Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not anti EV. My daily driver is one and has been for 8 years. I'm planning to replace another ICE vehicle with an EV soon. Charge them with my solar panels.
I'm a conservative. I have plenty of conservative friends that love EV's.
The liberals are the ones who are causing the division. They think they only they care about the environment and that all republicans drive smelly pickups and water their yards with oil or something. Libs are a joke.
It works fine for now, because there are not yet enough EVs in the market to start manifesting the problems associated if government forces EVs to take over the automobile market.
Unless government creates laws or regulations to prevent it, then America can acquire all of it's energy needs from within America. If every foreign nation refused to buy US fossil fuels, and refused to sell the US any, we would have plenty enough coal, oil and gas to supply our needs. However, we do not have enough rare earth metals in the US to serve our needs in the EV car future that Biden and his admin are spinning.
I just posted three links that explain the problems we have encountered with mining and disposing of the waste from producing electric cars and car batteries. If you still do not see a problem with the inability to properly dispose of billions of EV car batteries, then I really cannot help you.
So is your assumption that electric cars will be banned because of the problems with disposing of the waste?
It is my understanding that a Lithium battery even after it can no longer hold a charge, still possesses all the same minerals as it did when it was first manufactured. Which means that every Lithium battery can be melted down, the minerals refined and re-manufactured into new batteries. Plus keep in mind that the world's largest deposit of Lithium is located here in the USA. It was only recently discovered and local ordinances do not allow mining. So it is a virgin resource.
Tesla getting ready for a HUGE party tomorrow in Austin. And since no one in Austin seems to be able to get a ticket, I can only assume the 15K in attendance will be A-Listers from all over the world. It should be crazy. They will be making a TX flag out of a bunch of Model Y's, reveal the Tesla Semi, another Cybertruck reveal probably, crazy fireworks and drones.
Here is the latest video from the guy who has been documenting all of this with his drone footage, compares GigaTexas in size to all the other Tesla Gigafactories:
With a thread title that states "Electric vehicles are NOT the future" and a question that asks "Are EV's the future"...lol
I think they may be the future main vehicles but not anytime soon, maybe 20 to 40 years from now.
It all comes down to money. Now that people are digging deeper into their pockets with the high price of gasoline, many are changing their stance on climate change.
When the world transitioned from horseback to gas-powered automobiles, there was very a clear, plain, and massive functionality increase. So much so that everyone instantly saw the future and we dedicated decades and billions of dollars to creating an infrastructure to support them. People flocked to the new technology and demanded automobiles on the free market in massive numbers. In the USA, this led to the most successful and meaningful century in world history.
Fast forward 100 or so years, and there was a supposed new revolution into the next generation of vehicles that we would migrate to: electrics. But after 20 years, we've seen almost zero growth in the segment and still more than 98% of vehicles on the road are gas-powered.
Here's the problem: Does anyone in the year 2022, 20 years into the "electric" generation, look at a Tesla or a Prius, then look at say a Corvette and an F150, and say "wow, there's a clear, massive functionality increase? I doubt it, in fact I'd bet most people would say it's a functionality decrease, and a hassle increase.
So this "new generation" is not fueled by functionality buy rather by philosophy. We are supposed to dedicate billions of dollars and probably decades again, to switch over to electrics not because they work better, but because we are going to stave off supposed environmental doom.
The problem is that millions upon millions of people in this country think this is BS. When you are basing your product on environmental dogma, rather than actual functionality, it's a clear and present loser (as we are seeing). People are certainly not seeing this clear future like they did during the horse to automobile transition.
Many proponents of EV's are calling for punitive taxes on the "old technology" (even though electricity has been harnessed by man way before the gas engine was invented) in order to get more traction, but if you have to punish your customer to buy it, isn't that a sign that your product is a dud?
We have hundreds of years worth of fossil fuels with witch to make gasoline. Electrics will always have the problem of batteries and re-charging. I think that the next iteration of vehicles will still be the same "instant" replenishment of power like gasoline, not some technology based on charging depleted cells, despite the massive media gas lighting and brain washing that so many have fallen for.
What say you?
I say functionality is important but it isn't everything. What is the most functional form of government? Probably fascism, but that doesn't mean we'll all give up on democracy and install dictators to make the trains run on time.
You think "the left" politicized climate change? That's hilarious, but not unexpected here in this RWNJ echo chamber.
I mean, you seriously don't understand that?
Al Gore made a fortune on it. Every left wing politician today, like a parrot, says "Existential Threat!" when talking about it.
This goes all the way back to the 1980s, and every prediction that these people have made has turned out to not come true.
You really don't understand it's a political issue? Wow. You're the perfect type of voter that the democrats are targeting.
Even the name is a carefully crafted PR stunt. It went from 'Global Warming' to 'Climate Change' when data showed "warming" wasn't even occurring! 'Climate Change' is more of a catch-all.
When the world transitioned from horseback to gas-powered automobiles, there was very a clear, plain, and massive functionality increase. So much so that everyone instantly saw the future and we dedicated decades and billions of dollars to creating an infrastructure to support them. People flocked to the new technology and demanded automobiles on the free market in massive numbers. In the USA, this led to the most successful and meaningful century in world history.
Fast forward 100 or so years, and there was a supposed new revolution into the next generation of vehicles that we would migrate to: electrics. But after 20 years, we've seen almost zero growth in the segment and still more than 98% of vehicles on the road are gas-powered.
Here's the problem: Does anyone in the year 2022, 20 years into the "electric" generation, look at a Tesla or a Prius, then look at say a Corvette and an F150, and say "wow, there's a clear, massive functionality increase? I doubt it, in fact I'd bet most people would say it's a functionality decrease, and a hassle increase.
So this "new generation" is not fueled by functionality buy rather by philosophy. We are supposed to dedicate billions of dollars and probably decades again, to switch over to electrics not because they work better, but because we are going to stave off supposed environmental doom.
The problem is that millions upon millions of people in this country think this is BS. When you are basing your product on environmental dogma, rather than actual functionality, it's a clear and present loser (as we are seeing). People are certainly not seeing this clear future like they did during the horse to automobile transition.
Many proponents of EV's are calling for punitive taxes on the "old technology" (even though electricity has been harnessed by man way before the gas engine was invented) in order to get more traction, but if you have to punish your customer to buy it, isn't that a sign that your product is a dud?
We have hundreds of years worth of fossil fuels with witch to make gasoline. Electrics will always have the problem of batteries and re-charging. I think that the next iteration of vehicles will still be the same "instant" replenishment of power like gasoline, not some technology based on charging depleted cells, despite the massive media gas lighting and brain washing that so many have fallen for.
What say you?
Gas to electric is certainly not the same as horse to automobile. I don't think anyone is equating the two. One was a completely new mode of transportation, the other is merely an improvement on an existing mode. A better analogy would be 4G to 5G technology in cell phones. 5G affords faster downloads and wider bandwidth, thus gradually 5G will take over.
Electric vehicles won't take over all at once, and many people will continue to drive ICE vehicles for years. But certainly EVs are the future. How many people today are using 2G cell phones?
Oh, and BTW, your statement that "...after 20 years, we've seen almost zero growth in the segment.." shows you must not have looked out your window recently.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
