Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ Kentis said:
You know what not many talk about? The curb weight of EV’s. A conventional F150 weighs between 4069 lbs & 5697 lbs, where a F150 Lightning EV weighs between 6015 lbs & 6893 lbs. Thats alot more weight on the road, leading to increased wear & tear on the roadways as well as more severe car crashs & fires that are almost impossible to extinguish.
This kinda reminds me of Thomas Edison, who built a basic infrastructure and several power plants generating DC electricity because, at the time, AC was too dangerous. One simple invention, the transformer, changed all that.
It's important for science and technology to move forward despite challenges. It's inevitable that, over time, EV weight will go down and batteries will get smaller, lighter and more stable.
or are EVs the DC electricity of the auto industry and the real step forward is a technology that is currently not getting the attention? Are nuclear, or some other source of energy or energy storage going to be what puts the nail in the grave of the internal combustion engine? or maybe it will be solid fuels for autos that makes that transition. I dont think that the current direction is likely the best solution for solving our worlds future transportation needs. Batteries and electricity have come a long way in the last 20 years, but where we are today is a long way aways from where it would need to be at to achieve the lofty dreams of the politicians that are demanding X by year 2030 or whatever, legislation can push tech evolution, but it cant dictate it, and at some point they have to consider what the working person can afford, we are already seeing inflation pushing costs for younger families into ridiculous heights. I have a coworker that just got notice that his daycare is taking a 16% annual increase starting August 1st, that is a huge pill for a young family to bear, the auto industry has to have a market for all these new innovations or they are all just a waste of time.
I think there’s a lot of room for discussion on how EV’s play
into the WEF’s plan for “You will own nothing and be happy”. You touched on one of the side aspects of the
EV conversation, which is the economics of it.
EV’s up until now have been mostly premium, expensive products. A lot of this country needs cheap cars for
transportation, like not just “cheap” new vehicles, but cheap as in sub $5K and
sub $10K used vehicles. How far out are
we from a solid used car market for sub $10k EVs? I think the end goal though is to use self-driving
vehicles to remove most people from owning their own vehicle, so as they make
the “old high polluting vehicles” illegal to own, and the new
“clean” vehicles are all super expensive, the only real option for the poor is to
move to some sort of car sharing situation, which like everything else in this
modern world, will start out as cheap and feels like it makes sense, and then
10 years later after you’re locked into the system the prices will skyrocket.
While I don’t hate car-sharing systems in principal as there’s
a lot of benefits, I think there’s a lot of room for this corporation-government
oligarchy we have to exploit common people.
One thing that is often left out of the equation is that
much of the carbon used for cars is in the initial construction of the vehicles,
but a lot of the conversation revolves around new this, new that and people
aren’t really doing the carbon math on whether it makes carbon sense for you to
keep driving your already existing vehicle longer and making minor repairs or
if you need to go buy that newly manufactured vehicle with it’s high carbon
deficit, but lower per mile carbon usage.
Part of that is just EV’s have been mostly for early adopters so far,
but we’ll need to have that discussion as we move forward with adoption.
Quote: @medaille said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ Kentis said:
You know what not many talk about? The curb weight of EV’s. A conventional F150 weighs between 4069 lbs & 5697 lbs, where a F150 Lightning EV weighs between 6015 lbs & 6893 lbs. Thats alot more weight on the road, leading to increased wear & tear on the roadways as well as more severe car crashs & fires that are almost impossible to extinguish.
This kinda reminds me of Thomas Edison, who built a basic infrastructure and several power plants generating DC electricity because, at the time, AC was too dangerous. One simple invention, the transformer, changed all that.
It's important for science and technology to move forward despite challenges. It's inevitable that, over time, EV weight will go down and batteries will get smaller, lighter and more stable.
or are EVs the DC electricity of the auto industry and the real step forward is a technology that is currently not getting the attention? Are nuclear, or some other source of energy or energy storage going to be what puts the nail in the grave of the internal combustion engine? or maybe it will be solid fuels for autos that makes that transition. I dont think that the current direction is likely the best solution for solving our worlds future transportation needs. Batteries and electricity have come a long way in the last 20 years, but where we are today is a long way aways from where it would need to be at to achieve the lofty dreams of the politicians that are demanding X by year 2030 or whatever, legislation can push tech evolution, but it cant dictate it, and at some point they have to consider what the working person can afford, we are already seeing inflation pushing costs for younger families into ridiculous heights. I have a coworker that just got notice that his daycare is taking a 16% annual increase starting August 1st, that is a huge pill for a young family to bear, the auto industry has to have a market for all these new innovations or they are all just a waste of time.
I think there’s a lot of room for discussion on how EV’s play
into the WEF’s plan for “You will own nothing and be happy”. You touched on one of the side aspects of the
EV conversation, which is the economics of it.
EV’s up until now have been mostly premium, expensive products. A lot of this country needs cheap cars for
transportation, like not just “cheap” new vehicles, but cheap as in sub $5K and
sub $10K used vehicles. How far out are
we from a solid used car market for sub $10k EVs? I think the end goal though is to use self-driving
vehicles to remove most people from owning their own vehicle, so as they make
the “old high polluting vehicles” illegal to own, and the new
“clean” vehicles are all super expensive, the only real option for the poor is to
move to some sort of car sharing situation, which like everything else in this
modern world, will start out as cheap and feels like it makes sense, and then
10 years later after you’re locked into the system the prices will skyrocket.
While I don’t hate car-sharing systems in principal as there’s
a lot of benefits, I think there’s a lot of room for this corporation-government
oligarchy we have to exploit common people.
One thing that is often left out of the equation is that
much of the carbon used for cars is in the initial construction of the vehicles,
but a lot of the conversation revolves around new this, new that and people
aren’t really doing the carbon math on whether it makes carbon sense for you to
keep driving your already existing vehicle longer and making minor repairs or
if you need to go buy that newly manufactured vehicle with it’s high carbon
deficit, but lower per mile carbon usage.
Part of that is just EV’s have been mostly for early adopters so far,
but we’ll need to have that discussion as we move forward with adoption.
I like a lot about EVs, but there is plenty I dont like about them, and the govt trying to mandate the death of the ICE.... thats just ripe for exploitation. We already are seeing record increases in our nations debt, this is not the time to be creating more industries to subsidize and mandating more expensive life necessities like transportation for our working class. higher taxes and higher costs to get to work.... why work?
Yet no one cares about the subsidies we have given (and still give) to oil, gas, coal companies for centuries.
Quote: @Waterboy said:
Outside of China controlling a vast majority of the world's Lithium due in part to Hillary's wheeling and dealing, this is wonderful news. I guess it's also acceptable that the emissions really aren't cut very much due to the pollution taking place on the front end as the electricity is produced. But to avoid that, we're going to do it on a power grid that not only will require exponentially more capacity, but it will be consistently down due to weather fluctuations that prevent the grid from being full when the sources are solar and wind. And when the cars get stuck due to weather and all the batteries die, it gets even better. This has all been very well thought out and is really really great news. lol
Shhhh. If we ignore the issues/ramifications, they don't have to be dealt with... until later.
Quote: @minny65 said:
Yet no one cares about the subsidies we have given (and still give) to oil, gas, coal companies for centuries.
what about them? nobody was talking about oil or gas, the subject has been EVs and their viability. as far as fossil fuels, they are reported to generate roughly 140 billion per year in taxes in the US, they receive about 5 billion in subsidies ( per 2016 data... its what I found quick on Wiki ) I dont think we should be subsidizing either, but as long as we are, this one is acceptable ( maybe less disgusting is a better way to put it) IMO as it more than pays for itself in returned income.
honestly, I wouldnt have as much of an issue with wind subsidies if they would build the wind towers where the power is needed, we have a huge infrastructure issue in this country, but a lot of it is directly related to NIMBY, things like refineries, and electrical generation get pushed into rural areas where people cant yell loud enough to prevent them from being built. but then we need to turn around and build bigger and longer transmission lines and pipelines to get the product to where the bulk of it is consumed. Why are we not focusing the solutions and money where the problems lie? Why is Exel building wind farms in SD, 200 miles from where that power is needed in the MN metro areas? We dont use the power out here, so why do we have wind towers out here? lots of excuses why, but what it boils down to is NIMBY, everybody wants a pork chop, but nobody wants to help cut up the hog. in fairness, those federally funded wind towers are paying taxes and are helping my local area ( my township receives an additional 80K per year in funding due to the wind towers we have in our back yard ) but they have also created new issues like more road use due to construction and future maintenance considerations, but they are paying local taxes to some extent.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ minny65 said:
Yet no one cares about the subsidies we have given (and still give) to oil, gas, coal companies for centuries.
what about them? nobody was talking about oil or gas, the subject has been EVs and their viability. as far as fossil fuels, they are reported to generate roughly 140 billion per year in taxes in the US, they receive about 5 billion in subsidies ( per 2016 data... its what I found quick on Wiki ) I dont think we should be subsidizing either, but as long as we are, this one is acceptable ( maybe less disgusting is a better way to put it) IMO as it more than pays for itself in returned income.
honestly, I wouldnt have as much of an issue with wind subsidies if they would build the wind towers where the power is needed, we have a huge infrastructure issue in this country, but a lot of it is directly related to NIMBY, things like refineries, and electrical generation get pushed into rural areas where people cant yell loud enough to prevent them from being built. but then we need to turn around and build bigger and longer transmission lines and pipelines to get the product to where the bulk of it is consumed. Why are we not focusing the solutions and money where the problems lie? Why is Exel building wind farms in SD, 200 miles from where that power is needed in the MN metro areas? We dont use the power out here, so why do we have wind towers out here? lots of excuses why, but what it boils down to is NIMBY, everybody wants a pork chop, but nobody wants to help cut up the hog. in fairness, those federally funded wind towers are paying taxes and are helping my local area ( my township receives an additional 80K per year in funding due to the wind towers we have in our back yard ) but they have also created new issues like more road use due to construction and future maintenance considerations, but they are paying local taxes to some extent.
OK, we disagree. I don't think we should subsidize the most profitable industry in history after over 100 years of formation. I will feel the same if EV takes off and 100 years later still has it's hand out.
Quote: @minny65 said:
Yet no one cares about the subsidies we have given (and still give) to oil, gas, coal companies for centuries.
And farmers. You know, because we should hate socialism in this country (eye roll). Oh wait, corporations here in the U.S. always have socialized their losses and privatized their gains.
Quote: @minny65 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ minny65 said:
Yet no one cares about the subsidies we have given (and still give) to oil, gas, coal companies for centuries.
what about them? nobody was talking about oil or gas, the subject has been EVs and their viability. as far as fossil fuels, they are reported to generate roughly 140 billion per year in taxes in the US, they receive about 5 billion in subsidies ( per 2016 data... its what I found quick on Wiki ) I dont think we should be subsidizing either, but as long as we are, this one is acceptable ( maybe less disgusting is a better way to put it) IMO as it more than pays for itself in returned income.
honestly, I wouldnt have as much of an issue with wind subsidies if they would build the wind towers where the power is needed, we have a huge infrastructure issue in this country, but a lot of it is directly related to NIMBY, things like refineries, and electrical generation get pushed into rural areas where people cant yell loud enough to prevent them from being built. but then we need to turn around and build bigger and longer transmission lines and pipelines to get the product to where the bulk of it is consumed. Why are we not focusing the solutions and money where the problems lie? Why is Exel building wind farms in SD, 200 miles from where that power is needed in the MN metro areas? We dont use the power out here, so why do we have wind towers out here? lots of excuses why, but what it boils down to is NIMBY, everybody wants a pork chop, but nobody wants to help cut up the hog. in fairness, those federally funded wind towers are paying taxes and are helping my local area ( my township receives an additional 80K per year in funding due to the wind towers we have in our back yard ) but they have also created new issues like more road use due to construction and future maintenance considerations, but they are paying local taxes to some extent.
OK, we disagree. I don't think we should subsidize the most profitable industry in history after over 100 years of formation. I will feel the same if EV takes off and 100 years later still has it's hand out.
I would like to see where those subsidies are applied. I see govt monies assigned to this or that, but when you get into it, they really arent going to what a person is led to believe. How many people lose their shit about the farm bill when in actuality about 85% of the farm bill isnt a subsidy to the farmers, its actually all the nutrition programs like snap and school lunches. Either way, one industry is paying for itself, the other isnt and the way they are spending that money ( facility locations) is stupid as hell imo.
Not a fan of subsidies.
I think people should choose which industries they want to personally
subsidize, rather than the government taking their money and deciding to give
their money to megacorporations that their friends and donors control.
If we’ve already decided on the government subsidizing
something, I would prefer they invest in things that lift up the people rather
than increasing corporate profits for companies that try to extend their own power
over the people. I think investing in
personal solar panel installations is a huge win for both the left and right,
as it increases green energy, but also makes more people independent of power
company shenanigans and makes them a producer and not a consumer. I don’t have much beef with our local power
providers, but you look at what can go wrong like in California, Texas, or
South Africa.
Subsidies should encourage distributed production where the
producers compete in a free market. It
shouldn’t just get dumped into too-big-to-fail corporations.
Quote: @medaille said:
Not a fan of subsidies.
I think people should choose which industries they want to personally
subsidize, rather than the government taking their money and deciding to give
their money to megacorporations that their friends and donors control.
If we’ve already decided on the government subsidizing
something, I would prefer they invest in things that lift up the people rather
than increasing corporate profits for companies that try to extend their own power
over the people. I think investing in
personal solar panel installations is a huge win for both the left and right,
as it increases green energy, but also makes more people independent of power
company shenanigans and makes them a producer and not a consumer. I don’t have much beef with our local power
providers, but you look at what can go wrong like in California, Texas, or
South Africa.
Subsidies should encourage distributed production where the
producers compete in a free market. It
shouldn’t just get dumped into too-big-to-fail corporations.
problem is, you still need a local power provider for when you are not generating enough of your own power, and the less you and your solar neighbors are buying, the less money they are making and it still costs them the same to maintain their part of the power grid. The only way I say solar or wind should be subsidized is if a location is 100% off grid and it makes more sense to keep it that way than to try and get them grid power, otherwise its just going to make everyone's base energy costs go up since the utilities wont have the profit from the KW sold to offset their operating costs.
|
