Interesting Articles Relating to EVs

[RonDean]

I believe RonDean was using hyperbole (exaggeration) to make a point.

Two posts referring to it were removed due to content.




[mod edit: those two posts have been reinstated after a very minor edit for content --tx2]

You are correct. I thought that would have been obvious. I guess not.

Also, I didn't want to have to explain AGAIN about the difference between commercial fast chargers and what we could get from an on-board 240v level 2 charger.

 

[RonDean]

Another interesting article.

https://nypost.com/2024/03/05/busin...missions-are-worse-for-the-environment-study/

Happy, Please do not take this wrong....
Do you fact-check articles you see in the NY Post? I do and this story does not stand up to the rest of what science has to say. If you want I can provide a list of sources that say otherwise.

 

[Happy Camper]

Happy, Please do not take this wrong....
Do you fact-check articles you see in the NY Post? I do and this story does not stand up to the rest of what science has to say. If you want I can provide a list of sources that say otherwise.

This was actually a follow-up to an article in the new York times. But since the nyt is behind a paywall I thought I would link this here.

Yes I know the NY post isn't always the most reliable source for certain things. But then again neither are most information sources these days.

Very few information sources are actually unbiased. So it's up to everyone to do their due diligence. I'm good with the information in the article. I don't agree with 100 percent of anything I read. But it has good information and gives food for thought.

I'll respectfully decline your offer for rebuttal sources, unless you would like to do it to add to the conversation. This isn't me putting my head in the ground. It's me not wanting to participate in dueling links lol.

 

[RonDean]

This was actually a follow-up to an article in the new York times. But since the nyt is behind a paywall I thought I would link this here.

Yes I know the NY post isn't always the most reliable source for certain things. But then again neither are most information sources these days.

Very few information sources are actually unbiased. So it's up to everyone to do their due diligence. I'm good with the information in the article. I don't agree with 100 percent of anything I read. But it has good information and gives food for thought.

I'll respectfully decline your offer for rebuttal sources, unless you would like to do it to add to the conversation. This isn't me putting my head in the ground. It's me not wanting to participate in dueling links lol.

Yah, I don't want to get into dueling links either.

But, I would ask does it make sense for a lot of pretty smart folks to spend their time and money building or buying EVs for more money than ICVs if they were not better in some way or other? That doesn't make "common sense" either. Then there are all the governments and their respective agencies pushing EVs to combat climate change. Could they all be wrong too? If so, this story wouldn't just be in the NY Post and other such, it would be on every news outlet around the entire world!

 

[Gr8ful]

One of my issues with EVs, our gov wanting us to be total electric & the "15 minute cities" is putting all our eggs in one basket. Also the globalist saying we'll own nothing & be happy. Electric bills are rising & subject to EMPs. I like to spread things out into money, real estate & useful things in case of a crisis. Money has become worthless in many countries in the past. $1 doesn't burn well or even make good toilet paper. Ever try to wipe your rear with 3 quarters, 2 dimes & a nickel? Here's a past & future electric price chart.
https://www.solar.com/learn/will-electricity-prices-go-down/#:~:text=Electricity price forecast 2025,per kWh throughout the year.

 

[RonDean]

But does anyone really think all those scientists and government agencies telling us we need to get off oil and coal are really stupid or ill-informed? Or worse yet, part of some global conspiracy? In that case, I can see we never will be able to discuss this and I'll just pick up my marbles and scat.

On the other hand, I'm fine with multi-layered approaches and individual choices I just want more choices made available! At some point, I think we need to have some agreement on basic facts like burning fossil fuels pollutes and is bad for our health. Or that no matter what originally caused it, the global temp is rising and that's not a good thing. And releasing more CO2 is going to make that worse. Our solutions may vary, but can we agree there IS a problem that needs to be addressed?

 

[Happy Camper]

But, I would ask does it make sense for a lot of pretty smart folks to spend their time and money building or buying EVs for more money than ICVs if they were not better in some way or other? That doesn't make "common sense" either. Then there are all the governments and their respective agencies pushing EVs to combat climate change. Could they all be wrong too? If so, this story wouldn't just be in the NY Post and other such, it would be on every news outlet around the entire world!

There are many many smart people in this world. They don't all agree on everything. So many smart people can believe something. And many other smart people can believe the opposite. And they can both find ways to prove through science (sometimes) that their side is correct. And both sides can be right.

We just forgot how to agree to disagree respectfully.

On the other hand, I'm fine with multi-layered approaches and individual choices I just want more choices made available! At some point, I think we need to have some agreement on basic facts like burning fossil fuels pollutes and is bad for our health. Or that no matter what originally caused it, the global temp is rising and that's not a good thing. And releasing more CO2 is going to make that worse. Our solutions may vary, but can we agree there IS a problem that needs to be addressed?

I agree we should do things to make sure we stay healthy. And alive. The funny thing to me is that this is the hill to stand on for so many.
Cigarettes? They kill half a million people a year. 1 in 5 deaths can be attributed to cigarettes. Nobody is standing on that hill like they are for climate change.

What about alcohol? Around 200k deaths a year. I bet the climate guys probably wouldn't touch a cigarette. But they probably go have a drink. Not standing on that hill.

In fact the "science" started saying cannabis was safer than most things. After than cigarettes. Safer than alcohol. And it has all of these great benefits. Not the CBD oil. Which does help many. Not medical, which helps many in severe circumstances. Nope, it's safe and ok and be legal. They had science coming out of every orifice imaginable to back up those claims. Those that wanted to smoke it backed it. Those that wanted to invest in it paid for the studies and reports showing all the great, and no negatives.

Years later, we get other reports. But good at all for developing brains. Linked to higher rates of heart issues. Etc.

The science they used to get accepted and the earlier and later negative studies and reports are both right.

Science, like surveys, can get you the answers you desire. If it's not too crazy. Unless you're Tesla or Einstein crazy. I follow the science and accept what it tells me. As a data point. Not as an answer that will never change.

Climate change might be happening because we've done things. Climate change might be happening all by itself. But it's likely a bit of both. Science proves things. And then proves that information needs to be updated when something else is found out. By science.

 

[RonDean]

There are many many smart people in this world. They don't all agree on everything. So many smart people can believe something. And many other smart people can believe the opposite. And they can both find ways to prove through science (sometimes) that their side is correct. And both sides can be right.

We just forgot how to agree to disagree respectfully.


I agree we should do things to make sure we stay healthy. And alive. The funny thing to me is that this is the hill to stand on for so many.
Cigarettes? They kill half a million people a year. 1 in 5 deaths can be attributed to cigarettes. Nobody is standing on that hill like they are for climate change.

What about alcohol? Around 200k deaths a year. I bet the climate guys probably wouldn't touch a cigarette. But they probably go have a drink. Not standing on that hill.

In fact the "science" started saying cannabis was safer than most things. After than cigarettes. Safer than alcohol. And it has all of these great benefits. Not the *** oil. Which does help many. Not medical, which helps many in severe circumstances. Nope, it's safe and ok and be legal. They had science coming out of every orifice imaginable to back up those claims. Those that wanted to smoke it backed it. Those that wanted to invest in it paid for the studies and reports showing all the great, and no negatives.

Years later, we get other reports. But good at all for developing brains. Linked to higher rates of heart issues. Etc.

The science they used to get accepted and the earlier and later negative studies and reports are both right.

Science, like surveys, can get you the answers you desire. If it's not too crazy. Unless you're Tesla or Einstein crazy. I follow the science and accept what it tells me. As a data point. Not as an answer that will never change.

Climate change might be happening because we've done things. Climate change might be happening all by itself. But it's likely a bit of both. Science proves things. And then proves that information needs to be updated when something else is found out. By science.

A lot of truth in what you say. I am willing to stand on a number of those hills - and a few more. But, science is about trying to find truth by proving the previous fellow wrong. That's why it usually changes in one way or another. When they can no longer repeatedly prove the other fellow wrong, most people tend to accept a proposition. I'm OK with that kind of science. It doesn't mean we always get everything right right away. With the effects of burning fossil fuel, among scientists, it's not like 50/50 each way. It's more like 95/5. Now, ask a politician or a businessman who might be smart or not, but who has other priorities and you might get something closer to 50/50. Or that's how I see it and read it anyway.

When they put lead into gas to stop "knocking" it took years before we finally managed to get the oil companies to stop doing that. And the IQ of children breathing that extra lead dropped. A study calculates that exposure to car exhaust from leaded gas during childhood stole a collective 824 million IQ points from more than 170 million Americans alive today, about half the population of the United States. And although the oil companies fought admitting it for a long time, they finally did. I would welcome you to check it out and see if you can find any scientists willing to dispute it today. Certainly nothing anywhere close to 50%. That is just one example of something as simple as burning a particular kind of gas can be.

 

[Gr8ful]

We just forgot how to agree to disagree respectfully.
Climate change might be happening because we've done things. Climate change might be happening all by itself. But it's likely a bit of both. Science proves things. And then proves that information needs to be updated when something else is found out. By science.

Ron, No offence intended but I'm not going to discuss EVs, Climate Change or ICE with you as you won't discuss, consider, read my ideas or open the links I provide. Your mind is set & when anyone disagrees you jump & write a page. There's no discussing these with you as you're non-changing one bit so there's no use wasting your time or mine. You're convinced EVs are the answer & I believe they're not ready now & something better may beat them out. Neither of us will change our beliefs IMHO so no use in arguing as we've done. We'll agree to disagree. I'll gladly discuss most anything else with you & respect you opinion.

 

[user 22017]

>>>>> The funny thing to me is that this is the hill to stand on for so many.
Cigarettes? They kill half a million people a year. 1 in 5 deaths can be attributed to cigarettes. Nobody is standing on that hill like they are for climate change.

Not so. Many, many, many stood on that hill. I smoked for 45 years and watched it happening. Banning on TV. Banning cigarette smoking in public. Then in cars. All kinds of anti-smoking campaigns... way more than ever happened with climate change. Sadly.

>>>>What about alcohol? Around 200k deaths a year. I bet the climate guys probably wouldn't touch a cigarette. But they probably go have a drink. Not standing on that hill.

Agree about alcohol. Much more awareness should be done. But why should climate scientists and/or activists fight every battle? Stand on every hill?

>>>>>In fact the "science" started saying cannabis was safer than most things. After than cigarettes. Safer than alcohol. And it has all of these great benefits. Not the *** oil. Which does help many. Not medical, which helps many in severe circumstances. Nope, it's safe and ok and be legal. They had science coming out of every orifice imaginable to back up those claims. Those that wanted to smoke it backed it. Those that wanted to invest in it paid for the studies and reports showing all the great, and no negatives.

>>>>>Years later, we get other reports. But good at all for developing brains. Linked to higher rates of heart issues. Etc.

Yeah, no idea why so much false info about marijuana was allowed to be spread, but where was it coming from? Was it on the mainstream news? I knew it was damaging, from reading articles about it for many years. It should never be smoked before the age of 16 (can affect IQ when smoked too young.) All smoke is damaging to your body. Including smoked foods.

Science, like surveys, can get you the answers you desire. If it's not too crazy. Unless you're Tesla or Einstein crazy.

Didn't follow that.

 

[RonDean]

Ron, No offence intended but I'm not going to discuss EVs, Climate Change or ICE with you as you won't discuss, consider, read my ideas or open the links I provide. Your mind is set & when anyone disagrees you jump & write a page. There's no discussing these with you as you're non-changing one bit so there's no use wasting your time or mine. You're convinced EVs are the answer & I believe they're not ready now & something better may beat them out. Neither of us will change our beliefs IMHO so no use in arguing as we've done. We'll agree to disagree. I'll gladly discuss most anything else with you & respect you opinion.

G8, Thanks, and no offense intended in return either.

We can agree to disagree, but I will still probably respond to anyone's post that seems to require a response.

Also, as I have posted, although I think right now EVs seem to have the best answer, I have never said that technology could not be improved. If a few college students can build an EV/RV and drive it from one end of the continent to the other then I think it is far enough along to be a viable technology that needs more industry and popular support.

If someone else invents Magic Juju juice tomorrow to run our vehicles and it checks all the boxes, I'll happily support that.

 

[wanderlust]

science is about trying to find truth by proving the previous fellow wrong. That's why it usually changes in one way or another. When they can no longer repeatedly prove the other fellow wrong, most people tend to accept a proposition.

SCIENTIST accept the results. Politicians don't.
As is said somewhere in Devil's dictionary:
"it is really hard to explain a something to a person whole livelihood depends on not understanding it"

A study calculates that exposure to car exhaust from leaded gas during childhood stole a collective 824 million IQ points from more than 170 million Americans alive today, about half the population of the United States.

and low IQ contributed to increase of crime, 25 years later. Again, the science.

 

[wanderlust]

a debate on EV vans on reddit:

 

[Gr8ful]

Tesla workers shared sensitive images recorded by customer cars inside & outside the car. https://www.reuters.com/technology/...-images-recorded-by-customer-cars-2023-04-06/​

 

[RonDean]

IMHO... A lot of this "discussion" is counter-productive,

* We have one group of people who seem happy with the current ICV technology or do not see global warming and air pollution as enough of a problem to want to change it. They justify their position by posting whatever anti-EV articles and videos they can find and seem to think that NONE of us should support or buy electric vehicles. Or they seem to think that in spite of a growing number of EVs on the road - it is a failed technology. They are welcome to correct me if I am misrepresenting their stance.

* We have another group (of which I am one) that takes the opposite stance and believes that ICV does too much harm to all of us (climate & Health) to allow it to continue indefinitely. We/I think that while deciding which vehicle technology to support could be a personal choice, breathing polluted air and watching our climate change is NOT a personal choice we can "opt out" of.

* There is also (I assume) a popcorn-eating entertainment-watching group just sitting back and wondering why this is an argument. Why doesn't each person follow their own conscience and let others do likewise? Neither of those first two groups is likely to change any minds anyway.

I will agree that I have yet to see a single mind changed. I'm trying to transition from group 2 to group 3. But every time I get close to that, someone posts ANOTHER video or link to a story that I think is probably produced by some entity that wants to remove our ability to choose and make IC vehicles our only choice. Then I feel I MUST respond. I know I don't. I can just ignore such posts and I will try really hard to do so in the future.

 

[Gr8ful]

GAME OVER! TOYOTA'S New WATER ENGINE End of EVs?

 

[bullfrog !]

^^^not really as it still uses a battery. I do like that it is totally self contained but like most things needs further development. Storing energy is the major concern no matter what source it comes from and the amount it affects our environment overall. Like many solutions to problems today most people would rather argue and choose “sides” rather than work together to evaluate conditions and develop solutions. I do like that Toyota chose to go back and try to use the best technologies of the past and combine them to develop combinations of them to try to solve the problem. Better battery storage development seems to be where there is the most room for improvement whether you turn the wheels of vehicles with electricity or other power sources. In fact it seems fewer moving parts would mean overall a better more reliable product in my opinion.

 

[JT646]

I'm putting this thread here to consolidate some of the more interesting articles regarding EV tech.

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2024/03/06/battery-prices-collapsing-grid-tied-energy-storage-expanding/

Slightly off topic...but good to see that batteries are getting better & cheaper. Hopefully this will trickle down to LFP's (RV/house batteries)...and EV's as well. Competition is good!

 

[wanderlust]

I will agree that I have yet to see a single mind changed.

This problem was resolved, years, ago, see Devil's dictionary:
https://thedevilsdictionary.com/d.html#DISCU_

DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors

 

[BlueMarkOhio]

Toyota has hydrogen engines that produce water as a combustion product, but they do not run on "water". The energy comes from hydrogen that you have to put into a hydrogen tank. It is currently selling one model - the Mirai - but so far only California has even the lowest necessary level of hydrogen infrastructure to keep them on the road.

https://www.toyota.com/mirai/