EV news. Hybrid News. A Path Forward.

I looked it to solar for my Tucson house, it was $25K 15 years ago with me doing all the work. Solar makes sense for AZ, still couldn’t justify the cost because I knew we were moving.

Thought about doing our Idaho house, again not cost prohibitive, not sure if we’re going to stay here forever either. That and Idaho is already getting 70% of its power from renewables, by 2045 supposedly be 100%. That is good enough for me and environment guilt. Though how environmental sound is it? Solar and wind destroys ecosystems, hydro decimates migrating fish populations. Guess it all comes down to how much guilt one feels.

 

Just as much guilt as people feel with almost 300 years of mining coal, over 100 years of oil prospecting and drilling and natural gas fracking.

 

In truth solar does last long than 20 years however the warranty is between 20 and 25 years so it works well for the "lifespan" argument.

The flip side is the electricity from solar is hard to fully use without very expensive batteries, batteries that have a lifespan that is usually less than the panels. I have seen 10 years for battery lifespan but I really don't know what the average is.

 

Guessing they don’t feel much, some people would plow the under planet under if you let them.

What is that old saying? “Earth First! we’ll mine the other planets later…”


Was recently reading an article on Musk, one of the reasons he has built such a cult like following is, he is telling people you can save the planet and live a life of excess while doing it. Seems oxymoronic to me, but what do I know…

 

I disagree with the guilt aspect. People have an impact by existing, that won't change. The only way to not have an impact is by not existing, that isn't a solution.

As you also point out the "better" way has its own impact. I do believe it is LESS impact, and we shouldn't let perfect get in the way of good, but it should be a balance.

That is why we shouldn't focus on the "guilt" side, you shouldn't feel guilty for existing, however we should still work to the "better" way which is (IMHO) a mix of technologies that over time improve or get replaced. Solar (or wind, or microhydro) serve a place for those who can do so, and as they develop should become more accessible to those who are less able to do so. Meanwhile those who "can" move to the next new (or improved) thing, which itself slowly trickles down.

Instead these have become political points and accepted, or rejected, just because "they" have a viewpoint on it

 

It was a bit of a joke, since that is one of the environmentalist’s marketing strategy. Guilt people into changing.

Is the push to an EV future going to be better? or are there factors that have yet to be seen that may make things worse.

https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1674&context=honors

 

If people are 'guilted' into buying and EV then they're weak minded. I have researched current and upcoming EV tech and still see the benefits and to me it's still less harmful and polluting to the environment to drive an EV than a petrol burning vehicle. It's not a conspiracy or environmentalists winning and forcing their ways on the world, it's just fact.

 

New Jersey announces 2035 clean energy goals...

Like other states with a 2035 car sales initiative, HEV, PHEV vehicles can still be sold in 2035. They will NOT be coming to take your gas cars in 2035 and you can still buy used gas cars and fix your current gas car until it falls to pieces and continue polluting the air.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...erted-electric-reality?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

What happens to all of the old gasoline- and diesel-powered cars that are on the road right now is trickier. One idea that’s recently been in the spotlight is converting them to electric vehicles. Toyota made waves when it showcased two vintage Corollas that had been converted to electric and hydrogen power at a recent industry event where the company’s CEO, Akio Toyoda, raised the prospect of the company getting into the conversion game.

 

I would love to convert my Land Cruiser to electric. It's used just as a rock crawler and the off road parks have electric available to charge EV's so I wouldn't be worried about running out of juice. It's just the cost. About $60k to convert it properly. Maybe some of you have that kind of money to do it but I sure don't. But when i win enough lottery money it will definitely happen!! lol

 

They are. You can’t deny that guilt is a tactic used in EV marketing. The recent Ram EV ad used erectile dysfunction to try and sell trucks. So if you drive an ICE vehicle you can’t get it up? Seems like you guilt towards me, like ya man but…every time I mention or question the environmental impact of EVs you fire back along the lines of “oil is worse!” Remember the lesser of two evils is still evil.

Never thought it was a conspiracy, just think environmentalists are hypocrites.

For a guy who is pushing EVs, do you even own one?

 

Well I'm not saying it isn't happening I'm just saying they are weak minded. But oil, to me is worse of an impact to humans across the globe. EV's aren't a perfect solution but they are better than burning oil. I still think BEV's are the dirty EV middle child to FCEV's but they won't be mainstream until both of us are 6 feet under.

I drove an EV for a few years and don't have it anymore unfortunately. Planning on getting an EV motorcycle if my financial situation changes. I was a petrol head, raced cars, had V8 cars all tricked out. I was skeptical about EV's until I drove one on a regular basis and being a technical type of guy, I researched them and now see them as part of the process of getting off the addiction to gas burning.

 

Would say it is their main tactic, constantly using the sky is falling, the poles are melting, all the polar bears are going to die! Hate to break it to them, the poles weren’t always frozen, polar bears are are relatively new species as far as fauna goes. According to the geological and fossil records life thrived when the planet was warmer. So are the people who are against climate change are they against life thriving? We only hear the negatives, never the positives of a warmer planet.

Aren’t EVs just an out sight out of mind way of thinking? I am out in the back country and rural areas often. Have witnessed vast tracts of land being plowed under for renewables, and think “thought we are supposed to be saving the environment?” And it is mostly for powering the ever expanding cities, majority of urban dwellers will never seen what it takes to make their EV possible.

 

What you are saying though is literally a strawman argument.

Not "they", some. There is a BIG difference between those.

You drive a Tacoma, so does that make you the same as TacomaBeast?

You are correct about the planet, but nobody is saying it will "ruin" the planet. What they are saying is it will become less hospitable for humans and have reduced bio-diversity. That what is being done will have an overall negative impact, not an ABSOLUTE impact.

It is not "out of sight out of mind", less is still LESS. Yes, they have an impact, it is less of an impact and has better opportunity to improve. There is however STILL an impact, the point is not thinking "this is bad, that is bad, so they must be the same". Consuming sugar is bad for me at my current 250lbs, so is consuming bleach, and I can tell you which of those two is LESS bad for me. The lesser of two evils is still LESS.

"Saving" the environment is about doing better than we have been doing, not letting perfect get in the way of better. Nothing will be perfect, so if we only wait for perfect then nothing will get better.

 

Sorry for two posts but this again needs to be addressed.

Yes, folks fire back with "oil is worse", because again the idea is to move towards technology that is BETTER, not to be immobilized waiting for perfect. And yes, when you "question" the enviromental impact folks do fire back, because you continue to take the strawman argument and extreme points, they are responding to YOUR argument which is by your design not an opening for a technical discussion. You have drawn a line in the sand and thus responses are inevitably tailored to counter that, you have not crafted an intellectual discussion on the merits of either so why would you expect others to treat it as such.

Male performance has always been used in marketing regardless of vehicle type.

 

Will it be less? When 3rd World countries become 1st World, it will take 5 Earths to support the consumption. EVs are supposed to make lives better, extend lifespans, and continue to grow the population. Is that really good for the planet, bio-diversity, and the human race?

Me being a strawman? Did you not proof read what you just wrote? Sure bleach can kill you, so can water, can have too much of a good thing. Not sure you have a leg to stand on for the what is better for the environmental argument according to your diet and body mass. My wife and I eat organic that which we grow most of it ourselves, have a very low sugar and meat intake, both within our ideal weight. So who is better for the environment, us or you? We also believe in zero population growth, which we practice what we preach. Why continue the never ending consumption?

Maybe it should become less hospitable for humans, look what we have done to it. Perhaps our time is passed, and let something else have a chance to rise up from the ashes to rule the planet, like what it has done so many times in the past.

 

Sure I have, did you not read the pdf I linked to your post earlier?

Here it is again: https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1674&context=honors

 

I'm not sure you understand how participating in an exchange of ideas works. Yes, you posted a link, a link that says "look, I'm right".
Posting some link that agrees with what you said doesn't mean you have engaged in discussion. The point I made was that YOU have not engaged in an open minded discussion.

 

No, it is not about saying “I am right”. I am asking you to look at the data.

oh, and of course male performance is used to sell products. I am not referring to that, I am referring of using guilt to sell a supposed better tomorrow. Seems like you’re missing many of my points. Then fall back accusing me of being a strawman, that is a fairly typical fail safe of trying make someone look bad. You can keep going if you wish, I am not trying to win an argument. Only trying to get questions answered.

 

Well I've read similar reports like that but typically even with all that combined and from how I disseminated all the data as a lay person, to me, from prospecting oil and fossil fuel electricity production from coal and natural gas fracking, the end result of oil production and others is more harmful, in my mind, than lithium mining for Ev's. Which in time will not be needed as new battery tech that IS currently being tested. So right now, yes, lithium and the mineral mining isn't a good solution. But it's temporary as new tech comes to fruition. Fossil fuels haven't changed in 300 years.