Upgrading the power grid to accommodate electric cars will cost trillions

[RichA]

15 homes are served by one electrical transformer. They cost $10,000 each. They have to be upgraded. All of them. That's just the beginning. You know how much land you'd have to destroy to put in enough "windmills" and solar panels to create that kind of power? The power needed to charge one electric car is the same as full powering a stove overnight. Imagine 3 per household. Every few days...
Utilities are slavering over this as they are expected to reap massive economic rewards.

[ZZyXX]

Post by RichA
15 homes are served by one electrical transformer. They cost $10,000 each. They have to be upgraded. All of them. That's just the beginning. You know how much land you'd have to destroy to put in enough "windmills" and solar panels to create that kind of power? The power needed to charge one electric car is the same as full powering a stove overnight. Imagine 3 per household. Every few days...
Utilities are slavering over this as they are expected to reap massive economic rewards.

installing PV on houses doesn't take any land, and yes most new home
installations are also installing storage systems. distributed energy
sources can prevent massive grid failures from single point generation

how do windmills destroy land

[Ed Stasiak]

Post by ZZyXX
ZZyXX
installing PV on houses doesn't take any land

True, but even a combination solar/wind turbine system
(it snows here in Michigan) isn’t going to be enough
to power-up that electric car.

[ZZyXX]

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by ZZyXX
ZZyXX
installing PV on houses doesn't take any land

True, but even a combination solar/wind turbine system
(it snows here in Michigan) isn’t going to be enough
to power-up that electric car.

it's a grid, combination of multiple houses, and whatever part of the
power the house doesn't provide is still going to reduce demand on the
single-point existing grid...and make fewer of those non-existent human
caused mosquito invasions

[RichA]

Post by ZZyXX

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by ZZyXX
ZZyXX
installing PV on houses doesn't take any land

True, but even a combination solar/wind turbine system
(it snows here in Michigan) isn’t going to be enough
to power-up that electric car.

it's a grid, combination of multiple houses, and whatever part of the
power the house doesn't provide is still going to reduce demand on the
single-point existing grid...and make fewer of those non-existent human
caused mosquito invasions

A nuclear plant produces the same power that wind-farm occupying 1000 TIMES the square area does. Talk about "land-use" problems on the horizon.
Until they develop massive energy storage mechanisms (capacitors, heat banks, whatever, and it's proving as daunting as fusion power) solar and wind will be also-rans.

[kensi]

Post by RichA
A nuclear plant produces the same power that wind-farm occupying 1000
TIMES the square area does.

Yeah, but that wind farm can't undergo a meltdown someday, and you can
farm around the bases of the towers.

[RichA]

Post by kensi

Post by RichA
A nuclear plant produces the same power that wind-farm occupying 1000
TIMES the square area does.

Yeah, but that wind farm can't undergo a meltdown someday, and you can
farm around the bases of the towers.

That's true. But, Chernobyl and Fukushima were two extraordinary rare events, the Russian one due to incompetence (the old Soviet system was rife) and poor design. The Japanese one was due to the confluence of two major disaster events, unlikely to be repeated in several hundreds years. In any case, well-designed plants have a sterling track-record over their 60 years of existence. Plus, the fuel needed to power them is abundant, cheap (because each reactor uses so little, the cost of fuel as part of all reactor costs is minor) and readily available.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by RichA

Post by kensi

Post by RichA
A nuclear plant produces the same power that wind-farm occupying 1000
TIMES the square area does.

Yeah, but that wind farm can't undergo a meltdown someday, and you can
farm around the bases of the towers.

That's true. But, Chernobyl and Fukushima were two extraordinary rare
events, the Russian one due to incompetence (the old Soviet system was
rife) and poor design. The Japanese one was due to the confluence of two
major disaster events, unlikely to be repeated in several hundreds
years.

Oh, bullshit. The first huge mistake was siting those two reactors there
to begin with. That was asking for trouble.

It's entirely a failure to learn from Godzilla.

Post by RichA
In any case, well-designed plants have a sterling track-record
over their 60 years of existence. Plus, the fuel needed to power them
is abundant, cheap (because each reactor uses so little, the cost of
fuel as part of all reactor costs is minor) and readily available.

And what about the waste?

[kensi]

Post by RichA

Post by kensi

Post by RichA
A nuclear plant produces the same power that wind-farm occupying 1000
TIMES the square area does.

Yeah, but that wind farm can't undergo a meltdown someday, and you can
farm around the bases of the towers.

That's true. But, Chernobyl and Fukushima were two extraordinary rare
events, the Russian one due to incompetence (the old Soviet system was
rife) and poor design. The Japanese one was due to the confluence of
two major disaster events, unlikely to be repeated in several hundreds
years.

And the mess won't be entirely safe for several tens of thousands. So
how many such messes can we expect there to be, at any given random time
in the future, if fission plants remain in widespread use?

Post by RichA
In any case, well-designed plants have a sterling track-record over
their 60 years of existence. Plus, the fuel needed to power them is
abundant, cheap (because each reactor uses so little, the cost of fuel
as part of all reactor costs is minor) and readily available.

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-01-18/peak-uranium-the-uncertain-future-of-nuclear-energy/

Oops, looks like your "abundant" fuel will start running out not long
after the oil does.

[ZZyXX]

Post by RichA

Post by kensi

Post by RichA
A nuclear plant produces the same power that wind-farm occupying 1000
TIMES the square area does.

Yeah, but that wind farm can't undergo a meltdown someday, and you can
farm around the bases of the towers.

That's true. But, Chernobyl and Fukushima were two extraordinary rare events, the Russian one due to incompetence (the old Soviet system was rife) and poor design. The Japanese one was due to the confluence of two major disaster events, unlikely to be repeated in several hundreds years. In any case, well-designed plants have a sterling track-record over their 60 years of existence. Plus, the fuel needed to power them is abundant, cheap (because each reactor uses so little, the cost of fuel as part of all reactor costs is minor) and readily available.

yeh three mile island was a fluke

As of 2014, there have been more than 100 serious nuclear accidents and
incidents from the use of nuclear power. Fifty-seven accidents or severe
incidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster, and about 60% of
all nuclear-related accidents/severe incidents have occurred in the USA.

[Shadow]

Post by RichA

Post by kensi

Post by RichA
A nuclear plant produces the same power that wind-farm occupying 1000
TIMES the square area does.

Yeah, but that wind farm can't undergo a meltdown someday, and you can
farm around the bases of the towers.

That's true. But, Chernobyl and Fukushima were two extraordinary rare events

True, they made the media.
LOL
It must be nice to live in RichA's imaginary world. No
"terrifying" windmills.
[]'s

[ZZyXX]

Post by RichA

Post by ZZyXX

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by ZZyXX
ZZyXX
installing PV on houses doesn't take any land

True, but even a combination solar/wind turbine system
(it snows here in Michigan) isn’t going to be enough
to power-up that electric car.

it's a grid, combination of multiple houses, and whatever part of the
power the house doesn't provide is still going to reduce demand on the
single-point existing grid...and make fewer of those non-existent human
caused mosquito invasions

A nuclear plant produces the same power that wind-farm occupying 1000 TIMES the square area does. Talk about "land-use" problems on the horizon.

yup, even the cleanest nuke (and coal) power plant produce enough
radioactive waste, that can't be safely stored, than all the wind
turbines ever built

Post by RichA
Until they develop massive energy storage mechanisms (capacitors, heat banks, whatever, and it's proving as daunting as fusion power) solar and wind will be also-rans.

[RichA]

Post by ZZyXX

Post by RichA
15 homes are served by one electrical transformer. They cost $10,000 each. They have to be upgraded. All of them. That's just the beginning. You know how much land you'd have to destroy to put in enough "windmills" and solar panels to create that kind of power? The power needed to charge one electric car is the same as full powering a stove overnight. Imagine 3 per household. Every few days...
Utilities are slavering over this as they are expected to reap massive economic rewards.

installing PV on houses doesn't take any land

Worthless. Clouds, rain, darkness, low sun angle in winter = no power.

[ZZyXX]

Post by RichA

Post by ZZyXX

Post by RichA
15 homes are served by one electrical transformer. They cost $10,000 each. They have to be upgraded. All of them. That's just the beginning. You know how much land you'd have to destroy to put in enough "windmills" and solar panels to create that kind of power? The power needed to charge one electric car is the same as full powering a stove overnight. Imagine 3 per household. Every few days...
Utilities are slavering over this as they are expected to reap massive economic rewards.

installing PV on houses doesn't take any land

Worthless. Clouds, rain, darkness, low sun angle in winter = no power.

low-light PVs, batteries, tracking and when worst comes to worse, if you
live in a place where it doesn't work, you shouldn't purchase a system

[Your Name]

Post by RichA

Post by ZZyXX

Post by RichA
15 homes are served by one electrical transformer. They cost $10,000
each. They have to be upgraded. All of them. That's just the
beginning. You know how much land you'd have to destroy to put in
enough "windmills" and solar panels to create that kind of power? The
power needed to charge one electric car is the same as full powering a
stove overnight. Imagine 3 per household. Every few days...
Utilities are slavering over this as they are expected to reap massive
economic rewards.

installing PV on houses doesn't take any land

Worthless. Clouds, rain, darkness, low sun angle in winter = no power.

Places near the Artic can have very dark days for long periods, so
solar powered electricity is a non-starter ... but many of them already
have other ways of generating electricity to appease the Greenies via
things like wind, waves, geothermal, etc.

[Your Name]

Post by RichA
15 homes are served by one electrical transformer. They cost $10,000
each. They have to be upgraded. All of them. That's just the
beginning. You know how much land you'd have to destroy to put in
enough "windmills" and solar panels to create that kind of power? The
power needed to charge one electric car is the same as full powering a
stove overnight. Imagine 3 per household. Every few days...
Utilities are slavering over this as they are expected to reap massive economic rewards.

Yep. Electric cars saving the planet is a massive fallacy promoted by
dimwits and money-grubbing band-wagon-jumpers. They are not any better,
and in some ways worse, than normal petrol and diesel cars.

It's the same with the idiotic craze for mobile devices that also have
to be constantly recharged, as well as the pollution to make and
dispose of them when fools insist on upgrading to the latest toy every
year. The number of fashion-fad morons who buy a laptop computer and
then leave it sitting on a desk 24-7 is astounding. :-\

[kensi]

Post by Your Name
Yep. Electric cars saving the planet is a massive fallacy promoted by
dimwits and money-grubbing band-wagon-jumpers. They are not any better,
and in some ways worse, than normal petrol and diesel cars.

Even if that were true, which it is not, electric cars would retain one
absolutely critical advantage: their fuel won't be ridiculously
expensive in less than 20 years and gone in 50.

[Your Name]

Post by kensi

Post by Your Name
Yep. Electric cars saving the planet is a massive fallacy promoted by
dimwits and money-grubbing band-wagon-jumpers. They are not any better,
and in some ways worse, than normal petrol and diesel cars.

Even if that were true, which it is not, electric cars would retain one
absolutely critical advantage: their fuel won't be ridiculously
expensive in less than 20 years and gone in 50.

Nope. Instead the electric cars sold new are ridiculous expensive now
(especially when tax-payer "subsidies" aren't available, in which case
you're basically paying the extra over your entire working life), and
the cars sold second-hand *will* need ridiculously expensive battery
replacements.

There is no "win" with electric cars, despite what many looney Greenies
like to believe with their ill-thought-out and blinkered ideals.

[kensi]

Post by Your Name

Post by kensi

Post by Your Name
Yep. Electric cars saving the planet is a massive fallacy promoted by
dimwits and money-grubbing band-wagon-jumpers. They are not any
better, and in some ways worse, than normal petrol and diesel cars.

Even if that were true, which it is not, electric cars would retain
one absolutely critical advantage: their fuel won't be ridiculously
expensive in less than 20 years and gone in 50.

Nope. Instead the electric cars sold new are ridiculous expensive now
(especially when tax-payer "subsidies" aren't available, in which case
you're basically paying the extra over your entire working life), and
the cars sold second-hand *will* need ridiculously expensive battery
replacements.
There is no "win" with electric cars, despite what many looney Greenies
like to believe with their ill-thought-out and blinkered ideals.

Wrong, but even if we granted your ridiculous claims, in fifty years
they will have the overwhelming advantage that they can actually move,
while their fossil-fueled counterparts can only sit there and rust.

[Your Name]

Post by kensi

Post by Your Name

Post by kensi

Post by Your Name
Yep. Electric cars saving the planet is a massive fallacy promoted by
dimwits and money-grubbing band-wagon-jumpers. They are not any better,
and in some ways worse, than normal petrol and diesel cars.

Even if that were true, which it is not, electric cars would retain one
absolutely critical advantage: their fuel won't be ridiculously
expensive in less than 20 years and gone in 50.

Nope. Instead the electric cars sold new are ridiculous expensive now
(especially when tax-payer "subsidies" aren't available, in which case
you're basically paying the extra over your entire working life), and
the cars sold second-hand *will* need ridiculously expensive battery
replacements.
There is no "win" with electric cars, despite what many looney Greenies
like to believe with their ill-thought-out and blinkered ideals.

Wrong, but even if we granted your ridiculous claims, in fifty years
they will have the overwhelming advantage that they can actually move,
while their fossil-fueled counterparts can only sit there and rust.

See, more blinkered thinking. People have had petrol / diesel cars
running on other types of fuel (used cooking oil for example) - in some
case with litle or no modification. Even ignoring that, there are also
other types of "fuel", but they all have their own advantages and
disadvantages.

Not to mention that electric cars do actually need oil or similar to
keep their motors, etc. lubricated, otherwise they'll simply seize up.
Despite what the blinkered Greenis want to believe, they do still have
moving parts, just fewer of them.

Electric cars are not and never will be the "saviour of the planet".
The problems they create are simply different to the problems of
"normal" cars.

[kensi]

Post by Your Name

Post by kensi

Post by Your Name

Post by kensi

Post by Your Name
Yep. Electric cars saving the planet is a massive fallacy promoted
by dimwits and money-grubbing band-wagon-jumpers. They are not any
better, and in some ways worse, than normal petrol and diesel cars.

Even if that were true, which it is not, electric cars would retain
one absolutely critical advantage: their fuel won't be ridiculously
expensive in less than 20 years and gone in 50.

Nope. Instead the electric cars sold new are ridiculous expensive now
(especially when tax-payer "subsidies" aren't available, in which
case you're basically paying the extra over your entire working
life), and the cars sold second-hand *will* need ridiculously
expensive battery replacements.
There is no "win" with electric cars, despite what many looney
Greenies like to believe with their ill-thought-out and blinkered
ideals.

Wrong, but even if we granted your ridiculous claims, in fifty years
they will have the overwhelming advantage that they can actually move,
while their fossil-fueled counterparts can only sit there and rust.

See, more blinkered thinking.

We've come to expect that from you.

Post by Your Name
People have had petrol / diesel cars running on other types of fuel
(used cooking oil for example) - in some case with litle or no
modification. Even ignoring that, there are also other types of "fuel",
but they all have their own advantages and disadvantages.

And one big disadvantage in common: they don't scale efficiently to a
huge vehicle fleet. Electric does.

Post by Your Name
Not to mention that electric cars do actually need oil or similar to
keep their motors, etc. lubricated, otherwise they'll simply seize up.

Something that bio-oils *will* scale up to, since lubricant is not
consumed at a prodigious rate during operation.

Post by Your Name
Electric cars are not and never will be the "saviour of the planet".

Perhaps not. But they will be ubiquitous, and sooner than you think.

[Your Name]

Post by kensi

Post by Your Name

Post by kensi

Post by Your Name

Post by kensi

Post by Your Name
Yep. Electric cars saving the planet is a massive fallacy promoted by
dimwits and money-grubbing band-wagon-jumpers. They are not any better,
and in some ways worse, than normal petrol and diesel cars.

Even if that were true, which it is not, electric cars would retain one
absolutely critical advantage: their fuel won't be ridiculously
expensive in less than 20 years and gone in 50.

Nope. Instead the electric cars sold new are ridiculous expensive now
(especially when tax-payer "subsidies" aren't available, in which case
you're basically paying the extra over your entire working life), and
the cars sold second-hand *will* need ridiculously expensive battery
replacements.
There is no "win" with electric cars, despite what many looney Greenies
like to believe with their ill-thought-out and blinkered ideals.

Wrong, but even if we granted your ridiculous claims, in fifty years
they will have the overwhelming advantage that they can actually move,
while their fossil-fueled counterparts can only sit there and rust.

See, more blinkered thinking.

We've come to expect that from you.

Post by Your Name
People have had petrol / diesel cars running on other types of fuel
(used cooking oil for example) - in some case with litle or no
modification. Even ignoring that, there are also other types of "fuel",
but they all have their own advantages and disadvantages.

And one big disadvantage in common: they don't scale efficiently to a
huge vehicle fleet. Electric does.

Obviously that's why petrol / diesel trucks don't exist. :-\

Post by kensi

Post by Your Name
Not to mention that electric cars do actually need oil or similar to
keep their motors, etc. lubricated, otherwise they'll simply seize up.

Something that bio-oils *will* scale up to, since lubricant is not
consumed at a prodigious rate during operation.

Post by Your Name
Electric cars are not and never will be the "saviour of the planet".

Perhaps not. But they will be ubiquitous, and sooner than you think.

So is Microsloth Windoze, doesn't mean it's actually any good though.
In fact it often means the opposite - what becomes popular is usually
simply due to being cheaper (something electric cars aren't) rather
than actually best: Microsloth Windoze, VHS video, etc.

[kensi]

Post by kensi

Post by Your Name
People have had petrol / diesel cars running on other types of fuel
(used cooking oil for example) - in some case with litle or no
modification. Even ignoring that, there are also other types of "fuel",
but they all have their own advantages and disadvantages.

And one big disadvantage in common: they don't scale efficiently to a
huge vehicle fleet. Electric does.

Obviously that's why petrol / diesel trucks don't exist.  :-\

Not huge fleets of them running on cooking oil, no.

Post by kensi

Post by Your Name
Not to mention that electric cars do actually need oil or similar to
keep their motors, etc. lubricated, otherwise they'll simply seize up.

Something that bio-oils *will* scale up to, since lubricant is not
consumed at a prodigious rate during operation.

Post by Your Name
Electric cars are not and never will be the "saviour of the planet".

Perhaps not. But they will be ubiquitous, and sooner than you think.

So is Microsloth Windoze, doesn't mean it's actually any good though. In
fact it often means the opposite - what becomes popular is usually
simply due to being cheaper (something electric cars aren't) rather than
actually best: Microsloth Windoze, VHS video, etc.

What planet do you live on where Windoze is cheaper than Linux?!

[BTR1701]

Post by Your Name

Post by kensi

Post by Your Name
Yep. Electric cars saving the planet is a massive fallacy promoted by
dimwits and money-grubbing band-wagon-jumpers. They are not any better,
and in some ways worse, than normal petrol and diesel cars.

Even if that were true, which it is not, electric cars would retain one
absolutely critical advantage: their fuel won't be ridiculously
expensive in less than 20 years and gone in 50.

Nope. Instead the electric cars sold new are ridiculous expensive now
(especially when tax-payer "subsidies" aren't available, in which case
you're basically paying the extra over your entire working life), and
the cars sold second-hand *will* need ridiculously expensive battery
replacements.

And with regard to disposal, those old batteries are almost as bad for the
environment as nuclear waste.

It's bad enough now when those cars are little more than novelties for the
idle rich, but multiply them by 20 million as Emperor Newsom wants to do by
banning gas-powered cars, and you'll have battery disposal sites that will
make your skin melt.

And mining the minerals for those batteries is also a highly toxic
environmental nightmare. There are mines in Canada where the landscape
looks like the surface of the moon.

Anyone who thinks electric cars will save the environment is as delusional
as Occasional-Cortex.

Newsom can't even keep the lights on in California right now. The state is
literally running out of electricity every other day and blacking out
sections of the grid one by one. Imagine 20 million people plugging their
cars in all at once on top of that.

Plus they have to cut the power off every time the wind blows now. Wouldn't
that be a helluva thing... your house is about to burn down from a wildfire
caused by Democrats' mismanagement of the forests, and you can't evacuate
because your car isn't charged because the state also turned your power off
because it was windy.

And even assuming they build out the recharging infrastructure to the point
where you can find a charging station in even the smallest towns and rural
highways like you can with gas pumps, how the hell are you supposed to
charge these things while on a trip when it takes hours to charge them? I
can pull into a gas station, fill the tank, and be on my way in five
minutes. With an electric car, a stop at a filling station could take the
better part of a day. That three hour drive from L.A. to Vegas will now
take eight hours or more, and that's assuming you can find an empty plug
and don't have to *also* wait in line for someone else's car to charge
before you can even get started.

And all for a bunch of political virtue signaling that won't have any
effect on global warming at all.

Progress!

[ZZyXX]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Your Name

Post by kensi

Post by Your Name
Yep. Electric cars saving the planet is a massive fallacy promoted by
dimwits and money-grubbing band-wagon-jumpers. They are not any better,
and in some ways worse, than normal petrol and diesel cars.

Even if that were true, which it is not, electric cars would retain one
absolutely critical advantage: their fuel won't be ridiculously
expensive in less than 20 years and gone in 50.

Nope. Instead the electric cars sold new are ridiculous expensive now
(especially when tax-payer "subsidies" aren't available, in which case
you're basically paying the extra over your entire working life), and
the cars sold second-hand *will* need ridiculously expensive battery
replacements.

And with regard to disposal, those old batteries are almost as bad for the
environment as nuclear waste.

except they can be recyclable

Post by BTR1701
It's bad enough now when those cars are little more than novelties for the
idle rich, but multiply them by 20 million as Emperor Newsom wants to do by
banning gas-powered cars, and you'll have battery disposal sites that will
make your skin melt.

just call them nuclear waste sites and nobody will care

Post by BTR1701
And mining the minerals for those batteries is also a highly toxic
environmental nightmare. There are mines in Canada where the landscape
looks like the surface of the moon.

ever seen coal mining sites, ever see uranium mining sites, heck have
you even seen what fracking sites look like

Post by BTR1701
Anyone who thinks electric cars will save the environment is as delusional
as Occasional-Cortex.
Newsom can't even keep the lights on in California right now. The state is
literally running out of electricity every other day and blacking out
sections of the grid one by one. Imagine 20 million people plugging their
cars in all at once on top of that.
Plus they have to cut the power off every time the wind blows now.

a lot of blacking out is in efforts to prevent fires from poorly
maintained power lines from starting more fires

Wouldn't

Post by BTR1701
that be a helluva thing... your house is about to burn down from a wildfire
caused by Democrats' mismanagement of the forests, and you can't evacuate
because your car isn't charged because the state also turned your power off
because it was windy.

good luck finding manually operated gas pumps

Post by BTR1701
And even assuming they build out the recharging infrastructure to the point
where you can find a charging station in even the smallest towns and rural
highways like you can with gas pumps, how the hell are you supposed to
charge these things while on a trip when it takes hours to charge them? I
can pull into a gas station, fill the tank, and be on my way in five
minutes. With an electric car, a stop at a filling station could take the
better part of a day. That three hour drive from L.A. to Vegas will now
take eight hours or more, and that's assuming you can find an empty plug
and don't have to *also* wait in line for someone else's car to charge
before you can even get started.
And all for a bunch of political virtue signaling that won't have any
effect on global warming at all.
Progress!

[BTR1701]

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701

Post by Your Name

Post by kensi

Post by Your Name
Yep. Electric cars saving the planet is a massive fallacy promoted by
dimwits and money-grubbing band-wagon-jumpers. They are not any better,
and in some ways worse, than normal petrol and diesel cars.

Even if that were true, which it is not, electric cars would retain one
absolutely critical advantage: their fuel won't be ridiculously
expensive in less than 20 years and gone in 50.

Nope. Instead the electric cars sold new are ridiculous expensive now
(especially when tax-payer "subsidies" aren't available, in which case
you're basically paying the extra over your entire working life), and
the cars sold second-hand *will* need ridiculously expensive battery
replacements.

And with regard to disposal, those old batteries are almost as bad for the
environment as nuclear waste.

except they can be recyclable

Only so many times. And we know that a significant percentage of people
can't be bothered recycling things and just throw them away.

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701
It's bad enough now when those cars are little more than novelties for the
idle rich, but multiply them by 20 million as Emperor Newsom wants to do by
banning gas-powered cars, and you'll have battery disposal sites that will
make your skin melt.

just call them nuclear waste sites and nobody will care

Post by BTR1701
And mining the minerals for those batteries is also a highly toxic
environmental nightmare. There are mines in Canada where the landscape
looks like the surface of the moon.

ever seen coal mining sites, ever see uranium mining sites, heck have
you even seen what fracking sites look like

Sure I have but I'm not pretending those things will save the environment
the way you are with electric cars.

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701
Anyone who thinks electric cars will save the environment is as delusional
as Occasional-Cortex.
Newsom can't even keep the lights on in California right now. The state is
literally running out of electricity every other day and blacking out
sections of the grid one by one. Imagine 20 million people plugging their
cars in all at once on top of that.
Plus they have to cut the power off every time the wind blows now.

a lot of blacking out is in efforts to prevent fires from poorly
maintained power lines from starting more fires

No kidding. The power's still out.

Post by ZZyXX
Wouldn't

Post by BTR1701
that be a helluva thing... your house is about to burn down from a wildfire
caused by Democrats' mismanagement of the forests, and you can't evacuate
because your car isn't charged because the state also turned your power off
because it was windy.

good luck finding manually operated gas pumps

Don't need to. I can get a ride to pick up more gas from a working pump. I
don't think I can bring home a jug of electrons for my government-mandated
hamstermobile.

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701
And even assuming they build out the recharging infrastructure to the point
where you can find a charging station in even the smallest towns and rural
highways like you can with gas pumps, how the hell are you supposed to
charge these things while on a trip when it takes hours to charge them? I
can pull into a gas station, fill the tank, and be on my way in five
minutes. With an electric car, a stop at a filling station could take the
better part of a day. That three hour drive from L.A. to Vegas will now
take eight hours or more, and that's assuming you can find an empty plug
and don't have to *also* wait in line for someone else's car to charge
before you can even get started.
And all for a bunch of political virtue signaling that won't have any
effect on global warming at all.
Progress!

[ZZyXX]

Post by BTR1701

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701

Post by Your Name

Post by kensi

Post by Your Name
Yep. Electric cars saving the planet is a massive fallacy promoted by
dimwits and money-grubbing band-wagon-jumpers. They are not any better,
and in some ways worse, than normal petrol and diesel cars.

Even if that were true, which it is not, electric cars would retain one
absolutely critical advantage: their fuel won't be ridiculously
expensive in less than 20 years and gone in 50.

Nope. Instead the electric cars sold new are ridiculous expensive now
(especially when tax-payer "subsidies" aren't available, in which case
you're basically paying the extra over your entire working life), and
the cars sold second-hand *will* need ridiculously expensive battery
replacements.

And with regard to disposal, those old batteries are almost as bad for the
environment as nuclear waste.

except they can be recyclable

Only so many times. And we know that a significant percentage of people
can't be bothered recycling things and just throw them away.

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701
It's bad enough now when those cars are little more than novelties for the
idle rich, but multiply them by 20 million as Emperor Newsom wants to do by
banning gas-powered cars, and you'll have battery disposal sites that will
make your skin melt.

just call them nuclear waste sites and nobody will care

Post by BTR1701
And mining the minerals for those batteries is also a highly toxic
environmental nightmare. There are mines in Canada where the landscape
looks like the surface of the moon.

ever seen coal mining sites, ever see uranium mining sites, heck have
you even seen what fracking sites look like

Sure I have but I'm not pretending those things will save the environment
the way you are with electric cars.

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701
Anyone who thinks electric cars will save the environment is as delusional
as Occasional-Cortex.
Newsom can't even keep the lights on in California right now. The state is
literally running out of electricity every other day and blacking out
sections of the grid one by one. Imagine 20 million people plugging their
cars in all at once on top of that.
Plus they have to cut the power off every time the wind blows now.

a lot of blacking out is in efforts to prevent fires from poorly
maintained power lines from starting more fires

No kidding. The power's still out.

Post by ZZyXX
Wouldn't

Post by BTR1701
that be a helluva thing... your house is about to burn down from a wildfire
caused by Democrats' mismanagement of the forests, and you can't evacuate
because your car isn't charged because the state also turned your power off
because it was windy.

good luck finding manually operated gas pumps

Don't need to. I can get a ride to pick up more gas from a working pump.

not likely when your house is about to burn down

I

Post by BTR1701
don't think I can bring home a jug of electrons for my government-mandated
hamstermobile.

don't have to. most people wouldn't be so idiotic as to let the
batteries get to zero

Post by BTR1701

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701
And even assuming they build out the recharging infrastructure to the point
where you can find a charging station in even the smallest towns and rural
highways like you can with gas pumps, how the hell are you supposed to
charge these things while on a trip when it takes hours to charge them? I
can pull into a gas station, fill the tank, and be on my way in five
minutes. With an electric car, a stop at a filling station could take the
better part of a day. That three hour drive from L.A. to Vegas will now
take eight hours or more, and that's assuming you can find an empty plug
and don't have to *also* wait in line for someone else's car to charge
before you can even get started.
And all for a bunch of political virtue signaling that won't have any
effect on global warming at all.

I just think of all the hydrocarbons that aren't being emitted by ecars

Post by BTR1701

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701
Progress!

[BTR1701]

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701

Post by Your Name

Post by kensi

Post by Your Name
Yep. Electric cars saving the planet is a massive fallacy promoted by
dimwits and money-grubbing band-wagon-jumpers. They are not any better,
and in some ways worse, than normal petrol and diesel cars.

Even if that were true, which it is not, electric cars would retain one
absolutely critical advantage: their fuel won't be ridiculously
expensive in less than 20 years and gone in 50.

Nope. Instead the electric cars sold new are ridiculous expensive now
(especially when tax-payer "subsidies" aren't available, in which case
you're basically paying the extra over your entire working life), and
the cars sold second-hand *will* need ridiculously expensive battery
replacements.

And with regard to disposal, those old batteries are almost as bad for the
environment as nuclear waste.

except they can be recyclable

Only so many times. And we know that a significant percentage of people
can't be bothered recycling things and just throw them away.

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701
It's bad enough now when those cars are little more than novelties for the
idle rich, but multiply them by 20 million as Emperor Newsom wants to do by
banning gas-powered cars, and you'll have battery disposal sites that will
make your skin melt.

just call them nuclear waste sites and nobody will care

Post by BTR1701
And mining the minerals for those batteries is also a highly toxic
environmental nightmare. There are mines in Canada where the landscape
looks like the surface of the moon.

ever seen coal mining sites, ever see uranium mining sites, heck have
you even seen what fracking sites look like

Sure I have but I'm not pretending those things will save the environment
the way you are with electric cars.

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701
Anyone who thinks electric cars will save the environment is as delusional
as Occasional-Cortex.
Newsom can't even keep the lights on in California right now. The state is
literally running out of electricity every other day and blacking out
sections of the grid one by one. Imagine 20 million people plugging their
cars in all at once on top of that.
Plus they have to cut the power off every time the wind blows now.

a lot of blacking out is in efforts to prevent fires from poorly
maintained power lines from starting more fires

No kidding. The power's still out.

Post by ZZyXX
Wouldn't

Post by BTR1701
that be a helluva thing... your house is about to burn down from a wildfire
caused by Democrats' mismanagement of the forests, and you can't evacuate
because your car isn't charged because the state also turned your power off
because it was windy.

good luck finding manually operated gas pumps

Don't need to. I can get a ride to pick up more gas from a working pump.

not likely when your house is about to burn down
I

Post by BTR1701
don't think I can bring home a jug of electrons for my government-mandated
hamstermobile.

don't have to. most people wouldn't be so idiotic as to let the
batteries get to zero

People run out of gas all the time.

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701
And even assuming they build out the recharging infrastructure to the point
where you can find a charging station in even the smallest towns and rural
highways like you can with gas pumps, how the hell are you supposed to
charge these things while on a trip when it takes hours to charge them? I
can pull into a gas station, fill the tank, and be on my way in five
minutes. With an electric car, a stop at a filling station could take the
better part of a day. That three hour drive from L.A. to Vegas will now
take eight hours or more, and that's assuming you can find an empty plug
and don't have to *also* wait in line for someone else's car to charge
before you can even get started.
And all for a bunch of political virtue signaling that won't have any
effect on global warming at all.

I just think of all the hydrocarbons that aren't being emitted by ecars.

(1) You haven't eliminated emissions, you've only changed which pipe
they're coming out of.

(2) According to the UN IPCC model, even if the US stopped ALL emissions,
100%-- all cars, ecars, all industry, cow farts, everything-- and we lived
that Amish lifestyle for 80 years, it would only reduce global mean
temperature by 0.08 degrees.

So think of all those hydrocarbons all you want but you're fooling yourself
if you thinks it makes any difference.

[ZZyXX]

Post by BTR1701

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701

Post by Your Name

Post by kensi

Post by Your Name
Yep. Electric cars saving the planet is a massive fallacy promoted by
dimwits and money-grubbing band-wagon-jumpers. They are not any better,
and in some ways worse, than normal petrol and diesel cars.

Even if that were true, which it is not, electric cars would retain one
absolutely critical advantage: their fuel won't be ridiculously
expensive in less than 20 years and gone in 50.

Nope. Instead the electric cars sold new are ridiculous expensive now
(especially when tax-payer "subsidies" aren't available, in which case
you're basically paying the extra over your entire working life), and
the cars sold second-hand *will* need ridiculously expensive battery
replacements.

And with regard to disposal, those old batteries are almost as bad for the
environment as nuclear waste.

except they can be recyclable

Only so many times. And we know that a significant percentage of people
can't be bothered recycling things and just throw them away.

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701
It's bad enough now when those cars are little more than novelties for the
idle rich, but multiply them by 20 million as Emperor Newsom wants to do by
banning gas-powered cars, and you'll have battery disposal sites that will
make your skin melt.

just call them nuclear waste sites and nobody will care

Post by BTR1701
And mining the minerals for those batteries is also a highly toxic
environmental nightmare. There are mines in Canada where the landscape
looks like the surface of the moon.

ever seen coal mining sites, ever see uranium mining sites, heck have
you even seen what fracking sites look like

Sure I have but I'm not pretending those things will save the environment
the way you are with electric cars.

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701
Anyone who thinks electric cars will save the environment is as delusional
as Occasional-Cortex.
Newsom can't even keep the lights on in California right now. The state is
literally running out of electricity every other day and blacking out
sections of the grid one by one. Imagine 20 million people plugging their
cars in all at once on top of that.
Plus they have to cut the power off every time the wind blows now.

a lot of blacking out is in efforts to prevent fires from poorly
maintained power lines from starting more fires

No kidding. The power's still out.

Post by ZZyXX
Wouldn't

Post by BTR1701
that be a helluva thing... your house is about to burn down from a wildfire
caused by Democrats' mismanagement of the forests, and you can't evacuate
because your car isn't charged because the state also turned your power off
because it was windy.

good luck finding manually operated gas pumps

Don't need to. I can get a ride to pick up more gas from a working pump.

not likely when your house is about to burn down
I

Post by BTR1701
don't think I can bring home a jug of electrons for my government-mandated
hamstermobile.

don't have to. most people wouldn't be so idiotic as to let the
batteries get to zero

People run out of gas all the time.

then they will turn into crispy critters just like ecar owners

Post by BTR1701

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701
And even assuming they build out the recharging infrastructure to the point
where you can find a charging station in even the smallest towns and rural
highways like you can with gas pumps, how the hell are you supposed to
charge these things while on a trip when it takes hours to charge them? I
can pull into a gas station, fill the tank, and be on my way in five
minutes. With an electric car, a stop at a filling station could take the
better part of a day. That three hour drive from L.A. to Vegas will now
take eight hours or more, and that's assuming you can find an empty plug
and don't have to *also* wait in line for someone else's car to charge
before you can even get started.
And all for a bunch of political virtue signaling that won't have any
effect on global warming at all.

I just think of all the hydrocarbons that aren't being emitted by ecars.

(1) You haven't eliminated emissions, you've only changed which pipe
they're coming out of.

and it's easier to install emissions equipment on that pipe than your car

Post by BTR1701
(2) According to the UN IPCC model, even if the US stopped ALL emissions,
100%-- all cars, ecars, all industry, cow farts, everything-- and we lived
that Amish lifestyle for 80 years, it would only reduce global mean
temperature by 0.08 degrees.
So think of all those hydrocarbons all you want but you're fooling yourself
if you thinks it makes any difference.

well, you've got to start somewhere. BTW, UCDavis is working on
genetically modified cows that will produce all or mostly all male
cows...male cows being more efficient producing beef than females so one
of the unique ways of reducing cow farts

[Your Name]

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701

Post by Your Name

Post by kensi

Post by Your Name
Yep. Electric cars saving the planet is a massive fallacy promoted by
dimwits and money-grubbing band-wagon-jumpers. They are not any better,
and in some ways worse, than normal petrol and diesel cars.

Even if that were true, which it is not, electric cars would retain one
absolutely critical advantage: their fuel won't be ridiculously
expensive in less than 20 years and gone in 50.

Nope. Instead the electric cars sold new are ridiculous expensive now
(especially when tax-payer "subsidies" aren't available, in which case
you're basically paying the extra over your entire working life), and
the cars sold second-hand *will* need ridiculously expensive battery
replacements.

And with regard to disposal, those old batteries are almost as bad for the
environment as nuclear waste.

except they can be recyclable

"Can" being the important word. The reality is that much of them won't,
and even trying recycling them still produces toxic waste.

They stupidly suggest the used battery packs can be used as home
batteries to store solar power generated electricity ... except if the
batteries are so useless they've been removed from the car, who is
going to want them in their house?? Even if you do, they then have to
be replaced there eventually as well.

Battery tech hasn't really advanced any further than what the ancient
greeks and romans were (supposedly) using. :-\

[ZZyXX]

Post by Your Name

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701

Post by Your Name

Post by kensi

Post by Your Name
Yep. Electric cars saving the planet is a massive fallacy promoted by
dimwits and money-grubbing band-wagon-jumpers. They are not any better,
and in some ways worse, than normal petrol and diesel cars.

Even if that were true, which it is not, electric cars would retain one
absolutely critical advantage: their fuel won't be ridiculously
expensive in less than 20 years and gone in 50.

Nope. Instead the electric cars sold new are ridiculous expensive now
(especially when tax-payer "subsidies" aren't available, in which case
you're basically paying the extra over your entire working life), and
the cars sold second-hand *will* need ridiculously expensive battery
replacements.

And with regard to disposal, those old batteries are almost as bad for the
environment as nuclear waste.

except they can be recyclable

"Can" being the important word. The reality is that much of them won't,
and even trying recycling them still produces toxic waste.
They stupidly suggest the used battery packs can be used as home
batteries to store solar power generated electricity ... except if the
batteries are so useless they've been removed from the car, who is going
to want them in their house?? Even if you do, they then have to be
replaced there eventually as well.
Battery tech hasn't really advanced any further than what the ancient
greeks and romans were (supposedly) using.  :-\

just because it hasn't, doesn't mean it won't

[BTR1701]

Post by ZZyXX

Post by Your Name

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701

Post by Your Name

Post by kensi

Post by Your Name
Yep. Electric cars saving the planet is a massive fallacy promoted by
dimwits and money-grubbing band-wagon-jumpers. They are not any better,
and in some ways worse, than normal petrol and diesel cars.

Even if that were true, which it is not, electric cars would retain one
absolutely critical advantage: their fuel won't be ridiculously
expensive in less than 20 years and gone in 50.

Nope. Instead the electric cars sold new are ridiculous expensive now
(especially when tax-payer "subsidies" aren't available, in which case
you're basically paying the extra over your entire working life), and
the cars sold second-hand *will* need ridiculously expensive battery
replacements.

And with regard to disposal, those old batteries are almost as bad for the
environment as nuclear waste.

except they can be recyclable

"Can" being the important word. The reality is that much of them won't,
and even trying recycling them still produces toxic waste.
They stupidly suggest the used battery packs can be used as home
batteries to store solar power generated electricity ... except if the
batteries are so useless they've been removed from the car, who is going
to want them in their house?? Even if you do, they then have to be
replaced there eventually as well.
Battery tech hasn't really advanced any further than what the ancient
greeks and romans were (supposedly) using.  :-\

just because it hasn't, doesn't mean it won't

So you advocate basing US energy policy on a hope and a wish.

Smart.

[FPP]

Post by BTR1701

Post by ZZyXX

Post by Your Name

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701

Post by Your Name

Post by kensi

Post by Your Name
Yep. Electric cars saving the planet is a massive fallacy promoted by
dimwits and money-grubbing band-wagon-jumpers. They are not any better,
and in some ways worse, than normal petrol and diesel cars.

Even if that were true, which it is not, electric cars would retain one
absolutely critical advantage: their fuel won't be ridiculously
expensive in less than 20 years and gone in 50.

Nope. Instead the electric cars sold new are ridiculous expensive now
(especially when tax-payer "subsidies" aren't available, in which case
you're basically paying the extra over your entire working life), and
the cars sold second-hand *will* need ridiculously expensive battery
replacements.

And with regard to disposal, those old batteries are almost as bad for the
environment as nuclear waste.

except they can be recyclable

"Can" being the important word. The reality is that much of them won't,
and even trying recycling them still produces toxic waste.
They stupidly suggest the used battery packs can be used as home
batteries to store solar power generated electricity ... except if the
batteries are so useless they've been removed from the car, who is going
to want them in their house?? Even if you do, they then have to be
replaced there eventually as well.
Battery tech hasn't really advanced any further than what the ancient
greeks and romans were (supposedly) using.  :-\

just because it hasn't, doesn't mean it won't

So you advocate basing US energy policy on a hope and a wish.
Smart.

Science, stupid. You've got to start somewhere. We didn't go directly
from the wheel to the Space Shuttle.
--
There's nothing more American than demanding to carry an AR-15 to
"protect yourself" but refusing to wear a mask to protect everyone else.

If you hired a guy to "Make My House Great Again", and he hired his
incompetent children, stole your money, gave it away to your richest
neighbors, let everyone get sick, killed your grandma, backed over your
mailbox, burned down your house and blamed it on your black friends next
door... would YOU hire him AGAIN?

REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.
Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by ZZyXX

Post by Your Name

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701

Post by Your Name

Post by kensi

Post by Your Name
Yep. Electric cars saving the planet is a massive fallacy promoted by
dimwits and money-grubbing band-wagon-jumpers. They are not any better,
and in some ways worse, than normal petrol and diesel cars.

Even if that were true, which it is not, electric cars would retain one
absolutely critical advantage: their fuel won't be ridiculously
expensive in less than 20 years and gone in 50.

Nope. Instead the electric cars sold new are ridiculous expensive now
(especially when tax-payer "subsidies" aren't available, in which case
you're basically paying the extra over your entire working life), and
the cars sold second-hand *will* need ridiculously expensive battery
replacements.

And with regard to disposal, those old batteries are almost as bad for the
environment as nuclear waste.

except they can be recyclable

"Can" being the important word. The reality is that much of them won't,
and even trying recycling them still produces toxic waste.
They stupidly suggest the used battery packs can be used as home
batteries to store solar power generated electricity ... except if the
batteries are so useless they've been removed from the car, who is going
to want them in their house?? Even if you do, they then have to be
replaced there eventually as well.
Battery tech hasn't really advanced any further than what the ancient
greeks and romans were (supposedly) using.  :-\

just because it hasn't, doesn't mean it won't

So you advocate basing US energy policy on a hope and a wish.
Smart.

Science, stupid.  You've got to start somewhere.  We didn't go directly
from the wheel to the Space Shuttle.

Iirc, it was directly from the femur...

[Ed Stasiak]

Post by ZZyXX
ZZyXX

Your Name
Battery tech hasn't really advanced any further than what the
ancient greeks and romans were (supposedly) using. :-\

No, batteries are FAR more advanced nowadays.

Loading Image...

Post by ZZyXX
just because it hasn't, doesn't mean it won't

Sure, but this is a question of material technology, not tweaking some
software and while scientists may come up with some combination
of elements that allows for a super fast charging long lasting battery,
they may not, as the element needed might not exist on Earth (or the
solar system).

Right now, battery tech just isn’t practical for everybody to have
an electric car (without a back-up internal combustion engine car).

Still, rail based mass-transportation is even more impractical for
the U.S. as the entire country post-WWII has been built around cars
and trying to go with rail, would mean literally tearing up our society
and rebuilding it from the ground up.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Ed Stasiak

. . .

Still, rail based mass-transportation is even more impractical for
the U.S. as the entire country post-WWII has been built around cars
and trying to go with rail, would mean literally tearing up our society
and rebuilding it from the ground up.

Wow, Ed. That's some impressive use of your planning degree. Funny how
society wasn't completely torn up when streetcars were abandoned, just
the tracks themselves. Funny now society was torn up to force
expressways through densely built-up areas.

Please stop posting to Usenet with your brain on drugs.

[Ed Stasiak]

Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn
Ed Stasiak
Still, rail based mass-transportation is even more impractical for
the U.S. as the entire country post-WWII has been built around cars
and trying to go with rail, would mean literally tearing up our society
and rebuilding it from the ground up.

Wow, Ed. That's some impressive use of your planning degree. Funny how
society wasn't completely torn up when streetcars were abandoned, just
the tracks themselves. Funny now society was torn up to force
expressways through densely built-up areas.

Rail based mass-transportation works fine in crowded cities but isn’t viable
for modern suburbia. Prior to WWII, 50% of Americans were rural and rarely
went to town while the rest lived in crowded apartments in cities where trollies
and such were viable while today, 75% of Americans live in urban areas and
most of them in suburbs.

Loading Image...

[Adam H. Kerman]

Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn
Ed Stasiak
Still, rail based mass-transportation is even more impractical for
the U.S. as the entire country post-WWII has been built around cars
and trying to go with rail, would mean literally tearing up our society
and rebuilding it from the ground up.

Wow, Ed. That's some impressive use of your planning degree. Funny how
society wasn't completely torn up when streetcars were abandoned, just
the tracks themselves. Funny now society was torn up to force
expressways through densely built-up areas.

Rail based mass-transportation works fine in crowded cities but isn’t viable
for modern suburbia.

Modern suburbia is auto-oriented because of highway subsidies. At least
in the beginning, transit rail was privately built. You keep ignoring
how major highway construction was built through already built-up areas,
belying your main complaint "literally tearing up society".

You love "arguing" like this, taking the adverse consequences of the
thing you oppose and falsely assigning it to the alternative.

Prior to WWII, 50% of Americans were rural and rarely went to town while
the rest lived in crowded apartments in cities where trollies and such
were viable while today, 75% of Americans live in urban areas and most
of them in suburbs.

Rural residents were served by interurbans in a great many examples.
Indianapolis, hostile to rail transit and Amtrak, was once the
interurban capital of the midwest.

https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/suburbs.jpg

[Ed Stasiak]

Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn
Ed Stasiak
Rail based mass-transportation works fine in crowded cities
but isn’t viable for modern suburbia.

Modern suburbia is auto-oriented because of highway subsidies.

Highways were subsidized because post-WWII Americans didn’t
want to live in crowded, dirty, noisy cities and could now afford
to move out to the ‘burbs.

You keep ignoring how major highway construction was built
through already built-up areas, belying your main complaint
"literally tearing up society".

They were only tearing up a narrow strip of built up area, while
eliminating cars and replacing them rail would require trollies
running up and down subdivision streets 24/7, as well as more
substantial rail lines along every other surface street and that’s
just not practical.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn
Ed Stasiak
Rail based mass-transportation works fine in crowded cities
but isn't viable for modern suburbia.

Modern suburbia is auto-oriented because of highway subsidies.

Highways were subsidized because post-WWII Americans didn’t
want to live in crowded, dirty, noisy cities and could now afford
to move out to the ‘burbs.
. . .

And Ed goes into shithead mode by removing proper context from the
quotes, especially Ed's initial erroneous statement that began this
tangent. I'm finished with this subthread. I'm no longer playing.

You win Usenet, Ed.

[kensi]

Post by Ed Stasiak
Highways were subsidized because post-WWII Americans didn’t
want to live in crowded, dirty, noisy cities and could now afford
to move out to the ‘burbs.

Aren't you leaving out something kind of important here? Namely, racism
and the phenomenon of "white flight"?

[BTR1701]

Post by kensi

Post by Ed Stasiak
Highways were subsidized because post-WWII Americans didn’t
want to live in crowded, dirty, noisy cities and could now afford
to move out to the ‘burbs.

Aren't you leaving out something kind of important here? Namely, racism
and the phenomenon of "white flight"?

So now it's raaaaciiist to just leave and go somewhere else.

[kensi]

Post by BTR1701

Post by kensi

Post by Ed Stasiak
Highways were subsidized because post-WWII Americans didn’t
want to live in crowded, dirty, noisy cities and could now afford
to move out to the ‘burbs.

Aren't you leaving out something kind of important here? Namely, racism
and the phenomenon of "white flight"?

So now it's raaaaciiist to just leave and go somewhere else.

Not inherently, no. But that was the motivation behind "white flight" to
the suburbs.

[BTR1701]

Post by Ed Stasiak

Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn
Ed Stasiak
Rail based mass-transportation works fine in crowded cities
but isn’t viable for modern suburbia.

Modern suburbia is auto-oriented because of highway subsidies.

Highways were subsidized because post-WWII Americans didn’t
want to live in crowded, dirty, noisy cities and could now afford
to move out to the ‘burbs.

The interstate highway system was built primarily to enhance national
security, to provide the army the ability to move massive amounts of men
and materiel from place t place quickly. That civilians could also use them
in peacetime was a secondary benefit.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by BTR1701

Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn
Ed Stasiak
Rail based mass-transportation works fine in crowded cities
but isn’t viable for modern suburbia.

Modern suburbia is auto-oriented because of highway subsidies.

Highways were subsidized because post-WWII Americans didn’t
want to live in crowded, dirty, noisy cities and could now afford
to move out to the ‘burbs.

The interstate highway system was built primarily to enhance national
security, to provide the army the ability to move massive amounts of men
and materiel from place t place quickly. That civilians could also use them
in peacetime was a secondary benefit.

I don't think so. You could add the label "defense" to anything at the
time and get an enormous appropriation from Congress. That was politics.

Besides, if Canada ever did invade, the invading army gets the same
benefit.

[BTR1701]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ed Stasiak

Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn
Ed Stasiak
Rail based mass-transportation works fine in crowded cities
but isn’t viable for modern suburbia.

Modern suburbia is auto-oriented because of highway subsidies.

Highways were subsidized because post-WWII Americans didn’t
want to live in crowded, dirty, noisy cities and could now afford
to move out to the ‘burbs.

The interstate highway system was built primarily to enhance national
security, to provide the army the ability to move massive amounts of men
and materiel from place to place quickly. That civilians could also use them
in peacetime was a secondary benefit.

I don't think so. You could add the label "defense" to anything at the
time and get an enormous appropriation from Congress. That was politics.
Besides, if Canada ever did invade, the invading army gets the same
benefit.

It's actually called the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate
and Defense Highways.

In 1919, the U.S. Army sent an expedition across the United States to
determine the difficulties that military vehicles would have on a
cross-country trip. Leaving from the Ellipse in front of the White House on
July 7, the Motor Transport Corps convoy took 62 days to drive 3,200 miles
on the Lincoln Highway to the Presidio Army base on San Francisco Bay. They
experienced significant difficulties, including rickety bridges, broken
crankshafts, and engines clogged with desert sand.

Dwight Eisenhower, then a 28-year-old lieutenant, accompanied the trip
"through darkest America with truck and tank", as he later described it.
Some roads in the West were a "succession of dust, ruts, pits, and holes".
Eisenhower recalled that, "The convoy had started me thinking about good
two-lane highways... the wisdom of broader ribbons across our land."

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by BTR1701

Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn
Ed Stasiak
Rail based mass-transportation works fine in crowded cities
but isn’t viable for modern suburbia.

Modern suburbia is auto-oriented because of highway subsidies.

Highways were subsidized because post-WWII Americans didn’t
want to live in crowded, dirty, noisy cities and could now afford
to move out to the ‘burbs.

The interstate highway system was built primarily to enhance national
security, to provide the army the ability to move massive amounts of men
and materiel from place to place quickly. That civilians could also use them
in peacetime was a secondary benefit.

I don't think so. You could add the label "defense" to anything at the
time and get an enormous appropriation from Congress. That was politics.
Besides, if Canada ever did invade, the invading army gets the same
benefit.

It's actually called the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate
and Defense Highways.

I'm agreeing with you on its name and the stated "defense" purpose of the
legislation! The word "defense" was in the act's title! I'm just saying it
was a cynical ploy to get the funding because it was the way to get massive
appropriations through Congress as it was the heigh of the Cold War. It
was named for Eisenhower in the 1990s, I think.

Post by BTR1701
In 1919, the U.S. Army sent an expedition . . .

I am familiar with this story, of course.

The bit about interstate highways clearing wide swaths of city
neighborhoods to reach city centers had no purpose for moving a troop
convey long distances and no defense purpose whatsoever. That was simply
a deal to get big city mayors to gain support from their allies in
Congress as they could direct some of the construction and contracts
themselves.

That was the bit Ed kept ignoring about highways that he falsely
attributed to railroads and transit rail.

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 05 Oct 2020 00:37:30 -0500, BTR1701

Post by BTR1701
Dwight Eisenhower, then a 28-year-old lieutenant, accompanied the trip
"through darkest America with truck and tank", as he later described it.
Some roads in the West were a "succession of dust, ruts, pits, and holes".
Eisenhower recalled that, "The convoy had started me thinking about good
two-lane highways... the wisdom of broader ribbons across our land."

One would imagine he got that idea even more in 1945 when he saw first
hand the German Autobahn system and could see what it looked like and
ran like before the USAAF and RAF bombed the hell out of it!

[Your Name]

Adam H. Kerman

Ed Stasiak>> > Still, rail based mass-transportation is even more
impractical for
the U.S. as the entire country post-WWII has been built around cars
and trying to go with rail, would mean literally tearing up our society
and rebuilding it from the ground up.

Wow, Ed. That's some impressive use of your planning degree. Funny how
society wasn't completely torn up when streetcars were abandoned, just
the tracks themselves. Funny now society was torn up to force
expressways through densely built-up areas.

Rail based mass-transportation works fine in crowded cities but isn't viable
for modern suburbia. Prior to WWII, 50% of Americans were rural and rarely
went to town while the rest lived in crowded apartments in cities where
trollies and such were viable while today, 75% of Americans live in
urban areas and most of them in suburbs.
https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/suburbs.jpg

That pretty much what I keep trying to tell the morons on a local forum
when they whine on about how Auckland needs another Harbour crossing
for trains and/or busses. The city is simply too widely spread and has
too low population density to support a well functioning public
transport system ... that, and the fact that they don't want to go to
the CBD, is why most people prefer to use their own car.

Of course, the morons in charge will still build a new crossing right
next to the existing one, and if it includes cars, they attach it to
the same over-congested motorway system at both ends and then wonder
why it did absolutely nothing to relieve that congestion. :-\

[kensi]

There are mines in Canada where the landscape looks like the surface of
the moon.

Yep -- tar sands mines desperately trying to slake the capitalist thirst
for rapidly dwindling supplies of petroleum.

Rest of delusional k00krant deleted as it's all been debunked lots of
times before.

[BTR1701]

Post by kensi

There are mines in Canada where the landscape looks like the surface of
the moon.

Yep -- tar sands mines desperately trying to slake the capitalist thirst
for rapidly dwindling supplies of petroleum.
Rest of delusional k00krant deleted as it's all been debunked lots of
times before.

LOL! Explain how the fact that it takes hours to charge an electric car,
which makes them practically impossible to use for long trips even if there
are charging along the way has been 'debunked'.

Or explain how it's been 'debunked' that a state that can't even meet its
current electricity demand and keep the lights on now is going to somehow
handle the additional monstrous load of 25 million electric cars charging
mostly at the same time?

[ZZyXX]

Post by BTR1701

Post by kensi

There are mines in Canada where the landscape looks like the surface of
the moon.

Yep -- tar sands mines desperately trying to slake the capitalist thirst
for rapidly dwindling supplies of petroleum.
Rest of delusional k00krant deleted as it's all been debunked lots of
times before.

LOL! Explain how the fact that it takes hours to charge an electric car,
which makes them practically impossible to use for long trips even if there
are charging along the way has been 'debunked'.
Or explain how it's been 'debunked' that a state that can't even meet its
current electricity demand and keep the lights on now is going to somehow
handle the additional monstrous load of 25 million electric cars charging
mostly at the same time?

and yet California has an excess of solar power. all those "poor"
schmucks that have ecars could charge them during the day at workplace
charging stations or before and after work at home.

[BTR1701]

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701

Post by kensi

There are mines in Canada where the landscape looks like the surface of
the moon.

Yep -- tar sands mines desperately trying to slake the capitalist thirst
for rapidly dwindling supplies of petroleum.
Rest of delusional k00krant deleted as it's all been debunked lots of
times before.

LOL! Explain how the fact that it takes hours to charge an electric car,
which makes them practically impossible to use for long trips even if there
are charging along the way has been 'debunked'.
Or explain how it's been 'debunked' that a state that can't even meet its
current electricity demand and keep the lights on now is going to somehow
handle the additional monstrous load of 25 million electric cars charging
mostly at the same time?

and yet California has an excess of solar power.

No, it doesn't. That's why they're turning our lights off on a regular
basis. Turns out, when the sun goes down, solar panels aren't much use, but
people strangely like to turn on their lights at night.

Post by ZZyXX
all those "poor"
schmucks that have ecars could charge them during the day at workplace
charging stations or before and after work at home.

And when you're halfway to Vegas in Death Valley and your car runs out of
juice, it's only a three hour wait for it to charge, assuming you can find
a plug out there in the first place.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by BTR1701

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701

Post by kensi

There are mines in Canada where the landscape looks like the surface of
the moon.

Yep -- tar sands mines desperately trying to slake the capitalist thirst
for rapidly dwindling supplies of petroleum.
Rest of delusional k00krant deleted as it's all been debunked lots of
times before.

LOL! Explain how the fact that it takes hours to charge an electric car,
which makes them practically impossible to use for long trips even if there
are charging along the way has been 'debunked'.
Or explain how it's been 'debunked' that a state that can't even meet its
current electricity demand and keep the lights on now is going to somehow
handle the additional monstrous load of 25 million electric cars charging
mostly at the same time?

and yet California has an excess of solar power.

No, it doesn't. That's why they're turning our lights off on a regular
basis. Turns out, when the sun goes down, solar panels aren't much use, but
people strangely like to turn on their lights at night.

I just got one of those scam mailings, Swith your energy supplier to
solar! Yet I'd still be paying ComEd all the fixed fees and taxes in
additional to consumption charges. Funny how those aren't prorated to
account for just daylight hours.

I don't get it.

Post by BTR1701

Post by ZZyXX
all those "poor"
schmucks that have ecars could charge them during the day at workplace
charging stations or before and after work at home.

And when you're halfway to Vegas in Death Valley and your car runs out of
juice, it's only a three hour wait for it to charge, assuming you can find
a plug out there in the first place.

[BTR1701]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by BTR1701

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701

Post by kensi

There are mines in Canada where the landscape looks like the surface of
the moon.

Yep -- tar sands mines desperately trying to slake the capitalist thirst
for rapidly dwindling supplies of petroleum.
Rest of delusional k00krant deleted as it's all been debunked lots of
times before.

LOL! Explain how the fact that it takes hours to charge an electric car,
which makes them practically impossible to use for long trips even if there
are charging along the way has been 'debunked'.
Or explain how it's been 'debunked' that a state that can't even meet its
current electricity demand and keep the lights on now is going to somehow
handle the additional monstrous load of 25 million electric cars charging
mostly at the same time?

and yet California has an excess of solar power.

No, it doesn't. That's why they're turning our lights off on a regular
basis. Turns out, when the sun goes down, solar panels aren't much use, but
people strangely like to turn on their lights at night.

I just got one of those scam mailings, Swith your energy supplier to
solar! Yet I'd still be paying ComEd all the fixed fees and taxes in
additional to consumption charges. Funny how those aren't prorated to
account for just daylight hours.
I don't get it.

It's also the law in CA that when the power goes out in your neighborhood,
your house has to be blacked out too, even if you've got solar and can run
just fine.

I don't know if there's a technical reason for that or it's more social
justice fairness crap-- e.g., it's not fair if rich people have power
during a blackout while poor people have to sit in the dark-- but it
wouldn't surprise me if it was the latter.

[ZZyXX]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by BTR1701

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701

Post by kensi

There are mines in Canada where the landscape looks like the surface of
the moon.

Yep -- tar sands mines desperately trying to slake the capitalist thirst
for rapidly dwindling supplies of petroleum.
Rest of delusional k00krant deleted as it's all been debunked lots of
times before.

LOL! Explain how the fact that it takes hours to charge an electric car,
which makes them practically impossible to use for long trips even if there
are charging along the way has been 'debunked'.
Or explain how it's been 'debunked' that a state that can't even meet its
current electricity demand and keep the lights on now is going to somehow
handle the additional monstrous load of 25 million electric cars charging
mostly at the same time?

and yet California has an excess of solar power.

No, it doesn't. That's why they're turning our lights off on a regular
basis. Turns out, when the sun goes down, solar panels aren't much use, but
people strangely like to turn on their lights at night.

I just got one of those scam mailings, Swith your energy supplier to
solar! Yet I'd still be paying ComEd all the fixed fees and taxes in
additional to consumption charges. Funny how those aren't prorated to
account for just daylight hours.
I don't get it.

It's also the law in CA that when the power goes out in your neighborhood,
your house has to be blacked out too, even if you've got solar and can run
just fine.
I don't know if there's a technical reason for that or it's more social
justice fairness crap-- e.g., it's not fair if rich people have power
during a blackout while poor people have to sit in the dark-- but it
wouldn't surprise me if it was the latter.

would love to see a cite for that law

[Your Name]

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by BTR1701

Post by ZZyXX

Post by BTR1701

Post by kensi

There are mines in Canada where the landscape looks like the surface of
the moon.

Yep -- tar sands mines desperately trying to slake the capitalist
thirst for rapidly dwindling supplies of petroleum.
Rest of delusional k00krant deleted as it's all been debunked lots of
times before.

LOL! Explain how the fact that it takes hours to charge an electric
car, which makes them practically impossible to use for long trips even
if there are charging along the way has been 'debunked'.
Or explain how it's been 'debunked' that a state that can't even meet
its current electricity demand and keep the lights on now is going to
somehow handle the additional monstrous load of 25 million electric
cars charging mostly at the same time?

and yet California has an excess of solar power.

No, it doesn't. That's why they're turning our lights off on a regular
basis. Turns out, when the sun goes down, solar panels aren't much use,
but people strangely like to turn on their lights at night.

I just got one of those scam mailings, Swith your energy supplier to
solar! Yet I'd still be paying ComEd all the fixed fees and taxes in
additional to consumption charges. Funny how those aren't prorated to
account for just daylight hours.
I don't get it.

It's also the law in CA that when the power goes out in your neighborhood,
your house has to be blacked out too, even if you've got solar and can run
just fine.
I don't know if there's a technical reason for that or it's more social
justice fairness crap-- e.g., it's not fair if rich people have power
during a blackout while poor people have to sit in the dark-- but it
wouldn't surprise me if it was the latter.

would love to see a cite for that law

I don't know about LA specifically, but there is such a law in New
Zealand *IF* your solar power (or presuambly any other power generation
source) is connected to the the mains electrical grid. This is for
safety of the electrical workers - they don't want electricity suddenly
flowing through the lines they are working on. If you've got a system
that is not connected back to the main grid, then you are allowed to
continue to use it.


What happens to my solar system if there is a power outage in my area?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your grid-connected solar power systems must by law shut down if the
grid loses power. The reason is that linesmen repairing faulty
electricity wires must be able to do so safely, without any solar
power travelling back into the grid during maintenance and repair.
Your electricity if fed back into the line could create a danger to
the service personnel. Therefore when there is a black out you will
also be without power. Your solar power system will automatically
turn on during daylight hours when the power comes back to the grid.

However, if you have a battery backup system connected to your solar
system, then depending on the wiring, some internal services like
the fridge could still be operated by the batteries. In the next few
years smaller size energy storage systems will become available, as
many solar system owners prefer to store the electricity the
generate and use it during rainy days or at night, rather than sell
it to the energy retailers.


<https://www.lgenergy.co.nz/faq/troubleshooting/what-happens-to-my-solar-system-if-there-is-a-power-outage-in-my-area>



The easiest way to achieve it would be to simply have an switch which
automatically shuts-off the outside connection to mains grid when mains
power stops - sort of a reverse fuse. That would also allow you to
continue using your solar power internally.

[ZZyXX]

Post by Your Name
The easiest way to achieve it would be to simply have an switch which
automatically shuts-off the outside connection to mains grid when mains
power stops - sort of a reverse fuse. That would also allow you to
continue using your solar power internally.

which strangely enough is the law in California

[Your Name]

Post by ZZyXX

Post by Your Name
The easiest way to achieve it would be to simply have an switch which
automatically shuts-off the outside connection to mains grid when mains
power stops - sort of a reverse fuse. That would also allow you to
continue using your solar power internally.

which strangely enough is the law in California

It's almost certainly the same everywhere since the elctricity
companies aren't simply going to reply on the honesty of people
switching off their solar power system manually.

[Your Name]

Post by Your Name

Post by ZZyXX

Post by Your Name
The easiest way to achieve it would be to simply have an switch which
automatically shuts-off the outside connection to mains grid when mains
power stops - sort of a reverse fuse. That would also allow you to
continue using your solar power internally.

which strangely enough is the law in California

It's almost certainly the same everywhere since the elctricity
companies aren't simply going to reply on the honesty of people
switching off their solar power system manually.

Stupid auto-correct ... that's meant to say "rely", not "reply". :-\

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by kensi

There are mines in Canada where the landscape looks like the surface of
the moon.

Yep -- tar sands mines desperately trying to slake the capitalist thirst
for rapidly dwindling supplies of petroleum.
Rest of delusional k00krant deleted as it's all been debunked lots of
times before.

LOL! Explain how the fact that it takes hours to charge an electric car,
which makes them practically impossible to use for long trips even if there
are charging along the way has been 'debunked'.
Or explain how it's been 'debunked' that a state that can't even meet its
current electricity demand and keep the lights on now is going to somehow
handle the additional monstrous load of 25 million electric cars charging
mostly at the same time?

So true. Because of a dipshitted asshole in office (for a couple more
weeks at any rate) who thinks windmills cause cancer. Agree or disagree?

[FPP]

Post by BTR1701

Post by kensi

There are mines in Canada where the landscape looks like the surface of
the moon.

Yep -- tar sands mines desperately trying to slake the capitalist thirst
for rapidly dwindling supplies of petroleum.
Rest of delusional k00krant deleted as it's all been debunked lots of
times before.

LOL! Explain how the fact that it takes hours to charge an electric car,
which makes them practically impossible to use for long trips even if there
are charging along the way has been 'debunked'.
Or explain how it's been 'debunked' that a state that can't even meet its
current electricity demand and keep the lights on now is going to somehow
handle the additional monstrous load of 25 million electric cars charging
mostly at the same time?

So true.  Because of a dipshitted asshole in office (for a couple more
weeks at any rate) who thinks windmills cause cancer.  Agree or disagree?

Disagree! It isn't the windmills that cause cancer! According to The
Donald (cough), it's the SOUND the windmills make that give you the cancers.

So, just plug your ears, and you'll be fine!
--
There's nothing more American than demanding to carry an AR-15 to
"protect yourself" but refusing to wear a mask to protect everyone else.

If you hired a guy to "Make My House Great Again", and he hired his
incompetent children, stole your money, gave it away to your richest
neighbors, let everyone get sick, killed your grandma, backed over your
mailbox, burned down your house and blamed it on your black friends next
door... would YOU hire him AGAIN?

REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.
Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20

[Shadow]

Post by BTR1701

Post by kensi

There are mines in Canada where the landscape looks like the surface of
the moon.

Yep -- tar sands mines desperately trying to slake the capitalist thirst
for rapidly dwindling supplies of petroleum.
Rest of delusional k00krant deleted as it's all been debunked lots of
times before.

LOL! Explain how the fact that it takes hours to charge an electric car,
which makes them practically impossible to use for long trips

Idiot. You just replace the battery for a fully charged one.
Before you start worrying about your brain hernia: It's done by a
machine.
Plenty of places offering the service in Brazil.
If everyone used electric, there would be a lot more "service"
stations. They're limited to big towns, for now.
If there is a need for something, it'll happen. Ever heard of
healthy capitalism?
No? You must be a trumpet.
[]'s

[BTR1701]

Post by Shadow

Post by BTR1701

Post by kensi

There are mines in Canada where the landscape looks like the surface of
the moon.

Yep -- tar sands mines desperately trying to slake the capitalist thirst
for rapidly dwindling supplies of petroleum.
Rest of delusional k00krant deleted as it's all been debunked lots of
times before.

LOL! Explain how the fact that it takes hours to charge an electric car,
which makes them practically impossible to use for long trips

Idiot. You just replace the battery for a fully charged one.

Sure. Just give me a new $5500 battery instead of $15 of gas.

Unreal.

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Shadow

Post by BTR1701

Post by kensi

There are mines in Canada where the landscape looks like the surface of
the moon.

Yep -- tar sands mines desperately trying to slake the capitalist thirst
for rapidly dwindling supplies of petroleum.
Rest of delusional k00krant deleted as it's all been debunked lots of
times before.

LOL! Explain how the fact that it takes hours to charge an electric car,
which makes them practically impossible to use for long trips

Idiot. You just replace the battery for a fully charged one.

Sure. Just give me a new $5500 battery instead of $15 of gas.
Unreal.

Which one will be used in Trump's hospital room to help him die?

LOL.

[Your Name]

Post by Shadow

Post by BTR1701

Post by kensi

There are mines in Canada where the landscape looks like the surface of
the moon.

Yep -- tar sands mines desperately trying to slake the capitalist thirst
for rapidly dwindling supplies of petroleum.
Rest of delusional k00krant deleted as it's all been debunked lots of
times before.

LOL! Explain how the fact that it takes hours to charge an electric car,
which makes them practically impossible to use for long trips

Idiot. You just replace the battery for a fully charged one.
Before you start worrying about your brain hernia: It's done by a
machine.
Plenty of places offering the service in Brazil.
If everyone used electric, there would be a lot more "service"
stations. They're limited to big towns, for now.
If there is a need for something, it'll happen. Ever heard of
healthy capitalism?
No? You must be a trumpet.
[]'s

In most cases, replacing the battery (actually a huge, heavy battery
pack) in an electric car would take even longer than recharging it. The
car has to be almost taken completely apart to get at them - it's done
partly on purpose to portect the battery in the event of a collision.

There are a few makes where the battery pack can be basically unscrewed
underneath and dropped out, and that is becoming a bit more of a
popular design.

There are also one or two *short range* small city cars that can have a
small battery removed and replaced by the user in a few seconds (the
depleted battery left in the charger for someone else to use once
recharged) ... similar to swapping a battery on a cordless handyman
tool. These are often high-capacity batteries that "quick charge" the
main battery pack while the vehicle is still usuable.

[ZZyXX]

Post by Your Name

Post by BTR1701

Post by kensi

There are mines in Canada where the landscape looks like the surface of
the moon.

Yep -- tar sands mines desperately trying to slake the capitalist thirst
for rapidly dwindling supplies of petroleum.
Rest of delusional k00krant deleted as it's all been debunked lots of
times before.

LOL! Explain how the fact that it takes hours to charge an electric car,
which makes them practically impossible to use for long trips

    Idiot. You just replace the battery for a fully charged one.
Before you start worrying about your brain hernia:  It's done by a
machine.
    Plenty of places offering the service in Brazil.
    If everyone used electric, there would be a lot more "service"
stations. They're limited to big towns, for now.
     If there is a need for something, it'll happen. Ever heard of
healthy capitalism?
    No? You must be a trumpet.
    []'s

In most cases, replacing the battery (actually a huge, heavy battery
pack) in an electric car would take even longer than recharging it. The
car has to be almost taken completely apart to get at them - it's done
partly on purpose to portect the battery in the event of a collision.
There are a few makes where the battery pack can be basically unscrewed
underneath and dropped out, and that is becoming a bit more of a popular
design.
There are also one or two *short range* small city cars that can have a
small battery removed and replaced by the user in a few seconds (the
depleted battery left in the charger for someone else to use once
recharged) ... similar to swapping a battery on a cordless handyman
tool. These are often high-capacity batteries that "quick charge" the
main battery pack while the vehicle is still usuable.

FWIW there is nothing preventing an ecar from pulling a small trailer
with extra battery packs. you could get quite a lot of range that way
and switching batteries would be a trivial matter

[Ed Stasiak]

Post by ZZyXX
ZZyXX
FWIW there is nothing preventing an ecar from pulling a small trailer
with extra battery packs. you could get quite a lot of range that way
and switching batteries would be a trivial matter

Loading Image...

[Your Name]

Post by ZZyXX

Post by Your Name

Post by BTR1701

Post by kensi

There are mines in Canada where the landscape looks like the surface of
the moon.

Yep -- tar sands mines desperately trying to slake the capitalist
thirst for rapidly dwindling supplies of petroleum.
Rest of delusional k00krant deleted as it's all been debunked lots of
times before.

LOL! Explain how the fact that it takes hours to charge an electric car,
which makes them practically impossible to use for long trips

    Idiot. You just replace the battery for a fully charged one.
Before you start worrying about your brain hernia:  It's done by a
machine.
    Plenty of places offering the service in Brazil.
    If everyone used electric, there would be a lot more "service"
stations. They're limited to big towns, for now.
     If there is a need for something, it'll happen. Ever heard of
healthy capitalism?
    No? You must be a trumpet.
    []'s

In most cases, replacing the battery (actually a huge, heavy battery
pack) in an electric car would take even longer than recharging it. The
car has to be almost taken completely apart to get at them - it's done
partly on purpose to protect the battery in the event of a collision.
There are a few makes where the battery pack can be basically unscrewed
underneath and dropped out, and that is becoming a bit more of a
popular design.
There are also one or two *short range* small city cars that can have a
small battery removed and replaced by the user in a few seconds (the
depleted battery left in the charger for someone else to use once
recharged) ... similar to swapping a battery on a cordless handyman
tool. These are often high-capacity batteries that "quick charge" the
main battery pack while the vehicle is still usuable.

FWIW there is nothing preventing an ecar from pulling a small trailer
with extra battery packs. you could get quite a lot of range that way
and switching batteries would be a trivial matter

Nope, nothing preventing it at all ... except that the extra load means
the batteries run out even faster. :-p

You could just add a permanent battery pack trailer to the back of
every electric car, but you're still in the same situation and it just
takes even longer to fully recharge them.

[ZZyXX]

Post by Your Name

Post by ZZyXX

Post by Your Name

Post by BTR1701

Post by kensi

There are mines in Canada where the landscape looks like the
surface of the moon.

Yep -- tar sands mines desperately trying to slake the capitalist
thirst for rapidly dwindling supplies of petroleum.
Rest of delusional k00krant deleted as it's all been debunked lots of
times before.

LOL! Explain how the fact that it takes hours to charge an electric car,
which makes them practically impossible to use for long trips

    Idiot. You just replace the battery for a fully charged one.
Before you start worrying about your brain hernia:  It's done by a
machine.
    Plenty of places offering the service in Brazil.
    If everyone used electric, there would be a lot more "service"
stations. They're limited to big towns, for now.
     If there is a need for something, it'll happen. Ever heard of
healthy capitalism?
    No? You must be a trumpet.
    []'s

In most cases, replacing the battery (actually a huge, heavy battery
pack) in an electric car would take even longer than recharging it.
The car has to be almost taken completely apart to get at them - it's
done partly on purpose to protect the battery in the event of a
collision.
There are a few makes where the battery pack can be basically
unscrewed underneath and dropped out, and that is becoming a bit more
of a popular design.
There are also one or two *short range* small city cars that can have
a small battery removed and replaced by the user in a few seconds
(the depleted battery left in the charger for someone else to use
once recharged) ... similar to swapping a battery on a cordless
handyman tool. These are often high-capacity batteries that "quick
charge" the main battery pack while the vehicle is still usuable.

FWIW there is nothing preventing an ecar from pulling a small trailer
with extra battery packs. you could get quite a lot of range that way
and switching batteries would be a trivial matter

Nope, nothing preventing it at all ... except that the extra load means
the batteries run out even faster.  :-p
You could just add a permanent battery pack trailer to the back of every
electric car, but you're still in the same situation and it just takes
even longer to fully recharge them.

Modern EVs already have an average driving range of approximately 275
km. And some electric car models like the Kia e-Niro and Kia e-Soul have
maximum ranges of up to 455 km! In fact, half of all journeys are less
than 8 km. Think about how often a year we travel more than 200 km in
one journey.

What is the range of an electric car? | Kia Go Electricwww.kia.com ›
about-kia › technology › electrification

[kensi]

Post by BTR1701

Post by kensi

There are mines in Canada where the landscape looks like the surface of
the moon.

Yep -- tar sands mines desperately trying to slake the capitalist thirst
for rapidly dwindling supplies of petroleum.
Rest of delusional k00krant deleted as it's all been debunked lots of
times before.

LOL! Explain how the fact that it takes hours to charge an electric car,
which makes them practically impossible to use for long trips even if there
are charging along the way has been 'debunked'.

We may need to give up the notion of individual ownership of cars, or at
least of the batteries, to make this work.

Post by BTR1701
Or explain how it's been 'debunked' that a state that can't even meet its
current electricity demand and keep the lights on now is going to somehow
handle the additional monstrous load of 25 million electric cars charging
mostly at the same time?

Mismanagement there is not the fault of EVs.

[Ed Stasiak]

Post by kensi
kensi

BTR1701
LOL! Explain how the fact that it takes hours to charge an electric car,
which makes them practically impossible to use for long trips even if
there are charging along the way has been 'debunked'.

We may need to give up the notion of individual ownership of cars, or at
least of the batteries, to make this work.

Whether the electric car is owned by the driver or a corporation, it doesn’t
change the fact that current batteries don’t have sufficient capacity nor
can be recharged fast enough for everyday use by everybody.

And we can see from bike-sharing programs how well that idea worked
out and only imagine the problems an e-car sharing program would have.

https://mustsharenews.com/bike-sharing-fail/

[shawn]

On Sat, 3 Oct 2020 07:37:52 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by kensi
kensi

BTR1701
LOL! Explain how the fact that it takes hours to charge an electric car,
which makes them practically impossible to use for long trips even if
there are charging along the way has been 'debunked'.

We may need to give up the notion of individual ownership of cars, or at
least of the batteries, to make this work.

Whether the electric car is owned by the driver or a corporation, it doesn’t
change the fact that current batteries don’t have sufficient capacity nor
can be recharged fast enough for everyday use by everybody.
And we can see from bike-sharing programs how well that idea worked
out and only imagine the problems an e-car sharing program would have.
https://mustsharenews.com/bike-sharing-fail/

I would agree with you for today. I'm not so sure that will hold true
next year given Tesla's talk of having 500 mile range on their new
cars. If they can truly meet that range then the cars become practical
for most people with that sort of range without needing two cars.

As it stands today I could use their existing cars when I'm only
driving around the city but would need a second car as soon as I want
to visit my relatives or expect to spend a few hours at the limited
recharge stations or beg to plug my car in overnight at the relatives.
Neither solution is great but with a 500 mile range I would only need
to recharge once which is about 15 minutes at a supercharger station.
Longer than a typical fill up but not completely unreasonable if it's
only needed once per trip.

Still I can't see myself wanting to move to an all electric car any
time soon. A hybrid gas/electric is much more of a likely solution for
me in the next decade.

[BTR1701]

Post by kensi
kensi

BTR1701
LOL! Explain how the fact that it takes hours to charge an electric car,
which makes them practically impossible to use for long trips even if
there are charging stations along the way has been 'debunked'.

We may need to give up the notion of individual ownership of cars, or at
least of the batteries, to make this work.

Well, the collectivist has chimed in with its typically communist
'solutions'.

[kensi]

Post by BTR1701

Post by kensi
kensi

BTR1701
LOL! Explain how the fact that it takes hours to charge an electric car,
which makes them practically impossible to use for long trips even if
there are charging stations along the way has been 'debunked'.

We may need to give up the notion of individual ownership of cars, or at
least of the batteries, to make this work.

Well, the collectivist has chimed in with its

Her

Post by BTR1701
typically communist 'solutions'.

Who is the fool, the one who proposes outside-the-box solutions or the
one who dismisses out of hand everything that's outside of a very narrow
worldview?

Not everything can be solved with markets full of atomized individuals.
Indeed, if they could there'd be no reason for giant megacorporations to
exist, would there, with their internal top-down Soviet-style command
economies?

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by kensi
kensi

BTR1701
LOL! Explain how the fact that it takes hours to charge an electric car,
which makes them practically impossible to use for long trips even if
there are charging stations along the way has been 'debunked'.

We may need to give up the notion of individual ownership of cars, or at
least of the batteries, to make this work.

Well, the collectivist has chimed in with its typically communist
'solutions'.

I prefer the sockpuppet solutions too.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by BTR1701
And mining the minerals for those batteries is also a highly toxic
environmental nightmare. There are mines in Canada where the landscape
looks like the surface of the moon.

Actually Sudbury looks a lot better than it did 30 years ago. (Sudbury
is the center of the Canadian nickel mining industry which is usually
what is referred to when they talk about moonscapes...)

[kensi]

Upgrading the power grid to accommodate electric cars will cost
trillions

Good. That should goose the economy with millions of shovel-ready jobs.
An excellent Keynesian intervention to pull us out of this COVID-induced
tailspin, once we have a vaccine.

The power needed to charge one electric car is the same as full
powering a stove overnight.

From empty to full, maybe. Most nights it would just get a top-up.