Your experience with all-electric vans

[abnorm]

We don't have those tiny rigs in the USA

 

[Happy Camper]

I would honestly be scared trying to travel/camp with something that small on the roads these days.

You'd definitely have to pick locations properly.

I live in southern California and sold my motorcycles years ago. Too many cars on the roads that don't pay enough attention to big rigs. Let alone motorcycles. It's always a matter of when, not if, you lay it down out here.

As a single dad I couldn't afford the risk my kids wouldn't have me around sure to someone else's mistake.

That being said, in sure there are some roads and areas not nearly as congested. Like almost everywhere else lol.

 

[RonDean]

Maybe if we stopped building and expanding 70MPH freeways and instead built 50MPH 2 lanes with occasional passing lanes, we would have a better infrastructure for ev-rvs, bikes (of all kinds), and a more stress-free lifestyle. Not to mention an average increase in life spans. Just a passing thought...

 

[bullfrog !]

I spoke with a fellow that is building autonomous vehicles. We discussed some of the difficulties as he was admiring my old blue truck. He agreed that trains could and should be developed to augment electrical vehicle industry as it would solve many of the range and infrastructure charging problems as well as with the vehicles he is developing.

 

[NctryBen]

Bullfrog… that old blue truck is likely admired more then you know…
Anyways, we keep hearing about science science science… well in my opinion science has done as much to create the mess we’re in as help try to solve. And for pity sake… political science is not science! Pretty obvious the industries that create the most effects of greenhouse gasses or whatever will never be touched. Common sense can show that more then links to bogus whatever or some half truth by so and so… scientists basically side with what fills their bank account. For every scientist that agrees with anything has another in disagreement. What we lack in common sense is causing more in ruining our environment then anything. Producing crops to replace oil… because we HATE big oil. Has made the demand raise food costs and the need for chemicals to grow these crops because we have ruined most of our soils… There were so many very good ways that were natural to keep our souls rich and viable. But science has helped ruin that. Now we have depleted soils and water sources at what? The hands of science and money!!
And common sense? Might it not say we shouldn’t build alternative sources of energy at a higher environmental impact than it will save? And for example lithium… mass producing it in mediocre products for profit. Vs maybe in higher quality products that will last and be more effective in being the resource it is? The fact we buy throw away anything that should be built using higher quality material and workmanship which would not fill our landfills so fast. And we do not recycle anymore. Iron/ steel prices are very low because we need to keep mining at a high rate to fill those pockets…
Everything is about money. Unaffordable healthcare, and all our political scientists create are about money money money… and very little goes for actually helping our environment… science has ruined more then it has helped because of greed… and politics. Everything is artificial now… because of science being monetized… So links don’t mean a lot when many are propaganda anyways. Letting companies, government and everything get so big has done more damage to our environment let alone our viable information sources. Where common sense alone should have a better place. And there is nothing there anymore… because of greed!!! Nothing to do with capitalism, socialism or anything else but greed. And we all fall for so much of it because common sense is on empty!

 

[bullfrog !]

^^^I agree a lot is wrong that needs to be corrected. For example our rail system was allowed stagnate and deteriorate. Our trucking system was allowed to expand and deteriorate our highway system. Car manufacturers were allowed to sell inefficient cars and design profit making schemes into there products and the sale of them. Government should be there for the protection and improvement of people’s living conditions. If the government doesn’t protect and help people improve their lives then the people running the government need to be voted out. The ones that don’t do what they say they will do and are corrupt then break laws need to be removed by our judicial system. Electricity can be produced more cleanly by other methods than fossil fuels. Electric vehicles can be made with fewer moving parts and therefore can be made to last longer and easier to maintain and repair. It’s the government’s job to regulate industry so that the majority of people’s living conditions continue to improve in my opinion. It’s the people’s job to elect people that will do that. History is a good teacher. I learned a lot about the costs of energy and the effects on people’s lives growing up in the coal fields of eastern Kentucky. Let’s hope we elect people that learned from those lessons to regulate, improve and develop our future energy systems. It can’t be allowed to be all about money, it has to be required to benefit everyone not just a few. Common sense is easier to find if you just look at getting things done that benefit the majority of people’s lives. Results are history, we need to learn from our mistakes in my opinion.

 

[SLB_SA]

If computers controlled (or, at least, provided crash avoidance protection), then maybe we could have much lighter (and more fuel efficient) vehicles which are not loaded with safety features (like air bags, crumple zones, other structural crash protection, etc.) in which to ride. Right now, a 100-200 pound person "needs" a 2000+ pound vehicle to get around, while a 20(?) pound bike would serve many transportation needs.

 

[bullfrog !]

^^^many more safe bike lanes and side walks would help as well! I think it is just wrong that modern versions of the fuel efficient small vehicles are not being made available in the USA. Electric bikes and enclosed trikes and 4 wheeled cars under 300 lbs. need their own lanes in traffic if limited to less than 30 miles per hour to be legal.

 

[RonDean]

I believe in science and logic, reason, and repeatable provable test results. But NctryBen's comments are not without validity. Just because something was developed using science does not automatically make it a good thing. For example, the guy with the bright idea of adding lead to gas was a scientist/chemist. Science HAS produced many things that can be used in a bad way. Like many other things, science is just a tool and its results can certainly be misused.

All that said, I do not believe that most scientists are in some kind of global conspiracy just because they tend to collect a higher salary than the average wage earner. Their jobs require an expensive and time-consuming education. Our capitalistic system generally rewards that kind of investment. If we choose to distrust any group based on their income, there are many others I would rather start with. Like all the folks and companies telling us not to listen to scientists, for example. Are we asking what THEIR profit motive is? Also, I doubt such a global conspiracy of scientists would be able to exist this long without an awful lot of insiders blowing the whistle on them. Especially when it is actually part of the scientific method to question and try to disprove what other scientists are saying.

On the subject of THIS thread, I can find no evidence that burning more fossil fuel would be a good thing. Or that such fuels do not produce harmful pollution. And that's just using what some might call "common sense." The fact that the vast majority of scientists also say that is just a bonus.

 

[bullfrog !]

Again history provides a lesson just look at the tobacco industry and their “scientific experts studies” to make and expand their profits. EVs do have industry executives that are not convinced they will profit or do as well financially if they convert from internal combustion engines. They make some good points but they could have just continued to make and improve more smaller fuel efficient vehicles like they did years ago and instead followed the money. I trust them less because of that and our living conditions have gotten worse for their previous marketing decisions in my opinion.

 

[Happy Camper]

Scientists rely on grants to fund their research.

If they can't get enough interest in their project they can continue underfunded, and the work is slower and the pay very low.

If their research is threatening or disruptive to a large industry or companies, they can be bought out. Or financially backed with the research owned and controlled by the backing entity.

Some scientists/researchers hold out for a percentage and make huge profits. Others the project gets buried and they get a percentage of nothing. But they signed the contracts and financially benefitted while it lasted.

The money influences the scientific winners and losers. Scientists are human and want money and influence line anyone else. Even the very idealistic ones need to eat and have a place to live.

 

[bullfrog !]

Again a government that serves the majority of the people should fund research that can possibly benefit the lives of the people they serve. If it doesn’t vote those in office out or at least those that do nothing to further the research needed. If EVs or any area needs to be further developed to produce clean cheap transportation vote for those that support further development.

 

[RonDean]

Scientists rely on grants to fund their research.

If they can't get enough interest in their project they can continue underfunded, and the work is slower and the pay very low.

If their research is threatening or disruptive to a large industry or companies, they can be bought out. Or financially backed with the research owned and controlled by the backing entity.

Some scientists/researchers hold out for a percentage and make huge profits. Others the project gets buried and they get a percentage of nothing. But they signed the contracts and financially benefitted while it lasted.

The money influences the scientific winners and losers. Scientists are human and want money and influence line anyone else. Even the very idealistic ones need to eat and have a place to live.

HC,
I'm just curious, can you provide any source or evidence that would stand up in court that the vast majority of scientists are corrupt or have misrepresented test results because it makes them more money? Until I see that, I'll continue to ride in airplanes, trains, and cars based on scientific principles rather than in those designed by faith healers or witch doctors.

There are many differing opinions on everything going on in our world. We might agree or disagree on some and not on others. That's expected and OK in my book. So, I'll try to stay focused on THIS topic and repeat my questions:

Is there ANY evidence that burning more fossil fuel would be a good thing? Or that such fuels do NOT produce harmful pollution? I certainly cannot find any. I can provide (and have) a list of advantages to renewable energy benefits. I would refer you to the EPA at https://www.epa.gov/statelocalenergy/local-renewable-energy-benefits-and-resources#one .

I CAN understand offering alternate solutions, even if I do not think they are better. Or maybe pointing out that certain mining or extraction methods should be improved. But to disregard everything modern science has provided or reported because of a distrust pushed on us by political or industry self-interest groups? Nope. I can't do that.

 

[Happy Camper]

HC,
I'm just curious, can you provide any source or evidence that would stand up in court that the vast majority of scientists are corrupt or have misrepresented test results because it makes them more money? Until I see that, I'll continue to ride in airplanes, trains, and cars based on scientific principles rather than in those designed by faith healers or witch doctors.

There are many differing opinions on everything going on in our world. We might agree or disagree on some and not on others. That's expected and OK in my book. So, I'll try to stay focused on THIS topic and repeat my questions:

Is there ANY evidence that burning more fossil fuel would be a good thing? Or that such fuels do NOT produce harmful pollution? I certainly cannot find any. I can provide (and have) a list of advantages to renewable energy benefits. I would refer you to the EPA at https://www.epa.gov/statelocalenergy/local-renewable-energy-benefits-and-resources#one .

I CAN understand offering alternate solutions, even if I do not think they are better. Or maybe pointing out that certain mining or extraction methods should be improved. But to disregard everything modern science has provided or reported because of a distrust pushed on us by political or industry self-interest groups? Nope. I can't do that.

Ron, please don't misrepresent my words. I didn't say the majority of scientists were corrupt.

There has been many a good idea that didn't have the funding to succeed. Many an invention where the patent was bought and buried. Many products with marginal upside with proper funding make it where better ideas and products failed for lack of support and funding.

It's very similar in most arenas. Ever work somewhere where a mediocre employee gets the support over much better and more qualified employees? He gets the promotion, the larger raises, etc. It happens every day. And that mediocre employee gets a larger say in how things are done.

Ever have a product you absolutely love and it's discontinued in favor of an inferior product? Because the marketing budget is better for the inferior product? Happens every day.

Scientists produce a product. They are studying something. Whether they are a true believer or is just a job, they are producing information. All of them. That's the job. They are all trying to figure out what works and doesn't work, and why. Everything from climate change to wondering how and if an ant farts.

Science by it's very nature is vast. There are many opinions on every single thing. And they are all working to figure it out. That's not corrupt or nefarious, that's the job.

Some areas of research, and some researchers get more backing for various reasons. Those with backing get larger staff, better facilities, more resources at their disposal.

Those that don't get extra backing still do the work. But without the extra funding, it's not as fast and can't keep up with the better backed labs.

So as in any industry, the money generally determines the winners. It's a very old story. And it's still true. There are always outliers, but that's not very common.

Explain to me where I'm wrong. Without changing my words please.

 

[SLB_SA]

HC: You make several claims.Can you document them? Betamax vs VHS?

 

[Happy Camper]

HC: You make several claims.Can you document them? Betamax vs VHS?

Well, betamax was the superior technology and had other applications as well. They were also used with slight modifications as DAT for audio applications.

VHS had more industry support and money behind it for various reasons, so it won out due to that fact.

The money and marketing won.

To this day anyone that actually knew the tech will say that betamax was superior.

 

[SLB_SA]

HC: Betamax vs VHS was the only example of your claim of which I could think. Beta was certainly better. I was removing the obvious example from your consideration; I'm sorry you didn't understand this.

 

[Happy Camper]

I understood. It was just fun pointing out the obvious lol

 

[bullfrog !]

History again! Alternating Current vs Direct Current.

 

[SLB_SA]

History again! Alternating Current vs Direct Current.

Both are useful. Which do you consider superior?