Reality check on electric cars

[Into the Night]

Fossil fuels no more more fossils than idiotic statements are idiots.

Random words. Try learning English.

Your attempt to use the equivocation fallacy is noted.

I am not equating anything. Fallacy fallacy.

And you keep repeating it thinking it makes you appear smart. It doesn't. Your idiotic statement makes you look like the idiot.

I use English, unlike you. I do not repeat your random phrases nor take credit for them.

When someone uses the term fossil fuels and you state, "Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn." you are committing a fallacy.

Nope. There is simply no such thing as a fossil fuel. Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.

Either you are too stupid to recognize it or you hope your reader is too stupid to recognize it.

Insult fallacies.

But then your constant reliance on the fallacy fallacy shows you to be an idiot.

Hallucination. Insult fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

fallacy fallacy. Definition fallacy. General all around stupidity.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are making shit up again.


Argument from randU fallacy. You are making shit up again. Calculation involving random numbers only produces random results.
If I say you usually use the fallacy fallacy does that mean you always use it?
Argument from randU fallacy. You are making shit up again by conflating usually with always.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are making shit up again. Calculation involving random numbers only produces random results.
False dilemma fallacy. Calculation involving random numbers only produces random results
You are correct. But if I go back and change it then you are wrong. So now it's you that is wrong and simply making shit up since I clearly used the word "equinox" as evidenced in my edited post.

We call that Late Summer, Fall, and Winter
Fallacy fallacy which only highlights your made up numbers about the cost of wind power.

So your claims about wind being expensive is just a random result created from your random number. Thanks for sharing your bullshit made up numbers with us.


I'm not the one that manufactured data about how expensive wind power is. That would be you.

Mockery. Denial of logic. Trolling. No argument presented.

 

[Into the Night]

They are called fossil fuels because they are made from ancient plants and animals.

No, they aren't. The Fischer-Tropsche process shows why. There are some very deep oil wells. No fossil layer that deep.
Natural gas can be found in swamps, compost piles, you, landfills, or oil wells. No ancient plants or animals needed. It can also be synthesized by the Fischer-Tropsche process. The conditions for this process exist naturally underground.

https://www.gsi.ie/en-ie/education/earth-resources/Pages/Fossil-fuels.aspx

False authority fallacy.

Into the black is really quite stupid. he makes shit up and calls it a fallacy.

I do not make up fallacies. Denial of logic. You do. Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that keeps making fallacies. if you don't like me calling you on them, stop making them.

Winning by misdefinition is a fallacy.

Random words. Try learning English.

https://effectiviology.com/appeal-to-definition/

False authority fallacy.

 

[Nordberg]

No, they aren't. The Fischer-Tropsche process shows why. There are some very deep oil wells. No fossil layer that deep.
Natural gas can be found in swamps, compost piles, you, landfills, or oil wells. No ancient plants or animals needed. It can also be synthesized by the Fischer-Tropsche process. The conditions for this process exist naturally underground.

False authority fallacy.

I do not make up fallacies. Denial of logic. You do. Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that keeps making fallacies. if you don't like me calling you on them, stop making them.

Random words. Try learning English.

False authority fallacy.

You are really nuts. You do make them up. You say things that are ridiculous.

 

[Into the Night]

You are really nuts. You do make them up. You say things that are ridiculous.

Inversion fallacy.

 

[Nordberg]

Inversion fallacy.

Again your fallacy fallacy is in evidence. That is simply not true.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

They certainly can. It takes energy to do it though.

There are several lab methods now, most using a metal catalyst that can do it with a net gain in the whole production cycle. One uses CO2 + CH3 or CH4 and a metal catalyst to chain the molecules into longer ones with only a small amount of energy added.

 

[Nordberg]

The truth is batteries are getting better and better. technology does not stand still.https://www.motortrend.com/features/tech-trends-battery-fuel-cell-motors/

 

[Into the Night]

Again your fallacy fallacy is in evidence. That is simply not true.

Buzzword fallacy. Mockery. Denial of logic.

 

[Into the Night]

There are several lab methods now, most using a metal catalyst that can do it with a net gain in the whole production cycle. One uses CO2 + CH3 or CH4 and a metal catalyst to chain the molecules into longer ones with only a small amount of energy added.

This is actually a modification of the Fischer-Tropsche process. Yes, once the hydrocarbon is formed, chaining them is fairly trivial.

 

[Into the Night]

The truth is batteries are getting better and better. technology does not stand still.https://www.motortrend.com/features/tech-trends-battery-fuel-cell-motors/

A battery is not a source of energy. It must be charged.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

A battery is not a source of energy. It must be charged.

Actually, it depends on the battery. Some, like the classic zinc - carbon with sulfuric acid electrolyte battery is good from the get go.

 

[Into the Night]

Actually, it depends on the battery. Some, like the classic zinc - carbon with sulfuric acid electrolyte battery is good from the get go.

Not what the car is using, dude. Rechargeable batteries need to be charged, including the lead-sulfur battery.

 

[MAGA MAN]

Using the transmission to keep your speed down on descents doesn't hurt it or the engine.

More revolutions = more wear.

 

[redfish]

The truth is batteries are getting better and better. technology does not stand still.https://www.motortrend.com/features/tech-trends-battery-fuel-cell-motors/

yes they are, but they still have to be recharged which requires a lot of generated electricity, which you lefties never mention

 

[redfish]

Actually, it depends on the battery. Some, like the classic zinc - carbon with sulfuric acid electrolyte battery is good from the get go.

unlimited forever power----------------wow who knew?

 

[Nordberg]

A battery is not a source of energy. It must be charged.

Did you just learn how electric cars work? I have to charge mine every night, so I know it requires charging. Technology has already made batteries go much further on a charge. They have very long lives. They are getting better all the time.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You harping on a semantic error (still) when you knew the actual meaning? Yes, that is entirely your fault, and childish behavior.

Thanks for your opinion, Karen.

The energy loss transporting power over long distances is huge. That's why the project to produce electricity from solar in Africa to sell to Europe has failed.

Energy loss occurs but it is also easy to calculate and account for.
This is some pretty basic electrical information. Less than 1% of the Sahara would need to have solar panels to produce enough electricity for Europe even with the energy loss during transportation. The problem isn't the energy loss. The problem is the infrastructure needed to transport that much energy. The costs to put in that infrastructure are pretty large and Karens will whine about the cost.

The availability of wind is only part of the siting problem. People don't want the turbines near them.

Thanks, Karen. If people don't want electricity then I guess that is there problem. Oh.. wait.. everyone doesn't have a coal fire power plant in their backyard? Instead the electricity is transported long distances over wires and energy is lost.

Winter in Texas is nothing compared to northern states. If wind failed there, it will "epic fail" in the northeast.

Texas has freezing temperatures every winter. The fact that they wanted to pretend they didn't is not the fault of renewable energy. Trying to blame the gas lines freezing on wind turbines was rather silly, don't you think?

So a few charging stations are available at a mall, with a thousand or so parking spaces.

The funny thing about charging stations is there is no limit on how many can be installed as long as the electrical infrastructure is there. A few years ago there were none. A few years from now there could be a thousand.

For the record, my son just bought an EV for his wife. She works 4 x 12 hour days and has a 40 mile commute. It has a 250 mile range and charges for 0 to 100% in 12 hours, meaning that she has to charge it for about four hours, every bit of it without sun. So they are charging it with coal, basically.

So you are saying she could drive the 160 miles over the 4 days and then charge on the fifth day during the day when she doesn't work. Sounds pretty simple and even a child could figure that one out.

Or are you trying to say she has a 40 mile commute one way with a daily commute of 80 miles? It seems I have to not read what you write but instead try to piece it together without using your words. If her daily commute is 80 miles she still only is required to charge for about 4 hours total during the evenings per week since she can charge for 250 miles on Friday-Sunday. Drive 240 miles Monday- Wed. Charge for 80 miles Wednesday night. I am curious where they live that 100% of their electricity comes from coal. Unless they are connected to a small local utility, I highly doubt coal is the only source.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Let's see if you do know English.

Is "fossil" a noun or an adjective in this sentence?

Coal is a fossil fuel.

There is no such thing as a fossil fuel. Fossils don't burn. Semantics fallacy.

Now in your quote. Is the first use of fossil an adjective or a noun? Is the use of the word fossils an adjective or a noun?
So now we clearly see that you are either an idiot or expect others to be idiots for not recognizing that you are using the equivocation fallacy when you change word use and meaning.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Random words. Try learning English.

Your attempt to use the equivocation fallacy is noted.

I am not equating anything. Fallacy fallacy.

ROFLMAO. That has to be one of the funniest things I have ever seen you post.

In English, to equivocate is not to equate but then you don't use English the way the rest of us do.

So what exactly is a fallacy fallacy since you have now used that term? It seems you now want to use my definition that you have claimed is not a valid definition.