why so much hate towards electric cars?

bykfixer

Flashaholic
CPF Supporter
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
16,776
Location
My own little Idaho
So if I type in the words "how come president carter chose not to thank Mother Tersa at a gathering?" is that a political statement?

Once upon a time the gubment space program made a lot of stuff we take for granted more affordable including flashlights. Example would be when NASA hired a budding company called Streamlite (yup that Streamlight) to provide a portable light that could mimic the sun. It began as a light that could put out 5 million candle power that soon after a similar version was available to the public. The result was eventually the SL20 flashlight. Or how about "zip lock" bags? The "camel back" water container, and a bunch of other stuff. So yeah the gubment involvement can result in good things happening. The problem ends up those with money long as train smoke who contribute to the right causes end up somehow receiving the gubment contracts and/or laws-regulations favorable to their companies.

The story with Streamlite, who were once housed in New Jersey, later Pennsilvania and called Streamlight now built a consumer version of the NASA light that could be carried like a 6 volt lantern that provided 1 million candle power when powered by a near car sized battery via shoulder strap. The light was a mere $99 in 1973 but the battery was $399. Search and rescue workers, boaters and the like benefitted by the tremendous throw they provided. Through inovation and market forces the SL20 was eventually one of the offspring.
 
Last edited:

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
6,624
Location
Flushing, NY
Interesting article on the long history of California trying to get rid of gas cars:


It initially began all the way back in 1969 as an effort to combat smog. Climate change wasn't even on the radar back then. Some of the relevant excerpts:

All the way back in 1969, the California legislature came within one vote of phasing out the internal combustion engine. Even then, nearly enough legislators were convinced that the gasoline-powered engine could never be sufficiently clean. A generation later, in 1990, CARB tried again to mandate a shift to electric vehicles (EVs) in place of oil-dependent gasoline and diesel — this time with new concerns about climate change as a driving force. On that occasion the oil and auto industries dug in their heels — while making seemingly insincere efforts to produce a few thousand electric cars — and then managed to roll back the entire EV mandate as a failure. The cars that had actually been built were almost all scrapped, leaving behind, as this effort's principal legacy, the powerful but plaintive 2006 documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" narrated by Martin Sheen.

[snip]

By 2020 the average California car emitted only 1% as much pollution as its 1970 predecessor. To accomplish this, CARB and environmental supporters in the Congress fought battle after battle with the oil and auto industries. California regulators gained and fought to retain — and then, under Donald Trump, briefly lost — the right to set tougher standards than those mandated by the federal government. That waiver was just restored by the Biden administration, and over the years 17 other states have choses to adopt California's cleaner car standards rather than EPA's less stringent ones. California's privilege is once again under attack, this time through a court challenge by a group of Republican state attorneys general.

Even with that undeniable progress, the state's booming population and the increasing number of miles they drive in ever-larger and more powerful vehicles means that the five most heavily polluted counties in the U.S. are in California, including Los Angeles County, with its population of roughly 10 million people and 8 million cars. Although other factors contribute to pollution, the biggest is still motor vehicles.

In other words, for the last 50 years California has tried to do the impossible — solve its smog problem and address climate change by cleaning up gasoline-powered vehicles. The plain fact is that internal combustion engines are simply incompatible with healthy air, and we also now understand they pose the greatest remaining threat to a livable climate.

[snip]

This time around, the auto industry's attitude is strikingly different. Automakers have seen the writing on the wall for some time, and many are ready or even eager to embrace a clean vehicle future. Most major manufacturers are well down the road to phasing out gasoline and diesel vehicles, globally as well as in the United States. Ford has announced that 40% of its global sales will be EVs by 2030, and GM says it already planned to phase out internal combustion engines by 2035, the same timetable as California regulations envisage. Volkswagen, the world's second-largest carmaker after Toyota, plans to stop selling gasoline cars in Europe in 2033. Audi, VW's luxury-car subsidiary, recently announced it will stop designing new gasoline or diesel engines in the 2026 model year.

[snip]

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation notes that a successful transition away from gasoline will depend on a series of external factors, including "charging and fuel infrastructure, supply chains, labor, [and] critical mineral availability." CARB's job is not over with this historic announcement, and the larger job of federal, state and local governments is just beginning.
 

bykfixer

Flashaholic
CPF Supporter
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
16,776
Location
My own little Idaho
If I were to type; a comparison of Carter vs Biden, then Biden admin wins hands down for partisanship.
Now, that's a political statement!
I think politics has surpassed baseball and football combined as the national pastime in America. Perpetual elections, huge money donations and an ever decreasing honor from politicians in general, all play a role regardless right, left, up, down, in between.... you just cannot escape it in America anymore. Yet part of that is nothing new since the American constitution was written to have it take place since day one. It's just that modern technology has developed much faster ways of communications. So instead of ranker in the local pub or at the pulpit it, it carpet bombs us from the tv, the radio, social media and for those that still read them, the newspaper.

I'm a recovered political junky. For years I did everything I could for "my side" until the day I realized my side was just as bad as that other side. I like those big pharma pill ads on both sides of the political spectrum on national tv channels. Dandruff affects both the left and the right. To me that's what should be the focus. Screw the politicians. They've got theirs so leave me be to get mine. And when an electrical car becomes more practical for me, I'll buy one. But right now the country is nowhere near read ready to be weened off of fossil fuels unless we're ok with living like they did back in Thomas Jeffersons time. I seriously doubt all of those imposing the rules would be ok if they were forced to live that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: F89

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
6,624
Location
Flushing, NY
What I'm tired of is when there are certain things that are of common interest but if one side proposes it, the other will vote against it just because they proposed it. Both major parties are guilty of this nonsense. I really think we should ban political parties. Vote for the person, not the party. People will actually have to spend a little time learning what each person running for office is about. When I started getting more into politics, I was actually shocked to learn much of the country votes by straight party line. I've always voted for the person. Sometimes they have a D next to their name, other times an R. Doesn't matter to me.

What do I think is most important right now? Infrastructure. Without it nothing else works. The grid, roads, railroads, water/sewer systems are all falling apart. We underinvest in things like public transit even in places where it's viable and people use it. I half-seriously tell people the US is the world's richest third world country because it's not far from the truth. I don't even want to get into the state of education or health care because it's too depressing. Until the partisanship ends, nothing is ever going to get done.
 

Hooked on Fenix

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
2,835
I'll just add that the government's role should probably mostly be funding R&D to make new technology better. It did that with LEDs. I'd say that slashed a decade from when LEDs otherwise would have largely taken over. If it wants to fund battery R&D, that's fine also. We use batteries in lots of stuff besides electric cars. The big problem I see with government funding is when those with connections get money for technology they know just isn't going to work. Hydrogen cars are a perfect example. The last nail would have been in their coffin years ago if not for the fact fossil fuel companies want them (but seemingly nobody else does).
You're completely wrong on what the government did for l.e.d.s. They may have spent some money on R&D, but most of what they did was phase out the competition so you had no other options and then subsidize the cost of the l.e.d.s with taxpayer money to make them seem more affordable to the masses. When you tip the scales on competition in favor of one party, you're picking winners and losers. At the time, l.e.d.s were not the most efficient bulb. T8 and T5 fluorescent were. For compact bulbs, they required GU-24 bulb light sockets so better quality fluorescent bulbs and screw in l.e.d. bulbs could not be used. This was not to improve efficiency. This was so companies like GE who lobbied California for these laws could hold a monopoly on future sales of all lightbulbs. It didn't work. It was common practice that after a house passed final inspection, the homeowner would pay to have all the just installed GU-24 light fixtures replaced with standard screw in socket light fixtures.

Now the problem with the government doing the same thing for electric cars and battery technology is that almost all of the raw materials are controlled by China and the computer chips are in Hong Kong, which China is trying to control. If you eliminate the competition providing more traditional car options (U.S. companies) and subsidize electric cars and battery technologies (which China controls), you effectively weaken the U.S. and strengthen China. Until this issue can be dealt with, there is no point of further going down this road.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
6,624
Location
Flushing, NY
The phaseouts started when LED was far enough along that it was clear it was going to better fluorescent efficiencies. Lest you forget, mercury was a big reason for phasing out fluorescents also. The GU-24 thing was just in CA. None of the other states went down that route. I thought it was stupid also. Nowadays though we have so many great stand-alone LED fixtures that I think builders should just put in the wiring for lighting, then the homebuyers can buy whatever they want.

As for electric cars, we're not wedded to China for raw materials forever. LFP batteries remove most of the nasty to mine stuff from batteries, save the lithium. However, the US can exploit its own reserves of lithium in the long run, or better yet we can start moving to battery technologies like sodium-ion, or iron-air.

I'm fine with government setting goals or standards, as long as they're technologically neutral so they don't pick winners and losers. You can mandate zero-emission vehicles, for example, with no preference for any given technology. If someone wants to build a gas car with a bag to capture all the emissions, that would be fine. Let the market determine the winners and losers. Same with decarbonizing the grid. While solar and wind are good, it seems to me like we've mostly ignored geothermal and wave power for political reasons. Closer to my heart, we've also marginalized bikes and e-bikes. This isn't because they wouldn't work for a lot of trips. It's because they're cheap to own/operate. Big corporations can't make lots of money from them as they can from EVs. "Follow the money" is what I do when I see things which on the surface don't make sense.
 

Monocrom

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
16,849
Location
NYC
Interesting article on the long history of California trying to get rid of gas cars:


It initially began all the way back in 1969 as an effort to combat smog. Climate change wasn't even on the radar back then...
Bit O.T. but there's a specific reason for that. Right around that time, and well into the 1970s, Environmental groups were warning everyone of the soon-to-be coming of the 2nd Ice-Age. Printed books and pamphlets warning about it. Temps. back then were considerably colder than usual. But of course, that never took place. Many of the movement's leaders were silent during the 1980s. They returned in the 1990s, warning everyone of Global Warming. This time temps. were higher than usual. But then we had some of the coldest winters on record.

When Science and Mother Nature don't cooperate, what does one do? Re-evaluate their beliefs. Take a long scientific look at the problem to come up with a meaningful solution? Nope! Just change the vocabulary again, and call it Climate Change. Now it's all encompassing. This is why you still have folks who are looking more scientifically into the problem, rather than blaming it all on the upright, hairless apes.
 

bykfixer

Flashaholic
CPF Supporter
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
16,776
Location
My own little Idaho
My home still has several curly fry bulbs. Hit switch, light comes out year after year. Bulbs lasted a few months at best. As the curly fry bulbs fail LED bulbs replace them.
Tony Maglica stated his light bulb factory was all but forced to be halted due to California regs in 2016. They did not require him to close it but insinuated it would be in his best interest to stop production. It was well known he supported a political party opposite of the party insisting he close it. Coincidence? Agent Gibbs rule 9 was "there is no such thing as coincidence" lol.

Now, way back in a time when 3 auto makers dominated the American market a guy named Tucker built cars in 1948 with features the gubment eventually required the current automakers to have. Ever seen a Tucker car? Probably not. Now the Tucker manufacturing facility was doomed to fail for various reasons but the big 3 and some gubment folks made sure the remaining embers of an idea were extinguished by 1950.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
6,624
Location
Flushing, NY
Bit O.T. but there's a specific reason for that. Right around that time, and well into the 1970s, Environmental groups were warning everyone of the soon-to-be coming of the 2nd Ice-Age. Printed books and pamphlets warning about it. Temps. back then were considerably colder than usual. But of course, that never took place. Many of the movement's leaders were silent during the 1980s. They returned in the 1990s, warning everyone of Global Warming. This time temps. were higher than usual. But then we had some of the coldest winters on record.

When Science and Mother Nature don't cooperate, what does one do? Re-evaluate their beliefs. Take a long scientific look at the problem to come up with a meaningful solution? Nope! Just change the vocabulary again, and call it Climate Change. Now it's all encompassing. This is why you still have folks who are looking more scientifically into the problem, rather than blaming it all on the upright, hairless apes.
The biggest mistake the left made was choosing climate change as the primary reason to get off fossil fuels. There are so many other great reasons, starting with air pollution, to do so. You know what got me into this? 9/11. A neighbor's son I had known for 22 years died in 9/11. I started connecting the dots. 9/11 happened because we stuck our two cents in a part of the world we had no business being in. Why were we there? To keep the crude oil flowing. After 9/11 we spent $6 trillion plus on wars for mostly the same reason. Now we have the situation in Europe where a dictator can control energy supplies in order to get his way. On top of that, every time fuel prices rise it plays havoc with the economy. So why are we continuing down this path? There will be lots of immediate positive effects getting off fossil fuels, along with longer term ones (a gradual decrease in cancer rates, reversal of the warming trend).
 
Last edited:

bykfixer

Flashaholic
CPF Supporter
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
16,776
Location
My own little Idaho
That thing about being in Iraq because of oil was a common way of drumming up aingst against the war. The higher ups in Al Quida (but not the leader) were vacationing in Iraq and the Iraqi leader was still in the cross hairs of political leaders in America from their invasion of Kuwait. Now that one was indeed largely about oil.

That and all that money spent meant military budgets could explode. Generals and Majors needed a war, political leaders had Al Quida to call the enemy and here we go.... it was a popular war at first. Afghanistan was a bust because in the 80's we had helped obliderate the place in secret to help them get rid of Soviet Russia, but then hauled butt without helping clean up the mess. Isreal played a large role in brokering the arms that were used to do it. Soon after that every radical on planet earth had an audience of millions 14 year old boys across Afghanistan who were easily persuaded that the West and Isreal had to go. Charlie Wilsons war at the end depicts the future and what eventually led to 911.

There's a lot of truth to the movie Wag the Dog and how a populice can easily be persuaded. The movie V for Vendetta depicts how easily a populice can be lured into compliance via free stuff and a comfy huvel to live in.

Climate change has a whole generation thinking the end is near. Well we were taught when I was a kid the Ruskys were going to launch nukes and we believed it. So again three generations later a populice is willing to accept what the gubment says is true and we put up with it because it's the path of least resistance. In the 70's fuel was an issue, we vowed to do better. Gas got cheap again and there went that. We gladly paid more for no lead gas because it did not have lead. Lead wasn't in the crude oil that gasoline came from. Nope, it was added. So when we paid more for no lead gas it showed the powers that be "society is stupid, we can pretty much do what we want if we just make it sound appealing".

And here we are.

Are we wreaking havoc to planet earth? No doubt about it, yes we are. If I recall correctly it was the 1980's when there was a hole in the ozone layer and we were all going to fry soon so developed countries stopped putting certain chemicals in products and that was the end of that. Studies showed the soot from diesel fuel helped alter rain patterns at one point. The population with athsma has exploded like and atomic bomb. Yet during my lifetime dirty air could leave America, travel around the globe and come back clean. These days the air returning is dirtier than the air that left due to developing nations who have favored status by world leaders so they don't have to play by the same rules.
 
Last edited:

KITROBASKIN

Flashlight Enthusiast
CPF Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
4,097
Location
New Mexico, USA
Some curious, some creative history lessons here. Hate towards electric cars is related to ... oh well, best stop here on the CPF surface.
 

WDR65

Enlightened
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
799
Location
Southeastern, NC
I don’t hate them but I locally I don’t think our grid can handle the charging draw if everyone had one. I also don’t think the technology is mature enough and battery wise may not be for a long time. They’re perfect for urban areas with short commutes but in rural areas I don’t see them being practical as they are currently.
 

Monocrom

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
16,849
Location
NYC
The biggest mistake the left made was choosing climate change as the primary reason to get off fossil fuels. There are so many other great reasons, starting with air pollution, to do so. You know what got me into this? 9/11. A neighbor's son I had known for 22 years died in 9/11. I started connecting the dots. 9/11 happened because we stuck our two cents in a part of the world we had no business being in. Why were we there? To keep the crude oil flowing. After 9/11 we spent $6 trillion plus on wars for mostly the same reason. Now we have the situation in Europe where a dictator can control energy supplies in order to get his way. On top of that, every time fuel prices rise it plays havoc with the economy. So why are we continuing down this path? There will be lots of immediate positive effects getting off fossil fuels, along with longer term ones (a gradual decrease in cancer rates, reversal of the warming trend).
Sad and ironic which day I'm posting this comment....

I agree that fossil fuels are an issue. Mainly that we will one day, perhaps sooner than most realize, run out. We definitely need alternative fuel options. I'm just not sure if EVs are the best answer. Certainly, they're not ready now; nor in the very near future to make gasoline powered vehicles obsolete for the masses. With a big issue being if the Grid could handle the masses transitioning nearly all at once to EVs. Honestly, I doubt it.

As far as 9/11 goes.... my outlook is this.... Freedom Fighters target military personnel and leaders. They don't target civilians. That's what Terrorists do. If those men wanted to make a difference that really mattered, they would have taken on one of our military installations in the Middle East. But they were too cowardly for that. So, they targeted civilians who literally did nothing to them. Also, as you pointed out, whoever controls oil, pretty much controls the world. Better America control the Lion's share of it. Otherwise you get some power-mad dictator who decides to wage war on whomever he chooses because he has the Lion's share.
 

Hooked on Fenix

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
2,835
I don’t hate electric cars either. Someday I’d love to own one once they develop decent range, battery life, get faster charge times, and eliminate the safety issues. It would be nice to be able to live off grid with a solar system that could run the house and the car so I don’t have any bills to pay and still have modern conveniences.That said, they aren’t there yet, and the grid isn’t ready to handle the load. I think it’s absolutely moronic for California to try to ban gas powered cars right now to lower greenhouse gasses. If they were really serious about that problem, they’d be addressing forest management to prevent wildfires. Wildfires produce way more carbon dioxide than cars in California and they let the problem get worse every year. When we get fires, or high winds that can spread a fire, the electric company shuts our power off. You can’t charge an electric car to evacuate with no power. Right now in California to those of us that survived the major fires, having an electric car means you die if there’s a fire and can’t evacuate. The difference in time between charging an electric car (hours) and filling up a tank of gas (minutes) can be the difference between life and death in a disaster. Want more people to buy electric cars? Start with fast charging. People don’t like to pay extra money for a product that is less convenient than what they already have.
 

aznsx

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Messages
637
Location
Phoenix, AZ USA
I don’t hate electric cars either. Someday I’d love to own one once they develop decent range, battery life, get faster charge times, and eliminate the safety issues. It would be nice to be able to live off grid with a solar system that could run the house and the car so I don’t have any bills to pay and still have modern conveniences.That said, they aren’t there yet, and the grid isn’t ready to handle the load. I think it’s absolutely moronic for California to try to ban gas powered cars right now to lower greenhouse gasses. If they were really serious about that problem, they’d be addressing forest management to prevent wildfires. Wildfires produce way more carbon dioxide than cars in California and they let the problem get worse every year. When we get fires, or high winds that can spread a fire, the electric company shuts our power off. You can’t charge an electric car to evacuate with no power. Right now in California to those of us that survived the major fires, having an electric car means you die if there’s a fire and can’t evacuate. The difference in time between charging an electric car (hours) and filling up a tank of gas (minutes) can be the difference between life and death in a disaster. Want more people to buy electric cars? Start with fast charging. People don’t like to pay extra money for a product that is less convenient than what they already have.
I don’t hate electric cars either. Someday I’d love to own one once they develop decent range, battery life, get faster charge times, and eliminate the safety issues. It would be nice to be able to live off grid with a solar system that could run the house and the car so I don’t have any bills to pay and still have modern conveniences.That said, they aren’t there yet, and the grid isn’t ready to handle the load. I think it’s absolutely moronic for California to try to ban gas powered cars right now to lower greenhouse gasses. If they were really serious about that problem, they’d be addressing forest management to prevent wildfires. Wildfires produce way more carbon dioxide than cars in California and they let the problem get worse every year. When we get fires, or high winds that can spread a fire, the electric company shuts our power off. You can’t charge an electric car to evacuate with no power. Right now in California to those of us that survived the major fires, having an electric car means you die if there’s a fire and can’t evacuate. The difference in time between charging an electric car (hours) and filling up a tank of gas (minutes) can be the difference between life and death in a disaster. Want more people to buy electric cars? Start with fast charging. People don’t like to pay extra money for a product that is less convenient than what they already have.
I'm just not sure if EVs are the best answer.

I'm fairly certain just based on the fundamentals that ultimately they are, although I do not want one and could not use one now if I wanted to, and neither of those things will change soon. Ultimately, electric power is fundamentally the most usable form of energy I know of, and can be produced by the widest range of practical means, so it will eventually prevail in transportation. The question is not 'what', but 'when'. IMO, it ain't now although I realize it must start sometime, and for some, that may be now - just not in my case. EDIT: Sorry 'bout messing up this post. I don't know how I caused it, or how to fix it. Sorry HOF - I wasn't even trying to quote your post - although your last line is a indeed a 'winner', and quotable.
 
Last edited:
Top