General / Off-Topic Electric cars are stupid.

[[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos]

You anti-car, anti economy hand wringing manmade climate change doomsayers

I am anti car. Not sure where you got anti economy from. Even if you discount human contribution to climate change or deny climate change at all, it’s not doomsdaying to say we’re going to run out of oil.

I used to live in Hounslow, London. I’ve never owned a car. Hounslow had buses, trains, tube and Heathrow Airport, at the time, the world’s busiest airport. In no time at all I could have been on my way to anywhere in the country or world. I was as certainly as free as being able to drive a car.

 

[jasonbarron]

I am anti car. Not sure where you got anti economy from. Even if you discount human contribution to climate change or deny climate change at all, it’s not doomsdaying to say we’re going to run out of oil.

I used to live in Hounslow, London. I’ve never owned a car. Hounslow had buses, trains, tube and Heathrow Airport, at the time, the world’s busiest airport. In no time at all I could have been on my way to anywhere in the country or world. I was as certainly as free as being able to drive a car.

Sounds pretty wasteful and harmful to the Earth's ecosystem to me tbh. How does that fit in with your "e cars, nay, ALL cars! are bad for muh environment" line?

 

[[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos]

Sounds pretty wasteful and harmful to the Earth's ecosystem to me tbh. How does that fit in with your "e cars, nay, ALL cars! are bad for muh environment" line?

I never said it did, I said it because you said you have no freedom if you don’t have a car. I was highlighting that I had tons of freedom without a car. I was answering that very specific point which you claimed as a fact to demonstrate it was false.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Sounds pretty wasteful and harmful to the Earth's ecosystem to me tbh. How does that fit in with your "e cars, nay, ALL cars! are bad for muh environment" line?

It surely is, sadly, using cars is worse yet. Since you flinged the "anti-economy" tag I figure it'd be good to remind you transporation (including public transportation and cars) is crucial in a country's economic development.

 

[jasonbarron]

It surely is, sadly, using cars is worse yet. Since you flinged the "anti-economy" tag I figure it'd be good to remind you transporation (including public transportation and cars) is crucial in a country's economic development.

Yes, of course it is. Which is why I always shake my head at the bizarre contradictions so common in your argument(s).

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Yes, of course it is. Which is why I always shake my head at the bizarre contradictions so common in your argument(s).

Care to point them out? I'll even give you a rep for that

 

[askavir]

"I never leave my backyard so all cars should be banned!".
"I never rode a motorcycle, so motorcycles should be banned!"
"I don't smoke, so tobacco should be banned!".
"I don't drink, so alcohol should be banned!".
"I don't travel abroad, so airplanes should be banned!".
"I only eat vegetables, so meat should be banned!"
"I don't get laid, so contraception should be banned!".
"Ban all the things I don't need/like/use!"


We all pretty much heard these and more all around. People always loved to take away things from others. It's nothing new. And, now here's a radical proposition, what about if each live their lives as they see fit and mind his own business?

 

[Shinji Ikari]

"I never leave my backyard so all cars should be banned!".
"I never rode a motorcycle, so motorcycles should be banned!"
"I don't smoke, so tobacco should be banned!".
"I don't drink, so alcohol should be banned!".
"I don't travel abroad, so airplanes should be banned!".
"I only eat vegetables, so meat should be banned!"
"I don't get laid, so contraception should be banned!".
"Ban all the things I don't need/like/use!"


We all pretty much heard these and more all around. People always loved to take away things from others. It's nothing new. And, now here's a radical proposition, what about if each live their lives as they see fit and mind his own business?

Investing more on public transport would be enough for me...

 

[jasonbarron]

Care to point them out? I'll even give you a rep for that

Ok. I'll go comb through your entire post history and find one that isn't. If I can

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Ok. I'll go comb through your entire post history and find one that isn't. If I can

No rep then

 

[jasonbarron]

No rep then

Don't worry, buddy; I count every time you quote me (which is a bunch) as a rep.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Don't worry, buddy; I count every time you quote me (which is a bunch) as a rep.

What's the count?

 

[Stealthie]

Several countries have run on green power for days now. Main issue is that it's unreliable so not ideal for base load - but (ironically) once you have a lot of electric cars then they can be used in a smart grid to store electricity and provide it as required (along with other methods like hydro-storage).

Speaking as somebody who works in the petrochemical industry and has plenty of experience with power stations, the biggest problem with "alternative energy" is, indeed, that they aren't continuous or reliable.
The real problem with this, however, is that it means you can't reduce the output from conventional power stations in response to increased performance from clean-energy sources.
You've got your power station burning gas or coal and when there's a lot of energy being generated by, say, wind-turbines, the power station will carry right on burning gas/coal but they'll just shut down a couple of turbines in response to the reduced load.

I suppose it could be argued that there is some saving as a result, given that the time between services of a turbine that spends some time dormant will be longer but, then again, for every turbine that's having it's life extended as a result of being dormant, there's a bunch of wind-turbines that will require extra maintenance as a result of increased workload.

Incidentally, it's a bit of a "meme" within the industry that wind-turbines take up to 120 years to pay for themselves, in terms of the energy-cost of manufacturing them.... and they require new blades/bearings/gears every five years (at best), thus continually extending the time it'll take for one to become "carbon neutral".


Bottom line, for me, is that when I can recharge an electric car as quickly as I can fill up a car's fuel tank I'll pay them some attention.
I guess they're viable for people who only make local journeys but my "commute" is 300 miles so I'd probably require at least one extended stop during the journey.

 

[Patrick_68000]

"I never leave my backyard so all cars should be banned!".
"I never rode a motorcycle, so motorcycles should be banned!"
"I don't smoke, so tobacco should be banned!".
"I don't drink, so alcohol should be banned!".
"I don't travel abroad, so airplanes should be banned!".
"I only eat vegetables, so meat should be banned!"
"I don't get laid, so contraception should be banned!".
"Ban all the things I don't need/like/use!"


We all pretty much heard these and more all around. People always loved to take away things from others. It's nothing new. And, now here's a radical proposition, what about if each live their lives as they see fit and mind his own business?

Indeed all these things consumed excessively are harmful to the planet and the human health and increasingly questioned in the civilized societies, by the people (more and more numerous) with a developed awareness of the human health and the environment.

No doubt that over time, all these things will look obsolete and retrograde when the human intelligence has crossed an additional level.

More and more people have already crossed this level, for the others (less and less numerous), they still live in their egoist certainties and their illusions.

 

[Han_Zen]

Bottom line, for me, is that when I can recharge an electric car as quickly as I can fill up a car's fuel tank I'll pay them some attention.
I guess they're viable for people who only make local journeys but my "commute" is 300 miles so I'd probably require at least one extended stop during the journey.

When the infrastructure is in place, this isn't much of an issue on the latest models. These cars do full rout planning with knowledge of all speed chargers available.
Up here I think we have passed full 50% electric, on new car sales. On top of that there are the chargeable hybrids.

People don't buy these cars just to save the environment. Because of government policies, many save money. Electric cars have less tax, pay less or nothing on toll roads and do in some cases have access to buss lanes. Electric bikes and scooters are also gaining popularity, for local transport. Things are changing quickly.

Luckily we have almost 100% hydro electric power production. That makes it easier to defend the benefits given to electric vehicles.

 

[Patrick_68000]

Fun fact is, at the time where I came to the city I'm still living in (about 30 years ago, was working here) I was still driving a car. And woah did I hate this town at first, cause its core is utterly boring and ugly. Until I started moving more and more by bicycle (why is another story and mainly had to do with me stopping my chain-smoking nonsense). 4 years later I sold my car and at this time I've learned that the surroundings of my ugly hometime are truly amazing! I still wonder why it had to take a bicycle to realize that. My current theory is that cars tend to induce a special mindset and lifestyle, namely that of getting far out without losing much time and that with a clear purpose.

You think that's freedom, I get that. But read on.

The beautiful places I'm talking about are only accessible by foot or a decent mountain-bike. But since I was a lazy car driver and couch potato, I was too unfit to reach these places by foot, nor did I had any clear purpose to visit these places. Heck, I even couldn't imagine what to expect! Walking in the forests just because? Hell no, the hectic mindset of a typical car driver just forbade such an utter waste of time.

See where the devil's wheel take its start?

So true !

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Wind power and greens...In my country on national level Green party makes much noise for wind power. On local level, well....When someone tries to build wind power farm on hilly area there is much whining about how those wind turbines ruin natural scenery. When somebody tries to build offshore wind power farm there starts whining about "wind turbines kill seabirds"...essentially you are allowed to build those turbines to some valley where they are hidden and preferably there are no birds. Sadly such magic areas tend to have quite bad wind conditions. Off course some members of Green party are little bit intellectually challenged, at least on technical questions. True anecdotes: "Electricity comes from wall outlets, why there is need for power plants", or "Why cannot we build hydro power on lakes, there are many lakes in Finland", well yeah there ARE many lakes, but lakes tend to have smooth water level, no drops involved. Hard to make hydro power with such situation.

 

[Stealthie]

When the infrastructure is in place, this isn't much of an issue on the latest models. These cars do full rout planning with knowledge of all speed chargers available.
Up here I think we have passed full 50% electric, on new car sales. On top of that there are the chargeable hybrids.

People don't buy these cars just to save the environment. Because of government policies, many save money. Electric cars have less tax, pay less or nothing on toll roads and do in some cases have access to buss lanes. Electric bikes and scooters are also gaining popularity, for local transport. Things are changing quickly.

Luckily we have almost 100% hydro electric power production. That makes it easier to defend the benefits given to electric vehicles.

Not entirely sure that's a good thing.

I mean, if people are buying electric cars because of external incentives, rather than because they're a superior product, that doesn't say much for the integrity of the product.

I guess you have to look at statistics related to this stuff.
In the UK, for example, I believe the average daily commute is around 40 miles.
That suggests EVs are viable for a lot of people.
OTOH, a different study revealed that around 20% of people commute weekly and only get home for weekends.
That rather suggests there are millions of people who aren't likely to be keen on EVs.

Then there's the issue of charging.
The vast majority of housing, in the UK, is either rented, terraced housing or flats, none of which make it likely that the occupants will be able to charge an EV overnight.
Given all the incentives to use EVs, that creates something of a double-whammy, where the only people who can take advantage of the incentives to use EVs are people who're already rich enough to be able to own/rent a property with off-street parking and all the people who can't afford that are stuck with IC cars and can't take advantage of the incentives to own an EV.


Which leads me to another, more general, gripe with environmental legislation.
I am absolutely opposed to the use of taxation to incentivise environmentalism.
All that does is bar poor people from being able to do stuff and turn things into the preserve of rich people.

Use taxation to encourage people to use EVs and all you really do is make it harder/more expensive for millions of poor people - people who simply can't afford to buy an EV - to do simple things like go to the supermarket while rich people will still be able to afford the tax to run their IC cars or purchase EVs.

IMO, environmental legislation should be all about limiting things arbitrarily or leaving them completely unregulated.
Give people an annual "carbon quota" which they can use however they see fit.
If you're a rich person and you're heating an 18 bedroom house all year around, you're NOT driving a Jaguar or flying to Bali for your holiday, regardless of how much carbon tax you're willing to pay, because you don't have enough of your "carbon quota" left.
Same rules should apply to everybody, all the time.
No exceptions - not for royalty, politicians or businesspeople.
No buying your way out of the restrictions placed on everybody else.

 

[Han_Zen]

Not entirely sure that's a good thing.

I mean, if people are buying electric cars because of external incentives, rather than because they're a superior product, that doesn't say much for the integrity of the product.

I guess you have to look at statistics related to this stuff.
In the UK, for example, I believe the average daily commute is around 40 miles.
That suggests EVs are viable for a lot of people.
OTOH, a different study revealed that around 20% of people commute weekly and only get home for weekends.
That rather suggests there are millions of people who aren't likely to be keen on EVs.

Then there's the issue of charging.
The vast majority of housing, in the UK, is either rented, terraced housing or flats, none of which make it likely that the occupants will be able to charge an EV overnight.
Given all the incentives to use EVs, that creates something of a double-whammy, where the only people who can take advantage of the incentives to use EVs are people who're already rich enough to be able to own/rent a property with off-street parking and all the people who can't afford that are stuck with IC cars and can't take advantage of the incentives to own an EV.


Which leads me to another, more general, gripe with environmental legislation.
I am absolutely opposed to the use of taxation to incentivise environmentalism.
All that does is bar poor people from being able to do stuff and turn things into the preserve of rich people.

Use taxation to encourage people to use EVs and all you really do is make it harder/more expensive for millions of poor people - people who simple can't afford to buy an EV - to do simple things like go to the supermarket while rich people will still be able to afford the tax to run their IC cars or purchase EVs.

IMO, environmental legislation should be all about limiting things arbitrarily or leaving them completely unregulated.
Give people an annual "carbon quota" which they can use however they see fit.
If you're a rich person and you're heating an 18 bedroom house all year around, you're NOT driving a Jaguar or flying to Bali for your holiday, regardless of how much carbon tax you're willing to pay, because you don't have enough of your "carbon quota" left.
Same rules should apply to everybody, all the time.
No exceptions - not for royalty, politicians or businesspeople.
No buying your way out of the restrictions placed on everybody else.

Taxes on cars have always been high in Norway. If you buy a new car you pay about 40-60% in car tax and VAT. On electric you only pay the 25% VAT.
This means that E-Cars costs about the same as in low tax counties, while fossil cars costs up to twice as much.
As E-car sales have been higher than expected, the total is a tax reduction.

I don't know what impact this has on CO2 totals, but it helps quite a bit on the air quality in cities. Particularly in the winter, when the fumes tend to get locked in over the city.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

IMO, environmental legislation should be all about limiting things arbitrarily or leaving them completely unregulated.
Give people an annual "carbon quota" which they can use however they see fit.
If you're a rich person and you're heating an 18 bedroom house all year around, you're NOT driving a Jaguar or flying to Bali for your holiday, regardless of how much carbon tax you're willing to pay, because you don't have enough of your "carbon quota" left.
Same rules should apply to everybody, all the time.
No exceptions - not for royalty, politicians or businesspeople.
No buying your way out of the restrictions placed on everybody else.

Considering how such kind of schemes work those restrictions do not apply for people running system. People belonging to eco-dictatorship party would have their mansions and luxuries. And with hefty enough bribes so would rich and connected people too. Only ones really affected would be middle class people.