Still want an EV?

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by SoCal_NSX

dude, read some actual studies by actual scientest who don't have an agenda...

read the MIT study on EV vs ICE and many others out there that basically say the same thing....

what "same thing"?

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by David70

Man died near me after his ICE crash and fire -https://news.yahoo.com/ohio-man-dead...032443708.html

We can continue but none of this means much of anything without actual data. Virtually never ending supply of my replies on ICE fires if people want them.

I thought you were trying to imply gasoline is a dangerous source of energy, and that it's bulk delivery is also dangerous as if electricity and its bulk delivery isn't also dangerous.

Yes we could continue. Neither are "safe", nor specifically clean, nor free of occasional catastrophic failure or loss of life.

I suppose the reason it comes up is because batteries are known to spontaneously combust, where as gasoline tanks are not. Gas tanks are a store of fuel, batteries are both a store of fuel and a potential ignition source. The attention they get is scientifically significant and deserved.

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by SoCal_NSX

dude, read some actual studies by actual scientest who don't have an agenda...

Would that be the same scientists that survive on government grants and have been caught lying numerous times (hockey stick)? You really don't need to listen to anyone, just pick up a basic geology book with geologic timelines and study. I have faith that with a open mind you will figure it out on your own, assuming of course you want to.

[PhaceN52]

It's just moving the problem, while the real polluters as industry, shipments etc don't see change. Wanna talk about China, India and new industrialized countries that started emitting bad things for the climate as USA and Europe did since centuries ago? There are so much variables to the problem, ice/ev aren't one of em. Cars are an infinitesimal source of co2 and pollution in comparison to energy and goods production, but it's so an easy train for money versus forcing industries into a greener approach... Ah yes, industries literally PAY for polluting. 2030...no comment.
It's not saying there's no temperature increase, just the modalities for fighting it are ridiculous

Edit
For example, here where I live it's a small valley, every winter it gets a sort of seasonal light smoke dome from all the house heating and wood stoves, ever heard anyone talking about chimney filters? Personally, no
But teslas will save the planet lol

[G MONEY]

Originally Posted by PhaceN52

It's just moving the problem, while the real polluters as industry, shipments etc don't see change. Wanna talk about China, India and new industrialized countries that started emitting bad things for the climate as USA and Europe did since centuries ago? There are so much variables to the problem, ice/ev aren't one of em. Cars are an infinitesimal source of co2 and pollution in comparison to energy and goods production, but it's so an easy train for money versus forcing industries into a greener approach... Ah yes, industries literally PAY for polluting. 2030...no comment.
It's not saying there's no temperature increase, just the modalities for fighting it are ridiculous

Edit
For example, here where I live it's a small valley, every winter it gets a sort of seasonal light smoke dome from all the house heating and wood stoves, ever heard anyone talking about chimney filters? Personally, no
But teslas will save the planet lol

Our Military is one of the worst things for the environment. Not bashing them in any way at all, it’s just a fact. What are we doing about that?

[David70]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

I thought you were trying to imply gasoline is a dangerous source of energy, and that it's bulk delivery is also dangerous as if electricity and its bulk delivery isn't also dangerous.

Yes we could continue. Neither are "safe", nor specifically clean, nor free of occasional catastrophic failure or loss of life.

I suppose the reason it comes up is because batteries are known to spontaneously combust, where as gasoline tanks are not. Gas tanks are a store of fuel, batteries are both a store of fuel and a potential ignition source. The attention they get is scientifically significant and deserved.

The post above of a random EV fire means nothing, I replied with an ICE fire. Transporting the fuel by tank trailer brings additional risk that is far smaller with electric. Neither incident by itself mean much of anything. People love to post every EV fire as though it proves something (it doesn't). I would expect we will always have some percentage of them catch fire, we never stopped the problem with the ICE's.

I posted data that shows there are far more than 100k ICE vehicle fires a year, I haven't seen anything to show EV's are anywhere close to the same risk. Until I do I won't worry about it (follow the data).

Gas tanks are a store of fuel, batteries are both a store of fuel and a potential ignition source.

The ICE powertrain is both a fuel storage and ignition source, we actually need to make a small amount of it explode to do anything for us. If you only consider the gas by itself and not the complete powertrain it helps make it look safer. After 100 years of development we still have well over 100k fires a year with the ICE. Who was the computer company that had problems with the batteries catching fire? It happened to a very small percentage of them, few people were getting rid of laptops completely because of it.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by David70

The post above of a random EV fire means nothing, I replied with an ICE fire. Transporting the fuel by tank trailer brings additional risk that is far smaller with electric. Neither incident by itself mean much of anything. People love to post every EV fire as though it proves something (it doesn't). I would expect we will always have some percentage of them catch fire, we never stopped the problem with the ICE's.

I posted data that shows there are far more than 100k ICE vehicle fires a year, I haven't seen anything to show EV's are anywhere close to the same risk. Until I do I won't worry about it (follow the data).

How many of those ICE fires are fuel tanks starting themselves on fire?

How many ICE cars are there compared to EV's, and what is the average age of each.

Come to the discussion with logic and facts please. It will be an endless circle jerk no doubt, since neither platform is free of risk/danger.

The ICE powertrain is both a fuel storage and ignition source, we actually need to make a small amount of it explode to do anything for us. If you only consider the gas by itself and not the complete powertrain it helps make it look safer. After 100 years of development we still have well over 100k fires a year with the ICE. Who was the computer company that had problems with the batteries catching fire? It happened to a very small percentage of them, few people were getting rid of laptops completely because of it.

The ICE platform doesn't put the ignition source inside the fuel source. EV's have a unique trait, the fuel source is the ignition source in the case of battery fires.

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by G MONEY

Our Military is one of the worst things for the environment. Not bashing them in any way at all, it’s just a fact. What are we doing about that?

Never let a good grift go to waste. Dwight Eisenhower was sooo correct.

[BGM-M3COMP]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

You going to pull all those minerals out of your ass to make all those batteries? You better have a great proctologist.

All the jokes will be funnier when that time comes and it's happening before your eyes.

I guess the JAKES stops there! lmaoooooooooooooooooo


But aside from that, good to know i still got it. Shit is too easy

[BGM-M3COMP]

Originally Posted by SoCal_NSX

dude, read some actual studies by actual scientest who don't have an agenda...

read the MIT study on EV vs ICE and many others out there that basically say the same thing....

lmaooooo got em!!!!!!

[gblansten]

I just want to remind everyone that it is highly unlikely that any opinions will change regardless of the cogency of your arguments in this thread.

[E30Fever]

Originally Posted by Radix!

There is not enough exploitation of lithium, Vanadium, cobalt and nickel to cover the amount of batteries necessary for the global objective of automotive electrification. (there is also no responsibility for batteries that become unusable)

There are a lot of places in the world full of Oil, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Cuba, Chile and Argentina in Patagonia, not to mention Antarctica, even coal.
The problem is that not everyone is authorized to start operations there so as not to flood the market. (only a handful of people control that)

I prefer to fill the tank in 5 to 10 minutes stop and have a range of 800km than to wait more than an hour for a range of 300km. (if I find where to recharge energy)

And regarding climate zombies, do you think that giving money to politicians will clean up the planet?, Better ask them to stop making disposable things and reuse more

Well said! It’d be great if people were not automatically demonized for giving rational and educated opinions like this. It’s a very strange time

[RM7]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

I thought you were trying to imply gasoline is a dangerous source of energy, and that it's bulk delivery is also dangerous as if electricity and its bulk delivery isn't also dangerous.

Yes we could continue. Neither are "safe", nor specifically clean, nor free of occasional catastrophic failure or loss of life.

I suppose the reason it comes up is because batteries are known to spontaneously combust, where as gasoline tanks are not. Gas tanks are a store of fuel, batteries are both a store of fuel and a potential ignition source. The attention they get is scientifically significant and deserved.

If this were anywhere near the problem you are making it out to be, airliners would be bursting into flames midflight all over the place...with so many batteries on board.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Would that be the same scientists that survive on government grants and have been caught lying numerous times (hockey stick)? You really don't need to listen to anyone, just pick up a basic geology book with geologic timelines and study. I have faith that with a open mind you will figure it out on your own, assuming of course you want to.

Right, the university scientists researching climate on grants are the ones driving to and from their mansions in their lamborghinis to their yachts, where they can remotely transfer funds to lobby congress...

As someone who has done research, I find your claims to be laughable and offensive at the same time. You think there's some kind of money trail here...try following the lobbyists.

[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by RM7

If this were anywhere near the problem you are making it out to be, airliners would be bursting into flames midflight all over the place...with so many batteries on board.

They did, I believe millions died. I clearly remember when that was THE thing.... for like 12 sec. That's why I would never own a cellphone and anyone who comes to my house better leave their ticking time bomb outside.

[PhaceN52]

Originally Posted by RM7

If this were anywhere near the problem you are making it out to be, airliners would be bursting into flames midflight all over the place...with so many batteries on board.

If you're not referring to passengers smartphone batteries, that are not as near as energy dense in terms of voltage and amperes as an EV battery, Airbus A320 for example still uses nickel cadmium units for onboard electronics and emergency supply, and cargo airlines use special closed containers when shipping lithium batteries. Wonder why... /s

[BGM-M3COMP]

Originally Posted by gblansten

I just want to remind everyone that it is highly unlikely that any opinions will change regardless of the cogency of your arguments in this thread.

This thread isn't a matter of sharing opinions though.

It's for the anit-ev people who wanna bitch and pull whatever excuse out of their balloon knot that EV's will not work. But it's already working now and progression is the key to success that's why when 2035 comes they'll see. 2030 i believe is when they'll start to see how serious this is.

Like i love my ICE too but i really can't wait for this to happen to upset others

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by BGM-M3COMP

This thread isn't a matter of sharing opinions though
Like i love my ICE too but i really can't wait for this to happen to upset others

Typical Cult like behavior. No one has denied your right to have all the EV's you want. It really isn't about the environment, is it? It's a cult like need to control others and force your agenda on others.

[G MONEY]

Originally Posted by BGM-M3COMP

This thread isn't a matter of sharing opinions though.

It's for the anit-ev people who wanna bitch and pull whatever excuse out of their balloon knot that EV's will not work. But it's already working now and progression is the key to success that's why when 2035 comes they'll see. 2030 i believe is when they'll start to see how serious this is.

Like i love my ICE too but i really can't wait for this to happen to upset others

Yawn X50

[KRS_SN]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

If that's what you think, go for it. Your opinions of me have no bearing on the greater debate at hand.

You epitomize the notion that this green EV push is about money and virtue signaling, not saving the planet.

This is the reason so many in "the middle" are skeptical about all these great green programs. You don't have solar for being green, you have it so you can save money on power and sell any surplus power at on-peak rates. You charge your car at night using fossil generation as you "buy back" that green surplus because it's cheaper. Problem is : what you buy back is not green. You are still part of the problem while touting your green status. Even if you sold more power than you used - including the fossil power that you buy back at night to charge your EV, you are still part of the problem- you are consuming fossil energy. And society is being forced to subsidize your model. This is one of the reasons why people are getting frustrated with subsidizing these technologies.

The only thing I would like to add is that EV buyers suffer horrendous depreciation often >1k per month or in the case of a taycan >2k per month. So they are paying for their own folly.


The question is also if Joe public is losing money by subsidising EV and if EV buyers are losing money with crazy depreciation who is gaining out of all of this?

[PhaceN52]

Originally Posted by BGM-M3COMP

This thread isn't a matter of sharing opinions though.

It's for the anit-ev people who wanna bitch and pull whatever excuse out of their balloon knot that EV's will not work. But it's already working now and progression is the key to success that's why when 2035 comes they'll see. 2030 i believe is when they'll start to see how serious this is.

Like i love my ICE too but i really can't wait for this to happen to upset others

Troll master

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by PhaceN52

Troll master

He likes to make blanket statements that really add nothing to the conversation. It was kind of nice that he wasn't posting here for a while. I used to reply to him but gave up when it was clear the only reply you'd get was some garbage.