How is your EV hanging during this winter blizzard ???

[NYG]

Originally Posted by FC4

Name the one car manufacturer worth more than every other car manufacturer combined.

Uh... whoever you think it is, isn't even half of Volkswagen Auto Group or Toyota.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by Marcoose

This (silly) thread is about (bashing) the (stupid) decision of owning an EV. I posit that most EV owners have secondary means of getting their bare necessities; ICE vehicles, public transportation, neighbours, stocked up supplies, walking distance, etc. I posit this winter blizzard was a much bigger deal to ICE owners than to EV owners. But carry on. Keep on bashing.

BlastPoint found in a three-part examination that people ready to buy an EV have an average annual income of $150,000. The median household income in the US in 2018 was $63,179, according to the U.S. Census.

“Ready-to-Buys are typically professionals working in white-collar careers. They’ve attained college-level or, often, advanced degrees. This means they have the income and buying power to make purchases and investments,” according to a post on BlastPoint’s website written by Janeen Ellsworth.

Home ownership is another important predicter of EV adoption. The people most likely to become EV owners already own a detached single family home worth $275,000 that has a garage or driveway, according to BlastPoint. The rate of home ownership in the US is about 67%, according to census data.

Other findings in the report are that prospective EV owners have a daily work commute of about 27 minutes, and are highly engaged on social media, particularly LinkedIn.

Common careers for EV buyers are IT and nursing, and buyers are also frequent online shoppers, according to BlastPoint.

Electric vehicles remain more expensive than their gas-powered counterparts. According to Quartz, the average cost of a new car in the US was about $36,600 in June 2019. The average cost of an electric vehicle is falling (a $64,300 to $55,600 drop from 2018 to 2019, according to Cox Automotive), but still well above that of gas-powered vehicles.

https://www.tdworld.com/electrificat...poor-americans

EV owners live a different life from the "average". Average citizens own ICE's. Saying they face different realities and have different options to get by during adverse weather events seems kind of obvious to me and Marcoose, but I guess some others don't get that. I also remember being very poor and not having many options or resources, but not everyone has ever faced that reality.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by TimmyM56

This thread has derailed into nonsense from the first post. Especially arguing if one person's knowledge of science is better than the other person's like it's two different things. There is a thing called "learning", one of a person's best traits is gaining new information and understanding it, even if it challenges what they already knew. But I guess the oldheads kept to their old system of understanding when Magellan proved the Earth was round.

Mocking people with EVs doesn't help your case. If you want to debate that the range of batteries is not enough for most people then fine. I believe our power grid is not up to par yet, and will not be until we put 100% effort into building a nation-sustaining nuclear power, that is the only long-term solution. That is understandable, but not talking about boogeymen like "bureaucrats" or how "government say is good so really is bad"

I agree with your assessment that we aren't ready, but how will you get a nation-sustaining nuclear power grid without facing and managing our current situation with "bureaucrats" and the "Government"?

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

This was not well written, so it is difficult to understand your point, but I'll take a shot at a response.

I'm the same age as Murf. People of our age learned most everything via peer-reviewed books written by educators. It is expensive to produce a book vs. writing something on the internet that can be rewritten at the whim of a political urge. It's why I tend not to believe most "data" that exists on the internet. I suspect Murf is mostly the same. As a Law Enforcement Officer, Murf has done real shit in his life based on what he has shared with us on E90Post, so like me, an expert has to prove his case to me.

I was educated not to be in fear of the climate, but rather to be amazed by the Earth's science, its geological history, anthropological history, its paleontological history and the astrophysical effect of the solar system has on the earth and all planets. So, when a bureaucrat insists I must "believe the science" about anthropogenic climate change or else I be classified as a "science denier", I get quite defensive. Even worse when that bureaucrat requires me to believe humans can choose what gender they are, then I'm seriously doubting his climate position is based on science and rather it is just purely political.

I like to use scientific logic as my belief system. It's why I ask guys like H20_Doc to tell me what point in the earth's climate history he wants to roll back to and what mechanism based on what algorithm will keep the climate static so we humans can continue to prosper on the planet (when every other species eventually goes [...]

Within the range underwich the agricultural revolution unfolded. Really, it's a GHG concentration target thats correlated to a temperature target that I'm shooting for. We want to stay out of a non-analog world for our species if we can.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by TimmyM56

This thread has derailed into nonsense from the first post. Especially arguing if one person's knowledge of science is better than the other person's like it's two different things. There is a thing called "learning", one of a person's best traits is gaining new information and understanding it, even if it challenges what they already knew. But I guess the oldheads kept to their old system of understanding when Magellan proved the Earth was round.

Mocking people with EVs doesn't help your case. If you want to debate that the range of batteries is not enough for most people then fine. I believe our power grid is not up to par yet, and will not be until we put 100% effort into building a nation-sustaining nuclear power, that is the only long-term solution. That is understandable, but not talking about boogeymen like "bureaucrats" or how "government say is good so really is bad"

The whole section is just full of mouthbreathers like OP who are pushing their views with bot-like efficiency. It's sad.

[Tim_M56]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

I agree with your assessment that we aren't ready, but how will you get a nation-sustaining nuclear power grid without facing and managing our current situation with "bureaucrats" and the "Government"?

Fair response and I think that's something that we need them for to think long-term. While there is a high upfront cost, the zero practical emissions and safety are worth it. That's where you would need the government I believe to allow the construction of nuclear power with incentives. Look, I know computers, not nuclear power so I'll just listen to the experts on it haha.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by TimmyM56

Fair response and I think that's something that we need them for to think long-term. While there is a high upfront cost, the zero practical emissions and safety are worth it. That's where you would need the government I believe to allow the construction of nuclear power with incentives. Look, I know computers, not nuclear power so I'll just listen to the experts on it haha.

If you really want to understand the problem with a nuclear-powered future just read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_...ste_repository

[Tim_M56]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

If you really want to understand the problem with a nuclear-powered future just read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_...ste_repository

I will read up on it, thank you for the link.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by TimmyM56

I will read up on it, thank you for the link.

Remember, there's exponentially more nuclear waste than nuclear fuel. The two terms are often used interchangeably, but everything from coolant to pipes to fasteners in the primary loop and just the containers that these are put in are all waste and nuclear reactions accelerate corrosion in this loop, not to mention that corrosion failures are unacceptable and parts are replaced at service intervals, so you have a significant amount of waste above just spent fuel rods. Luckily the half life on some is a lot less than the thousands of years of fuel rods, but even still, it's contaminated and has to be contained.

Not unmanageable, pointed out that even by pounds, nuclear waste is a lot less than the C02 that a coal plant puts into the atmosphere for the same MW, but the point is everything is nuanced, all these parts and pieces don't make themselves and have to be produced and eventually disposed of. Significant regulation in the construction and production of them and the reactor design. The training, the upkeep, etc. It's no joke for any kind of power plant, but this is obviously way beyond and takes an immense amount of resources to run and keep running. That's just what it is. In some places where there aren't natural resources nearby that are easy to tap into, it will obviously make sense. Also from a diversification point of view. But again, nuanced. The further I investigate into this and fusion, the further I see these challenges and issues. It's not that they are impossible to ever overcome, it's just that it's not some giant conspiracy, it's a question of where you want to put your efforts and resources for a decent amount of return. It's not a "free endless energy" solution. All of the fission technologies that show promise (not fusion, fission) have significant engineering and operation challenges as well.

[chad86tsi]

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Onesie

I guess the premise is valid, though.
If it were up to regulations and regulators, fossil fuels would be banned by now. The push for EV has been too strong and if this year is a predictor of, say, 2030, when some places want to have 100% EV, it won’t be pretty. The message is this: imagine if we were already there at 100% law… no charging by mandate in some places (Switzerland), no power for several days due to storms. What would people do?

I'm not sure I agree the premise is valid. I also don't agree that regulators would have banned fossil fuels already.

If there is a really bad storm, you just don't drive? That's what most people do. Prepare and buy supplies before the storm, and then don't drive in a blizzard that's getting fire trucks stuck. Generators will still work, same with battery storage.

There would certainly be fewer people dying from CO exhaust poisoning as happens in every major winter storm.

[Conissah]

When we had our EV, we saw ~30% reduction in range. Was kind of annoying, but we never drove over 200 miles a day in it anyways.

Funny enough though, Duke Power started doing rolling blackouts that lasted 30-60 minutes here on Christmas Eve… Their grid couldn’t keep up with the increased load from people battling the single digit temps we were seeing. Not sure how it’s supposed to keep up with all the EVs charging if it can’t handle people running their heat.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Onesie

“There was some freezing rain 2 days ago, and we haven’t had power and our car can’t drive. Just stay home”

Hope you and your family don’t need hospitals when what you’re defending goes through.

I'm not defending anything. I'm just saying your argument doesn't hold up. Why would your car not have power? Why would there be no ambulances? If the roads are impassible, they are impassible anyway.

Try going to get gas in Buffalo. Or after Sandy in NJ. There are going to be issues after exceptionally strong weather events.

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by Onesie

I guess the premise is valid, though.
If it were up to regulations and regulators, fossil fuels would be banned by now. The push for EV has been too strong and if this year is a predictor of, say, 2030, when some places want to have 100% EV, it won’t be pretty. The message is this: imagine if we were already there at 100% law… no charging by mandate in some places (Switzerland), no power for several days due to storms. What would people do?

Just common sense here, does this make you one of the mouth-breathers?

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Onesie

You’re the only one bringing up roads being impassable. What’s being discussed is lack of power to charge vehicles.

Doctors and nurses don’t ride ambulances to go to work. Not everybody gets to the hospital by ambulance when emergency care is needed.

These aren’t “exceptionally strong weather events”. We’re discussing winter here pretty much, every time there’s freezing rain power goes down as lines break.

I’m sorry, are you even thinking before typing?

They break and get restored within hours if it's not a crazy event. Vehicles are charged in advance of storms, and fleets will still have diesels. Generators still exist. Are you really this dumb?

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by chris719

They break and get restored within hours if it's not a crazy event. Vehicles are charged in advance of storms, and fleets will still have diesels. Generators still exist. Are you really this dumb?

Except that if governments are going to mandate the switch to EV's they need to lead by example.

https://www.firerescue1.com/apparatu...g4cV2sGSIDDQe/

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Murf the Surf

Except that if governments are going to mandate the switch to EV's they need to lead by example.

I don't think so. The emissions of emergency vehicles are a tiny fraction. However, if they think can do it, then sure.

[Tim_M56]

Originally Posted by RM7

Remember, there's exponentially more nuclear waste than nuclear fuel. The two terms are often used interchangeably, but everything from coolant to pipes to fasteners in the primary loop and just the containers that these are put in are all waste and nuclear reactions accelerate corrosion in this loop, not to mention that corrosion failures are unacceptable and parts are replaced at service intervals, so you have a significant amount of waste above just spent fuel rods. Luckily the half life on some is a lot less than the thousands of years of fuel rods, but even still, it's contaminated and has to be contained.

Not unmanageable, pointed out that even by pounds, nuclear waste is a lot less than the C02 that a coal plant puts into the atmosphere for the same MW, but the point is everything is nuanced, all these parts and pieces don't make themselves and have to be produced and eventually disposed of. Significant regulation in the construction and production of them and the reactor design. The training, the upkeep, etc. It's no joke for any kind of power plant, but this is obviously way beyond and takes an immense amount of resources to run and keep running. That's just what it is. In some places where there aren't natural resources nearby that are easy to tap into, it will obviously make sense. Also from a diversification point of view. But again, nuanced. The further I investigate into this and fusion, the further I see these challenges and issues. It's not that they are impossible to ever overcome, it's just that it's not some giant conspiracy, it's a question of where you want to put your efforts and resources for a decent amount of return. It's not a "free endless energy" solution. All of the fission technologies that show promise (not fusion, fission) have significant engineering and operation challenges as well.

Correct, there is nothing that is perfect with no harmful byproducts. Waste will always be something that you'll have to deal with nuclear. It would have to be managed with regulations agreed upon by I would think the IAEA and other agencies with nuclear reactor design, waste management, and so on. Something that makes logical sense, so from creation to long-term storage solutions.

Exactly, and I'm not going to pretend that is easy. Having to train workers to manage a nuclear power plant, and all that isn't easy. However, I don't think it's something that we shouldn't fully consider for the future of clean energy. It will take time to get ready and set up, which is not something that can be done tomorrow, and the current systems will need to slowly be transferred over. It should be diversified but as a future in the face of climate change and (back on thread) EVs, having a larger, more efficient system of power generation will be what I believe is needed. Something that can be ramped up and down with demand, whether that is high A/C usage in hot summers and so on.

Perhaps I'm just an optimist and hope the best for the future. And because I think smashing atoms together is cool and burning coal is lame haha.

[LogicalApex]

I’m sure the EV owners are much happier than the ICE owners. Much nicer to clear snow off a prewarmwd car and start the drive in a warm car.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Onesie

Maybe I am. I hadn’t realized I was trying to debate with someone who will just blindly defend an opposing view just to be a contrarian, with arguments that fall flat on their face, while name-calling… I guess I am dumb for not seeing the bait before catching it.

Take care. I have some air to inhale through my buccal cavity.

No idea what you’re on about. All the doctors I know drive Teslas anyway and no one is dying.