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

[bykfixer]

Doh!!

 

[alpg88]

A parked van is always better for the planet than a one that is running. regardless of power source. lol, true story

 

[mrfixitman]

Can someone explain to me, how, with the proposed adoption of an all EV policy,
That they are all going to be charged without Oil, Gas or coal running power stations?
Because the obvious answer would be Nuclear, which has always been unacceptable to the very people who are advocating EV's?
Are there any future plans for more NP stations?

The obvious answer is to reduce a populations opportunity to travel, or in other words, remove your right to travel.
This is the only way it would work, at present.

Your right to travel is not impinged. There are ships, trains, busses and Craigslist rideshare. It is more convenient to drive but not mandatory. Truly not a right, but sometimes a necessity. Your speculation is based on fear. The best nuclear source is up in the sky the majority of the day. You can avoid beholding to the Russians and Saudis. Make your own energy. I do. There is excess energy during the day in California and Texas. This is from renewables. Nuclear is pushing the cost to future generations, who must archive the dangerous material for 100,000 years. Fission would work though. People are working on it. I drive electric and am quite happy with the results. I have stopped suckling the fossil fuel tit and am ahead financially and in convenience.

 

[mrfixitman]

View attachment 58971

I can give you hundreds of cars being towed. What's your point? Every car without a spare needs a tow with a flat. Non issue.

 

[mrfixitman]

Why do you assume it was not a Telsa? Why do you assume the trip it made had any relation to any of the trips you described? Did you not understand the car was from several states away?

See, what you failed to notice was I was actually trying to point out electric cars are getting better yet they still have a ways to go.

I don't know. You didn't say. You speculate. That the car was out of state, to me, is no big deal and expected. EV road trips have been a thing since the teens.

 

[Chauncey Gardiner]

View attachment 58976I can give you hundreds of cars being towed. What's your point? Every car without a spare needs a tow with a flat. Non issue.

How easily you're triggered to reply sans anything more substantial than a non-issue joke. 😁 Everyone reading my post understands it's a joke .... everyone but you.

My point? No hill is too small that you don't feel a need to climb and plant your flag of victory. Life is too short. Lighten up, Sport.

 

[xxo]

they will make us drive EV's until they figure out that windmills and solar panels don't generate enough electricity to charge them all and then you will take the bus (diesel).

 

[xxo]

View attachment 58971

at least it's not on fire.

 

[mrfixitman]

How easily you're triggered to reply sans anything more substantial than a non-issue joke. 😁 Everyone reading my post understands it's a joke .... everyone but you.

My point? No hill is too small that you don't feel a need to climb and plant your flag of victory. Life is too short. Lighten up, Sport.

Dude! It's not a joke. It's an attitude. We now have the means. Doing the right thing will be more and more affordable. I understand the fear. Conquer it. Use logic not strained through politics and you will get the right answer, that is the best compromise. Direct use of electricity using a cord. For convenience add batteries.

 

[mrfixitman]

they will make us drive EV's until they figure out that windmills and solar panels don't generate enough electricity to charge them all and then you will take the bus (diesel).

Your speculation is faulty according to people who have done the math.
A recent National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) study shows that it would take less than 1 percent of the land in the Lower 48—that's an area …
Feb 22, 2023
How Much Land Would it Require to Get Most of Our Electricity from Wind and Solar?

Union of Concerned Scientists

According to a report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, roughly 22,000 square milesof solar panel-filled land (about the size of Lake Michigan) …
Aug 11, 2021
How Much Land is Needed to Power the U.S. with Solar? - Elements by Visual Capitalist

Visual Capitalist

 

[mrfixitman]

at least it's not on fire.

Attitude or are you talking about the Molotov Cocktails you drive which burn on a daily basis? It is curious everyone here accepts batteries and electricity for illumination. I accept batteries unless I can use a cord. I have one of those old spring coil shop lights that can go anywhere in the garage without batteries. I have an electric chainsaw with a cord. Leafblower with a cord, better than 2-stroke. All this kicking and screaming over something that is inevitable and clearly better and eventually less expensive than the current paradigm. Great minds are working on it.

 

[xxo]

 

[xxo]

if mandates are so great how about making it a crime to charge an EV with power not 100% generated by wind and solar?

and how about mandating that all of those states and cities generate all of their electricity with wind and solar by 2035 and leave the rest of us alone?

 

[sim1tti]

Can someone explain to me, how, with the proposed adoption of an all EV policy,
That they are all going to be charged without Oil, Gas or coal running power stations?
Because the obvious answer would be Nuclear, which has always been unacceptable to the very people who are advocating EV's?
Are there any future plans for more NP stations?

This has been covered in the threads of this forum, but it all gets lost in the soup. I'll try to post a cohesive summary of the info when I have more time. It's been interesting. For now, my quick take is this:

Environmentally speaking, EVs are pretty clean and getting cleaner, but there is still pollution associated with them, including upstream sources. Harder to quantify is impact of securing materials (like cobalt), making the infrastructure more robust, ect.

The current US grid doesn't use much coal anymore. Other non-renewables, like natural gas, are much less polluting and dominate US energy production. Some states have a cleaner balance than others, and renewables are a fast growing share of energy production. Some states are even committed to have renewables be the dominant or only contributor.

Even as it stands right now, even in the most coal-heavy grids in the US, the emissions generated to power EVs is far less than the pollutants that would otherwise come out of tailpipes. Some people claim that's not true in some places, but the available data doesn't seem to support those claims.

The sources for this data has mostly been posted in these threads. Again, the soup. I'll try to compose it later.

The obvious answer is to reduce a populations opportunity to travel, or in other words, remove your right to travel.
This is the only way it would work, at present.

At present, sure, hypothetically. In reality there is no impingement right now. Only a rhetorical one. The most aggressive plans are 10 years out, just for new cars, and only in some states.

With a cleaner grid and more of the EV downsides addressed, I don't think peoples' ability to travel by car will be impinged, much if at all. It'll look a little different though. More convenient in some ways, probably less convenient in others. Probably cheaper and easier in the long run, but there will be some growing pains and anxiety.

you pretty much nailed it, it is purely political, as long as you look at it with logic, you will never understand. it contradicts it.

It's not purely political. Certainly not for me. But everyone seems to be working with their own preferred facts from their own preferred sources.

Your right to travel is not impinged. There are ships, trains, busses and Craigslist rideshare. It is more convenient to drive but not mandatory. Truly not a right, but sometimes a necessity. Your speculation is based on fear.

I'd agree that nobody's right to travel is currently impinged. The concern for many is that EV mandates will amount to a significant impediment on people's freedom to travel. I think it's a valid concern. And no...Ships, trains busses and ride shares are not an acceptable concession. Nor should they be.

In my opinion those concerns are born of the assumption that society will simultaneously not improve upon the shortcomings and will double down on the mandates. That doesn't sound realistic to me. We are and will continue to mitigate the issues such as EV battery cost, access to charging, range, etc. In ten years, the trip to Portland you reference will look even more like a ICE road trip. In 20 years, near identical.

To repeat, travel by car will likely become more convenient in some ways, probably less convenient in others. Probably cheaper and easier in the long run, but there will be some growing pains. But significantly infringing on peoples freedom of travel by car? Nah. I don't think we'll see that.

How easily you're triggered to reply sans anything more substantial than a non-issue joke. 😁 Everyone reading my post understands it's a joke .... everyone but you.

My point? No hill is too small that you don't feel a need to climb and plant your flag of victory. Life is too short. Lighten up, Sport.

Dude! It's not a joke. It's an attitude. We now have the means. Doing the right thing will be more and more affordable. I understand the fear. Conquer it. Use logic not strained through politics and you will get the right answer, that is the best compromise.

@mrfixitman, I find myself agreeing with the the substance of much of what you say, but you really gotta work on your delivery. Are you trying to convince people of something, or just convince yourself that you're right? If convinced the world is going to play out more aligned with your vision than your detractors, perhaps that can inspire some patience. Hubris is corrosive. It's why you have detractors in the first place.

if mandates are so great how about making it a crime to charge an EV with power not 100% generated by wind and solar?

and how about mandating that all of those states and cities generate all of their electricity with wind and solar by 2035 and leave the rest of us alone?

I mean, as of right now, that's pretty much what's going on, though much less aggressive. There's no federal mandate, and the EPA's federal power is being curtailed by the courts. Some states have have a no-new ICE sales by 2035 plan. California is trying to go 100% zero emissions grid by 2045 (not 2035).

 

[Monocrom]

Bit surprised that the environmental advocates in this thread have not declared that air-conditioning and babies breathing is as bad for the environment as the pollution from ICE vehicles. (Actually no, I'm not joking. I attended a very liberal college back in the day. Our lunatic liberal professors saw nothing wrong with presenting classes that discussed how both should be banned/heavily regulated and restricted.)

Oh, this was back in the day when Climate Change was still Global Warming, but after it was the 2nd Ice-Age movement. Explore the history of the movement, and the scam element reveals itself faster than an "Entertainer" showing a room full of men a very interesting way to polish a chrome pole.

Does the Earth naturally go through cycles of heat and cold. Yes. Does that have anything to do with human-beings? Nope! But since the scam is based on this actual science, people still buy into it.

 

[xxo]

I mean, as of right now, that's pretty much what's going on, though much less aggressive. There's no federal mandate, and the EPA's federal power is being curtailed by the courts. Some states have have a no-new ICE sales by 2035 plan. California is trying to go 100% zero emissions grid by 2045 (not 2035).

Sorry "pretty much what's going on" doesn't cut it – only a tiny percentage of the energy in our grid is generated by wind and solar. If these states/cities/individuals want to force us to do these things with all these mandates they should lead by example and live under their own rules before they force them on the rest of us.

While we are at it, since EV owners save so much money we should make them pay back all of the subsidies, along with all of the money that they didn't pay to maintain the roads, all of the money needed to expand the capacity of the grid, for all of the charging stations and for all of these windmills and solar panels.

 

[xxo]

Bit surprised that the environmental advocates in this thread have not declared that air-conditioning and babies breathing is as bad for the environment as the pollution from ICE vehicles. (Actually no, I'm not joking. I attended a very liberal college back in the day. Our lunatic liberal professors saw nothing wrong with presenting classes that discussed how both should be banned/heavily regulated and restricted.)

Oh, this was back in the day when Climate Change was still Global Warming, but after it was the 2nd Ice-Age movement. Explore the history of the movement, and the scam element reveals itself faster than an "Entertainer" showing a room full of men a very interesting way to polish a chrome pole.

Does the Earth naturally go through cycles of heat and cold. Yes. Does that have anything to do with human-beings? Nope! But since the scam is based on this actual science, people still buy into it.

it's not just ICE vehicles, it's meat, guns, light bulbs, toilets and just about anything else they think of to ban. And oh yeah, they want to kill off 6 billion people and make the rest of us eat bugs:

 

[Monocrom]

Remember when lunatics used to be placed in mental asylums, where they belonged? Tolerance isn't always a good thing.

 

[sim1tti]

Sorry "pretty much what's going on" doesn't cut it – only a tiny percentage of the energy in our grid is generated by wind and solar. If these states/cities/individuals want to force us to do these things with all these mandates they should lead by example and live under their own rules before they force them on the rest of us.

Again, that's pretty much what's going on. Almost exactly. Weather it cuts it or not doesn't change that fact that Ca is in fact leading by example. I've posted this 11 part series before, but part 1 does a good job of running through the plan and challenge. It's fair coverage.

Edit: removed half of quote, added link

 

[mrfixitman]

What is obvious is the controlled fire inside an ICE engine, which sometimes causes the car to burn and emits poison into the air we breath. What GM should do is switch to LFP and dump LG Chem batteries. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/12/lg-...billion-to-gm-over-bolt-ev-battery-fires.html