I can certainly relate to the diarrhea scenario, but after driving over 100k miles in an EV, I can honestly say that that is not a worry. I used to worry a lot more about making it to the gas station when I drove a gas car, but I did like to tempt fate by driving with the needle pointing past E.
Instead of buying an expensive fancy schmancy ICE we bought a Leaf for $23 k and invested a big chunk of our change in a solar/inverter/battery system that runs our house and car. We also run a swamp cooler instead of AC. we have a 1999 GMC to take our kids camping . Keeping old cars running takes up way less resources and energy.
We don’t have any flags so this is how we virtue signal , putting our money where our mouth is.
How long does it take to charge an EV off of a solar system?
You don't use the car during the day? Assume where you are the sun does not shine at night...
When I was in my desperate to survive the apocalypse phase 10+ years ago --- I looked into solar - we lived near Nelson NZ sunniest place in the country ... cost was about 40k at the time ... the sales guy told us a couple of things:
1. If anyone tells you you will get 20 years out of the batteries walk way - been doing this for a long time - most I've seen is 12 - average is 8
2. You shouldn't count on using any sort of heating elements (hair dryer - electric stove etc...) - the battery will drain real fast if you do that... get all your appliances onto gas options...
Fortunately I escaped the mass formation that had captured me and killed this diseased child before it was born .... mains were costing me $200 per month... I would have paid cash for the panels but you have to factor in the opportunity cost on that cash...
It would have been insane to have pulled the trigger on that ... in no possible way did it make sense
An EV isn't for everyone because there are disadvantages as well as advantages. We have solar/inverter/batteries and we get credit for putting power in the grid. we are able to charge at night and out electric bills are about $5 a month including running a swamp cooler and powering our house. Hubby dropped in 240 volt lines, which is less voltage than an AC line so it doesn't take us long to charge, a few hours. It's very easy to just plug it in when we get home. Gassing our Jimmy is a pain I think because i have to drive to the station, pay, fill ad drive back home. Grandma and Papa got a Tesla and it's hard for them to figure out how to use the tech and it takes a while at the superchargers, so that is a disadvantage. But they are happy they're not paying at the pump because they drive further than my mom-around-town errands. Yes, out battery has lost capacity over the past 9 years, but we also don't have the complexity and expense of ICE maintenance. I've been very happy with our power station at home and my little Leaf. But we were able to spring for $45 k of car and a power system, and I think it's STUPID to get rid petroleum based energy. I don;t know if they are doing it on purpose or if we have really run into a finite supply. For example, if you have to put 10 kilo-joules in to get an 8 kilo joule yield, it doesn't make sense.
Gassing our Jimmy is a pain I think because i have to drive to the station, pay, fill ad drive back home.
Hmmm... I generally don't drive to the petrol station - fill up - then drive back home... seems a bit inefficient ....
What I like to do is when I see the tank gauge is sitting on about 1/4... and I am heading out in the car... I usually stop at a petrol station and fill er up... I like killing multiple birds with one stone.
EVs are cheaper to maintain but may cost more to repair, research says
According to We Predict's research, an EV can actually cost more to own compared to a gasoline-powered car. We Predict looked at two time frames to paint its picture. This essentially boils down to service costs (when you take a vehicle in for repairs) and maintenance costs (wear and tear, fluid replacements). The firm found that in a three-month time frame, EV service costs were 2.3 times higher than a gasoline-powered car. At 12 months, EV service costs were still 1.6 times higher. We Predict found service-related costs averaged $306 per electric vehicle, while a gas-powered car averaged $189.
But why? Well, EVs are still new to the automotive landscape, and We Predict found that service centers and mechanics logged longer hours when working with EVs. That's because it takes longer to diagnose a problem, let alone fix it, compared to traditional engines because the technology is so new. Specifically, EVs require 1.5x the labor hours and labor rates are, on average, 1.3 times higher. The additional certifications required to service and work on electric vehicles may contribute to these higher rates.
End of the day my take is this --- if you are going to have 2 vehicles one way or the other (I have 3 actually...) if you want to pose around town and shout 'Look at me - I am green and cool!' then why not buy an EV (powered by coal).
Then have the real car for longer journeys.
So I applaud your decision.
But it ain't saving the world... (coal powered... lithium battery...) -- and the thing is ... if what we wished for -- phasing out of ICE and 100% EV was mandated... that would collapse the global economy ... there is nowhere near enough resources to accomplish this... and prices would quickly blow through the roof...
Then there's the power grid - how many trillions would be required to build that out ... you think electricity is pricey now --- wait till your bill goes up 10x....
The only reason EVs exist --- is because they are part of the mass formation that includes 'renewable energy'..... they create the perception that we can and slowly are weaning off of finite fossil fuels...
The purpose of this mass formation is to prevent the hordes from freaking out as they realize the future is 100% reliant on an infinite supply of cheap oil.... even a MOREON can figure out that oil is not infinite...
This mass formation - like many of them -- is useful in that it keeps the hordes calm... they don't worry about our finite world... we are transitioning to a sustainable green world
It still doesn't make economic sense for the vast majority of people. Government incentives, available in most blue states in the US, are a major distortion of price signals.
Other than fanatics who are willing to pay for a hotel room in the middle of nowhere and recharge if they have a long journey have two cars --- an EV for posing on short trips mostly in the city.... and a real car for longer trips.
The fact that having two cars when the real car would do --- and how that destroys their green creds --- is lost on them
That said .. most people are MOREONS so to be expected.
I drive one car - it's small (two seats) nowhere to put luggage... and it tears through fuel like there was no tomorrow. But then I have no children so I consider myself environmentally woke
Mostly regional sure, but have done many long road trips as well. Is it as easy as jumping in a gas car and going? Absolutely not. Is it as terrifying and long as those who have not done it think it is? Absolutely not.
I think most people don't realize just how often they actually stop when on a road trip, and they also underestimate the actual duration of the stops they take.
Yes a car can go 400 miles on a single tank of gas. I've never gone non-stop gas station to gas station 400 miles, not even when I was a solo traveler.
If you treat every road trip like a cannonball run its gonna suck in an EV. If you drive like an average person there will be a difference yes, but its nowhere near as great as people imagine.
Bull. I'm an older divorced woman and used to make the trek from Sarasota, FL to Birmingham, AL pretty regularly as my daughter used to live in AL. I would stop to gas up and use the restroom and then hit the road. Total time stopped was always less than 15 minutes. No way would I want to be sitting somewhere waiting for my EV to charge. The trip took anywhere from 9-12 hours depending on accidents encountered. To prolong that with charging times is nuts.
The battery and charging regimen are probably the biggest logistical bottleneck for widespread EV adoption. Even leaving all environmental and other "external" cost issues aside, to recharge an EV requires many times as long as what a comparable gas fill-up. Multiply that by the number of drivers waiting to use (currently) limited stations, and you compound the issue. Already there have been issues with vandalism. What happens when one or an entire bank of chargers is out of service? What if it was the only one in the region? That means EV drivers are stranded. What about the risk of crime, which will only be increased by long wait times and lots of people waiting? What about home charging? That's great if you live in a detached home with garage but difficult to impossible for the city apartment dweller. The very places where an EV would make the most sense (light duty in urban areas?) the lack of charging points is compounded due to scarcity of parking.
There are probably many more issues I'm unaware of.
We have a neighbour who has an electric BMW - one of the ugliest cars on the road -- bought used for NZD90k or something ridiculous...
He was urging me to go green and buy a Taycan ... I said ya but what do I do with that when I have a long drive? I ain't splitting it up and staying overnight to charge when I can do the drive on a tank of petrol
Oh he says --- what's the rush? It's nice to relax and split up the drive.....
My idea of splitting up a 5 or 6 hour drive is stopping for a quick bite... a fill up ... and not wasting $$$ on a hotel room in a place that I have ZERO interest in stopping...
I suppose he was shaking his head when I decided on a 911 (turbo to boot - she burns she burns)... instead of the electric option.
I'm with you, female too. If there's somewhere you want (or worse yet, NEED) to be, you drive balls out to get there. Example - a family member 1800 miles away is having a medical problem that you need to be there for, and you don't know how long you're going to have to stay with them. This exact scenario happened to me. 900 miles x 2 days to get there. Yes I did that. And I would do it again if necessary.
Sarasota Opera House to Birmingham Museum of Art (two landmarks chosen at random so I have a 1:1 address to compare)
The most direct route is 596 miles, and takes 9hrs 59m according to google. Real world time will of course be greater because you need to stop for bathroom, meal, and gas.
According to ABetterRoutePlanner.com in the 2020 Model 3 (slightly less range than current model year)
The charging stops are after 182, 104, and 170 miles respectively with 142 miles to your destination.
If you average 5% over the posted speed limit, 10h 12m total, 9h 19m driving, 53 minutes charging at 3 stops (14,22, and 17 minutes respectively)
Now surely you would stop for a meal, a bathroom break or two, and at least one gas stop on a trip of this duration. Time that is not necessarily reflected in Google's assessment of the total time from door to door.
In the long run, much of the time spent charging is time spent taking care of your needs(things you do regardless of ICE or EV) on the trip meaning that less time is spent actually waiting for a charge than you might imagine.
Now, when you get to Birmingham you will need a charge. Maybe that is at your daughter's place in which case even 110v outlet will get you started enough for the return trip, otherwise add 15 minutes for a fast charge at the end of the trip.
Never? I regularly hit Gas station to gas station. 12-18 hours of driving in a day when I am doing trips.
Last trip I made:
Day 1:
Leave house 7A
8A stop at truck stop for NON REFORMULATED fuel for better fuel economy and breakfast and leave at ~9A.
Drive until fuel light comes on around 2P.
Find a petrol station.
Fill the car with fuel, grab beef Jerky and plastic bottles of tea use facilities and stretch.
Hit next leg of travel.
I may hit 1-2 "waysides" for 10-15 minutes per leg, but that is literally to stretch and use the facilities. Unless I am driving solo... Then, the plastic bottle for liquid waste works. You have not been a serious driver if you have not relieved yourself while doing 70+...
Around 6-7P stop for food. Estimate how tired I am, Plot for the campsite. Fill the car with fuel. Go.
Pull into campsite between 8 and 11P. Last time it was about 10P.
Day 2:
Wake between 5AM and 6AM start to strike camp.
Plot out day's travel.
Prep dehydrated food and cook on fire.
Use camp facilities.
Leave campsite between 7 and 8AM.
Drive until the fuel light hits.
You get the idea. As long as you are masticating you will not be tired. Beef Jerky, bubble gum, and other chewy items like Swedish Fish and you can keep this up for a few days. I know. I have round tripped to and from Canada non stop. Hit destination. Do what I need/want. Go home.
I can do Chicago area to Florida in under 36 hour every time... and did it in a single day already. 20 hours drive in a single day is not that bad. When I take my Street Bike it is similar. ~16 hours travel in an average day.
Servicing and maintenance is not cheaper (more weight = more tyre replacements) -- battery replacement costs are huge ... servicing is expensive because it is often difficult to identify and fix electrical issues...
And if more people swap to EVs that requires massive $$$ to upgrade the grid... imagine that that will do to the price of electricity.... and it will increase the demand for coal which will drive the price of coal up...
I asked my Uber driver in Anchorage, AK, why none of the drivers had Priuses like 90% do in Seattle and other places I've been. He said they just didn't pencil out given the cold weather battery performance over the long winters. And there are *lots* of places in the US that get *much* colder than Anchorage, although possibly for shorter winters.
There's a lot of misinformation about EVs. Here's a Tesla map where you can input your trip from start to finish and then see where you can charge at their supercharger network and how long it takes.
Wanna see a network of petrol pumps where in a few minutes you can pump 500km+ into your tank?
Tesla is a rubbish car. It's for posers. The tech is garbage. Try stopping a car moving at 100mp hour hauling a 500kg battery as you approach a sharp corner... hahaha
He modified the battery. Model S covers eight years or 150,000 miles but may be voided if the battery is opened or serviced by anyone not authorized by Tesla.
A mate has a top of the line Tesla -- we had a hockey tournament last year -- he could not even make it the 3 hour drive on a charge... had to stop for 45 minutes to top up on the way...
He was telling me that ya it's fast - but driving that way sucks the juice + it's tricky slowing down because of that 500kg battery ... think piling 500kg into the back of a ute then driving 100mph ... and trying to slow for a sharp corner .... he said he's almost gone through guard rails many times....
Wonder how often the brakes need to be changed if you do that too often.
You can also race him on a short distance - but on a windy road... watch him pile through the barrier as he tries to brake with that 500kg battery.
I have a 4 x 4 and I haul up to 600kg on the back.... this is a vehicle made of hauling yet I have to be very careful and avoided having to slow quickly.... it goes unstable real fast if you hit the brakes too hard.
Yea, kinetic energy can be a real bitch, and it bit me hard a few times in my youth.
I'd prefer he stay on the road, given he's my friend, but it would be an interesting contest in the curves, as I'm pretty sure my adaptive suspension is superior.
I can tell ya from personal experience on a volunteer advisory committee for my local City Council: there's a really touching number of grownups still believing with their whole hearts in the existence of the Electricity Fairy (no relation).
Keebler elves in the wall, cycling to charge their vehicles. The same lack of critical thinking skills that goes into masks and experimental injections, allows a person to buy an EV and think they're doing something beneficial.
Once the road taxes decline (the added tax to every gallon of gas), you can bet the revenue man will want some money. Future cars will be required to have a smart port that records mileage to the tax authority. Who know what else will get reported.
Exactly, monitored and tracked at every turn. The government could hack your car and turn it off if you don't behave. My old car doesn't have any computer chips thanks. I'd like to keep it that way. We're walking into a trap!
And when you ask them where they think electricity comes from it is the same exact face a 7 year old gives when asked about babies. They may know, but either haven't thought about it and don't so they grimace or they do know, but they are rough with the details r are embarrassed. Same grimace.
Some will read you The Party rhetoric: "renewables". Of course they mean wind, solar and maybe hydro. Ignoring that all are fueled by the sun and thus NOT renewable (astrophysics 101), a careful looks reveals that "23%" quoted is a DoE con. Not an outright lie, but not truthful either. They include the potential capacity of hydro and the peak output of wind and solar. Hydro is great if you happen to have a river to dam up or one big enough to tap without a dam. Which is not where the electricity is needed. Hoover dam as an example has never been used at more than 30% of what it could produce. In most hydro locations capability exceeds actual use by a huge amount. The DoE figures total capability in that 23%. That's a political tactic. Same for wind and solar, typically. Probably a 10x exaggeration.
"I'm going to charge my EV from my home solar panels the government helped me buy". Really, Bubba? You are going to stay home all day and drive at night only? Hope, you're gonna charge that baby at night, from the grid. Maybe you get "net zero" because while you were not home using electricity your utility company was "buying back" that output from your rooftop solar, but that's another con. There is little to no storage in the grid. Most of that "buy back" will end up shunted - no place to go. Some areas can shut down some of their feeders to use that 'buy back' and save some fuel (most electricity generation is using coal, oil or natural gas) but not quickly. Then you get home, plug in your EV (as have your wealthy neighbors) and the "peaker" generation plants have to kick in to supply your nocturnal demand.
Maybe Bubba was really rich and put in local battery storage so his solar capture was ready when he got home. That's moving in a more practical direction, though still has some issues.
And then there's the environmental damage of these non-renewable
The wind turbines start to rot away after 12 years. They're useless and cause environmental damage both in manufacture, transport and installation. It's all a huge scam.
Not to worry. At the rate things are going, the powers that be will adopt techniques a la Stalin. If the engineers say that something is impossible, take them out and shoot them. Or if you're merciful that day, send them to Siberia (well, for us, I guess Alaska will do, and it was part of Russia once, so it's kind of appropriate...) Instead of having irreplaceable individuals, those with valuable skills and knowledge being allowed to operate in an optimal environment, send them far afield to do menial labor instead. Surely if enough of those damned academics are punished, they will finally adhere to the Five Year Plan! Sounds like [black] humor, doesn't it? Yet based on the world history I've learnt, it's pretty close to the truth.
I like your optimism with "will adopt". Much of it is already "have adopted". Even Stalin (and Hitler) didn't start shooting people right out of the gate. They built up to that.
Academics are already "tow the line or your out". Via the funding game and other political tactics, that world has become intolerant of dissent outside defined (and gov't approved) bounds. It has been an incremental process for decades. The punishment hasn't *yet* been as overt as exile to Siberia, disappearances or public execution (yet). But having research funding yanked and tenure denied are as effective levers.
Control of education is more effective and efficient in the long run than brutality. Stalin knew that, as did Mao. As have learned our own version of The Party. Look at the complicity and submission the last 2 years - and the number of people begging for more - arguing that the ONLY way to "be safe" is let the rulers rule without opposition. This is made possible because they "learned" in school. Mao knew that history was his enemy - it revealed the reality of where his utopian vision led - so he banned teaching history. Our own federally controlled education system is on the same path. Teaching "alternate" history - one that justifies total submission. Teaching that ONLY a strong central government can provide essentials. This is for real, now.
This is spot on and I hope everyone reads it. It is a cautionary tale. Perhaps it's not cautionary, rather it is just a "tell" of what the future looks like.
The kids in college in the last two years wanted more restrictions! They often protested for more. They have been crate trained for the last 30 years.
When I was in college we would've tore out the walls and had the university pay for it all!
The most you can expect as an answer to "Where does electricity come from?" from such people is, "Why solar panels and windmills!"
Next you have to ask, "And how do we build the solar panels and windmills?" and then you'll get the stammering and the blank stare. Maybe a non answer like, "Well the same way they get built today ... " which is equivalent to, "I don't know, pixie dust and unicorns?"
Add "And what happens on a cold winter night with no wind?" for maximum fun.
George Orwell's "Animal Farm" even had the promise of green energy! Somewhat prescient for a book from 1945. The wind generator is never completed due to a combination of political infighting (plans sabotaged), swindled out of funds to buy parts and finally, the tower is destroyed in one of the battles against humans.
What do you mean? There's global warming and climate change. Ofc there won't be any cold unwindy winter night. I bet that almost none of them would say that though. They don't have that in their manual.
Any geophysicist will tell you that climate change is real: Based on geological evidence, the climate hasn't been stable yet in the life of this rock we call home. It is definitely warmer now than the last ice age.
The myth is that humanity has any control over the climate. Stand near a volcano if you still foster the illusion we can change the course of climate. When the planet has had enough of humans it will burp and cleanse itself. The myth that CO2 is somehow harmful to the planet is beyond absurd and based on misinterpretation of a broken climate simulation model, BTW. Flawed simulation vs the obvious reality of what a volcano or earthquake can do. Sorry Al G, we're not that powerful as collective (the human race).
Here's the thing about delusion and distraction: It keeps focus away from solutions to real problems. Through human history up until about the last 40 years, humans found ways to deal with the climate they had. Since the last ice age, our ancestors figured it out. We have vast knowledge and resources to deal with the gradual change that is inevitable. But instead we're declaring an essential part of our ecosystem a toxin, ignoring actual harmful stuff, and pretending we can stop the inevitable. But, the "good" news is that what we ARE doing is destroying waht we've gained over the last few hundred years, creating such extreme conflict that humans will eradicate humans at such an escalating rate that war, starvation, and such will have killed us all before failing to adapt to a changing climate is a real issue.
"And what happens on a cold winter night with no wind?"
Well, this winter we had temperatures as low as -30C at night and about 13 power outages in the area I live in.
So my answer to your question is we make the bed with reindeer-skins instead of sheets, bring out the old military surplus engine blankets and let the dogs sleep in the bed.
Oh, and heat rocks on the stove to put out into the chicken coop.
While oil has many other important uses (lubrication, plastics, roadways, roofing) this section considers only its use as an energy source. The CMO is a powerful means of understanding the difficulty of replacing oil energy by other sources. SRI International chemist Ripudaman Malhotra, working with Crane and colleague Ed Kinderman, used it to describe the looming energy crisis in sobering terms.[13] Malhotra illustrates the problem of producing one CMO energy that we currently derive from oil each year from five different alternative sources. Installing capacity to produce 1 CMO per year requires long and significant development.
Allowing fifty years to develop the requisite capacity, 1 CMO of energy per year could be produced by any one of these developments:
4 Three Gorges Dams,[14] developed each year for 50 years, or
52 nuclear power plants,[15] developed each year for 50 years, or
104 coal-fired power plants,[16] developed each year for 50 years, or
32,850 wind turbines,[17][18] developed each year for 50 years, or
91,250,000 rooftop solar photovoltaic panels[19] developed each year for 50 years
The world consumes approximately 3 CMO annually from all sources. The table [10] shows the small contribution from alternative energies in 2006.
“To provide most of our power through renewables would take hundreds of times the amount of rare earth metals that we are mining today,” according to Thomas Graedel at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. So renewable energy resources like windmills and solar PV can not ever replace fossil fuels, there’s not enough of many essential minerals to scale this technology up. http://energyskeptic.com/2014/high-tech-cannot-last-rare-earth-metals/
Renewable energy 'simply won't work': Top Google engineers
Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible.
Both men are Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and David Fork in applied physics. These aren't guys who fiddle about with websites or data analytics or "technology" of that sort: they are real engineers who understand difficult maths and physics, and top-bracket even among that distinguished company.
Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear.
All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.
In reality, well before any such stage was reached, energy would become horrifyingly expensive – which means that everything would become horrifyingly expensive (even the present well-under-one-per-cent renewables level in the UK has pushed up utility bills very considerably).
The $2.5 trillion reason we can’t rely on batteries to store energy
Fluctuating solar and wind power require lots of energy storage, and lithium-ion batteries seem like the obvious choice—but they are far too expensive to play a major role.
Why Germany’s nuclear phaseout is leading to more coal burning
Between 2011 and 2015 Germany will open 10.7 GW of new coal fired power stations. This is more new coal coal capacity than was constructed in the entire two decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The expected annual electricity production of these power stations will far exceed that of existing solar panels and will be approximately the same as that of Germany’s existing solar panels and wind turbines combined. Solar panels and wind turbines however have expected life spans of no more than 25 years. Coal power plants typically last 50 years or longer. At best you could call the recent developments in Germany’s electricity sector contradictory. https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/06/06/why-germanys-nuclear-phaseout-is-leading-to-more-coal-burning/
Germany Runs Up Against the Limits of Renewables
Even as Germany adds lots of wind and solar power to the electric grid, the country’s carbon emissions are rising. Will the rest of the world learn from its lesson? After years of declines, Germany’s carbon emissions rose slightly in 2015, largely because the country produces much more electricity than it needs. That’s happening because even if there are times when renewables can supply nearly all of the electricity on the grid, the variability of those sources forces Germany to keep other power plants running. And in Germany, which is phasing out its nuclear plants, those other plants primarily burn dirty coal. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/
Also worth noting: Due to the POLITICS around nuclear energy, Germany, the US and other nations have shut down nuclear plants and halted new development. Instead they are building coal, oil and natural gas plants (as noted). Much of that need stems from shutting down the emissions-free nuclear plants. It's the ultimate "not in my neighborhood": nuclear reactors are fine as long as they're not on my planet :-).
Another example of how we do have the capability, just not the collective will.
"Renewable energy 'simply won't work': Top Google engineers"
This statement is true only if you use the current, invalid definition of "renewable energy" which actually isn't renewable in any way. The sun (which is the energy source for wind, solar, tidal etc) is not renewable. It is abundant and when it burns out we won't care for lots of reasons. Still not renewable. And as noted, all those schemes mentioned require finite, non renewable materials.
This planet does provide means to "renew" things - as in grow more. There are energy sources that can be practical, economical and renewable. An example is liquid fuels derived from plants. Plants that can be grown. Of course also depends on the sun for energy, but it is a more environmentally efficient means of capturing and converting energy from the sun. The real "problem" with bio-based fuels is that it can work, without massive disruption to established lifestyles, without compromising the freedom and mobility of an ICE powered vehicle. This would eliminate the need to redistribute wealth, to force lifestyle changes, and all that "goodness" we're seeing demanded in the name of "green".
Renewable energy IS possible. It is just not politically acceptable.
The fog swirling between the leftist's ears is full of sugar plums, angels, fairies and demons.
They think in platitudes and everything they believe is total bullshit. Because they don't know anything and cannot think, they are always on the verge of one hysteria or another, never stopping to ponder the merits of the last before swallowing the next whole.
They are like children, except they never learn anything and never grow up.
If only there was a never-never land they could all go to and leave the rest of us alone.
"What is worth knowing, he doesn’t know and doesn’t want to know; what he knows is not true. The cardinal articles of his credo are the inventions of mountebanks; his heroes are mainly scoundrels."
There is no right, really. The old right died with the New Deal and WWII. All that is left of it is the libertarian movement.
Most Republicans are really leftists. They want big government, big military and big spending.
To paraphrase Tricky Dick Nixon, the leftist who saddled us with the EPA, destroyed the last vestige of the gold standard, and broke bread with Mao, responsible for the largest genocide in history:
Musk is a curious case. Here is the world's richest man, who in summary terms got that way by sucking at the public teat (or perhaps a bit more accurately, brilliantly maximizing income from government subsidies). Yet in just a few months, he's turned in to something like Return of Trump. Like many, I cheer his attacks on the system, yet I wonder if there is a hidden agenda.
You are not the only one. Brilliant work on exposing the twitter account fakery. He is a shareholder so as the final knife he could lead an attack with a other shareholders with a lawsuit against twit for the fakery.
I'd like to see FB shareholders follow suit. Let the house of cards topple.
My thoughts exactly. He's sort of too good to be true and with all the devious stuff going on its hard to trust anyone. Or he could be a very clever guy who has seen the light, time will tell.
He is the most egregious rent-seeker in history, but I'm willing to forgive all of it if he's able to make us a spacefaring species with footholds on the Moon and Mars.
We must get off the planet before the governments murder or enslave and impoverish us all.
I hope to see colonies on other worlds and the asteroid belt being mined by the time I shed this mortal coil.
Space is the ultimate decentralization and freedom opportunity. We must seize it.
The one positive thing with the jab is if they that decide such things conclude that the the only thing humans are good for is for poking us stem to stern and plopping us on the rotisserie, they will be eating their own poison. Hope they start with the liver and brains.
Hidden agenda? Maybe. Though I don't know that it's all that well hidden. I don't think Musk is out to save the world or champion for the common man. He's out to promote and enrich Musk. I don't say that as a bad thing. Just what is.
Musk didn't invent MMGW, but has made $$ from the senseless fear and guilt created. He's taken full advantage of the government mandates and incentives in building his empire. All that "green" policy has been very good for Musk. All that money he spent on D Party Candidates seems like good ROI.
His fall from grace twitter crusade may be for his amusement. Seriously look at how little it took to irritate the true believers. He said something that made sense: free speech, if really free, means even people you don't like can talk. By listing Trump, he got insanely absurd reactions. Elon to the Twitter censors: "you can't censor me, I own you - or at least I can if I want!". And look how much fun it's been. People claiming to be "enlightened" and "intellectuals" saying stupid stuff like "free speech doesn't mean ANYONE can say what they want!", suggesting only a privileged few (like journalists) have that right. Saying that the IDEA of free speech being free is extreme. He got the media to adopt the ridiculous phrase "free speech absolutist". Really, think that through. On the scale of ironic entertainment this is right up there with Robin Williams or Steve Martin!
Maybe the world wasn't paying enough attention to Elon for a while. Or maybe he just thought it was time for something fun - stir the pot and watch what happens. I neither dare nor care to guess his motives. I won't expect Elon to save the world from totalitarian power grabs, but I will enjoy the antics.
"Let them eat 'green' vegan cake, and tofu salads. And why are they making a fuss about needing baby formula?; milk is murder! — let the babies drink oat or soy milk ...and if they can't afford that they are probably being financially irresponsible and should go buy a $70,000 Tesla so they can save money on gas...."
That is why the current regime wants to take control and crash the market. It's kind of like someone getting on the airplane's PA and saying in a middle eastern accent, "seet down, be calm, everyt'ing fine...". Way past time to get out of our seats and take control back.
I never went down the "9/11 cover-up" rabbit hole. In defense of the official account however, I submit: At least in the NYC case, there were plenty of eye-witnesses as well as an amateur tourist video of the 1st plane hitting the WTC tower. There were many more cameras on hand for the 2nd one. Someone was flying those planes. If you want to find a real conspiracy, look into the actions of the USA and other nations in the aftermath. Ask yourself "Who profits?"
Rabbit hole? The official story is completely ridiculous. There is no evidence any one boarded those flights, let alone groups of arab men with box cutters that magically got on groups of flights.
The official footage is patchy edited cgi film. A plane doesnt go through a building like knife and got butter. Watch september clues, the video and pictures are poorly edited.
I have lot of family in NYC and no one saw any planes. Manhattan was blocked early in morning and smoke prevented anyone seeing anything
It was a made for TV movie and simple demolition. The official story makes zero sense. No need for planes.
Thanks for the detailed analysis, Gato. Even without all that knowledge, just doing a very quick and superficial analysis of cost of the car, cost of electricity, the hassles with batteries, and the environmental effects of manufacturing batteries, I had already figured out that EVs in general are a bad idea.
The great thing about the cost of electricity is that you get others to pay for it! Yes, the cost of supporting all those EVs is paid by ALL rate payers. Some areas like CA give favorable rates to EV owners. That means buy an EV and your neighbors (and the poor working folks on the other side of town) are paying for your charge!
Yes, and when you drive an EV you can drive in the HOV (carpool) lane alone, shooting right past all the suckers in their petrol cars subsidizing your virtue signaling vehicle and recharging system with their tax dollars.
Here in my part of Californicated they are converting those lanes into toll lanes, calling it "Express lanes" and you can buy your way in on a pay per play basis (and yes, more tax $ spent to create). Used it the other day on a trip to SFO. Cost about $7. If I had a $200k Tesla I could have saved the $7 bucks.
I’m in Commiefornia as well and even though I never had any illusions about this state I continue to watch with horror as the agenda marches forward at breakneck speed.
And most of the people around me are either embracing the madness or they’re completely oblivious. Where’s the eject button?
Same, but glad to have the analysis, it has been conspicuously absent from any conversation to date. Now what I would like to know is how Tesla gets away with selling carbon credits.
Yeah, that's what I figured, I just can't believe Canadians stomach it. Not that most people are remotely aware or concerned, but ffs. Our government subsidizes EVs, like, you're rich and driving around in a car that makes you feel a false sense of superioriority, subsidized by the middle class. That same class aspires to be like them🙈🙉
Every time I met a smug Tesla driver I used to smugly say "you're welcome" (they don't get it without having to explain it, sadly). Now though I say "how nice of you to help make the richest man in America get richer! So he can use his money to support Donald Trump!" That usually ends further conversation ;-)
Gato's analysis tracks with others recently that show clearly that EV's are a bad economic decision. But this (the WSJ story) is by far the worst part of owning an EV - you can take it on extended trips and you may end up not being able to drive it when you really need it. Not sure you can even put a price on that.
The slippery slope began when they took away the good old-fashioned locks and crank handles and installed automatic windows and "childproof" buttons controlled by the driver. Brave New World of upped odds of drowning when the car careens off the road or dying because the driver had a heart attack and the four-year-old can't get the door open. Not to speak of trying to escape a predator...
To be fair, the childproof locks are probably a known tradeoff. You make the lower-probability scenarios such as you describe a little riskier, to reduce or eliminate the risk of the higher-probability scenario where the young kid is messing with the door and opens it into traffic.
Ultimately the childproof locks are always in the control of the driver / car owner, so that tradeoff is always left to your judgment.
You just damn well teach your children not to open the door locks. This is called parenting. Now nobody can escape a car without the grace and favor of the driver.
Right, because every 4, 5, 6 year old is a perfect listener who'll absolutely never do something their parents tell them not to do.
It's not wrong to do both - teach them not to open the door, and set the childproof lock to make damn sure they don't hurt themselves or anyone else if they fail to listen. It's a form of "trust but verify".
Yeah. And now here we are with a Washington Post tech reporter who wrote an op-ed for his college paper complaining that the school meal plan buffet was too challenging for his disordered eating unformallydiagnosed but totally real condition and therefore he often went hungry.
They will never learn not to open the door if you make sure they can't ever open the door of their own volition. Parenting means doing your absolute utmost to ensure your kids won't be winning the Darwin Awards.
Of course they don't listen all the time. But they CAN learn, when it makes sense. My mom reserved the "because I said so!" explanation for the few times it was really necessary and I did the same. "Opening the door and jumping out of the car at speed seem like a good idea to you?" "No daddy, that sounds stupid!". Nuff said.
Now let's not talk about teenagers...but to say, we have to make sure they have the basics instilled long before they get there.
I disabled them in all my vehicles by the time my kid was 4. Taught the kid to sit, strapped in, and not to open the door and jump out at 60mph. Also, taught him that if there were an emergency, how to safely egress the vehicle.
Of course he also learned to shoot a rifle by age 5 and a pistol by age 7. The idea of being responsible was instilled in him very early and it's served him well.
I was thinking about just that. Have never touched a gun in my life, nor knew anyone who had for a considerable part of my life, but I'm starting to really, really understand the wisdom and necessity of training children early in the responsible use of many, many things. Take the mystique out and put deep respect in.
Exactly. If you really want to protect your children teach them to be responsible. Replace fear and ignorance with knowledge. I never worried about my kid "finding a gun and doing something terrible" because by the time he was 3 he knew the right thing to do. When they're little that means get a responsible adult (of course teaching kids today to find one of those may be more challenging than it was 25 years ago!). When they are big enough the can learn safety. Eddie Eagle is a good source for kids safety programs.
By age 2 my son was in gymnastics and a few years later got him on the mats learning Aikido - the most important skill you can teach your kid is how to fall! Trust me, falling is part of the job description and learning to NOT get hurt doing it is golden. My son turned into a pro skater which meant a lot of falls. A few broken bones but only one concussion. A lot fewer injuries than many others. Add scouting (camping, hiking, building things, community service, more responsibility and this idea of honor). Snow boarding in the back woods, and more stuff like that - and you get a responsible adult in a few years :-).
Oh, an add a ton of luck - my kid is an awesome person!
th ere used to be mechanical locks inside the doors that you could engage to prevent the doors from opening. I would rather than the all encompassing electrical option. But that's what makes America great. Choice, well in the old days
I would be a fan of returning the mechanical child locks. I was caught in one of those flash floods in Jersey last Sept. I am so glad the door and window worked.
I wonder how many have had to break windows since?
I remember the good ole days when I had a Chevy Vega and was 19 and driving around for jobs and had to drive with heat on in Summer and worry about the engine block and my tires were all Firestone 500 (the kind that exploded) which failed at usually 65mph.
So many times I changed tires in the dark on lonely country roads...
Sounds okay compared to now, where I'd have no way to get my car going again if I couldn't find a charger. And the lonely roads are a lot more dangerous now. And less police to happen by to help.
Since you can't walk to a gas station, you have to get towed, I suppose.
Also not cost effective, especially if the nearest working charging station is hundreds of miles away.
"police to help". Funny story. Guy was stopped with a flat. A highway patrol officer stopped. Instead of "helping" said "I can call a tow truck". My wife stopped. Asked what was going on. CHP said "we are waiting for a tow truck". My wife said "FOR A FLAT TIRE?". Incensed that two grown men between them could not change a tire, she did it for them and sent them both on their way.
Used to be, the police would help but I imagine someone sued for something and they probably aren't allowed to.
One of my exploding Firestones went out on a rainy day on the Long Island Expressway and a police officer asked me why I was changing a good tire on the LIE. It looked fine lying there. He tried to pick it up and there was no "there" on the other side of the rim.
If you just did the opposite of whatever the government tells you to do, would you EVER be wrong? Even once? Apparently, trying to reverse the market doesn't lead to better allocations - who'd have thunk it?
It is a clown world indeed when you have to use a Constanza Decision Flow-Chart:
"Yes, I will do the opposite. I used to sit here and do nothing, and regret it for the rest of the day, so now I will do the opposite, and I will do something"! -George Costanza
Bingo. Agenda 21 and beyond have us living in tight little communities where walking or bicycling is the only needed form of transportation. You will own nothing and go nowhere - unless it's in the metaverse.
I toyed with buying an electric car two years ago. However, they were too many unanswered questions about everything you talked about here. Instead, I purchased a Kia Niro hybrid. I get 55 MPG on average (sometimes even get in the mid 60s!) and never have to worry about finding a charging station. One of the best decisions I’ve made!
This is all just wrong! Gato, you are completely ignoring the thousands of dollars/month the EV owner gains in virtue signalling. Additionally, with technology improvements, the power companies will eventually pay the EV owner to use electricity, EVs will be so safe that insurance requirements will be waived by the state, and gasoline will cost $150/mL.
… all you said plus: cobalt digging children, indonesia got china’s coal fired electric plants so xi could get blue skies and cheap abundant electricity, and a friend has set up a business towing/rescuing EVs from the side of the road. Good times feeding our corporate welfare class and corrupt politicos.
2. Showed actual calculations and sources for costs
3. No praise for Ukraine in article
4. Failure to assess needs/costs to upgrade homeowner power panel (older homes can handle maybe 100 amps), let alone older apartments without charging stations
5. Not published on Twitter, the only source of truth
As a Michigan resident I am grateful for Stabenow, who keeps me humble whenever I get too eager about pointing fingers at California for keeping Pelosi around.
What do a man with diarrhea and a electric car owner have in common?
They both hope to make it home
Both are looking for a plug ASAP.
har!
Winner!
The first/best of many jokes about that in the future!
I can certainly relate to the diarrhea scenario, but after driving over 100k miles in an EV, I can honestly say that that is not a worry. I used to worry a lot more about making it to the gas station when I drove a gas car, but I did like to tempt fate by driving with the needle pointing past E.
Instead of buying an expensive fancy schmancy ICE we bought a Leaf for $23 k and invested a big chunk of our change in a solar/inverter/battery system that runs our house and car. We also run a swamp cooler instead of AC. we have a 1999 GMC to take our kids camping . Keeping old cars running takes up way less resources and energy.
We don’t have any flags so this is how we virtue signal , putting our money where our mouth is.
How long does it take to charge an EV off of a solar system?
You don't use the car during the day? Assume where you are the sun does not shine at night...
When I was in my desperate to survive the apocalypse phase 10+ years ago --- I looked into solar - we lived near Nelson NZ sunniest place in the country ... cost was about 40k at the time ... the sales guy told us a couple of things:
1. If anyone tells you you will get 20 years out of the batteries walk way - been doing this for a long time - most I've seen is 12 - average is 8
2. You shouldn't count on using any sort of heating elements (hair dryer - electric stove etc...) - the battery will drain real fast if you do that... get all your appliances onto gas options...
Fortunately I escaped the mass formation that had captured me and killed this diseased child before it was born .... mains were costing me $200 per month... I would have paid cash for the panels but you have to factor in the opportunity cost on that cash...
It would have been insane to have pulled the trigger on that ... in no possible way did it make sense
An EV isn't for everyone because there are disadvantages as well as advantages. We have solar/inverter/batteries and we get credit for putting power in the grid. we are able to charge at night and out electric bills are about $5 a month including running a swamp cooler and powering our house. Hubby dropped in 240 volt lines, which is less voltage than an AC line so it doesn't take us long to charge, a few hours. It's very easy to just plug it in when we get home. Gassing our Jimmy is a pain I think because i have to drive to the station, pay, fill ad drive back home. Grandma and Papa got a Tesla and it's hard for them to figure out how to use the tech and it takes a while at the superchargers, so that is a disadvantage. But they are happy they're not paying at the pump because they drive further than my mom-around-town errands. Yes, out battery has lost capacity over the past 9 years, but we also don't have the complexity and expense of ICE maintenance. I've been very happy with our power station at home and my little Leaf. But we were able to spring for $45 k of car and a power system, and I think it's STUPID to get rid petroleum based energy. I don;t know if they are doing it on purpose or if we have really run into a finite supply. For example, if you have to put 10 kilo-joules in to get an 8 kilo joule yield, it doesn't make sense.
Gassing our Jimmy is a pain I think because i have to drive to the station, pay, fill ad drive back home.
Hmmm... I generally don't drive to the petrol station - fill up - then drive back home... seems a bit inefficient ....
What I like to do is when I see the tank gauge is sitting on about 1/4... and I am heading out in the car... I usually stop at a petrol station and fill er up... I like killing multiple birds with one stone.
EVs are cheaper to maintain but may cost more to repair, research says
According to We Predict's research, an EV can actually cost more to own compared to a gasoline-powered car. We Predict looked at two time frames to paint its picture. This essentially boils down to service costs (when you take a vehicle in for repairs) and maintenance costs (wear and tear, fluid replacements). The firm found that in a three-month time frame, EV service costs were 2.3 times higher than a gasoline-powered car. At 12 months, EV service costs were still 1.6 times higher. We Predict found service-related costs averaged $306 per electric vehicle, while a gas-powered car averaged $189.
But why? Well, EVs are still new to the automotive landscape, and We Predict found that service centers and mechanics logged longer hours when working with EVs. That's because it takes longer to diagnose a problem, let alone fix it, compared to traditional engines because the technology is so new. Specifically, EVs require 1.5x the labor hours and labor rates are, on average, 1.3 times higher. The additional certifications required to service and work on electric vehicles may contribute to these higher rates.
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/evs-are-cheaper-to-maintain-but-can-cost-more-to-repair-research-says/
End of the day my take is this --- if you are going to have 2 vehicles one way or the other (I have 3 actually...) if you want to pose around town and shout 'Look at me - I am green and cool!' then why not buy an EV (powered by coal).
Then have the real car for longer journeys.
So I applaud your decision.
But it ain't saving the world... (coal powered... lithium battery...) -- and the thing is ... if what we wished for -- phasing out of ICE and 100% EV was mandated... that would collapse the global economy ... there is nowhere near enough resources to accomplish this... and prices would quickly blow through the roof...
Then there's the power grid - how many trillions would be required to build that out ... you think electricity is pricey now --- wait till your bill goes up 10x....
The only reason EVs exist --- is because they are part of the mass formation that includes 'renewable energy'..... they create the perception that we can and slowly are weaning off of finite fossil fuels...
The purpose of this mass formation is to prevent the hordes from freaking out as they realize the future is 100% reliant on an infinite supply of cheap oil.... even a MOREON can figure out that oil is not infinite...
This mass formation - like many of them -- is useful in that it keeps the hordes calm... they don't worry about our finite world... we are transitioning to a sustainable green world
hahahahahaha....
And the covid jabs are Safe and Effective!
Solar got a lot cheaper, though.
It still doesn't make economic sense for the vast majority of people. Government incentives, available in most blue states in the US, are a major distortion of price signals.
Subsidies....
It's nowhere near as cheap as mains power... and those batteries... well you have to replace them within 10 years... $$$$$$$$$$.
I fail to see the purpose of solar - unless your home has no access to mains....
What is the purpose? With mains you flick a switch and you can power an entire house without having to worry about draining a battery.
Exactly!
Other than fanatics who are willing to pay for a hotel room in the middle of nowhere and recharge if they have a long journey have two cars --- an EV for posing on short trips mostly in the city.... and a real car for longer trips.
The fact that having two cars when the real car would do --- and how that destroys their green creds --- is lost on them
That said .. most people are MOREONS so to be expected.
I drive one car - it's small (two seats) nowhere to put luggage... and it tears through fuel like there was no tomorrow. But then I have no children so I consider myself environmentally woke
Before anyone throws stones... watch this short clip :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcx-nf3kH_M
Oh that's a bitter video. Do the planet a favor, kill a dozen kids today.
The driving experience between the two is indistinguishable when you miss your exit; horror and self loathing.. and perhaps resigned release.
The cleanup experience is the same as well
Sucks to brake quickly when you are hauling a 500kg battery....
or 10 lbs of shit in a 5lb bag
I'm happy for you. Though I suspect that you do mostly regional driving.
Mostly regional sure, but have done many long road trips as well. Is it as easy as jumping in a gas car and going? Absolutely not. Is it as terrifying and long as those who have not done it think it is? Absolutely not.
I think most people don't realize just how often they actually stop when on a road trip, and they also underestimate the actual duration of the stops they take.
Yes a car can go 400 miles on a single tank of gas. I've never gone non-stop gas station to gas station 400 miles, not even when I was a solo traveler.
If you treat every road trip like a cannonball run its gonna suck in an EV. If you drive like an average person there will be a difference yes, but its nowhere near as great as people imagine.
Bull. I'm an older divorced woman and used to make the trek from Sarasota, FL to Birmingham, AL pretty regularly as my daughter used to live in AL. I would stop to gas up and use the restroom and then hit the road. Total time stopped was always less than 15 minutes. No way would I want to be sitting somewhere waiting for my EV to charge. The trip took anywhere from 9-12 hours depending on accidents encountered. To prolong that with charging times is nuts.
The battery and charging regimen are probably the biggest logistical bottleneck for widespread EV adoption. Even leaving all environmental and other "external" cost issues aside, to recharge an EV requires many times as long as what a comparable gas fill-up. Multiply that by the number of drivers waiting to use (currently) limited stations, and you compound the issue. Already there have been issues with vandalism. What happens when one or an entire bank of chargers is out of service? What if it was the only one in the region? That means EV drivers are stranded. What about the risk of crime, which will only be increased by long wait times and lots of people waiting? What about home charging? That's great if you live in a detached home with garage but difficult to impossible for the city apartment dweller. The very places where an EV would make the most sense (light duty in urban areas?) the lack of charging points is compounded due to scarcity of parking.
There are probably many more issues I'm unaware of.
We have a neighbour who has an electric BMW - one of the ugliest cars on the road -- bought used for NZD90k or something ridiculous...
He was urging me to go green and buy a Taycan ... I said ya but what do I do with that when I have a long drive? I ain't splitting it up and staying overnight to charge when I can do the drive on a tank of petrol
Oh he says --- what's the rush? It's nice to relax and split up the drive.....
My idea of splitting up a 5 or 6 hour drive is stopping for a quick bite... a fill up ... and not wasting $$$ on a hotel room in a place that I have ZERO interest in stopping...
I suppose he was shaking his head when I decided on a 911 (turbo to boot - she burns she burns)... instead of the electric option.
Middle finger to the coal-powered green groupies.
I'm with you, female too. If there's somewhere you want (or worse yet, NEED) to be, you drive balls out to get there. Example - a family member 1800 miles away is having a medical problem that you need to be there for, and you don't know how long you're going to have to stay with them. This exact scenario happened to me. 900 miles x 2 days to get there. Yes I did that. And I would do it again if necessary.
Sarasota Opera House to Birmingham Museum of Art (two landmarks chosen at random so I have a 1:1 address to compare)
The most direct route is 596 miles, and takes 9hrs 59m according to google. Real world time will of course be greater because you need to stop for bathroom, meal, and gas.
According to ABetterRoutePlanner.com in the 2020 Model 3 (slightly less range than current model year)
598 miles, 10h 34 minutes total. 9h 46m driving, 48 minutes charging at 3 stops - 12, 20, and 16 minutes respectively.
The charging stops are after 182, 104, and 170 miles respectively with 142 miles to your destination.
If you average 5% over the posted speed limit, 10h 12m total, 9h 19m driving, 53 minutes charging at 3 stops (14,22, and 17 minutes respectively)
Now surely you would stop for a meal, a bathroom break or two, and at least one gas stop on a trip of this duration. Time that is not necessarily reflected in Google's assessment of the total time from door to door.
In the long run, much of the time spent charging is time spent taking care of your needs(things you do regardless of ICE or EV) on the trip meaning that less time is spent actually waiting for a charge than you might imagine.
Now, when you get to Birmingham you will need a charge. Maybe that is at your daughter's place in which case even 110v outlet will get you started enough for the return trip, otherwise add 15 minutes for a fast charge at the end of the trip.
Never? I regularly hit Gas station to gas station. 12-18 hours of driving in a day when I am doing trips.
Last trip I made:
Day 1:
Leave house 7A
8A stop at truck stop for NON REFORMULATED fuel for better fuel economy and breakfast and leave at ~9A.
Drive until fuel light comes on around 2P.
Find a petrol station.
Fill the car with fuel, grab beef Jerky and plastic bottles of tea use facilities and stretch.
Hit next leg of travel.
I may hit 1-2 "waysides" for 10-15 minutes per leg, but that is literally to stretch and use the facilities. Unless I am driving solo... Then, the plastic bottle for liquid waste works. You have not been a serious driver if you have not relieved yourself while doing 70+...
Around 6-7P stop for food. Estimate how tired I am, Plot for the campsite. Fill the car with fuel. Go.
Pull into campsite between 8 and 11P. Last time it was about 10P.
Day 2:
Wake between 5AM and 6AM start to strike camp.
Plot out day's travel.
Prep dehydrated food and cook on fire.
Use camp facilities.
Leave campsite between 7 and 8AM.
Drive until the fuel light hits.
You get the idea. As long as you are masticating you will not be tired. Beef Jerky, bubble gum, and other chewy items like Swedish Fish and you can keep this up for a few days. I know. I have round tripped to and from Canada non stop. Hit destination. Do what I need/want. Go home.
I can do Chicago area to Florida in under 36 hour every time... and did it in a single day already. 20 hours drive in a single day is not that bad. When I take my Street Bike it is similar. ~16 hours travel in an average day.
But then again I am a chronic insomniac.
Have fun,
SiriusLee
What's the upside of driving an EV?
It's not 'green' (burns coal to charge it).....
Servicing and maintenance is not cheaper (more weight = more tyre replacements) -- battery replacement costs are huge ... servicing is expensive because it is often difficult to identify and fix electrical issues...
And if more people swap to EVs that requires massive $$$ to upgrade the grid... imagine that that will do to the price of electricity.... and it will increase the demand for coal which will drive the price of coal up...
I see zero upside.
Stalled Out on Tesla’s Electric Highway
https://archive.ph/fkleb#selection-405.0-405.39
Looks like he had to get the car towed cuz it ran out of battery.... EVs do not like chilly weather
I asked my Uber driver in Anchorage, AK, why none of the drivers had Priuses like 90% do in Seattle and other places I've been. He said they just didn't pencil out given the cold weather battery performance over the long winters. And there are *lots* of places in the US that get *much* colder than Anchorage, although possibly for shorter winters.
Tesla for the two months of summer then 4x4 for the rest of the year.
Green! hahaha
There's a lot of misinformation about EVs. Here's a Tesla map where you can input your trip from start to finish and then see where you can charge at their supercharger network and how long it takes.
https://www.tesla.com/trips
Wanna see a network of petrol pumps where in a few minutes you can pump 500km+ into your tank?
Tesla is a rubbish car. It's for posers. The tech is garbage. Try stopping a car moving at 100mp hour hauling a 500kg battery as you approach a sharp corner... hahaha
Enjoy the video https://nypost.com/2021/12/24/tesla-explodes-after-mechanics-charge-man-23k-for-new-battery/
He modified the battery. Model S covers eight years or 150,000 miles but may be voided if the battery is opened or serviced by anyone not authorized by Tesla.
I drive a Tesla. Wanna race?
Did you try any road trips? https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-rented-an-electric-car-for-a-four-day-road-trip-i-spent-more-time-charging-it-than-i-did-sleeping-11654268401
Or are your 100k miles mostly "local"?
https://archive.ph/9TKsk (article behind the paywall.)
A mate has a top of the line Tesla -- we had a hockey tournament last year -- he could not even make it the 3 hour drive on a charge... had to stop for 45 minutes to top up on the way...
He was telling me that ya it's fast - but driving that way sucks the juice + it's tricky slowing down because of that 500kg battery ... think piling 500kg into the back of a ute then driving 100mph ... and trying to slow for a sharp corner .... he said he's almost gone through guard rails many times....
Wonder how often the brakes need to be changed if you do that too often.
EVs are Garbage.
A friend of mine also has a TOL Model X. Jaw-dropping fast in ludicrous mode from 0-60 on the flat.
He's a smart ass like me, so he says "wanna race?".
I say back, sure, how about up to Tahoe?
Crickets.
you should say; "wanna space?"...the space between when I arrive and when you're looking for a charge.
That's not a riposte, that's a burn-off!
You can also race him on a short distance - but on a windy road... watch him pile through the barrier as he tries to brake with that 500kg battery.
I have a 4 x 4 and I haul up to 600kg on the back.... this is a vehicle made of hauling yet I have to be very careful and avoided having to slow quickly.... it goes unstable real fast if you hit the brakes too hard.
Yea, kinetic energy can be a real bitch, and it bit me hard a few times in my youth.
I'd prefer he stay on the road, given he's my friend, but it would be an interesting contest in the curves, as I'm pretty sure my adaptive suspension is superior.
there's sumtingwong with that Fast Eddy...
shocking, but I don't give a crap. Gotta runs!
As usual, Ryan, witty
The incontinent man is better off, since he can make use of a plug BEFORE he makes it home.
Damn! Just read the other replies, and someone got there first.
I don't know. I thought yours was pretty damn good!
I can tell ya from personal experience on a volunteer advisory committee for my local City Council: there's a really touching number of grownups still believing with their whole hearts in the existence of the Electricity Fairy (no relation).
Keebler elves in the wall, cycling to charge their vehicles. The same lack of critical thinking skills that goes into masks and experimental injections, allows a person to buy an EV and think they're doing something beneficial.
What a wonderful way to start off my morning with your Keebler Elves comment. Hilarious.
I'll never be able to look at one of those half-facers again without thinking Keebler elf.
"It's for the greater good ..." https://www.bitchute.com/video/tHuvYjMzCi5o/
They also all just assume that electricity will still remain "free" if everyone were to get an EV.
Once the road taxes decline (the added tax to every gallon of gas), you can bet the revenue man will want some money. Future cars will be required to have a smart port that records mileage to the tax authority. Who know what else will get reported.
Exactly, monitored and tracked at every turn. The government could hack your car and turn it off if you don't behave. My old car doesn't have any computer chips thanks. I'd like to keep it that way. We're walking into a trap!
And when you ask them where they think electricity comes from it is the same exact face a 7 year old gives when asked about babies. They may know, but either haven't thought about it and don't so they grimace or they do know, but they are rough with the details r are embarrassed. Same grimace.
(no relation). So funny.
Some will read you The Party rhetoric: "renewables". Of course they mean wind, solar and maybe hydro. Ignoring that all are fueled by the sun and thus NOT renewable (astrophysics 101), a careful looks reveals that "23%" quoted is a DoE con. Not an outright lie, but not truthful either. They include the potential capacity of hydro and the peak output of wind and solar. Hydro is great if you happen to have a river to dam up or one big enough to tap without a dam. Which is not where the electricity is needed. Hoover dam as an example has never been used at more than 30% of what it could produce. In most hydro locations capability exceeds actual use by a huge amount. The DoE figures total capability in that 23%. That's a political tactic. Same for wind and solar, typically. Probably a 10x exaggeration.
"I'm going to charge my EV from my home solar panels the government helped me buy". Really, Bubba? You are going to stay home all day and drive at night only? Hope, you're gonna charge that baby at night, from the grid. Maybe you get "net zero" because while you were not home using electricity your utility company was "buying back" that output from your rooftop solar, but that's another con. There is little to no storage in the grid. Most of that "buy back" will end up shunted - no place to go. Some areas can shut down some of their feeders to use that 'buy back' and save some fuel (most electricity generation is using coal, oil or natural gas) but not quickly. Then you get home, plug in your EV (as have your wealthy neighbors) and the "peaker" generation plants have to kick in to supply your nocturnal demand.
Maybe Bubba was really rich and put in local battery storage so his solar capture was ready when he got home. That's moving in a more practical direction, though still has some issues.
And then there's the environmental damage of these non-renewable
The wind turbines start to rot away after 12 years. They're useless and cause environmental damage both in manufacture, transport and installation. It's all a huge scam.
"Wind Turbine Noise & Vibration Causing Harm to Humans & Animals Alike"
https://stopthesethings.com/2017/07/30/wind-turbine-noise-vibration-causing-harm-to-humans-animals-alike/
Yep. Nothin to add.
Or it would be funny if they weren't fucking up our world at warp speed.
Not to worry. At the rate things are going, the powers that be will adopt techniques a la Stalin. If the engineers say that something is impossible, take them out and shoot them. Or if you're merciful that day, send them to Siberia (well, for us, I guess Alaska will do, and it was part of Russia once, so it's kind of appropriate...) Instead of having irreplaceable individuals, those with valuable skills and knowledge being allowed to operate in an optimal environment, send them far afield to do menial labor instead. Surely if enough of those damned academics are punished, they will finally adhere to the Five Year Plan! Sounds like [black] humor, doesn't it? Yet based on the world history I've learnt, it's pretty close to the truth.
I like your optimism with "will adopt". Much of it is already "have adopted". Even Stalin (and Hitler) didn't start shooting people right out of the gate. They built up to that.
Academics are already "tow the line or your out". Via the funding game and other political tactics, that world has become intolerant of dissent outside defined (and gov't approved) bounds. It has been an incremental process for decades. The punishment hasn't *yet* been as overt as exile to Siberia, disappearances or public execution (yet). But having research funding yanked and tenure denied are as effective levers.
Control of education is more effective and efficient in the long run than brutality. Stalin knew that, as did Mao. As have learned our own version of The Party. Look at the complicity and submission the last 2 years - and the number of people begging for more - arguing that the ONLY way to "be safe" is let the rulers rule without opposition. This is made possible because they "learned" in school. Mao knew that history was his enemy - it revealed the reality of where his utopian vision led - so he banned teaching history. Our own federally controlled education system is on the same path. Teaching "alternate" history - one that justifies total submission. Teaching that ONLY a strong central government can provide essentials. This is for real, now.
This is spot on and I hope everyone reads it. It is a cautionary tale. Perhaps it's not cautionary, rather it is just a "tell" of what the future looks like.
The kids in college in the last two years wanted more restrictions! They often protested for more. They have been crate trained for the last 30 years.
When I was in college we would've tore out the walls and had the university pay for it all!
true that
Well they are, but I am not sure I see the humor in that reality!
The most you can expect as an answer to "Where does electricity come from?" from such people is, "Why solar panels and windmills!"
Next you have to ask, "And how do we build the solar panels and windmills?" and then you'll get the stammering and the blank stare. Maybe a non answer like, "Well the same way they get built today ... " which is equivalent to, "I don't know, pixie dust and unicorns?"
Add "And what happens on a cold winter night with no wind?" for maximum fun.
No No No electricity comes from that thing in the wall.
I usually don't get past that second question. Instead of stammering, they just declare me a "climate change denier" and walk away.
And head to the nearest clinic for a Booster Shot
The sooner they turn into fertilizer, the better for the planet, right?
George Orwell's "Animal Farm" even had the promise of green energy! Somewhat prescient for a book from 1945. The wind generator is never completed due to a combination of political infighting (plans sabotaged), swindled out of funds to buy parts and finally, the tower is destroyed in one of the battles against humans.
The longer I Iive the more I think that George Orwell was sent back from the future to warn us! That man predicted and understood so much.
I was thinking the same thing :-)
Put that together with his 1984 and you have a blueprint for 2020-22.
What do you mean? There's global warming and climate change. Ofc there won't be any cold unwindy winter night. I bet that almost none of them would say that though. They don't have that in their manual.
Any geophysicist will tell you that climate change is real: Based on geological evidence, the climate hasn't been stable yet in the life of this rock we call home. It is definitely warmer now than the last ice age.
The myth is that humanity has any control over the climate. Stand near a volcano if you still foster the illusion we can change the course of climate. When the planet has had enough of humans it will burp and cleanse itself. The myth that CO2 is somehow harmful to the planet is beyond absurd and based on misinterpretation of a broken climate simulation model, BTW. Flawed simulation vs the obvious reality of what a volcano or earthquake can do. Sorry Al G, we're not that powerful as collective (the human race).
Here's the thing about delusion and distraction: It keeps focus away from solutions to real problems. Through human history up until about the last 40 years, humans found ways to deal with the climate they had. Since the last ice age, our ancestors figured it out. We have vast knowledge and resources to deal with the gradual change that is inevitable. But instead we're declaring an essential part of our ecosystem a toxin, ignoring actual harmful stuff, and pretending we can stop the inevitable. But, the "good" news is that what we ARE doing is destroying waht we've gained over the last few hundred years, creating such extreme conflict that humans will eradicate humans at such an escalating rate that war, starvation, and such will have killed us all before failing to adapt to a changing climate is a real issue.
Show them this haha https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE
"And what happens on a cold winter night with no wind?"
Well, this winter we had temperatures as low as -30C at night and about 13 power outages in the area I live in.
So my answer to your question is we make the bed with reindeer-skins instead of sheets, bring out the old military surplus engine blankets and let the dogs sleep in the bed.
Oh, and heat rocks on the stove to put out into the chicken coop.
Replacement of oil by alternative sources
While oil has many other important uses (lubrication, plastics, roadways, roofing) this section considers only its use as an energy source. The CMO is a powerful means of understanding the difficulty of replacing oil energy by other sources. SRI International chemist Ripudaman Malhotra, working with Crane and colleague Ed Kinderman, used it to describe the looming energy crisis in sobering terms.[13] Malhotra illustrates the problem of producing one CMO energy that we currently derive from oil each year from five different alternative sources. Installing capacity to produce 1 CMO per year requires long and significant development.
Allowing fifty years to develop the requisite capacity, 1 CMO of energy per year could be produced by any one of these developments:
4 Three Gorges Dams,[14] developed each year for 50 years, or
52 nuclear power plants,[15] developed each year for 50 years, or
104 coal-fired power plants,[16] developed each year for 50 years, or
32,850 wind turbines,[17][18] developed each year for 50 years, or
91,250,000 rooftop solar photovoltaic panels[19] developed each year for 50 years
The world consumes approximately 3 CMO annually from all sources. The table [10] shows the small contribution from alternative energies in 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil
“To provide most of our power through renewables would take hundreds of times the amount of rare earth metals that we are mining today,” according to Thomas Graedel at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. So renewable energy resources like windmills and solar PV can not ever replace fossil fuels, there’s not enough of many essential minerals to scale this technology up. http://energyskeptic.com/2014/high-tech-cannot-last-rare-earth-metals/
Renewable Penetration https://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/iea-primary-energy-suppy-1973-and-2015.png
Renewable Energy’s $2.5 Trillion Problem https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611683/the-25-trillion-reason-we-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/
Renewable energy 'simply won't work': Top Google engineers
Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible.
Both men are Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and David Fork in applied physics. These aren't guys who fiddle about with websites or data analytics or "technology" of that sort: they are real engineers who understand difficult maths and physics, and top-bracket even among that distinguished company.
Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear.
All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.
In reality, well before any such stage was reached, energy would become horrifyingly expensive – which means that everything would become horrifyingly expensive (even the present well-under-one-per-cent renewables level in the UK has pushed up utility bills very considerably).
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/
http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/23/google-gives-up-on-green-tech-investment-initiative-rec/
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/25/top-11-problems-plaguing-solar-and-wind-power/
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html
The $2.5 trillion reason we can’t rely on batteries to store energy
Fluctuating solar and wind power require lots of energy storage, and lithium-ion batteries seem like the obvious choice—but they are far too expensive to play a major role.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611683/the-25-trillion-reason-we-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/
Why Germany’s nuclear phaseout is leading to more coal burning
Between 2011 and 2015 Germany will open 10.7 GW of new coal fired power stations. This is more new coal coal capacity than was constructed in the entire two decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The expected annual electricity production of these power stations will far exceed that of existing solar panels and will be approximately the same as that of Germany’s existing solar panels and wind turbines combined. Solar panels and wind turbines however have expected life spans of no more than 25 years. Coal power plants typically last 50 years or longer. At best you could call the recent developments in Germany’s electricity sector contradictory. https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/06/06/why-germanys-nuclear-phaseout-is-leading-to-more-coal-burning/
Germany Runs Up Against the Limits of Renewables
Even as Germany adds lots of wind and solar power to the electric grid, the country’s carbon emissions are rising. Will the rest of the world learn from its lesson? After years of declines, Germany’s carbon emissions rose slightly in 2015, largely because the country produces much more electricity than it needs. That’s happening because even if there are times when renewables can supply nearly all of the electricity on the grid, the variability of those sources forces Germany to keep other power plants running. And in Germany, which is phasing out its nuclear plants, those other plants primarily burn dirty coal. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/
Also worth noting: Due to the POLITICS around nuclear energy, Germany, the US and other nations have shut down nuclear plants and halted new development. Instead they are building coal, oil and natural gas plants (as noted). Much of that need stems from shutting down the emissions-free nuclear plants. It's the ultimate "not in my neighborhood": nuclear reactors are fine as long as they're not on my planet :-).
Another example of how we do have the capability, just not the collective will.
Some good references. But I have to counter:
"Renewable energy 'simply won't work': Top Google engineers"
This statement is true only if you use the current, invalid definition of "renewable energy" which actually isn't renewable in any way. The sun (which is the energy source for wind, solar, tidal etc) is not renewable. It is abundant and when it burns out we won't care for lots of reasons. Still not renewable. And as noted, all those schemes mentioned require finite, non renewable materials.
This planet does provide means to "renew" things - as in grow more. There are energy sources that can be practical, economical and renewable. An example is liquid fuels derived from plants. Plants that can be grown. Of course also depends on the sun for energy, but it is a more environmentally efficient means of capturing and converting energy from the sun. The real "problem" with bio-based fuels is that it can work, without massive disruption to established lifestyles, without compromising the freedom and mobility of an ICE powered vehicle. This would eliminate the need to redistribute wealth, to force lifestyle changes, and all that "goodness" we're seeing demanded in the name of "green".
Renewable energy IS possible. It is just not politically acceptable.
sarc?
The fog swirling between the leftist's ears is full of sugar plums, angels, fairies and demons.
They think in platitudes and everything they believe is total bullshit. Because they don't know anything and cannot think, they are always on the verge of one hysteria or another, never stopping to ponder the merits of the last before swallowing the next whole.
They are like children, except they never learn anything and never grow up.
If only there was a never-never land they could all go to and leave the rest of us alone.
"What is worth knowing, he doesn’t know and doesn’t want to know; what he knows is not true. The cardinal articles of his credo are the inventions of mountebanks; his heroes are mainly scoundrels."
~ H.L. Mencken
Plenty on the right like this too.
There is no right, really. The old right died with the New Deal and WWII. All that is left of it is the libertarian movement.
Most Republicans are really leftists. They want big government, big military and big spending.
To paraphrase Tricky Dick Nixon, the leftist who saddled us with the EPA, destroyed the last vestige of the gold standard, and broke bread with Mao, responsible for the largest genocide in history:
We are all progressives now.
Yup. Electrons magically appear.
Right? thumbs up to all the comments
"Electricity Fairy" - love it, so true.
ha! nicely put!
"Let them eat cake" has become "Let them buy Teslas"
beat me to it by 6 minutes ;)
They must feel deeply conflicted suggesting someone contribute to the Musk piggy bank.
Musk is a curious case. Here is the world's richest man, who in summary terms got that way by sucking at the public teat (or perhaps a bit more accurately, brilliantly maximizing income from government subsidies). Yet in just a few months, he's turned in to something like Return of Trump. Like many, I cheer his attacks on the system, yet I wonder if there is a hidden agenda.
You are not the only one. Brilliant work on exposing the twitter account fakery. He is a shareholder so as the final knife he could lead an attack with a other shareholders with a lawsuit against twit for the fakery.
I'd like to see FB shareholders follow suit. Let the house of cards topple.
My thoughts exactly. He's sort of too good to be true and with all the devious stuff going on its hard to trust anyone. Or he could be a very clever guy who has seen the light, time will tell.
He is the most egregious rent-seeker in history, but I'm willing to forgive all of it if he's able to make us a spacefaring species with footholds on the Moon and Mars.
We must get off the planet before the governments murder or enslave and impoverish us all.
I hope to see colonies on other worlds and the asteroid belt being mined by the time I shed this mortal coil.
Space is the ultimate decentralization and freedom opportunity. We must seize it.
The one positive thing with the jab is if they that decide such things conclude that the the only thing humans are good for is for poking us stem to stern and plopping us on the rotisserie, they will be eating their own poison. Hope they start with the liver and brains.
I can assure you that my liver is inedible, as ingestion would cause acute and irrecoverable alcohol poisoning.
"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner."
~ H.L. Mencken
Hidden agenda? Maybe. Though I don't know that it's all that well hidden. I don't think Musk is out to save the world or champion for the common man. He's out to promote and enrich Musk. I don't say that as a bad thing. Just what is.
Musk didn't invent MMGW, but has made $$ from the senseless fear and guilt created. He's taken full advantage of the government mandates and incentives in building his empire. All that "green" policy has been very good for Musk. All that money he spent on D Party Candidates seems like good ROI.
His fall from grace twitter crusade may be for his amusement. Seriously look at how little it took to irritate the true believers. He said something that made sense: free speech, if really free, means even people you don't like can talk. By listing Trump, he got insanely absurd reactions. Elon to the Twitter censors: "you can't censor me, I own you - or at least I can if I want!". And look how much fun it's been. People claiming to be "enlightened" and "intellectuals" saying stupid stuff like "free speech doesn't mean ANYONE can say what they want!", suggesting only a privileged few (like journalists) have that right. Saying that the IDEA of free speech being free is extreme. He got the media to adopt the ridiculous phrase "free speech absolutist". Really, think that through. On the scale of ironic entertainment this is right up there with Robin Williams or Steve Martin!
Maybe the world wasn't paying enough attention to Elon for a while. Or maybe he just thought it was time for something fun - stir the pot and watch what happens. I neither dare nor care to guess his motives. I won't expect Elon to save the world from totalitarian power grabs, but I will enjoy the antics.
Only recently. Before April, Musk was their hero. Remember that far back?
Before he said "free speech means even Trump has a right to talk" and thus revealed himself as a right wing, puppy kicking, meanie.
Haha, true!
"Let them eat green cake!"
Haha, yes indeed!
"Let them eat 'green' vegan cake, and tofu salads. And why are they making a fuss about needing baby formula?; milk is murder! — let the babies drink oat or soy milk ...and if they can't afford that they are probably being financially irresponsible and should go buy a $70,000 Tesla so they can save money on gas...."
[Background audio: Pitchforks being sharpened] 🤪
Markets find truth.
That’s why commies hate markets.
they hate them because they don't like to work hard, take responsibility or THINK
That is why the current regime wants to take control and crash the market. It's kind of like someone getting on the airplane's PA and saying in a middle eastern accent, "seet down, be calm, everyt'ing fine...". Way past time to get out of our seats and take control back.
Yes... 9/11 was the opera of middle Eastern men with almost no flight training. Be afraid of them, very afraid.
I never went down the "9/11 cover-up" rabbit hole. In defense of the official account however, I submit: At least in the NYC case, there were plenty of eye-witnesses as well as an amateur tourist video of the 1st plane hitting the WTC tower. There were many more cameras on hand for the 2nd one. Someone was flying those planes. If you want to find a real conspiracy, look into the actions of the USA and other nations in the aftermath. Ask yourself "Who profits?"
Rabbit hole? The official story is completely ridiculous. There is no evidence any one boarded those flights, let alone groups of arab men with box cutters that magically got on groups of flights.
The official footage is patchy edited cgi film. A plane doesnt go through a building like knife and got butter. Watch september clues, the video and pictures are poorly edited.
I have lot of family in NYC and no one saw any planes. Manhattan was blocked early in morning and smoke prevented anyone seeing anything
It was a made for TV movie and simple demolition. The official story makes zero sense. No need for planes.
Don't need that much flight training, methinks, to crash. You need more to land properly
👏🏻
that's a gem!! 💕
Thanks for the detailed analysis, Gato. Even without all that knowledge, just doing a very quick and superficial analysis of cost of the car, cost of electricity, the hassles with batteries, and the environmental effects of manufacturing batteries, I had already figured out that EVs in general are a bad idea.
The great thing about the cost of electricity is that you get others to pay for it! Yes, the cost of supporting all those EVs is paid by ALL rate payers. Some areas like CA give favorable rates to EV owners. That means buy an EV and your neighbors (and the poor working folks on the other side of town) are paying for your charge!
Yes, and when you drive an EV you can drive in the HOV (carpool) lane alone, shooting right past all the suckers in their petrol cars subsidizing your virtue signaling vehicle and recharging system with their tax dollars.
Tax dollars that built that HOV lane, too.
Here in my part of Californicated they are converting those lanes into toll lanes, calling it "Express lanes" and you can buy your way in on a pay per play basis (and yes, more tax $ spent to create). Used it the other day on a trip to SFO. Cost about $7. If I had a $200k Tesla I could have saved the $7 bucks.
I’m in Commiefornia as well and even though I never had any illusions about this state I continue to watch with horror as the agenda marches forward at breakneck speed.
And most of the people around me are either embracing the madness or they’re completely oblivious. Where’s the eject button?
Outrageous!!!!!
Same, but glad to have the analysis, it has been conspicuously absent from any conversation to date. Now what I would like to know is how Tesla gets away with selling carbon credits.
Remember that part I mentioned about the generous contributions made to candidates of The Party? Make sense now?
Yeah, that's what I figured, I just can't believe Canadians stomach it. Not that most people are remotely aware or concerned, but ffs. Our government subsidizes EVs, like, you're rich and driving around in a car that makes you feel a false sense of superioriority, subsidized by the middle class. That same class aspires to be like them🙈🙉
Every time I met a smug Tesla driver I used to smugly say "you're welcome" (they don't get it without having to explain it, sadly). Now though I say "how nice of you to help make the richest man in America get richer! So he can use his money to support Donald Trump!" That usually ends further conversation ;-)
"I Rented an Electric Car for a Four-Day Road Trip. I Spent More Time Charging It Than I Did Sleeping."
From the WSJ (subscription may be required):
https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-rented-an-electric-car-for-a-four-day-road-trip-i-spent-more-time-charging-it-than-i-did-sleeping-11654268401
Gato's analysis tracks with others recently that show clearly that EV's are a bad economic decision. But this (the WSJ story) is by far the worst part of owning an EV - you can take it on extended trips and you may end up not being able to drive it when you really need it. Not sure you can even put a price on that.
The slippery slope began when they took away the good old-fashioned locks and crank handles and installed automatic windows and "childproof" buttons controlled by the driver. Brave New World of upped odds of drowning when the car careens off the road or dying because the driver had a heart attack and the four-year-old can't get the door open. Not to speak of trying to escape a predator...
To be fair, the childproof locks are probably a known tradeoff. You make the lower-probability scenarios such as you describe a little riskier, to reduce or eliminate the risk of the higher-probability scenario where the young kid is messing with the door and opens it into traffic.
Ultimately the childproof locks are always in the control of the driver / car owner, so that tradeoff is always left to your judgment.
You just damn well teach your children not to open the door locks. This is called parenting. Now nobody can escape a car without the grace and favor of the driver.
Right, because every 4, 5, 6 year old is a perfect listener who'll absolutely never do something their parents tell them not to do.
It's not wrong to do both - teach them not to open the door, and set the childproof lock to make damn sure they don't hurt themselves or anyone else if they fail to listen. It's a form of "trust but verify".
Yeah. And now here we are with a Washington Post tech reporter who wrote an op-ed for his college paper complaining that the school meal plan buffet was too challenging for his disordered eating unformallydiagnosed but totally real condition and therefore he often went hungry.
They will never learn not to open the door if you make sure they can't ever open the door of their own volition. Parenting means doing your absolute utmost to ensure your kids won't be winning the Darwin Awards.
Of course they don't listen all the time. But they CAN learn, when it makes sense. My mom reserved the "because I said so!" explanation for the few times it was really necessary and I did the same. "Opening the door and jumping out of the car at speed seem like a good idea to you?" "No daddy, that sounds stupid!". Nuff said.
Now let's not talk about teenagers...but to say, we have to make sure they have the basics instilled long before they get there.
I disabled them in all my vehicles by the time my kid was 4. Taught the kid to sit, strapped in, and not to open the door and jump out at 60mph. Also, taught him that if there were an emergency, how to safely egress the vehicle.
Of course he also learned to shoot a rifle by age 5 and a pistol by age 7. The idea of being responsible was instilled in him very early and it's served him well.
I was thinking about just that. Have never touched a gun in my life, nor knew anyone who had for a considerable part of my life, but I'm starting to really, really understand the wisdom and necessity of training children early in the responsible use of many, many things. Take the mystique out and put deep respect in.
Exactly. If you really want to protect your children teach them to be responsible. Replace fear and ignorance with knowledge. I never worried about my kid "finding a gun and doing something terrible" because by the time he was 3 he knew the right thing to do. When they're little that means get a responsible adult (of course teaching kids today to find one of those may be more challenging than it was 25 years ago!). When they are big enough the can learn safety. Eddie Eagle is a good source for kids safety programs.
By age 2 my son was in gymnastics and a few years later got him on the mats learning Aikido - the most important skill you can teach your kid is how to fall! Trust me, falling is part of the job description and learning to NOT get hurt doing it is golden. My son turned into a pro skater which meant a lot of falls. A few broken bones but only one concussion. A lot fewer injuries than many others. Add scouting (camping, hiking, building things, community service, more responsibility and this idea of honor). Snow boarding in the back woods, and more stuff like that - and you get a responsible adult in a few years :-).
Oh, an add a ton of luck - my kid is an awesome person!
it is despicable
Though the image of my little sister swinging out with the station wagon door into traffic is a graphic childhood memory.
My Mom did the same thing (old car) when she got on in years.
Many of us are alive today only because some desperately overworked guardian angel never got any sleep.
No doubt about that.
It is the only possible explanation for how I was still walking the earth after my teens and twenties.
True for both of them. I suspect you and I exhausted our guardian angels and maybe still do
th ere used to be mechanical locks inside the doors that you could engage to prevent the doors from opening. I would rather than the all encompassing electrical option. But that's what makes America great. Choice, well in the old days
I would be a fan of returning the mechanical child locks. I was caught in one of those flash floods in Jersey last Sept. I am so glad the door and window worked.
I wonder how many have had to break windows since?
I remember the good ole days when I had a Chevy Vega and was 19 and driving around for jobs and had to drive with heat on in Summer and worry about the engine block and my tires were all Firestone 500 (the kind that exploded) which failed at usually 65mph.
So many times I changed tires in the dark on lonely country roads...
Sounds okay compared to now, where I'd have no way to get my car going again if I couldn't find a charger. And the lonely roads are a lot more dangerous now. And less police to happen by to help.
Since you can't walk to a gas station, you have to get towed, I suppose.
Also not cost effective, especially if the nearest working charging station is hundreds of miles away.
"police to help". Funny story. Guy was stopped with a flat. A highway patrol officer stopped. Instead of "helping" said "I can call a tow truck". My wife stopped. Asked what was going on. CHP said "we are waiting for a tow truck". My wife said "FOR A FLAT TIRE?". Incensed that two grown men between them could not change a tire, she did it for them and sent them both on their way.
Yes, I am a lucky man.
Ha! Great story.
Tell your wife I'm a fan of hers now.
Used to be, the police would help but I imagine someone sued for something and they probably aren't allowed to.
One of my exploding Firestones went out on a rainy day on the Long Island Expressway and a police officer asked me why I was changing a good tire on the LIE. It looked fine lying there. He tried to pick it up and there was no "there" on the other side of the rim.
He swore under his breath and helped me.
I've been a lucky Irish Girl always.
paywall removed https://archive.ph/pRmNa
Similar https://archive.ph/fkleb
If you just did the opposite of whatever the government tells you to do, would you EVER be wrong? Even once? Apparently, trying to reverse the market doesn't lead to better allocations - who'd have thunk it?
Many years of eating only red meat, eggs and fruit and not the USDA food pyramid and able to do many, many pull ups.
It is a clown world indeed when you have to use a Constanza Decision Flow-Chart:
"Yes, I will do the opposite. I used to sit here and do nothing, and regret it for the rest of the day, so now I will do the opposite, and I will do something"! -George Costanza
At least there's only one option.
They want the grid to crash. The grid can't handle anymore electric cars
Bingo. Agenda 21 and beyond have us living in tight little communities where walking or bicycling is the only needed form of transportation. You will own nothing and go nowhere - unless it's in the metaverse.
War is coming. Millions will not bend over for this
No one ever talks about driving these from Duluth to Minot in January.
40 below with a 60 below wind chill. Nothing to worry about.
In January, someone should ask Stabenow how she got to the swamp that time.
It's worse than that when considered on a macro level.
For but one aspect of the lie that is the 'green economy consider the Cat994H which is what is used to move earth for large scale mining.
For one Tesla car battery 500,000 lbs of earth must be moved to obtain the requisite minerals.
The Cat994H burns 1800 gallons of fuel in one 12 hour shift.
The level of dishonesty is beyond the pale in all aspects of the 'green economy'- this single example illustrates just that.
"For one Tesla car battery 500,000 lbs of earth must be moved to obtain the requisite minerals."
That may be true for one battery, but is it true for *each* battery?
Wow! Thanks!
I toyed with buying an electric car two years ago. However, they were too many unanswered questions about everything you talked about here. Instead, I purchased a Kia Niro hybrid. I get 55 MPG on average (sometimes even get in the mid 60s!) and never have to worry about finding a charging station. One of the best decisions I’ve made!
This is all just wrong! Gato, you are completely ignoring the thousands of dollars/month the EV owner gains in virtue signalling. Additionally, with technology improvements, the power companies will eventually pay the EV owner to use electricity, EVs will be so safe that insurance requirements will be waived by the state, and gasoline will cost $150/mL.
And I didn't even mention that they will be giving the cars away for free.
… all you said plus: cobalt digging children, indonesia got china’s coal fired electric plants so xi could get blue skies and cheap abundant electricity, and a friend has set up a business towing/rescuing EVs from the side of the road. Good times feeding our corporate welfare class and corrupt politicos.
Errors made by el gato:
1. Not enough blue hair in avatar
2. Showed actual calculations and sources for costs
3. No praise for Ukraine in article
4. Failure to assess needs/costs to upgrade homeowner power panel (older homes can handle maybe 100 amps), let alone older apartments without charging stations
5. Not published on Twitter, the only source of truth
"pushing EV’s to reduce CO2 is a crony corporatist grift"
Like all so-called green initiatives.
As a Michigan resident I am grateful for Stabenow, who keeps me humble whenever I get too eager about pointing fingers at California for keeping Pelosi around.
ha!