why so much hate towards electric cars?

Status
Not open for further replies.

bykfixer

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
20,569
Location
Dust in the Wind
I had a yellow t-shirt in high school that said "save the whale" on the front. One day a particularly good at drawing guy asked "can I draw on the back of that?" Feeling honored I said "soit-enly".
With a permanent marker he wrote "harpoon the fat chicks" on the back. 🤟
My mom did not see the humor and one day it just disappeared.
 

KITROBASKIN

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
5,493
Location
New Mexico, USA
Name calling makes candlepowerforums look like so many other social cesspits. Try to me more artful with your sniping.

Clearly members have not read this thread before posting the same stuff.

So glad the video was deleted without seeing it.

I like my electric bike and look forward to getting a practical, price competitive electric vehicle. Hopefully others will not be forced to stop using low emissions gasoline machines.
 

PhotonMaster3

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Aug 9, 2020
Messages
103
Electric trains don't run out of power in 300 miles, and do not require lengthy downtime for recharging. They are operated 24 / 7.

So you think the government is smarter than the people? You think Biden and Kamala are superior thinkers? You have a very low standard of government you want to be led by. I'll give you that.

This country was built on capitalism. The list of countries is all but endless that have failed under socialism. There is no, "third way". You can't be, "a little bit pregnant".

They are. They do nothing better than gas cars, and take longer to do it. And in many rural areas, they simply CAN'T do it.

The air is fine where I live. And is cleaner than it's ever been since the Industrial Revolution. Perhaps you require some other health problems to be addressed. Besides, how is the air going to be any better with a nation full of electric cars?

Most all of which get their power from electricity that is generated by fossil fuel plants? Nuclear and hydro make up a very small percentage of our present power requirements. That's a fact.

And the same people who are screaming for EV's, also scream how much they HATE nuclear power. And how hydro destroys ecosystems. If you require proof of that statement, just look at what Germany is presently doing to itself...... Or California under that idiot Newsom.



If you think EV's are going to solve any of that, you're dreaming. Look at what's involved in the mining of Lithium, along with heavy metals for the production of electric motors and batteries used in EV's. You're only trading one problem for another. And solving nothing in the process.

Most of the country lives where there is no public transportation. And it's not economically viable to build it. Hell, we can't even improve our power grid enough to take the current load on it. Let alone to supply power and charging stations to a nation full of EV's. You're dreaming again.


Electrify automobiles and you limit where people can go, along with increasing the time it will take for them to get there. Not to mention you'll create another bigger set of issues and problems that don't exist now. No one wants that. And it's a big part of the reason why EV's are barely more than 1% of the cars on the road today.

As I said in my above post. If EV's were so wonderful, you would have A LOT MORE of them on the road, over the last 190 years they've been around. You don't because the bulk of the population doesn't want them. People want and buy what works for them. Not what a government comprised of idiots thinks they should have.

VHS tape recorders, incandescent light bulbs, and cassette tapes are obsolete. Because other inventions were developed in the private sector that were BETTER options that replaced them. The market immediately went to them because they're an improvement.

And over the last 190 years that has NOT happened with electric vehicles.
And they'll be no more popular in the next century, than they are now. And that is because they do nothing better, and most everything else worse. People like to move forward in society.... Not backward. Which is where EV's are going. They place limits on distance and travel time that ICE vehicles do not.

They are nothing more than an outdated idea, that is being pushed by a government that is currently led by a crop of progressive, communist idiots. Who are continuing to push a stupid ideology that works no better today, than it did a hundred years ago....

Just like the socialism / communism they so desperately want. In short, they're a bunch of slow learners. As are you and others if you support that type of stupid, failed ideology.
Totally agree, my friend. The subtle point here is that I'm allowed to do and think what I want in what I think is the greatest country that ever existed as long as I don't directly harm or take away the rights someone else. If someone wants to call a politician a clown, they can. Try doing that in China.

I do think electric cars are cool toys. If I had 4 cars and millions of dollars, sure I'd probably get a Model S Plaid because it's made in USA and would sure be fun to drive recreationally.

But on second though, give me a new beautiful gas burning corvette and a giant SUV. I promise not to run anyone over who's cruising in their Prius
 

KITROBASKIN

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
5,493
Location
New Mexico, USA
Going off half cocked name calling is bound to offend somebody when in public, and if a person doesn't give a squirrel spit about those who think differently, then technically they are not welcome on candlepowerforums. If reported by other members, the written angry frustrations will be addressed.

"Posts that contain racist, sexist, flaming, NSFW, or derogatory content will be removed without warning."


We were known for being fairly polite here, unlike other urine soaked, online shoutzones.
 
Last edited:

bridgman

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Messages
425
Location
Bowmanville, Ontario Canada
But when do you need 1000 miles of range? When do you drive 1000 miles per day? Current 800V based cars have enough with a 10-20min charge at a fast charger (150+ kW). Many fast chargers in Europe already have a max of 350kW. 1000 miles is fun, but it's also extra weight you're carrying with you.
I don't need 1000 miles of range, but I do drive around northern Ontario quite a bit in winter and usually carry a couple of 5 gallon gas cans in addition to the ~400 mile range of the main gas tank. It only takes one gas station to be malfunctioning (eg a power outage) or closed to wreak havoc on your plans, and if there is no motel in range then it could be worse.

I think it's fair to say that nobody actually hates electric cars but a lot of people (including me) hate having them forced down our throats. I am OK up to a point with government subsidizing or otherwise investing in helping transitions to happen predictably but (as an example) if our current government had their way we would be half way through transitioning to a failed hydrogen economy by now.

I see electric vehicles as being a great option for large percentage of vehicle trips (almost anything in and around a city), and a decent "second vehicle" for people living out in the sticks like me, but trying to make them the only option available seems like a really bad idea, particularly in a country like Canada.

It's probably fair to say that we (USA and Canada) over-did the promotion of ethanol and that experience is contributing to some of the mistrust associated with EVs since it's the same people telling us what to do all over again. We had an acceptable model up here for getting ethanol production ramped up (minimum average percentage of ethanol but no requirement for all pump gas to include it) but now our government is taking that too far as well.

Now that we have ethanol production ramped up and government support in place for it, let's start doing ethanol right and start making E100 vehicles that can run efficiently on ethanol. If the government wants to help, have them spend our money on making sure that both charging stations and ethanol pumps are reliably available everywhere (eg northern Ontario and similarly sparse areas in the US) and let the market worry about getting enough chargers/pumps into places where there is high demand.

If ethanol is the end game (or at least part of it) then let's take it to its logical conclusion, where vehicles run on fully renewable fuel and you can get booze** at the gas station. Otherwise, give up on it or at least don't push things any further than they are and stop forcing me to use ethanol gas in my small engines or drive a hundred miles to buy E0.

Going back to hating electric cars, I think veganism is a good analogy. Nobody hates veganism or vegans in principle, but some of the people promoting it are very annoying (hands up everyone who has been attacked for their food choices) and they give it a bad name.

** Oddly enough there seems to be zero discussion about the consequences of people drinking E100 from a gas pump :unsure:
 
Last edited:

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,505
Location
Flushing, NY
That will never happen, and you know it. Again, (and you seem to be having tremendous difficulty understanding this), there are only 1% of cars currently on the road that are EV's. The reason for this is because people do not want them, because they will not work for them.
You keep reiterating the same talking point and acting like you're such a genius. "Hey, EVs have been available for sale for nearly two centuries but they're still only a tiny fraction of the vehicles on the road." Sounds good until you realize that's 100% wrong. Where were these mass produced EVs? The only time until fairly recently that EVs were kind of, sort of mass produced was early in the 20th century. And they might have been the only type of vehicle produced if we electrified the roads via embedded conductors instead of trying to store the energy in a battery. That's why electrification worked for railways.

The next real attempt to mass market EVs after that was GM's EV1 in the early 1990s. Lots of things killed that program, even though for many drivers the fairly low range of the EV1 was more than adequate. After that it took Tesla to show there was a market for EVs. Musk founded Tesla in 2003, started producing the Roadster in 2008. However, the Roadster was mostly an expensive rich person's toy, not a mass market EV. It took until 2012 before Tesla started selling the Model S, which was arguably its first attempt at an EV for the masses.

Once Musk showed there was a market for EVs, it took a while for other manufacturers to jump on the bandwagon. It's really been less than 5 years since a good variety of EVs were readily available. Frankly, it's amazing we're at 1% already given that.

Maybe you should read this:


The most relevant parts of the article:

Look at the internet.

By my reckoning, the EV market is about where the internet was around the late 1990s or early 2000s.

Back then, there was a big buzz about this new thing with computers talking to each other.
Jeff Bezos had set up Amazon, and Google was beginning to take over from the likes of Altavista, Ask Jeeves and Yahoo. Some of the companies involved had racked up eye-popping valuations.

The EV market now is in a similar place to the internet in the early 2000s, says Justin

For those who hadn't yet logged on it all seemed exciting and interesting but irrelevant - how useful could communicating by computer be? After all, we've got phones!

But the internet, like all successful new technologies, did not follow a linear path to world domination. It didn't gradually evolve, giving us all time to plan ahead.

Its growth was explosive and disruptive, crushing existing businesses and changing the way we do almost everything. And it followed a familiar pattern, known to technologists as an S-curve.


And you cannot have the government ram them down the consumers throat with forced mandates, and ending the production of ICE vehicles with time limits. Much like California wants to do. That will accomplish nothing.
Despite what you think, there are no mandates. There are incentives (i.e. subsidies). These can be phased out once EVs reach price parity with gas cars, which is happening in a matter of months.

Most car makers decided to no longer produce ICEs after a certain date. These are businesses which exist to make a profit. Don't you think if they still saw a long-term market for ICEs they would continue producing them? The fact they don't speaks volumes.
Or by printing money to make them part of the Federal fleet. That accomplishes nothing more than "feel good" tactics that don't prove a damn thing. How my letter carrier delivers my mail has nothing to do with how much diesel it takes to move produce across this nation in 2 days.
Yeah, it accomplishes a lot. Those old gas-powered mail vans get something like 8.5 mpg. When you're running lots of them in dense areas it creates health and quality of life issues. In fact, running any type of ICE vehicle in these places does that. I love how you hand wave this away like it's not a problem. The EVs the USPS is buying will also save on operating costs long-term.

As for getting produce across the nation in 2 days, the freight railroads which do that can be electrified more easily than just about any other mode. Why haven't we done it yet, even though long-term electrication would increase profits? Because of current short-term thinking. No railroad CEO wants to have a temporary loss on the books from electrification on their tenure. That's one of the failings of capitalism. We're now obsessed with short-term profits to the extent that we'll sacrifice long-term viability by gutting things like R&D or capital investments like electrification.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,505
Location
Flushing, NY
I don't need 1000 miles of range, but I do drive around northern Ontario quite a bit in winter and usually carry a couple of 5 gallon gas cans in addition to the ~400 mile range of the main gas tank. It only takes one gas station to be malfunctioning (eg a power outage) or closed to wreak havoc on your plans, and if there is no motel in range then it could be worse.
The nice thing about EVs is you can "refuel" literally anywhere you have an outlet, which is nearly everywhere. No need to find gas stations as with ICE vehicles. Granted, recharging from a regular outlet is a lot slower than from a charging station, but we're talking about something you only might need to do in a dire emergency once in a blue moon.
I think it's fair to say that nobody actually hates electric cars but a lot of people (including me) hate having them forced down our throats. I am OK up to a point with government subsidizing or otherwise investing in helping transitions to happen predictably but (as an example) if our current government had their way we would be half way through transitioning to a failed hydrogen economy by now.
The hydrogen economy was/is destined to failure from day one. The laws of physics are against it. Hydrogen isn't a fuel in the sense that you mine it from the ground like oil or coal. It has to be manufactured, at great expense in energy. You only get back in a fuel cell maybe 1/3 of the energy you use making hydrogen. In essence it's a very inefficient battery. The only reason the hype has lasted this long is because big oil sees hydrogen as a way to continue its monopoly on motor fuels. Hydrogen at best would be equivalent to $5 per gallon gasoline. The general public has no interest in a $5 per gallon gasoline equivalent. Hydrogen has niche uses like grid storage. It may even have transportation uses power ships, or perhaps planes, but for ground vehicles it makes zero sense.
I see electric vehicles as being a great option for large percentage of vehicle trips (almost anything in and around a city), and a decent "second vehicle" for people living out in the sticks like me, but trying to make them the only option available seems like a really bad idea, particularly in a country like Canada.
Electric for short/medium trips, gas car for longer trips is a perfectly viable model for now. As EV range increases, it will make less and less sense to own a gas car for those longer trips.
It's probably fair to say that we (USA and Canada) over-did the promotion of ethanol and that experience is contributing to some of the mistrust associated with EVs since it's the same people telling us what to do all over again. We had an acceptable model up here for getting ethanol production ramped up (minimum average percentage of ethanol but no requirement for all pump gas to include it) but now our government is taking that too far as well.

Now that we have ethanol production ramped up and government support in place for it, let's start doing ethanol right and start making E100 vehicles that can run efficiently on ethanol. If the government wants to help, have them spend our money on making sure that both charging stations and ethanol pumps are reliably available everywhere (eg northern Ontario and similarly sparse areas in the US) and let the market worry about getting enough chargers/pumps into places where there is high demand.

If ethanol is the end game (or at least part of it) then let's take it to its logical conclusion, where vehicles run on fully renewable fuel and you can get booze** at the gas station. Otherwise, give up on it or at least don't push things any further than they are and stop forcing me to use ethanol gas in my small engines or drive a hundred miles to buy E0.
Ethanol is most likely another dead end like hydrogen. We're losing lots of farmland due to climate change. It makes more sense to use that land to grow food than to grow corn which is turned into ethanol.
Going back to hating electric cars, I think veganism is a good analogy. Nobody hates veganism or vegans in principle, but some of the people promoting it are very annoying (hands up everyone who has been attacked for their food choices) and they give it a bad name.
It's mainly a handful of very vocal people who are very annoying promoting a non-meat diet. Things might go a little better for them if they started promoting things like cultured meat. Unlike veggie burgers, it's real meat, only its grown in a lab. PETA should be happy since you're not killing a sentient being. The environmentalists should be happy since it's a lot more carbon neutral than raising livestock. It also uses far less land. You can easily culture meat in cities in vertical farms, saving the huge cost of shipping.

Of course, there are still some people who will get all bothered if a person has any meat in their diet, even cultured meat. These are a minority of a minority, however. I guess what I'm saying is the best solutions to lot of issues moving forward are to find ways to give people what they want which have less environmental impact than current methods, rather than trying to get them to give up things altogether. LEDs worked to get people to give up their incandescents because they didn't have to give up anything in terms of light quality or dimmability, whereas that wasn't the case with CFLs. New appliances do the same things as old ones, but use less energy.

What does this have to do with EVs? Frankly, the best solution if we're really concerned about human health and the planet would be to radically reduce car use and driving. That would be a hard sell given how most of the country is laid out. Long-term we should move in this direction, but even an optimistic view shows auto dependency lasting a least another generation, probably two. So short term the best answer is to minimize most of the negative effects of auto use by electrification. Medium term we can deal with the carnage car use causes with self-driving cars. These solutions don't require people to make the major changes in their lives that heavily restricting car use right now would. Same line of thought applies to other areas. Start finding better ways to do the things we want to do, as opposed to restricting those activities.
 
Last edited:

rwolfenstein

Enlightened
Joined
Mar 29, 2017
Messages
563
Let see this is going to be quite the list:

Electric cars are bad for the environment.

Real car people don't like electric cars because they aren't in standard transmissions and the engine noise is simulated.

Most electric cars are driven by pompous asshats who think they are better than everyone for driving one.

That is why people don't like electric cars.
 

PhotonMaster3

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Aug 9, 2020
Messages
103
I was only partly joking about the 1,000 mile range. As flashlight enthusiasts know better than muggles, there have been some pretty astonishing advances in battery technology over the last 20+ years. If electric cars ever do have 1,000 mile range and 5 minute charging times, I don't think you'd need to force people to buy them. Although in a lot of parts of the US the power grid is not very reliable. I live in the middle of a fairly large suburb and the power went out for several days because my idiot neighbor let their dead tree fall on the power lines. I'd have been unable to get to work without a regular gas car.
 

rwolfenstein

Enlightened
Joined
Mar 29, 2017
Messages
563
I was only partly joking about the 1,000 mile range. As flashlight enthusiasts know better than muggles, there have been some pretty astonishing advances in battery technology over the last 20+ years. If electric cars ever do have 1,000 mile range and 5 minute charging times, I don't think you'd need to force people to buy them. Although in a lot of parts of the US the power grid is not very reliable. I live in the middle of a fairly large suburb and the power went out for several days because my idiot neighbor let their dead tree fall on the power lines. I'd have been unable to get to work without a regular gas car.
I would rather invest in hydrogen, its a smarter option overall. If we aren't willing to invest in nuclear energy, our power grids will never handle the load and we will always continue to use fossil fuels to supplement. Don't get me wrong, invest in the tech to make it better. I don't think I will ever be sold on it though. Also you bring up a valid point, lots of people owning these appliances get range anxiety, which is why many truck makers are putting in range extending gas engines.
 

rwolfenstein

Enlightened
Joined
Mar 29, 2017
Messages
563
Hydrogen takes more energy to make than it produces. It's an even worse option than EV's for the masses. Because the infrastructure to support it is even more costly and difficult to put in place.
Still better than destroying countries with lithium mines and having many landfills full of used batteries we cant re-use.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,505
Location
Flushing, NY
Hydrogen takes more energy to make than it produces. It's an even worse option than EV's for the masses. Because the infrastructure to support it is even more costly and difficult to put in place.
Hey, I actually agree with you on something!
 

billt460

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Oct 27, 2022
Messages
38
Location
Lake Havasu City, Arizona
Still better than destroying countries with lithium mines and having many landfills full of used batteries we cant re-use.
It doesn't matter if it can't be made to work financially. Toyota has been trying desperately with their Miria program for several years now. And thus far it's been pretty much a disaster financially.

Even with subsidized fuel. Because the cars become all but worthless once the subsidies run out. Again, the fuel infrastructure is much too costly.
 

rwolfenstein

Enlightened
Joined
Mar 29, 2017
Messages
563
It doesn't matter if it can't be made to work financially. Toyota has been trying desperately with their Miria program for several years now. And thus far it's been pretty much a disaster financially.

Even with subsidized fuel. Because the cars become all but worthless once the subsidies run out. Again, the fuel infrastructure is much too costly.
It doesn't mean we should stop with alternative fuels. I am just saying that if we aren't willing to invest in nuclear, I don't really see a good alternative for sustainable energy. Who knows, maybe in a few years they will work out hydrogen systems. I remember reading an article that a Mazda CEO put out saying that the MX5 would never go electric because it wasn't the same experience as an internal combustion engine and the feeling of driving one was part of the selling point. Mazda brought back a newer version of a rotary engine thats more reliable than the previous iterations of the RX7. Eventually we will have sustainable fuel systems, I just don't currently see a reason to back this fascination in the electric car move.
 

billt460

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Oct 27, 2022
Messages
38
Location
Lake Havasu City, Arizona
I am just saying that if we aren't willing to invest in nuclear, I don't really see a good alternative for sustainable energy.
I don't think there is one. Certainly not hydrogen. And we have had hydrogen fuel cells since before the Gemini Program.
I just don't currently see a reason to back this fascination in the electric car move.
I don't either. The whole thing has become far more political, than it is practical.
 

PhotonMaster3

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Aug 9, 2020
Messages
103
I would rather invest in hydrogen, its a smarter option overall. If we aren't willing to invest in nuclear energy, our power grids will never handle the load and we will always continue to use fossil fuels to supplement. Don't get me wrong, invest in the tech to make it better. I don't think I will ever be sold on it though. Also you bring up a valid point, lots of people owning these appliances get range anxiety, which is why many truck makers are putting in range extending gas engines.
I'm a huge nuclear power fan! Hydrogen too, perhaps even metallic monoatomic hydrogen down the road.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top