[90503]

Gas pumps that run on electricity will quit with a power outage. But the stored gasoline or diesel does not disappear. A manual hand operated pump of some kind can retrieve the fuel. Electric charging stations for EVs have no such reserve or option.

A relatively small gasoline powered generator could put the pumps back in service temporarily. A small gas powered generator does nothing for an EV charging station.

[COKen]

Originally Posted by LT4Greg

I am thinking about all the lines of EV vehicles at the charging stations every day. And let’s not forget about what happened in Texas a couple of weeks ago with the power outages.

I was also wondering about the long lines we will be seeing at EV charging stations just because of the time it takes to charge up.

There are so many issues which no one is talking about and need to be addressed before we can really move away from ICE. I saw where some parking garages won't allow EV to enter the garage because if an EV were to catch fire, there is a very real risk that the garage and any building built above it would be completely destroyed.

Many (all?) Fire Departments have policies to allow EV fires to burn out and not try to suppress them because "Electric vehicle fires can exceed 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Applying water or foam may cause a violent eruption as water molecules separate into explosive hydrogen and oxygen gases.". This type of fire can compromise the strength of concrete and steel building and cause them to fail.

How many other unknown issue will need to be addressed as we move toward EVs? Just one of the issues of forcing new technology instead of just making it better than the old technology so that people will willingly move to it.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Agree fully on your final point. There over 200 million cars on the road, if I recall correctly. To replace all of those IF 100% of the 17 million per year market were EVs, it would be at least 12 years to replace them all. And depending on who you believe we will all be dead by then.

The first point however is going to be an issue for renters. Unless your apartment is progressive and puts in charging stations you might need to “fill up” in a conventional sense at a charging station. So only disagree with the word most, but that’s picking nits. Many? But not being able to charge overnight as you suggest may have a big impact on who buys an EV.

I agree wholeheartedly with the statement in bold and that is why I personally say that we may never get to 100% electric. People will have to choose the product that best suits their needs. And for the person in lower Manhattan on the 4th floor of an apartment that doesn’t have a dedicated parking spot, it’s probably an ICE. Where reality and public policy will collide is when you have large cities become Zero Emissions Zones. In that scenario, people living in accommodations with no access to a dedicated charger will be told they can’t operate their ICE vehicle near their home.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by Number 3

The first point however is going to be an issue for renters. Unless your apartment is progressive and puts in charging stations you might need to “fill up” in a conventional sense at a charging station. So only disagree with the word most, but that’s picking nits. Many? But not being able to charge overnight as you suggest may have a big impact on who buys an EV.

Same goes for anybody who does not have off-street parking and people who own more EVs than charging outlets.


Norm

[90503]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I agree wholeheartedly with the statement in bold and that is why I personally say that we may never get to 100% electric. People will have to choose the product that best suits their needs. And for the person in lower Manhattan on the 4th floor of an apartment that doesn’t have a dedicated parking spot, it’s probably an ICE. Where reality and public policy will collide is when you have large cities become Zero Emissions Zones. In that scenario, people living in accommodations with no access to a dedicated charger will be told they can’t operate their ICE vehicle near their home.

...And there you have it. One example of government social engineering and tyranny to eliminate ICE and promote EVs. The scenarios and possibilities are endless. Bureaucrats nation-wide are giddy with the prospect of limiting your choices and freedoms. Promote EVs at your own peril. The EV future looks horrible.

[LT4Greg]

Originally Posted by ST1LE

Guess what also didn't work a few weeks ago here in Houston. Gas stations.

Yep!👍

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by 90503

[/B]

...And there you have it. One example of government social engineering and tyranny to eliminate ICE and promote EVs. The scenarios and possibilities are endless. Bureaucrats nation-wide are giddy with the prospect of limiting your choices and freedoms. Promote EVs at your own peril. The EV future looks horrible.

Thing is, the governmental end-game is not to dictate EVs. It is to clean up the environment. EVs are just seen as an effective tool to get there. For that reason, since it’s NOT the central objective, the ramifications are less understood or mitigated. The 21st century version of “Let them eat cake”. Just an aside, it would work better if people understood more than just the sound bite of what Marie Antoinette actually said and knew what she was responding to https://www.history.com/news/did-mar...-them-eat-cake <— in addition to this info from history.com, another account states that when she was told that people were starving and had no bread, her response was “perhaps we can provide them some of our cake”

[90503]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Thing is, the governmental end-game is not to dictate EVs. It is to clean up the environment. EVs are just seen as an effective tool to get there. For that reason, since it’s NOT the central objective, the ramifications are less understood or mitigated. The 21st century version of “Let them eat cake”. Just an aside, it would work better if people understood more than just the sound bite of what Marie Antoinette actually said and knew what she was responding to

Its amazing how the sheeple buy this soft-sell, warm and fuzzy EV future and believe the no worries I'll just keep my ICE car past 2025 or 2035, both options will be viable for a long time, etc., etc....

Well, not likely. The end-game mandate for the environment clean up is a classic ends justifies the means power grab by so-called progressives. No time to lose and don't question their methods. Apartment dwellers in Manhattan may just be the start. Anyone else's situation may be next. There is no check on this type of tyranny. God help us all.

[mikeman]

Originally Posted by 90503

[/B]

...And there you have it. One example of government social engineering and tyranny to eliminate ICE and promote EVs. The scenarios and possibilities are endless. Bureaucrats nation-wide are giddy with the prospect of limiting your choices and freedoms. Promote EVs at your own peril. The EV future looks horrible.

Oh, don't forget the soft sell on the ease of the "self-driving" aspect. I think that's even more sinister than just the ICE vs EV comparision. It won't be long before the slippery slope comes down to totally automated self-driving pods where we have no control whatsoever except for the destination desired. Then, after a few decades, that'll be next.

[Number 3]

Love the old talk on tyranny. But at least you made me look up the definition to realize how far off it is.

Go invent a zero emission ICE and you can be a billionaire just like Elon Musk. As pointed out it isn’t EVs. EVs just happen to be one of the better developed answers. Fuel Cells are another. GM has a company that makes Fuel Cells, it’s just not widely publicized.

And regardless of how you feel on climate change, we have the ability to do better and if we can shouldn’t we? We as humans are impacting the environment, the only question that is still debatable is how much, but it isn’t zero. And if you can somehow think it’s zero share what you’re smoking.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Love the old talk on tyranny. But at least you made me look up the definition to realize how far off it is.

Go invent a zero emission ICE and you can be a billionaire just like Elon Musk. As pointed out it isn’t EVs. EVs just happen to be one of the better developed answers. Fuel Cells are another. GM has a company that makes Fuel Cells, it’s just not widely publicized.

And regardless of how you feel on climate change, we have the ability to do better and if we can shouldn’t we? We as humans are impacting the environment, the only question that is still debatable is how much, but it isn’t zero. And if you can somehow think it’s zero share what you’re smoking.

It’s worth mentioning ePower. Until very recently (I’m talking weeks ago) Nissan called their ePower system an EV. Think of a Chevrolet Volt, but without a plug. So the wheels are driven by an electric motor. The electric motor is fed by a battery. But if you can’t plug it in, where does the battery get its juice? From a small ICE that is always running, but never powers the wheels. Probably a good solution for densely populated cities in Japan, where it sells well, but not so much for North America or Europe. They finally started referring to it as a series hybrid, which is exactly what it is. And it’s not zero emissions, which is pretty much the point of an EV.

[UnknownJinX]

Ahem, zero local emissions. It really is "out of sight, out of mind", isn't it? Not denying EVs emit less in a long run, but see what marketing is doing here?

We have two people who were in the industry that both are tossing the "marketing word" around. There is something disturbing about that IMO...

IMO it really depends on where the power comes from. Unfortunately the resources that are the most capable are also non-renewable(combustible fuel and nuclear). Renewables all suck, for now, and probably still have a long way to go.

I think what most people's concerns are that it's not just always science. Unfortunately there is always a lot of politics and business behind the scenes for these moves. Good luck finding out the truth, because as an average person, you will never know.

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Love the old talk on tyranny. But at least you made me look up the definition to realize how far off it is.

You're missing the point by the man from Torrance entirely, it isn't about the status quo but the direction and the increasing lack of regard for any dissent en route to an unquestionable destination. Either you are very naive or you haven't yet realized how this played out repeatedly throughout history.

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Thing is, the governmental end-game is not to dictate EVs. It is to clean up the environment. EVs are just seen as an effective tool to get there. For that reason, since it’s NOT the central objective, the ramifications are less understood or mitigated. The 21st century version of “Let them eat cake”. Just an aside, it would work better if people understood more than just the sound bite of what Marie Antoinette actually said and knew what she was responding to https://www.history.com/news/did-mar...-them-eat-cake <— in addition to this info from history.com, another account states that when she was told that people were starving and had no bread, her response was “perhaps we can provide them some of our cake”

On this note, when I went to visit her favorite "escape pod" in Versailles (Trianon), both the available books and the tour guide described Marie-Antoinette as a sensitive, intelligent lady who found it difficult to live with the rest of the court in the castle, and desired to lead a more simple, "commoner" life. Such a callous remark would be quite uncharacteristic of her, at least based on the little research I was able to do.