Agreed.To be honest I think there is plenty of room for both
Agreed.To be honest I think there is plenty of room for both
To be honest I think there is plenty of room for both
I agree to an extent - performance aside, ICE vehicles are not sustainable given how inefficient they are at converting the chemical energy stored in liquid fuel into useable energy (mainly movement). Considering that there are limited resources on this planet and that the population is always growing, I consider that a pretty big deal.Agreed.
I disagree, to an extent.I agree to an extent - performance aside, ICE vehicles are not sustainable given how inefficient they are at converting the chemical energy stored in liquid fuel into useable energy (mainly movement). Considering that there are limited resources on this planet and that the population is always growing, I consider that a pretty big deal.
However, that’s not to say that I think all ICE vehicles should be junked immediately. There is nothing more sustainable than using what you already have, and I believe that all existing ICE vehicles should be kept serviceable and in operation as long as they possibly can. On the other side of that coin, I also believe that the production of new ICE vehicles should be drastically ramped down save for certain purpose-built ICE vehicles where EVs have not caught up yet (construction, freight, etc.)
Gonna have a whole lot of people mowed down that didnt hear something coming out of a blind spot too... decap jobs from leaning out to look.I look forward to low-intelligence people shooting each other over places to plug their cars in because they planned poorly.
Man... that news cycle is going to be juicy.
I agree with you that in the grand scheme, this is not a battle of EVs vs ICE - sustainability reaches much further than that. Cities should be more pedestrian, bicycle, and rail friendly. Our current generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure is not fit for the imminent electrical load increase. You're also correct saying that manufacturing batteries has harsh side effects.I disagree, to an extent.
The technology used in EVs and to support them large scale is more environmentally harmful in an impact side than the ICE vehicles they replace.
Batteries use very toxic materials that are very destructive to mine. They are also in very limited supplies, and, located in areas that strategically speaking are very volatile. Simple put, the supply chains are not secure at all.
Areas of the country (looking at you california) cannot control the wire fires they have nor maintain the electrical infrastructure they have either imagine increased infrastructure.
Power generation capacity is an issue. Nuclear is extremely expensive, and, there's limits on waste processing and transportation,not to mention security. Well trained operators are in short supply, often ex military. Alternatives have planetary impacts not properly studied and will, as a fact, have climate impacts of their own. Alternative, massive natural gas or coal plants are quicker, cheaper to build, easier to operate with less training and downside in accidents, but...
Wind farms reduce air circulation, affect dust migration (cloud seeding), and in the ocean, currents. Solar changes the albedo, alters air current upwelling due to heat exchange with atmosphere, and like wind, that reduces the volume of moisture rich hotter air reaching the upper atmosphere where it again, falls as rain elsewhere. The technology is not very recyclable in many cases. Look into all the wind blades going to landfills, so on so forth. Those precious metals needed to plate the electronics have to be mined, but people don't want mines. Hint: mine able gold in many areas also needs to be cyanide leached because of the poor grades of ores or the fine nature of particles to capture. Other available areas are again, anti mining (Alaska) or insecure areas. Don't get started on rare earth's and who controls them. Hint - Russia and China. How do we get along with those guys?
Look,I could keep going in the interest of good natured debate, and maybe we could.
But, and here's the thing. Realistically if you put aside the activism and politics there are better cost effective answers.
#1) you live in a big city? You're getting light rail. Replace a couple highway lanes with subways/elevated tracks. Hike excise taxes locally inside the city through the roof on vehicles.
#2) back off the ev forced mandates. Go with hybrids. Electric wheels, regenerative brakes, small gas motors to charge so you dont need all that power gen and infrastructure. Helps rural America where its. Ot economically feasible to make those huge ev infrastructure investments.
#3) leave more traditional ICEs for the more rural areas where they're going to be needed. If we can build low production camaros and corvettes we can build gas pickups and traditional (large functional) SUVs. Screw that "crossover cralp", those can be hybrids.
The idea of "evs for everyone, it's the only way" is garbage and not realistic. Don't forget, the more money you print to lay for it, the more money you need to print because inflation makes it all cost more - while hurting everyone but the super rich in the process. Or weren't you aware that even all those emissions saved in the Paris accord are offset by the fact china/india/etc 'undeveloped/developing' countries are not only allowed, but actually GROWING their emissions by an amount larger than. What the "west" is cutting by disrupting the heck out of their entire countries.
The masses don't have, and haven't been educated with, information to all the issues. They just say, but save the planet, well figure it out. And part of the reason is, the talking heads pushing it don't know the info or answers either.
But the rich will get richer by the money spent on the 'change' count on it.
does it make anyone feel any better about it all that Garlits is running an electric dragster??
GBodyForum is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com. Amazon, the Amazon logo, AmazonSupply, and the AmazonSupply logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.