click to expand...

This is assuming, of course, that your electric bill will go up by $200 to charge your car to travel the same distance as $200 worth of gasoline.

The world, of course, does not need saving. It's big enough to take care of itself. Our miniscule influence is just that. Anyone that thinks we can terraform the world is just being arrogant.

(Hey...sounds like a few Democrats I know!)
 
redfish said:
the gasoline cost savings are more than offset by the recharging costs. if your gas bill goes down by $200 and your electric bill goes up by $200 what have you accomplished? Saved the world, right? Duh, not even close.
Click to expand...

The savings are over 50 percent in a bad scenario. Much more in real life.
 
redfish said:
and with fuel prices going through the roof, the recharging costs will also go through the roof. electric cars are not the answer because there is no way to recharge millions of them with our current electrical grid, and the grid is powered mostly by oil, coal, and natural gas.
Click to expand...

The grid problems are in states who have demonized nukes, coal and natural gas, all of which work flawlessly through the night hours when most electric cars are being recharged. So that is a political problem, not a technical one.

The cost per mile is cheaper because the efficiency of an electric motor is around 95%, vs 35% for internal combustion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top