True cost to run EV like paying $17.33 per gallon if not for $22 billion in government subsidies.

Status
Not open for further replies.

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,505
Location
Flushing, NY
Yeah, definitely BMW. I don't even drive and I notice that.

1703126194179.png
 

Attachments

  • 1703126127512.png
    1703126127512.png
    297.7 KB · Views: 32

kaichu dento

Flashaholic
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
6,554
Location
現在の世界
…I'm sure you've been on the receiving end of crap while walking as well. Maybe you're OK just passively accepting it as business as usual.
Go ahead and scream at the sky every time it rains and see if it stops.
None of what I wrote about road carnage has anything to do with climate change.
You might want to read what I said again, then ask yourself how you ended up at blaming humans for nature. They're science deniers on far more subjects than just that one.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,505
Location
Flushing, NY
Go ahead and scream at the sky every time it rains and see if it stops.
It's about making cities more pleasant places to live instead of just accepting things as they are. That's why they're banning or restricting autos in ever larger areas in some cities, most in Europe so far. And there's majority public support for doing so.
You might want to read what I said again, then ask yourself how you ended up at blaming humans for nature. They're science deniers on far more subjects than just that one.
I did read it. I don't go down the rabbit hole of climate change pushing this stuff. Don't need to. There are already plenty of other great reasons. If there's one thing the left is getting horribly wrong, it's using climate change as the primary reason for pushing alternate energy, EVs, etc.

As for my own personal views on the subject, do I think human activity has altered the planet for worse? Absolutely. Let's forget the climate for a minute. We've massively destroyed a lot of the natural world, made thousands of species extinct. Getting back to climate, yes, human activity has affected it but so has nature. The question is how much, along with can we fix it?

A really low-cost answer is to put aerosols into the atmosphere. The cost would only be in the millions annually. It would block enough sunlight to offset the effects of additional greenhouse gases until the planet naturally cleaned them out of the atmosphere. It's a better answer than pie-in-sky stuff like removing CO2 from the atmosphere. This was discussed in another thread, with the consensus that it's largely unfeasible.
 
Last edited:

alpg88

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
5,395
The article is absolute trash, their video link is not even working, all comes down to pollution, and price is what they think should be, no math whatsoever to back it up, but then i did not expect anything else from you,
 

Monocrom

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
20,410
Location
NYC
From what i see daily on roads, in my 30+ years driving in NYC, bmw and infinity are the biggest a holes, regardless of color or vehicle type, teslas are not even on my radar.
You can add Honda Accord drivers to that list too.
 

kaichu dento

Flashaholic
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
6,554
Location
現在の世界
…accepting things as they are.
Change the things you can, accept that which you cannot, and avoid the hubris of thinking that sucking all the air out of the room will be beneficial, to anyone.
I did read it.
But missed my point altogether.
Let's forget the climate for a minute.
Let's forget it altogether, especially since you mistakenly introduced it off a mistaken reading of my post.
…pie-in-sky stuff like removing CO2 from the atmosphere…with the consensus that it's largely unfeasible.
CO2 was never anything other than a ready-made scapegoat and it's incredible how many fake scientists claim to not know how beneficial a tripling of it in the atmosphere would be for plant growth.
Mankind should not be messing about with 'correcting' nature, and every single time he does, unforeseen consequences manifest, all too often creating problems far worse than things were in the first place.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,505
Location
Flushing, NY
CO2 was never anything other than a ready-made scapegoat and it's incredible how many fake scientists claim to not know how beneficial a tripling of it in the atmosphere would be for plant growth.
True but tripling it isn't great for temperatures. CO2 levels only increased about 40% since the Industrial Revolution, yet that's caused an average temperature rise on the order of 1.1°C. Moreover, there's a delay between when CO2 levels increase and when the temperature increase finally stabilizes. In layman's terms that means even if CO2 levels stayed the same, temperatures will increase further for a while.

I don't have the knowledge to extrapolate temperatures if CO2 levels tripled but it wouldn't be pretty. Here's a good read on it:


Higher temperatures lead to stronger storms, more erratic weather, huge increases in insect populations, more contagious diseases, etc. In short, it's not good.
Mankind should not be messing about with 'correcting' nature, and every single time he does, unforeseen consequences manifest, all too often creating problems far worse than things were in the first place.
Isn't that exactly what we're inadvertently doing right now? Not just pouring CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere, but widely destroying ecosystems? I'm all for the idea of not messing with nature. That has to include all facets of doing so-intentional or unintentional.

EDIT: I found this, which does indeed show plants grow a lot more with higher concentrations of CO2:


I don't happen to agree with the author's conclusions, however. Note that at the times Earth's average temperature peaked at 22°C (instead of the ~14°C we have today), lower and lower levels of CO2 were needed to get there. We needed ~6000 ppm 500 million years ago but well under 1000 ppm some tens of millions of years ago. Why? The sun has been getting hotter. Normal in the life cycle of a star but he conveniently failed to mention this. If we had 6000 ppm in the atmosphere now the planet would be uninhabitable.
 
Last edited:

IMA SOL MAN

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
May 18, 2023
Messages
2,125
Location
The HEART of the USA.
Blah blah blah. In the 1930's, folks in the US thought it was the end of the world. Drought, grasshopper infestation, dust bowl, depression, rumors of wars, etc. Guess what? Earth still turning, California still burning. The world didn't come to an end, and things got better. Well, after WW2, anyway. :) Baby booooom! ;):grin2::p:triumphant: Oh the Fifties! What a decade! Other than the Korean War and the Cold War, it was pretty nice. 🙃
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,505
Location
Flushing, NY
Blah blah blah. In the 1930's, folks in the US thought it was the end of the world. Drought, grasshopper infestation, dust bowl, depression, rumors of wars, etc. Guess what? Earth still turning, California still burning. The world didn't come to an end, and things got better. Well, after WW2, anyway. :) Baby booooom! ;):grin2::p:triumphant: Oh the Fifties! What a decade! Other than the Korean War and the Cold War, it was pretty nice. 🙃
The planet itself isn't going anywhere. It might end up incompatible with human life. The crops we grow require a certain temperature range and precipitation just for starters.


Remember most of the Earth's population lacks access to air conditioning.
Oh wait, the sun is getting hotter and earth is getting warmer? At the same time?

Hmmmmm.
Difference is the sun makes the planet hotter over the time span of millions of years. Changes in greenhouse gases can do it in a few hundred.


"In short, in the end, the nuclear furnace at the center of every star begins to overheat. To put numbers on this, when the Sun was formed 4.5 billion years ago it was about 30% dimmer than at present. At the end of the next 4.8 billion years, the Sun will be about 67% brighter than it is now. In the 1.6 billion years following that, the Sun's luminosity will rise to a lethal 2.2 Lo. (Lo = present Sun.) The Earth by then will have been roasted to bare rock, its oceans and all its life boiled away by a looming Sun that will be some 60% larger than at present. The surface temperature on the Earth will be in excess of 600 F°."

The planet is going to be incompatible with life something like 600 million years from now due to sun getting hotter. Nothing we can do about that-yet. Maybe if we're still around then we'll be able to push the planet farther from the sun. In the meantime though we should take care of it. It's the only place we have.
 
Last edited:

alpg88

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
5,395
Oh wait, the sun is getting hotter and earth is getting warmer? At the same time?

Hmmmmm.
So what, there isn't any evidence of it being the cause of global warming, correlation does not equal causation, they say. :crackup:
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,505
Location
Flushing, NY
So what, there isn't any evidence of it being the cause of global warming, correlation does not equal causation, they say. :crackup:
Don't laugh but when talking about this subject once the person said "All that CO2 we're putting into the air is making the sun hotter." It was all I could do to keep myself from bursting out laughing. Almost as bad as one of my sister's former coworkers who said the government uses your TV to spy on you (but only when it's off!).

Needless to say I wasn't going to waste my time trying to explain things to her.
 

RWT1405

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
1,306
Location
PA
How I love when the EV Environmental Wackos have their plans ruined

It's a shame the American people don't have better memories, as we all know the EV Environmental Wackos will try this again as soon as they believe it's been forgotten


 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,505
Location
Flushing, NY
Considering the lopsided power-to-weight ratio, and the lower governed top speed, the Hummer still holds its own pretty well.

I'd love to see an ungoverned top speed test between both vehicles.
 

lumen aeternum

Enlightened
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
902
It mentions an Argonne lab (?) study showing a 15 year cost comparison. But the extra costs are front end loaded, so you need to include present value vs future value of the extra cost increment.

Has anyone calculated the repair or replace costs for accidents? The Govt does standard crash scenarios for all cars - so compute the cost to repair, or more likely given todays throwaway design, replace, the vehicle after each standard crash scenario. The front-end loading of EVs will be to their disadvantage. Can you repair the battery pack if it is damaged at all? That' would be a huge cost for even moderate crashes.
 

alpg88

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
5,395
NOt every shop even fixes EV, ours wont touch them, tesla is not happy selling parts, that translates into delays, not to mention people that know how to fix those aside from minor dents, same with body shops, no one want to risk a fire. some junk yards wont take EVs. i would say if you have a crashed EV it will take longer, in some cases a lot longer to fix, and defiantly more expansive, batteries are from 20 to 60k.
 

mrfixitman

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 16, 2023
Messages
477
Location
San Francisco
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top