[Radix!]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Fossil fuels are the original renewable resource. We are creating them now as the climate zombies whine about global climate change. Today's climate zombie will be tomorrow's petro deposit.

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

[M5Rick]

It's not just the EV fires which are near impossible to put out compared with say a petrol (gas) or diesel fire which can be put out quickly when the fire brigade arrives or by a hand held portable fire extinguisher if quick action is taken, (I carry one in my car which is in the trunk)
It's not knowing when or where an EV will suddenly erupt on fire so quickly for no known reason whether it's being driven, parked up or being charged, and the risk from electric bikes as seen in shown vids is also is very concerning.

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by RM7

haha....
No, you don't understand.\

No, as usual you don't understand. Hydrogen engine in video is a Not a hydrogen fuel cell.

[BGM-M3COMP]

Man I still can’t wait for 2030!

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by BGM-M3COMP

Man I still can’t wait for 2030!

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

[Socal_R8]

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.

this is just ignorant on so many levels... I have solar on my home and an EV as a daily driver, even if it is about saving money, it is still doing much more for the climate than doing nothing....i know some of you EV hating climate deniers try to find all these lame anecdotes about how they are more harmful than ICE vehicles, but you sound as ridiculous as flat earther's. The ideas behind it are laughable...

the smartest scientists in the world could tell you all of the realities of how we are heading for an irreversable cataclysmic disaster and you still wouldnt belive it...sadly this has become political like most things, instead of just plain common sense and about doing the right thing.

https://www.nytimes.com/article/clim...rming-faq.html


subsidies?? lol yall act like EV's are the only thing being subsidized

Size of Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020 and are expected to increase to 7.4 percent of GDP in 2025 as the share of fuel consumption in emerging markets (where price gaps are generally larger) continues to climb.


https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fac...societal-costs

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by SoCal_NSX

this is just ignorant on so many levels... I have solar on my home and an EV as a daily driver, even if it is about saving money, it is still doing much more for the climate than doing nothing....i know some of you EV hating climate deniers try to find all these lame anecdotes about how they are more harmful than ICE vehicles, but you sound as ridiculous as flat earther's. The ideas behind it are laughable...

the smartest scientists in the world could tell you all of the realities of how we are heading for an irreversable cataclysmic disaster and you still wouldnt belive it...sadly this has become political like most things, instead of just plain common sense and about doing the right thing.

https://www.nytimes.com/article/clim...rming-faq.html


subsidies?? lol yall act like EV's are the only thing being subsidized

Size of Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020 and are expected to increase to 7.4 percent of GDP in 2025 as the share of fuel consumption in emerging markets (where price gaps are generally larger) continues to climb.


https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fac...societal-costs

All that typing and you didn't refute anything I wrote, but it did include insults.

For the record I'm not an EV hater, I'm a realist. Reality is, these aren't the solution that they are being sold as. It borders on fraud.

[Socal_R8]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

All that typing and you didn't refute anything I wrote, but it did include insults.

For the record I'm not an EV hater, I'm a realist. Reality is, these aren't the solution that they are being sold as. It borders on fraud.

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....

[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.