The Electric Vehicle Scam

[William T]

This is a good read.

"The Electric Vehicle Scam"

<https://www.americaoutloud.com/the-electric-vehicle-scam/>

"The utility companies have thus far had little to say about the alarming
cost projections to operate electric vehicles (EVs) or the increased
rates that they will be required to charge their customers. It is not
just the total amount of electricity required?but the transmission lines
and fast charging capacity that must be built at existing filling
stations. Neither wind nor solar can support any of it. Electric vehicles
will never become the mainstream of transportation!

In part 1 of our exposé on the problems with electric vehicles (EVs), we
showed that they were too expensive, too unreliable, rely on materials
mined in China and other unfriendly countries, and require more
electricity than the nation can afford. In this second part, we address
other factors that will make any sensible reader avoid EVs like the
plague.

EV Charging Insanity

In order to match the 2,000 cars that a typical filling station can
service in a busy 12 hours, an EV charging station would require 600, 50-
watt chargers at an estimated cost of $24 million and a supply of 30
megawatts of power from the grid. That is enough to power 20,000 homes.
No one likely thinks about the fact that it can take 30 minutes to 8
hours to recharge a vehicle between empty or just topping off. What are
the drivers doing during that time?

ICSC-Canada board member New Zealand-based consulting engineer Bryan
Leyland describes why installing electric car charging stations in a city
is impractical:

“If you’ve got cars coming into a petrol station, they would stay for an
average of five minutes. If you’ve got cars coming into an electric
charging station, they would be at least 30 minutes, possibly an hour,
but let’s say its 30 minutes. So that’s six times the surface area to
park the cars while they’re being charged. So, multiply every petrol
station in a city by six. Where are you going to find the place to put
them?”

The government of the United Kingdom is already starting to plan for
power shortages caused by the charging of thousands of EVs. Starting in
June 2022, the government will restrict the time of day you can charge
your EV battery. To do this, they will employ smart meters that are
programmed to automatically switch off EV charging in peak times to avoid
potential blackouts.

In particular, the latest UK chargers will be pre-set to not function
during 9-hours of peak loads, from 8 am to 11 am (3-hours), and 4 pm to
10 pm (6-hours). Unbelievably, the UK technology decides when and if an
EV can be charged, and even allows EV batteries to be drained into the UK
grid if required. Imagine charging your car all night only to discover in
the morning that your battery is flat since the state took the power
back. Better keep your gas-powered car as a reliable and immediately
available backup! While EV charging will be an attractive source of
revenue generation for the government, American citizens will be up in
arms.

Used Car Market

The average used EV will need a new battery before an owner can sell it,
pricing them well above used internal combustion cars. The average age of
an American car on the road is 12 years. A 12-year-old EV will be on its
third battery. A Tesla battery typically costs $10,000 so there will not
be many 12-year-old EVs on the road. Good luck trying to sell your used
green fairy tale electric car!

Tuomas Katainen, an enterprising Finish Tesla owner, had an imaginative
solution to the battery replacement problem—he blew up his car! New York
City-based Insider magazine reported (December 27, 2021):

“The shop told him the faulty battery needed to be replaced, at a cost of
about $22,000. In addition to the hefty fee, the work would need to be
authorized by Tesla…Rather than shell out half the cost of a new Tesla to
fix an old one, Katainen decided to do something different… The
demolition experts from the YouTube channel Pommijätkät (Bomb Dudes)
strapped 66 pounds of high explosives to the car and surrounded the area
with slow-motion cameras…the 14 hotdog-shaped charges erupt into a
blinding ball of fire, sending a massive shockwave rippling out from the
car…The videos of the explosion have a combined 5 million views.”

We understand that the standard Tesla warranty does not cover “damage
resulting from intentional actions,” like blowing the car up for a
YouTube video.

EVs Per Block In Your Neighborhood

A home charging system for a Tesla requires a 75-amp service. The average
house is equipped with 100-amp service. On most suburban streets the
electrical infrastructure would be unable to carry more than three houses
with a single Tesla. For half the homes on your block to have electric
vehicles, the system would be wildly overloaded.

Batteries

Although the modern lithium-ion battery is four times better than the old
lead-acid battery, gasoline holds 80 times the energy density. The great
lithium battery in your cell phone weighs less than an ounce while the
Tesla battery weighs 1,000 pounds. And what do we get for this huge cost
and weight? We get a car that is far less convenient and less useful than
cars powered by internal combustion engines. Bryan Leyland explained why:

“When the Model T came out, it was a dramatic improvement on the horse
and cart. The electric car is a step backward into the equivalence of an
ordinary car with a tiny petrol tank that takes half an hour to fill. It
offers nothing in the way of convenience or extra facilities.”

Our Conclusion

The electric automobile will always be around in a niche market likely
never exceeding 10% of the cars on the road. All automobile manufacturers
are investing in their output and all will be disappointed in their
sales. Perhaps they know this and will manufacture just what they know
they can sell. This is certainly not what President Biden or California
Governor Newsom are planning for. However, for as long as the present
government is in power, they will be pushing the electric car as another
means to run our lives. We have a chance to tell them exactly what we
think of their expensive and dangerous plans when we go to the polls in
November of 2022. "

[pothead]

On 2022-01-16, USA Est.1776 <jth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How many would have frozen to death on I95 when it was shut down in a global warming snow storm last week?

Exactly.

California and Texas can't even manage to keep power running and need to have rolling blackouts
to avoid overloading the system.
How are they going to deal with millions of people plugging in the EV?
Ain't going to happen.


--
pothead
Tommy Chong For President 2024
because crazy Joe Biden is a demented fool.

[-hh]

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 4:29:06 PM UTC-5, William T wrote:
> This is a good read.
>
> "The Electric Vehicle Scam"

Indeed, it is hilarious for how many wrong/deceptive claims,
and people like you believe it all.

Case in point:


>... It is not just the total amount of electricity required?but the
> transmission lines …

So charge off-peak, like the article describes later.

> …and fast charging capacity that must be built at existing filling
> stations.

Fast charging is already being built at places away from
existing gas stations…why is this going to be no longer possible?

> Neither wind nor solar can support any of it.

Oh, because they’re on a separate grid? No….

> In order to match the 2,000 cars that a typical filling station can

> service in a busy 12 hours, ..

Who said one must “match”? Particularly since current EV
owners typically charge overnight at home and only occasionally
need any charging on the road.

.
> No one likely thinks about the fact that it can take 30 minutes to 8
> hours to recharge a vehicle between empty or just topping off. What are
> the drivers doing during that time?

As the article notes on off-peak (overnight) charging, they’re asleep.
Likewise, for rapid charges on the road, current business models are
in parking garages, restaurants, movie theaters, shopping malls, etc.
Places where drivers typically spend 30+ minutes.

>... So, multiply every petrol

> station in a city by six. Where are you going to find the place to put
> them?”

See above list.

> The government of the United Kingdom is already starting to plan for
> power shortages caused by the charging of thousands of EVs.

By building solar & wind! /s

> In particular, the latest UK chargers will be pre-set to not function
> during 9-hours of peak loads, from 8 am to 11 am (3-hours), and 4 pm to

> 10 pm (6-hours). Unbelievably, …

…most of those hours are when you’re home (& asleep)!


> ... Imagine charging your car all night only to discover in

> the morning that your battery is flat since the state took the power
> back.

Imagine having a job where you can sleep in past 8AM! /s

>
> The average used EV will need a new battery before an owner can sell it,

Only if the EV owners keep their car for more than 20 years.

> …A 12-year-old EV will be on its third battery.

Per Tesla’s statements on battery pack life, going through 3 of
them require driving over 1 *million* miles. At the average
driver’s ~15K miles/year, which requires 65+ years.

>

> EVs Per Block In Your Neighborhood
>
> A home charging system for a Tesla requires a 75-amp service.

That’s not the only option, nor the most common.

The most common tie into existing uses either a 15A 120VAC,
or a 30A 240VAC, which is a standard clothes dryer circuit.
Likewise, the most common new plug install is a slightly
upgraded varian of the dryer circuit: 40A (at same cost).

> The average house is equipped with 100-amp service.

Fairly close. If the development was recent enough for the
homes to have been built with central A/C (eg, less than 40
years old), then 200-250A is common. Even so, the typical
cost to upgrade from 100A to 00A in an old neighborhood
(pre-buried service) is pretty cheap; mine cost just $500
some years ago; figure maybe $1K today.

>
> Our Conclusion
>
> The electric automobile will always be around in a niche market
> likely never exceeding 10% of the cars on the road.

Norway’s already pushing 10%, so I’d bet against that claim for
Western countries.


>…. However, for as long as the present government is in power,

> they will be pushing the electric car as another means to run our lives.

Ironically, a quite ‘right wing’ colleague got an EV last year and has
been telling me just how much money he’s saving over his gas
vehicles…he’s now considering solar to make it even cheaper.

Overall, Enterprise is waking up to realize the financial potential,
which is why the race is on…and it might not be all that long until
it’s the manufacturers, not the Government, who says “we no longer
sell gas vehicles, by our own choice”. Interesting times…

-hh

[David Hartung]

Looking forward to the postings of hose who will defend a move to EVs.

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com> wrote in
news:28SdnVlLruJVCHj8...@giganews.com:

The move to EV's doesn't have to be defended.

It is already happening in state after state,
car maker after car maker. Either you can adjust
to it or be left by the roadside.

https://www.forbes.com/wheels/news/automaker-ev-plans/

https://mashable.com/article/traditional-carmakers-going-all-electric-
vehicles

[Kurt Nicklas]

Hollowman is never able to defend anything. Nothing he believes
in "has to be defended" but he wants you to explain in detail why
you attack it.

It's his shtick. Always has been.

That's why he pretends to have me kill filed.

Don't play his game.

[Trump Is Your True Master]

William T wrote

>
> This is a good read.
>
> "The Electric Vehicle Scam"
>
> <https://www.americaoutloud.com/the-electric-vehicle-scam/>
>

They make it easier to fulfill our biblical obligation to kill rightwingers.


Gasoline is excellent dousing rightists and lighting them on fire.

[David Hartung]

True.

[David Hartung]

On 1/16/22 3:29 PM, William T wrote:

> This is a good read.
>
> "The Electric Vehicle Scam"
>
> <https://www.americaoutloud.com/the-electric-vehicle-scam/>
>
> "The utility companies have thus far had little to say about the alarming
> cost projections to operate electric vehicles (EVs) or the increased
> rates that they will be required to charge their customers. It is not
> just the total amount of electricity required?but the transmission lines
> and fast charging capacity that must be built at existing filling
> stations. Neither wind nor solar can support any of it. Electric vehicles
> will never become the mainstream of transportation!
>
> In part 1 of our exposé on the problems with electric vehicles (EVs), we
> showed that they were too expensive, too unreliable, rely on materials
> mined in China and other unfriendly countries, and require more
> electricity than the nation can afford. In this second part, we address
> other factors that will make any sensible reader avoid EVs like the
> plague.
>

The sister article:

https://www.americaoutloud.com/ever-wonder-why-our-leftist-government-is-intent-on-putting-us-in-electric-cars/

Excerpt:
[...]
The Biden administration may be evil as it relates to virtually all of
its new directives but, no matter what it appears to be, it is not dumb.
It knows what it is doing. The underlying purpose of everything it does
is to reduce our freedoms and increase the government’s control over our
lives.

One of its strategies has escaped even the most conservative of
thinkers. It is the promotion of the electric automobile. They well
know, as we will show in the following paragraphs, that the nation’s
roads can never be crowded with electric cars. There is not now, nor
ever will there be, sufficient electric power for us to travel hither
and yon with battery-powered vehicles. So, who decides who gets what
electricity will be available? Answer: your friendly liberal,
“progressive,” leftist government who we, mistakenly or not, placed in
power.

The electric vehicle (EV) is clearly one of the most hyped innovations
of our lifetime. While our federal government and the state of
California think that the internal combustion engine will soon end up in
the dustbin of history, it just isn’t going to happen for a variety of
reasons:

The most obvious is that the expense of EVs will not allow the
average American to own one. The alternative will always be far cheaper
and will transport you much farther.

EVs can never be produced in the numbers the government wants
because of a lack of necessary rare earth minerals held hostage in China.

Availability of charging stations will never be adequate either.
And the time required to recharge on a long trip will make you cancel
any long trip.

The cost of a battery replacement will be a significant turn-off as
well.
[...]

These are just some of the valid issues.

[Steven - frelwizen]

Alan B showed himself to be a backslider by claiming he would not engage
Gregory Hall via emphatically screaming 'score: -999' and then bombarding
him via piggybacking.

Absolute hooey by an ignorant, tall-tale telling, slippery, collaborating
lummox who couldn't tell the truth even if you paid him to.

It's Alan B's problem but he does not care. Obviously he would rather
lie than face reality.

You've proven that it is Alan B. Why do you think Gregory Hall is trying
to protect Alan B? Even he sees some reality. He can't comment on any
of the stuff I quote because he sees it's real.


--
Top Ten Ways Alan B Trolls!!
https://forums.cabling-design.com/wireless/wifi-out-to-800-feet-329594-
.htm
Dustin Cook the functionally illiterate fraud

[Diesel / Gremlin Crook]

Are you being stupid on purpose?

I am supporter of JavaScript, because that's where all the compelling modernization
is happening.

Wolffan does not know if there is a free open source that promotes PEE.

Steve Carroll is a Narcissistic Bigot.

Wolffan can not help but realize everyone knows he is just trolling! Wolffan
is a crazed liar who regularly claims anyone who disagrees with FromTheRafters
to be a sock and, somehow, he wants us to believe that makes sense. Gotta
be glue.

--
One Smart Penny!!
https://telestreamforum.forumbee.com/t/80f78a/youtube-uploads-should-show-
https-and-not-http
https://www.bing.com/search?q=%22narcissistic%20bigot%22
https://www.google.com/search?q=Steve+Petruzzellis%3A+narcissistic+bigot

[Scout]

"David Hartung" <da...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:28SdnVlLruJVCHj8...@giganews.com...

You miss the whole purpose of EVs.... EVs are not suppose to succeed. They
are there to get people to switch over, only finding out later that it's
non-viable and thus pushing everyone into public transportation.

It's a step to eliminate private transportation....

[chrisv]

Scout wrote:

>You miss the whole purpose of EVs.... EVs are not suppose to succeed. They
>are there to get people to switch over, only finding out later that it's
>non-viable and thus pushing everyone into public transportation.
>
>It's a step to eliminate private transportation....

Because there's no chance that it's clearly the better way to do it,
long term, huh? Idiot.

Why has electric gradually taken over, on a smaller scale (e.g. RC
cars and planes). Did that have nothing to do with being the superior
solution?

Clueless idiots make it up, as they go along.

[Steve Carroll]

On 2022-01-18, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Scout wrote:
>
>>You miss the whole purpose of EVs.... EVs are not suppose to succeed. They
>>are there to get people to switch over, only finding out later that it's
>>non-viable and thus pushing everyone into public transportation.
>>
>>It's a step to eliminate private transportation....
>
> Because there's no chance that it's clearly the better way to do it,
> long term, huh?

There's a chance but there are still some nagging hurdles, one being the
distance that must be traveled to drive back and forth from your
'affordable' house. Another is that most of the grids on the planet
aren't 'green' and won't be for a long time. Another big one is the cost
to convert. Another is practicality, charging stations require more time
to do what a fuel pump can do in minutes for a much longer range. It
also may mean a flat bed tow if you got stuck somewhere, as opposed to
hitching a ride or calling an uber/friend to get enough gas to get to a
station and fill up.

> Why has electric gradually taken over, on a smaller scale (e.g. RC
> cars and planes). Did that have nothing to do with being the superior
> solution?

Superior at what, though? Being able to use AC outlets, RC users don't
have to rely on chargepoints to travel back home. If the power runs out
you put your toy back in your 'large scale, gas powered vehicle' and off
you go.

[-hh]

On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 1:21:41 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On 2022-01-18, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > Scout wrote:
> >>You miss the whole purpose of EVs.... EVs are not suppose to succeed.
> >>They are there to get people to switch over, only finding out later that it's
> >>non-viable and thus pushing everyone into public transportation.
> >>
> >>It's a step to eliminate private transportation....
> >
> > Because there's no chance that it's clearly the better way to do it,
> > long term, huh?

There's pros/cons, but the conspiracy theory stuff is a bit much.

> There's a chance but there are still some nagging hurdles, one being
> the distance that must be traveled to drive back and forth from your
> 'affordable' house.

EVs are being pitched as a solution to affordable housing issues? /s

> Another is that most of the grids on the planet
> aren't 'green' and won't be for a long time.

At least its possible for the grids to be transitioned.

> Another big one is the cost to convert.

There's direct & indirect costs to everything. It becomes a mess
when the "who pays" isn't the same as the "who benefits". Likewise,
when one is more tangible than the other (eg, new car cost delta
vs healthcare insurance premiums cost delta).

> Another is practicality, charging stations require more time to do
> what a fuel pump can do in minutes for a much longer range.

That only existing gas stations can install a charger is one example
of many flawed assumptions in Willie T's pasted article which undermines
their argument.

> It also may mean a flat bed tow if you got stuck somewhere, as opposed
> to hitching a ride or calling an uber/friend to get enough gas to get to a
> station and fill up.

It may, but let's also be honest: how many times have you run out of gas
to make this meaningful concern?

> > Why has electric gradually taken over, on a smaller scale (e.g. RC
> > cars and planes). Did that have nothing to do with being the superior
> > solution?
>
> Superior at what, though?

Customer uptake in the absence of any government promotions or arm-twisting.
See also vinyl vs CDs, and MP3 players vs CDs, etc.

-hh

[chrisv]

Steve Carroll wrote:

>>>You miss the whole purpose of EVs.... EVs are not suppose to succeed. They
>>>are there to get people to switch over, only finding out later that it's
>>>non-viable and thus pushing everyone into public transportation.
>>>
>>>It's a step to eliminate private transportation....
>>
>> Because there's no chance that it's clearly the better way to do it,
>> long term, huh?
>

> There's a chance but there are still some nagging hurdles, (snip)

I'm fully aware of the drawbacks, but as technology advances they will
make sense to more and more people. It's only a matter of time before
they take over the majority of the market, and for good reasons.

It's not some evil plot to eliminate private transportation!

Fscking right-wing kooks think that *everything* is some kind of
leftist conspiracy!

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 13:08:20 -0600, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

When lots of people need to go somewhere, like when there's a
hurricane, the roads will be filled with cars with dead batteries.
I've seen 20 or 30 cars backed up around gas stations where it only
takes a few minutes to gas up.

[Steve Carroll]

On 2022-01-18, -hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 1:21:41 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On 2022-01-18, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> > Scout wrote:
>> >>You miss the whole purpose of EVs.... EVs are not suppose to succeed.
>> >>They are there to get people to switch over, only finding out later that it's
>> >>non-viable and thus pushing everyone into public transportation.
>> >>
>> >>It's a step to eliminate private transportation....
>> >
>> > Because there's no chance that it's clearly the better way to do it,
>> > long term, huh?
>
> There's pros/cons, but the conspiracy theory stuff is a bit much.
>
>> There's a chance but there are still some nagging hurdles, one being
>> the distance that must be traveled to drive back and forth from your
>> 'affordable' house.
>
> EVs are being pitched as a solution to affordable housing issues? /s

If you've ever lived in a place like CA, you might find yourself priced
out of buying a home close to where your high(er) paying job is located.

>> Another is that most of the grids on the planet
>> aren't 'green' and won't be for a long time.
>
> At least its possible for the grids to be transitioned.

True, and someday, they may even realize their 'green' potential.

>> Another big one is the cost to convert.
>
> There's direct & indirect costs to everything. It becomes a mess
> when the "who pays" isn't the same as the "who benefits".

It'll become a bigger mess when those who can't afford an EV are forced
to buy one.

>> Another is practicality, charging stations require more time to do
>> what a fuel pump can do in minutes for a much longer range.
>
> That only existing gas stations can install a charger is one example
> of many flawed assumptions in Willie T's pasted article which undermines
> their argument.

No, I allow for 'personal' stations but the point about distance can
easily be an issue.

>> It also may mean a flat bed tow if you got stuck somewhere, as opposed
>> to hitching a ride or calling an uber/friend to get enough gas to get to a
>> station and fill up.
>
> It may, but let's also be honest: how many times have you run out of gas
> to make this meaningful concern?

I'm not talking about running of of fuel in a vehicle that has a long
range (like hybrids and gas powered vehicles).

>> > Why has electric gradually taken over, on a smaller scale (e.g. RC
>> > cars and planes). Did that have nothing to do with being the superior
>> > solution?
>>
>> Superior at what, though?
>
> Customer uptake in the absence of any government promotions or arm-twisting.
> See also vinyl vs CDs, and MP3 players vs CDs, etc.

LOL!

Like I said, you're more 'creative' than pcv ;)

[Steve Carroll]

On 2022-01-18, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>>>>You miss the whole purpose of EVs.... EVs are not suppose to succeed. They
>>>>are there to get people to switch over, only finding out later that it's
>>>>non-viable and thus pushing everyone into public transportation.
>>>>
>>>>It's a step to eliminate private transportation....
>>>
>>> Because there's no chance that it's clearly the better way to do it,
>>> long term, huh?
>>
>> There's a chance but there are still some nagging hurdles, (snip)
>
> I'm fully aware of the drawbacks, but as technology advances they will
> make sense to more and more people. It's only a matter of time before
> they take over the majority of the market, and for good reasons.

Because everyone has been forced to live in cublicle in a giant city?

[Scout]

> On 2022-01-18, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Scout wrote:
>>
>>>You miss the whole purpose of EVs.... EVs are not suppose to succeed.
>>>They
>>>are there to get people to switch over, only finding out later that it's
>>>non-viable and thus pushing everyone into public transportation.
>>>
>>>It's a step to eliminate private transportation....
>>
>> Because there's no chance that it's clearly the better way to do it,
>> long term, huh?

Long term? Who can say. People have been trying to make EVs work for over
100 years, and still keep coming up short.

Though I suppose in some hypothetical future it could occur, but that is
then, this is now, and then has nothing to do with now.

Otherwise, I will just wait for them to sell Mr. Fusions for 50 cents and I
can drive on garbage.

[Scout]

"Steve Carroll" <"Steve Carroll"@noSPAM.none> wrote in message
news:ss757d$dcb$4...@fretwizzer.eternal-september.org...

Among being denied any other choices. You are merely a serf that exists to
serve the state and discarded when you're no longer useful.
So set down, do the 18 hours of work a day and maybe you can earn a bit
extra Soylent Green for your one meal of the day.

Now, if Chrisv actually had ANY faith in EVs then they wouldn't need
government subsides, much less government mandates to produce them while
limiting or denying alternatives.

Nope, It's such wonderful tech that YOU must be denied choice and pay
whatever decide it's going to cost no matter how much pollution it causes.

[chrisv]

Steve Carroll wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> I'm fully aware of the drawbacks, but as technology advances they will
>> make sense to more and more people. It's only a matter of time before
>> they take over the majority of the market, and for good reasons.
>
>Because everyone has been forced to live in cublicle in a giant city?

I never claimed that they would make sense for everyone, snit.

I don't know why I bother. It seems impossible to have a reasonable
discussion with you. You're *always* looking to disrespect, to
attack.

Your response will be deleted, unread.

[chrisv]

Blue Lives Matter wrote:

>When lots of people need to go somewhere, like when there's a
>hurricane, the roads will be filled with cars with dead batteries.
>I've seen 20 or 30 cars backed up around gas stations where it only
>takes a few minutes to gas up.

Indeed. Things like that will keep many people from considering an EV
as their only vehicle, for years to come.

[chrisv]

Steve Carroll wrote:

> -hh wrote:
>>
>> Customer uptake in the absence of any government promotions or arm-twisting.
>> See also vinyl vs CDs, and MP3 players vs CDs, etc.
>
>LOL!

The "Steve" snit's favorite response. The derisive, dismissive "LOL!"
As if something ridiculous was just said.

>Like I said, you're more 'creative' than pcv ;)

Well, he tries to dumb it down, for you. I don't. I might, if you
would ask me nicely when you don't understand, but you prefer to
attack snittishly.

-highhorse's "See also..." was only a different perspective on my "as

technology advances they will make sense to more and more people".

-highhorse's "in the absence of any government promotions or
arm-twisting" makes the same point as my "for good reasons".

Get it, now, snit?

[chrisv]

Scout wrote:

>Now, if Chrisv actually had ANY faith in EVs then they wouldn't need
>government subsides, much less government mandates to produce them while
>limiting or denying alternatives.

Not true, dipshit. Subsidies are the right tool to kick-start the
market. Long term, they should go away.

>Nope, It's such wonderful tech that YOU must be denied choice and pay
>whatever decide it's going to cost no matter how much pollution it causes.

Let us know, when you are denied choice, dipshit.

[Steve Carroll]

On 2022-01-18, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> -hh wrote:
>>>
>>> Customer uptake in the absence of any government promotions or arm-twisting.
>>> See also vinyl vs CDs, and MP3 players vs CDs, etc.
>>
>>LOL!
>
> The "Steve" snit's favorite response. The derisive, dismissive "LOL!"
> As if something ridiculous was just said.

The 'LOL!' was for the goofiness of the example.

Were CDs around for over 100 years before they took over? No, it only
took 3 years to outsell vinyl and the reasons can't be compared to what
is being discussed. Add to that, not long after, people could actually
create their own CDs, which only took 3 years from that point to outsell
cassettes. MP3s had the advantage of selling singles so that's not
something you'd use as 'a sensible analogy' (but it happened fast, too).

>>Like I said, you're more 'creative' than pcv ;)
>
> Well, he tries to dumb it down, for you.

His example wasn't dumbed down, it was just dumb.

(snip face saving attempt while 'hitching' to someone else's star)

[Blue Lives Matter]

The electric system won't be able to handle it, but maybe... if
everyone buys a gasoline powered home generator...

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 14:07:18 -0600, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

...and many other reasons that people will not consider owning any EV.

[pothead]

And of course China will be glad to sell us lithium for the batteries.
These green idiots will never learn.

<https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/lithium-chinese-control-over-oil-
of-the-future-1893431-2021-12-28.

"Lithium & Chinese control over oil of future"

--
pothead
Tommy Chong For President 2024
because crazy Joe Biden is a demented fool.

[-hh]

On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 2:41:31 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote:

> On 2022-01-18, -hh wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 1:21:41 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >> On 2022-01-18, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> > Scout wrote:
> >> >>You miss the whole purpose of EVs.... EVs are not suppose to succeed.
> >> >>They are there to get people to switch over, only finding out later that it's
> >> >>non-viable and thus pushing everyone into public transportation.
> >> >>
> >> >>It's a step to eliminate private transportation....
> >> >
> >> > Because there's no chance that it's clearly the better way to do it,
> >> > long term, huh?
> >
> > There's pros/cons, but the conspiracy theory stuff is a bit much.
> >
> >> There's a chance but there are still some nagging hurdles, one being
> >> the distance that must be traveled to drive back and forth from your
> >> 'affordable' house.
> >
> > EVs are being pitched as a solution to affordable housing issues? /s
>
> If you've ever lived in a place like CA, you might find yourself priced
> out of buying a home close to where your high(er) paying job is located.

Pragmatically, workers don't typically tolerate more than a 100 mile
commutes, so is a 200+ mile range EV adequate to address this?
If anything, an EV's lower cost per mile means that EVs should be
more compelling to consumers as their commute distances increase.

> >> Another is that most of the grids on the planet
> >> aren't 'green' and won't be for a long time.
> >
> > At least its possible for the grids to be transitioned.
> True, and someday, they may even realize their 'green' potential.
> >> Another big one is the cost to convert.
> >
> > There's direct & indirect costs to everything. It becomes a mess
> > when the "who pays" isn't the same as the "who benefits".
>
> It'll become a bigger mess when those who can't afford an EV are
> forced to buy one.

"New Car Price Keeps Climbing, with Average Now at Almost $47,100"
<https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a38748092/new-car-average-sale-prices-47100/>

Tesla Model 3: MSRP $44,990

Plus there's several other EVs which are cheaper...here's four that are
under $35K and two more that are cheaper then the Model 3:

<https://www.edmunds.com/electric-car/articles/cheapest-electric-cars/>

> >> Another is practicality, charging stations require more time to do
> >> what a fuel pump can do in minutes for a much longer range.
> >
> > That only existing gas stations can install a charger is one example
> > of many flawed assumptions in Willie T's pasted article which undermines
> > their argument.
>
> No, I allow for 'personal' stations but the point about distance can
> easily be an issue.

Yes, the prospects of needing rapid refuel when away from home and
transiting 200+ miles/day is a legitimate concern, but how common
that use case is can vary quite widely. In multi-vehicle households,
keeping a gas powered vehicle that's suitable for the "family roadtrip"
is going to be a common adoption strategy. IMO, a question may be
if EVs are going to encourage a return to small two seater fun cars
for dad's daily driver commuter sled (I doubt it, unfortunately).

> >> It also may mean a flat bed tow if you got stuck somewhere, as opposed
> >> to hitching a ride or calling an uber/friend to get enough gas to get to a
> >> station and fill up.
> >
> > It may, but let's also be honest: how many times have you run out of gas
> > to make this meaningful concern?
>
> I'm not talking about running of of fuel in a vehicle that has a long
> range (like hybrids and gas powered vehicles).

That doesn't answer the question of how many times you've been stranded.

The point is that while its easy to claim range anxiety, it just isn't all that
easy to actually compare. For example, is the primary use case really
the maximum possible range on a special long distance trip, or is it to
have enough range (with a comfort margin) for a "normal" day?

For the latter with a gas vehicle, most drivers don't typically refuel daily,
but run it down to a ~1/4 tank, which means that on average, their daily
starting point is the midpoint of that cycle = 5/8ths of a tank. So for a
"375 miles on a tank" ICE, that means it is 375mi * 5/8ths = 230 miles.

Now EVs typically get topped up overnight, so their the daily starting point
is ~100%, so for a "200 mile" EV, they're 200mi*100% =200 miles available.

YMMV on how much of a practical difference there is between an average
daily available range of 230mi vs 200mi. Granted, there's still the "drive all
day" use case, but for many drivers that's a corner case that doesn't
obviate the mainstream day-to-day utility.


-hh

[-hh]

On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 3:01:39 PM UTC-5, Scout wrote:
> > On 2022-01-18, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> Scout wrote:
> >>
> >>>You miss the whole purpose of EVs.... EVs are not suppose to succeed.
> >>>They
> >>>are there to get people to switch over, only finding out later that it's
> >>>non-viable and thus pushing everyone into public transportation.
> >>>
> >>>It's a step to eliminate private transportation....
> >>
> >> Because there's no chance that it's clearly the better way to do it,
> >> long term, huh?
>
> Long term? Who can say. People have been trying to make EVs work for over
> 100 years, and still keep coming up short.

Actually, the early 20th century electrics were quite successful - - they
led gas for awhile because they were quieter, cleaner & easier to start.
Gasoline required technological advancements for it to take the market,
namely highway technology, the refuel station, the electric starter motor
and automation in spark advance, engine choke, & power transmission.

> Though I suppose in some hypothetical future it could occur, but that is
> then, this is now, and then has nothing to do with now.

Is your time horizon vision good enough to recognize that a green banana
will ripen to yellow? /s


-hh

[chrisv]

Scout wrote:

>Long term? Who can say. People have been trying to make EVs work for over
>100 years, and still keep coming up short.
>
>Though I suppose in some hypothetical future it could occur, but that is
>then, this is now, and then has nothing to do with now.

It's pretty obvious that they are "now" becoming competative and
desirable. The trend will not reverse.

[chrisv]

Blue Lives Matter wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>
>>Blue Lives Matter wrote:
>>
>>>When lots of people need to go somewhere, like when there's a
>>>hurricane, the roads will be filled with cars with dead batteries.
>>>I've seen 20 or 30 cars backed up around gas stations where it only
>>>takes a few minutes to gas up.
>>
>>Indeed. Things like that will keep many people from considering an EV
>>as their only vehicle, for years to come.
>
>...and many other reasons that people will not consider owning any EV.

... but many are, it's growing every year. Almost all the "drawbacks"
disappear, when applied to a second vehicle that need never exceed
it's daily charge capacity.

[Lefty Lundquist]

They are growing in popularity every year. What really needs to be
done is ensure we are not held hostage to China for lithium. Maybe an
alternative power plant etc.
Depending on China would be a serious error.
Look what happened with Trump and PPE.
And while we are at it, we need to bring drug manufacturing back to
the USA. It's far too dangerous to rely and depend upon off shore
manufacturing for something as series as drugs.


--
Lefty Lundquist

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 16:37:51 -0600, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Not even close to being competitive.

[pothead]

Corporate greed is why we remain dependent upon offshoring our manufacturing
and technology to places like China.
Where else can Nike pay someone $2.00 a day to make sneakers that sell for
$150.00 a pair in the USA?

The solution is to make it highly unattractive to offshore business.
Trump tried and did some good things but mostly failed.
Joe Biden won't do a fucking thing because these countries and corporations own
him.

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 16:40:50 -0600, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid>

Nonsense...All the good sales figures are "projected."

[chrisv]

pothead wrote:

>Joe Biden

Biden's doing the same things that Trump did, lying dipshit.

And Biden isn't "owned" by "these countries and corporations" any more
than we all are, lying dipshit.

It's a very complex situation, and people aren't will to make the
sacrifices required to reduce our dependance upon China.

That means paying more, for many products we import, while also
getting payed less, for products that we export.

[chrisv]

Blue Lives Matter wrote:

>>... but many are, it's growing every year. Almost all the "drawbacks"
>>disappear, when applied to a second vehicle that need never exceed
>>it's daily charge capacity.
>
>Nonsense...All the good sales figures are "projected."

Idiot.

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 17:07:15 -0600, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

<eyeroll>

[chrisv]

Blue Lives Matter wrote:

>>It's pretty obvious that they are "now" becoming competative and
>>desirable. The trend will not reverse.
>
>Not even close to being competitive.

Liar.

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 17:10:26 -0600, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

<LOL> Sorry, it's still here...

[pothead]

On 2022-01-18, Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patriotism.KMA> wrote:

ROTFLMAO!
That's funny.

[Larry]

On 18 Jan 2022, Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patriotism.KMA>
posted some news:5bheugtjrd167nd8d...@4ax.com:

It's pretty funny watching electrics and hybrids struggle up mountains.

Most of the snow wrecks in the passes this year were morons in Audis, BMW
and Tesla electrics. Some were stuck for 30 hours. Hilarious.

[Blue Lives Matter]

Especially when it's very cold...

[Steve Carrolll]

HWSNBN failed to show a case study of a profitable job creator that has
gained its position by not giving a damn about its clients or merchandise.
HWSNBN's indictment is misplaced right from the start, and not valid second
of all. Is Wolffan trying to be just as much of a corrupt liar as HWSNBN
is already known as being?

Wow... in HWSNBN's 'mind', that a site has been published is "evidence"
that Wolffan designed it now?

I am not going to play like Wolffan didn't save my skin on my network and
I am indebted to him for his help. HWSNBN has this thread to copy and could
learn to seem like he has a clue from here on out... but he stumbled when
it mattered ;)

"Somewhere between 1994 or 2002 I trusted Wolffan, the absolutely irrational
liar" - HWSNBN.


--
This broke the Internet
https://swisscows.com/web?query=%22FUNCTIONALLY%20ILLITERATE%20FRAUD%22
https://www.google.com/maps/place/108+Warrior+Dr,+Kingsport,+TN+37663/
Dustin Cook the functional illiterate fraud

[chrisv]

pothead wrote:

> (snipped, unread)

Fsck you, "pothead". At least, unlike you, I'm not a piece of shit
who *lies* to attack others.

[chrisv]

Larry wrote:

>Most of the snow wrecks in the passes this year were morons in Audis, BMW
>and Tesla electrics. Some were stuck for 30 hours. Hilarious.

I can't think of any reason why a hybrid would be any worse than a gas
car. On the other hand,

Many (most?) pure electric cars are rear-wheel drive (for good
reasons), so they do lose that one advantage or FWD cars, that weight
over the drive wheels.

Also, those brands that you mentioned tend to have wider tires (for
performance) which is a drawback in the snow. On the other hand, most
BMW's and (I think) all Audi's have AWD.

[Billy Jangles]

If you don't read his posts, how do you know he lies?


--
Billy "Bo" Jangles

[chrisv]

Billy Jangles wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>> pothead wrote:
>>
>>> (snipped, unread)
>>
>> Fsck you, "pothead". At least, unlike you, I'm not a piece of shit
>> who *lies* to attack others.
>
>If you don't read his posts, how do you know he lies?

I read some of his posts, "genius".

The one in this thread was ignored because of the high probability
that it contained an attack upon me.

Since you're clearly a dullard, I won't attempt to explain how I
figure the probability that a post isn't worth reading.

Any response to this post from you, or from any name that I don't
recognize, or from any known asshole, will be deleted, unread.

--
'chrisv tends to be a little "wrapped too tightly" and there is no
doubt he reads every post' - "pothead", lying shamelessly

[Billy Jangles]

On 2022-01-19, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Billy Jangles wrote:
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>> pothead wrote:
>>>
>>>> (snipped, unread)
>>>
>>> Fsck you, "pothead". At least, unlike you, I'm not a piece of shit
>>> who *lies* to attack others.
>>
>>If you don't read his posts, how do you know he lies?
>
> I read some of his posts, "genius".
>
> The one in this thread was ignored because of the high probability
> that it contained an attack upon me.
>
> Since you're clearly a dullard, I won't attempt to explain how I
> figure the probability that a post isn't worth reading.
>
> Any response to this post from you, or from any name that I don't
> recognize, or from any known asshole, will be deleted, unread.

You are clearly suffering from some type of anger issue so into the bozo bin
with you.
**PLONK**


--
Billy "Bo" Jangles

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 08:14:19 -0600, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>Billy Jangles wrote:
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>> pothead wrote:
>>>
>>>> (snipped, unread)
>>>
>>> Fsck you, "pothead". At least, unlike you, I'm not a piece of shit
>>> who *lies* to attack others.
>>
>>If you don't read his posts, how do you know he lies?
>
>I read some of his posts, "genius".
>
>The one in this thread was ignored because of the high probability
>that it contained an attack upon me.
>
>Since you're clearly a dullard, I won't attempt to explain how I
>figure the probability that a post isn't worth reading.
>
>Any response to this post from you, or from any name that I don't
>recognize, or from any known asshole, will be deleted, unread.

<chuckle> If this "chrisv" moron really didn't read a post he/she/it
wouldn't be able to respond to it.

[chrisv]

Blue Lives Matter wrote:

> (snipped, unread)

All future posts, in this thread, from the idiot and liar "Blue Lives
Matter" will be deleted, unread and without notice.

He claims that EV's are "Not even close to being competitive".

Funny, I thought that many consumers are now choosing to buy EV's. I
dare say that Tesla would still be selling a lot of cars even without
tax credits.

(A quick google leads to believe that the federal tax credits for EV's
have been expired for some time, but I'm not certain.)

He claims that it's "nonsense" that sales of EV's will continue to
grow, every year.

Funny, I think that it's an obvious fact. No clairvoyance, or
"projected good sales", required.

He's an unreasonable dipshit, so he gets ignored.

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 08:49:13 -0600, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

<LOL> Say's "chrysv" who, apparently, continues to read my posts...

[Rudy Canoza]

chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:ua8gugl7b6h8kbui1...@4ax.com:

> Blue Lives Matter wrote:
>
>> (snipped, unread)
>
> All future posts, in this thread, from the idiot and liar "Blue Lives
> Matter" will be deleted, unread and without notice.

Why not just kill file him? Answer: You just pretend you're not reading
him.

In reality, you read his every word.

This is beyone reasonable debate.

[chrisv]

Rudy Canoza wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> All future posts, in this thread, from the idiot and liar "Blue Lives
>> Matter" will be deleted, unread and without notice.
>
>Why not just kill file him?

Because there's a reasonable middle-ground between kill-filing and
reading every word.

>Answer: You just pretend you're not reading him.
>
>In reality, you read his every word.

Yet another piece of shit lair, baselessly and falsely accusing an
honest man of lying.

No decent person would accuse another of lying, without evidence.

I gotta say, it's a little surprising, how many of you inferior
beings, you losers, there are.

>This is beyone reasonable debate.

Indeed, one cannot have a reasonable debate with a shameless fscking
liar, like yourself.

Someone asked me, recently, what I thought about you. I replied that
I didn't know enough about you to judge. Well, now I do.

You're a piece of shit, "Rudy". Seriously.

Your response will be, of course, deleted, unread.

[-hh]

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 8:54:50 AM UTC-5, chrisv wrote:
> Larry wrote:
>
> >Most of the snow wrecks in the passes this year were morons in Audis,
> >BMW and Tesla electrics. Some were stuck for 30 hours. Hilarious.
>
> I can't think of any reason why a hybrid would be any worse than a gas
> car. On the other hand,
>
> Many (most?) pure electric cars are rear-wheel drive (for good
> reasons), so they do lose that one advantage or FWD cars, that weight
> over the drive wheels.

Sure, except that the battery pack makes them heavier, and with better
weight distribution: you're not going to have a light rear end. Plus also
remember that mountain passes means thinner air which kills the power
in an traditional ICE (made less bad with modern turbocharging) whereas
an electric motor has zero reduction in power due to altitude.

> Also, those brands that you mentioned tend to have wider tires (for
> performance) which is a drawback in the snow. On the other hand, most
> BMW's and (I think) all Audi's have AWD.

And IIRC, something like 90% of BMWs sold today are AWD too. Overall, if the
claim is even true, problems would more likely have been caused by people
not bringing chains to equip (required on some Mt passes), and/or by running
on All-Season tires which aren't as good as dedicated snows. There was a
head-to-head test done by Car&Driver years ago that found that for the question
of "tires or drivetrain", having snows beat having AWD in 80% of their tests.
Naturally, having both is better still, but wasn't the point of the comparison.

But overall, its more likely that the comment was fiction from a troll who
jealously thinks they can't afford a BMW/Audi/Tesla ... they're the ones who
"didn't get stuck" because their pickup truck is upside down in the median. /s

-hh

[-hh]

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 9:49:16 AM UTC-5, chrisv wrote:
> Blue Lives Matter wrote:

> > (snipped...

>
> He claims that EV's are "Not even close to being competitive".
>
> Funny, I thought that many consumers are now choosing to buy EV's. I

> dare say that Tesla ...

Speaking of Tesla, their 2021 sales fell just short (~10%) of being
literally *twice* the sales of Porsche & Audi...combined.


-hh

[Lee]

The sales figures are solid
enough for every car maker to
switch to making EV's. And that
doesn't include NEW electrric
car companies like Rivian and
Sony and Lucid and Fisker.
Perhaps they know more about
this than you?



These Car Companies Are Going All-Electric
MAR. 31 2021

GM - all-electric by 2035

Volvo - all-electric by 2030

Ford - carbon neutral by 2050

Volkswagon - all electric by 2025

Toyota - all electric by 2040

Mercedez - all electric by 2030

Audi - all electric by 2035

Nissan - all electric by 2030

Fiat - all electric by 2030

Chrysler - all electric by 2028

Hyundai - all electric by 2040


https://www.greenmatters.com/p/car-companies-electric-energy-pledge

https://mashable.com/article/traditional-carmakers-going-all-electric-ve
hicles

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/chrysler-aims-electric-20
28-82086896

https://www.techradar.com/news/hyundai-switches-focus-to-electric-stops-
developing-petrol-diesel-engines

[Yak]

Curious, what are states doing relative to electrical grids to be able
to handle the capacity of all these new cars? Because goofy states like
CA can't even handle what it has now with all its rolling blackouts, and
is in no position to deal with millions upon millions of EVs taxing its
electric grids.

[Blue Lives Matter]

The entire push towards EVs is nonsense.

[chrisv]

-hh wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> Many (most?) pure electric cars are rear-wheel drive (for good
>> reasons), so they do lose that one advantage or FWD cars, that weight
>> over the drive wheels.
>
>Sure, except that the battery pack makes them heavier, and with better
>weight distribution: you're not going to have a light rear end.

I suppose.

>Plus also
>remember that mountain passes means thinner air which kills the power
>in an traditional ICE (made less bad with modern turbocharging) whereas
>an electric motor has zero reduction in power due to altitude.

Getting "stuck" isn't generally due to lack of power...

>> Also, those brands that you mentioned tend to have wider tires (for
>> performance) which is a drawback in the snow. On the other hand, most
>> BMW's and (I think) all Audi's have AWD.
>

>But overall, its more likely that the comment was fiction from a troll who
>jealously thinks they can't afford a BMW/Audi/Tesla ...

Yeah, likely confirmation bias, or wishfhul thinking, or simply
hallucination.

>they're the ones who
>"didn't get stuck" because their pickup truck is upside down in the median. /s

--

[chrisv]

-hh wrote:

>And IIRC, something like 90% of BMWs sold today are AWD too. Overall, if the
>claim is even true, problems would more likely have been caused by people
>not bringing chains to equip (required on some Mt passes), and/or by running
>on All-Season tires which aren't as good as dedicated snows. There was a
>head-to-head test done by Car&Driver years ago that found that for the question
>of "tires or drivetrain", having snows beat having AWD in 80% of their tests.
>Naturally, having both is better still, but wasn't the point of the comparison.

I'm sure than many people think that their "AWD" will save their
asses, in situations where it won't.

Being something of a "purist", I special-ordered a RWD car. The
dealers don't normally stock them. My Winter tires are Dunlop Winter
Sports.

My daughter's car runs Michelin X-Ice. Her car is FWD, so she could
problably get-away with the stock all-seasons. But after years of my
drilling her about the importance of the correct tires, how nice it is
to have that extra margin of safety, she wouldn't even consider
running all-seasons year-around.

Since she's a girl, the task of swapping her wheels Spring and Fall is
my problem. But it's worth it.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Sure and Solyndra knew more than anyone abpout solar and wind power
didn't they?


"Solyndra was a manufacturer of cylindrical panels of copper indium
gallium selenide (CIGS) thin film solar cells based in Fremont,
California. Heavily promoted as a leader in the Clean Energy sector for
its unusual technology, Solyndra was not able to compete with
conventional solar panel manufacturers of crystalline silicon.[1] The
company filed for bankruptcy on September 1, 2011,[2][3]"










--
That's Karma

*The first rule of SURVIVAL CLUB is we talk about it*
We hate censorship. Never trust what Democrats or Marxists tell you.
Make them prove it with actual verifiable facts and science. And if you
didn't find the duplicitous lies in what the Marxist-Democrats told you
then you didn't dig deep enough. The *Gruber Doctrine* is the
Marxist-Democrat plan that says it's "to the Democrats advantage to have
a lack of transparency and then lie about everything".
https://rumble.com/vkt8ld-call-it-the-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-or-whatever.-how-libs-exploit-t.html



*The next rule of SURVIVAL CLUB is*
180 - Liberalism at work, so many regulations that all chance of
progress is stymied. That's the catch-22 and it's inherent in
Liberalism. The more regulations you have the less you can do to fix
problems because of regulations in the way of doing so.

[-hh]

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 1:01:29 PM UTC-5, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
> > chrisv wrote:
> >>
> >> Many (most?) pure electric cars are rear-wheel drive (for good
> >> reasons), so they do lose that one advantage or FWD cars, that weight
> >> over the drive wheels.
> >
> >Sure, except that the battery pack makes them heavier, and with better
> >weight distribution: you're not going to have a light rear end.
>
> I suppose.

The classical anathema for RWD was poor weight distribution (nose heavy).

> >Plus also
> >remember that mountain passes means thinner air which kills the power
> >in an traditional ICE (made less bad with modern turbocharging) whereas
> >an electric motor has zero reduction in power due to altitude.
>
> Getting "stuck" isn't generally due to lack of power...

True, its usually more that of snow depth and not having the right tires/chains.
But I mentioned engine power so as to note that when discussing mountain
passes, a normally asperated ICE can start sucking wind pretty damn bad.
I can remember as a kid going up Wolf Creek Pass and at one point, my
mom (copilot) suggested to dad (driver) that he should pass a slow moving
truck. His comment was "I've been trying to ... for the past two miles"(!).

> >> Also, those brands that you mentioned tend to have wider tires (for
> >> performance) which is a drawback in the snow. On the other hand, most
> >> BMW's and (I think) all Audi's have AWD.
> >
> >But overall, its more likely that the comment was fiction from a troll who
> >jealously thinks they can't afford a BMW/Audi/Tesla ...
>
> Yeah, likely confirmation bias, or wishfhul thinking, or simply
> hallucination.

Their name-dropping of specific makes was the clue.

> >they're the ones who "didn't get stuck" because their pickup truck
> > is upside down in the median. /s

Because as the old joke goes: AWD may give you "four wheel GO",
but every vehicle has "four wheel STOP".

-hh

[-hh]

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 1:08:09 PM UTC-5, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
> >And IIRC, something like 90% of BMWs sold today are AWD too. Overall, if the
> >claim is even true, problems would more likely have been caused by people
> >not bringing chains to equip (required on some Mt passes), and/or by running
> >on All-Season tires which aren't as good as dedicated snows. There was a
> >head-to-head test done by Car&Driver years ago that found that for the question
> >of "tires or drivetrain", having snows beat having AWD in 80% of their tests.
> >Naturally, having both is better still, but wasn't the point of the comparison.
>
> I'm sure than many people think that their "AWD" will save their
> asses, in situations where it won't.

It seems too many people believe that only getting moving is important;
they forget that stopping immediately becomes a lot more important
when you ... can't.

>
> Being something of a "purist", I special-ordered a RWD car. The
> dealers don't normally stock them. My Winter tires are Dunlop Winter
> Sports.

Don't recall what mine are right now; used to be Vredestein's in the winter.
For summers, Dunlop SP-9000's were at one point considered to be the
"best in rain" choice. Of course, treadwear is the trade-off.

> My daughter's car runs Michelin X-Ice. Her car is FWD, so she could
> problably get-away with the stock all-seasons. But after years of my
> drilling her about the importance of the correct tires, how nice it is
> to have that extra margin of safety, she wouldn't even consider
> running all-seasons year-around.

There was a guy out of Houston who ran a Porsche LISTSERV way back
in the 80s/90s; his comment on the subject was "once you see just how
small tire contact patches are, you'll never buy a cheap tire ever again".

> Since she's a girl, the task of swapping her wheels Spring and Fall is
> my problem. But it's worth it.

I've gotten lazy the past few years, plus I want to help keep my independent
shop in business since tire consumption is down. Costs me ~$75 for him
to swap the summer/winter shoes, which includes a rebalance if I bring along
a fresh box of doughnuts <g>.


-hh

[-hh]

Did some brain scratching and google digging:

It was Stan Hanks who said something like that.

<https://www.quora.com/Why-has-Stan-Hanks-owned-so-many-cars>
<http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/1051562-porschephiles.html>


-hh

[David Hartung]

We shall see.

[chrisv]

-hh wrote:

> The classical anathema for RWD was poor weight distribution (nose heavy).

The mighty E46 was 50/50! Damn, that was was the almost perfect car.
If they still made them, I'd prefer it over my more modern car.

>I can remember as a kid going up Wolf Creek Pass and at one point, my
>mom (copilot) suggested to dad (driver) that he should pass a slow moving
>truck. His comment was "I've been trying to ... for the past two miles"(!).

Ha!

[Lee]

The future is electic, get used to it.

[Lee]

> > c-ve hicles

> >
> > https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/chrysler-aims-electri
> > c-20 28-82086896
> >
> > https://www.techradar.com/news/hyundai-switches-focus-to-electric-st

> > ops- developing-petrol-diesel-engines
>
> Curious, what are states doing relative to electrical grids to be
> able to handle the capacity of all these new cars? Because goofy
> states like CA can't even handle what it has now with all its rolling
> blackouts, and is in no position to deal with millions upon millions
> of EVs taxing its electric grids.

Did Henry Ford worry about the
gasoline station network before he
flooded the roads with cheap cars?

Even conservative states like
Texas and Arkansas and Alabama
and Florida are pushing EV's and
will upgrade their electric grids
to accomodate.

https://thecapitolist.com/desantis-signs-electric-car-bill-the-first-sin
ce-the-start-of-covid-19-pandemic/

https://talkbusiness.net/2021/10/arkansas-officials-working-to-increase-
electric-vehicle-adoption/

https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-birmingham-kay-ivey-autom
obile-manufacturing-af63a2a6d782764bd1f9eeb1638db286

[-hh]

On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 10:18:35 AM UTC-5, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
> > The classical anathema for RWD was poor weight distribution (nose heavy).
>
> The mighty E46 was 50/50! Damn, that was was the almost perfect car.
> If they still made them, I'd prefer it over my more modern car.

Yes, the E46 was an exception (and solid vehicle); I was mostly thinking
back to things like the RWD Chevy Caprice, which you'd swear had a F/R
weight ratio of 90/10 (in reality it probably wasn't any worse than 65/35).

I did test drive .. twice .. an E36 compact; it just didn't have enough torque,
as it was limited to a NA 1.8L (the US never got the E46/5 update w/ 2.5-I6)

> >I can remember as a kid going up Wolf Creek Pass and at one point, my
> >mom (copilot) suggested to dad (driver) that he should pass a slow moving
> >truck. His comment was "I've been trying to ... for the past two miles"(!).
>
> Ha!

Yeah, we figured out later that this was the day that the transmission got
fried ... and later, that GM's optional "towing package" didn't include a tranny
cooler (was pulling a small camper with a Suburban). That pass's elevation
is nearly 11K ft, so figure roughly a 33% reduction in available horsepower.


-hh

[BeamMeUpScotty]

But Democrats say the car companies are smarter than we are and they
know what is coming so of course they'd be in on the ground floor when
planning the fuel for the cars they build. After all, a car with no
energy is a useless heap of technology.

--
That's karma,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
*deriving their just powers from the consent* of the governed, — That
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is
the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government,"

It would seem that *MANDATES* are NOT derived from the consent of the
governed. The Constitution doesn't delegate unlimited power to mandate
the governed, become part of a medical experiment.

"This is the classic definition of a “cult,” when facts and real science
are tossed aside for beliefs that contradict the actual facts."

[Blue Lives Matter]

Nonsense...

[David Hartung]

The Federal government didn't offer tax credits for Fords. I wonder just
how many people would buy EVs if there were no government bennifits
involved.

[NoBody]

This from the guy who can't explain where the electricity is going to
come from and how we will deal with the toxi waste of the batteries.
Liberals really are this stupid.


" Everyone loses with censorship."

Lying Lee Tue, 21 Dec 2021 11:41:26 -0600, forgetting that he hasn't
spoken up about the censorship from the left.

>
>

[-hh]

On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 6:18:02 AM UTC-5, NoBody wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 09:49:55 -0600, "Lee" <cle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Blue Lives Matter wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 12:46:28 -0500, Yak <y...@inbox.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Curious, what are states doing relative to electrical grids to be
> >> > able to handle the capacity of all these new cars?

Ummmm...there aren't many State-owned utility companies: for decades,
utilities have largely been Publicly Traded Corporations.

> >> > Because goofy
> >> > states like CA can't even handle what it has now with all its
> >> > rolling blackouts, and is in no position to deal with millions upon
> >> > millions of EVs taxing its electric grids.

No, that "goofy" would be Pacific Gas & Electric (stock symbol PCG).

<https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-utility-pg-e-criminally-liable-deadly-2020-zogg-fire-n1275483>
<https://www.npr.org/2021/09/24/1040630538/pacific-gas-electric-manslaughter-charges-california-wildfire-zogg>

Insofar as what they'll want to be doing, that's "corporate growth."

> >> The entire push towards EVs is nonsense.
> >
> > The future is electic, get used to it.
>
> This from the guy who can't explain where the electricity is going to

> come from ...

Because you think EV uptake will outpace the current growth rate of
the 'green' (solar/wind/etc) alternatives? Well, to address that risk,
there's also been applied R&D underway for years in nuclear power
for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). Last time I checked, there was
already a SMR being piloted up in Canada. There's also a project
in Idaho that's expected to go online in 2029:

<https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Scaled-down-SMR-pilot-project-remains-on-course>

FYI, an interesting development angle that this work is taking is for
using an SMR to be the replacement for coal at a legacy coal power plant:

<https://www.power-eng.com/nuclear/nuclear-smr-firm-nuscale-power-exploring-coal-to-small-reactor-project-in-poland/>

What this means is that in addition to making existing plants 'green', old
shut down coal plants can be refurbished & restarted to increase capacity.


> ... and how we will deal with the toxi waste of the batteries.

Gosh, golly what can we possibly do? Other than simply the same thing
that's currently done with toxic Lead-Acid batteries today, right?

Yeah, that's to recycle the base element material.

Last time that I had a project that was working with Pb as a heavy metal risk,
over 80% of the Pb used in manufacturing is from recycled, not mining.

> Liberals really are this stupid.

Given how much of the above you clearly didn't know, that's an embarrassingly
uninformed claim to try to make. /s


-hh

[chrisv]

NoBody wrote:

>> The future is electic, get used to it.
>
>This from the guy who can't explain where the electricity is going to
>come from

From generators. More can be built. It will take time. The
transition will take longer than what some people are hoping.

>and how we will deal with the toxi waste of the batteries.

The batteries will be recycled.

>Liberals really are this stupid.

How ironic.

[rbowman]

On 01/21/2022 07:02 AM, chrisv wrote:
> NoBody wrote:
>
>>> The future is electic, get used to it.
>> This from the guy who can't explain where the electricity is going to
>> come from
> From generators. More can be built. It will take time. The
> transition will take longer than what some people are hoping.
>

New power plants, wind, solar, traditional, or, god forbid, nuclear? New
HV transmission lines? NIMBY!!!

[Lee]

But windmills cause cancer. Trump
said so "Nobody" believes it.

[Lee]

Trump and the GOP Congress (2017-2019)
had no issue with the tax credits so why
do you?

[Dustin the dude with the stuck floppy]

I will reverse engineer a chicken with my brain. I want Prescott Computer
Guy to support their flooding accusation. Let's see the evidence Prescott
Computer Guy. When I accused Prescott Computer Guy of doxing as Carroll I
actually supported it with proof. In fact Prescott Computer Guy's lies only
grew. So of course I regret not attacking Prescott Computer Guy. While I
am sure the trolls approved of it, I've not helped the situation at all.

What it looks like can be skinned and not key to its performance, especially
if it's better than what Prescott Computer Guy uses. BTW, I've already pointed
out that his use of "herd" to describe COLA denizens is name calling, since
he's likening them to grazing cows. It's not shocking that Prescott Computer
Guy feigned boredom at the appearance of being seen as credible; knowing
that it's unlikely to ever take place.


--
Eight things to never feed your cat!!
<https://www.whitepages.com/phone/1-423-491-1448>
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22NARCISSISTIC+BIGOT%22
https://www.bing.com/search?q=Steve+Petruzzellis+the+narcissistic+bigot
Steve Carroll the Narcissistic Bigot

[Lee]

The electric grid is being expanded yearly
as I have already posted. Too bad you are too
stupid to research your own questions.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50818

[Lefty Lundquist]

Joe Biden's infrastructure bill has provisions for expanding the
electric grid as well as charging stations.
It's going to take some time though but will create many jobs as well.



--
Lefty Lundquist

[Blue Lives Matter]

<LOL> 46 GW is a drop in the bucket, Dummy...

[David Hartung]

On 1/21/22 8:02 AM, chrisv wrote:
> NoBody wrote:
>
>>> The future is electic, get used to it.
>>
>> This from the guy who can't explain where the electricity is going to
>> come from
>
> From generators. More can be built. It will take time. The
> transition will take longer than what some people are hoping.

What will power the generator stations?

>> and how we will deal with the toxi waste of the batteries.
>
> The batteries will be recycled.

How? From what I read, lithium batteries cannot be recycled at this time.

[Mike Dolan]

On 21 Jan 2022, David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com> posted some
news:C8OdnRo9FNtszXb8...@giganews.com:

Rudy has volunteered to have them all delivered to his home for safe
keeping while a solution is formulated.

Deer Rudy, they won't fit in your vibrator.

Please post your shipping address and phone number so everyone knows where
to send the batteries.

[chrisv]

David Hartung wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> NoBody wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The future is electic, get used to it.
>>>
>>> This from the guy who can't explain where the electricity is going to
>>> come from
>>
>> From generators. More can be built. It will take time. The
>> transition will take longer than what some people are hoping.
>
>What will power the generator stations?

I think you already know what will power them. The exact mix cannot
be predicted. The market, and the government, will need figure that
out.

>>> and how we will deal with the toxi waste of the batteries.
>>
>> The batteries will be recycled.
>
>How? From what I read, lithium batteries cannot be recycled at this time.

Ridiculous. Of course they can be, and will be, recycled.

https://www.tesla.com/support/sustainability-recycling

[NoBody]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 08:02:34 -0600, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>NoBody wrote:
>
>>> The future is electic, get used to it.
>>
>>This from the guy who can't explain where the electricity is going to
>>come from
>
>From generators. More can be built. It will take time. The
>transition will take longer than what some people are hoping.
>

Generates powered by?

>>and how we will deal with the toxi waste of the batteries.
>
>The batteries will be recycled.

And slave labor being used to create these batteries is ok and no
infrastucture exists for this recycling.

>
>>Liberals really are this stupid.
>
>How ironic.

You proved my point perfectly.

[NoBody]

Oh look, Lying Lee is lying about me again. Care to address the
actual topic?

[NoBody]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 18:33:52 -0600, David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com>
wrote:

Actual facts don't interest liberals.

[chrisv]

NoBody wrote:

>Generates powered by?

Idiot.

>And slave labor being used to create these batteries is ok and no
>infrastucture exists for this recycling.

Isn't Tesla's battery "gigafactory" in Arizona?

>You proved my point perfectly.

Everyone who doesn't think that this "Nobody" character is a
God-damned idiot, please raise your hands.

*The infrastructure will be developed, as it is needed, just like
everything else in our economy.*

And how does my support of the *obviously* correct statement that "the
future is electic, get used to it." lead to my thinking that "slave
labor is OK"?

Sheesh!

What brain-damaged fscktards these right-wingers are! What miserable,
pathetic, lying losers!

[chrisv]

NoBody wrote:

> David Hartung wrote:
>>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>

>>> The batteries will be recycled.
>>
>>How? From what I read, lithium batteries cannot be recycled at this time.
>
> Actual facts don't interest liberals.

The "actual fact" is that the batteries will be recycled, right-wing
lying dipshit.

https://www.tesla.com/support/sustainability-recycling

Will no right-wingers call-out these fscking liars, with something
akin to "get off our side, you're embarrassing us"?

Don't *any* of you have the guts to do that?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 09:57:40 -0600, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Like you call out the left wing liars, you fucking hypocrite?

[NoBody]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 09:57:40 -0600, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

So you trust a manufacturer's statement (who's replacement batteries
cost $25,000 btw) and can't supply independent citations that we have
the infrastructure to "recycle" the toxic waste generated by these
batteries, Here is a citation to the problem:

"EV batteries are larger and heavier than those in regular cars and
are made up of several hundred individual lithium-ion cells, all of
which need dismantling. They contain hazardous materials, and have an
inconvenient tendency to explode if disassembled incorrectly.

"Currently, globally, it's very hard to get detailed figures for what
percentage of lithium-ion batteries are recycled, but the value
everyone quotes is about 5%," says Dr Anderson. "In some parts of the
world it's considerably less."

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56574779

[Trump Is Your True Master]

William T wrote

>
> This is a good read.
>
> "The Electric Vehicle Scam"
>
> <https://www.americaoutloud.com/the-electric-vehicle-scam/>
>

They make it easier to fulfill our biblical obligation to kill rightwingers.


Gasoline is excellent dousing rightists and lighting them on fire.

[-hh]

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 10:13:13 AM UTC-5, NoBody wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 09:57:40 -0600, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
> >NoBody wrote:
> >
> >> David Hartung wrote:
> >>>
> >>> chrisv wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The batteries will be recycled.
> >>>
> >>>How? From what I read, lithium batteries cannot be recycled at this time.
> >>
> >> Actual facts don't interest liberals.
> >
> >The "actual fact" is that the batteries will be recycled, right-wing
> >lying dipshit.
> >
> >https://www.tesla.com/support/sustainability-recycling
> >
> >Will no right-wingers call-out these fscking liars, with something
> >akin to "get off our side, you're embarrassing us"?
> >
> >Don't *any* of you have the guts to do that?
>
> So you trust a manufacturer's statement (who's replacement batteries
> cost $25,000 btw) and can't supply independent citations that we have
> the infrastructure to "recycle" the toxic waste generated by these

> batteries, ...

If they've put it in their SEC filings, I'd say so, because false information
there carries the weight of perjury.

> "Currently, globally, it's very hard to get detailed figures for what
> percentage of lithium-ion batteries are recycled, but the value
> everyone quotes is about 5%," says Dr Anderson. "In some parts
> of the world it's considerably less."
>
> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56574779

Yeah, so? What's the *prediction* going to be? Because if one uses
the history of its progenitor of the lead-acid battery, the recycling rates
from back in its first 10 years of use were vastly lower vs today's.

Case in point, roughly 85% of all lead is recycled and for lead in car batteries,
its closer to 99%:

<https://www.waste360.com/e-waste/report-recycling-rate-lead-batteries-us>

FWIW, close to the #1 consumer of lead that isn't recycled is .. gun bullets.
Something to think about as you passionately hug your 2nd Amendment... /s

-hh

[Scott W Carson]

I'm in favor of transitioning off of fossil fuels to renewable energy but I
don't think we are anywhere close at this point.
Getting there?
Absolutely.
Until we can manufacture the power plants ie:batteries at this point, in
country, we are leaving ourselves open to being controlled just like we are
right now with chips, drugs, PPE, etc.

As for EV and hybrids a friend of mine bought into the program from the day the
first Prius was released.
Seriously!
Currently he has a late model high end model (all the gadgets) Prius, a Tesla
Model 3 and a Ford Mustang Mach-E.

Every Prius he has owned has been stellar.
No issues at all.
He trades them around 75k and upgrades.

The Tesla had a lot of problems when he first got it. Tesla did the right thing
and exchanged the car for another new one which has been fine.
The car is a rocket but the quality control seems sketchy. Rattles, body panel
gaps and just a feeling of "cheap" considering the price.

I've saved the best for last.
The Mach E made it about 5 miles before it broke down, brand new car, and had
to get towed back to the dealer. The dealer had it for 3 weeks and couldn't fix
it. He demanded his money back but Ford gave him a higher end model, again
brand new, instead and also some kind of lifetime warranty.
So far the car is pretty good. I've driven it and you do get stares.
It's a weird car IMHO.

So reliable = Prius
Fun = Tesla (it's like driving an M Series BMW)
Shitbox = Mach E.




--
Scott W. Carson

[Lee]

Every state government is promoting
electric cars and believes they have
the grid capacity to handle them.




Electric Vehicles Charge Ahead in Statehouses
January 24, 2022

Across the country, legislatures in
blue and red states are considering
bills to bolster charging infrastructure,
expand consumer incentives, electrify
state fleets or mandate charging stations
in new buildings. States also will be
tasked with deploying billions in new
federal funds for charging stations
approved in the new infrastructure law,
and some legislators say they plan to
take an active role in that strategy.

"Every state is involved," said Marc
Geller, a board member and spokesperson
for the Electric Vehicle Association, an
advocacy group that promotes the adoption
of such vehicles. "This is being taken
seriously in a way it hasn't been before,
because the trajectory is very clear."

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/
01/24/electric-vehicles-charge-ahead-in-statehouses

[Blue Lives Matter]

<LOL> No they don't, Dummy. Many electric companies don't have the
capacity to support the current demands. Have you not ever heard the
term "brownouts?"