Commentary #6: Global Warming

[wal]

In the end all of this would be an investment that would cost more up front, but save money over time and that would be the point in moving towards an EV in the future.

Yes you are right. I thought that way when I first got married, the upfront cost was expensive, but over time I have saved heaps by moving to the shed.

[Frivillesid]

reuters.com



Does the fact that this is physically impossible sway your rosy optimism?

Where exactly did I say I favored any mandate? I would suggest that you avoid using any generic blanket assertions. For me personally, if I decide to make the switch to an EV it would be due to cost savings as they are cheaper to own and operate over the life span of the vehicle. I suspect that many more people will come to this realization over the next decade as they become more affordable and the transition will be natural and inevitable. If you want to stay with your gas powered car that is fine with me. But your choices will become much more limited as demand for such vehicles plummets. I would love to check back in with you after the next decade to see what you will be driving. I am betting you will be sitting behind the wheel of a plug in hybrid type of vehicle.

But if your concern is about the requirements placed on California's power grid, they also signed legislation for updating it as well and are investing in the infrastructure to do so. Perhaps the growth of EVs will outpace the updates to their grid and it will fail which is certainly possible. But change takes time and investment. Our current power grid is old and outdated and needs updated regardless of EV use. Or do you suggest we just stick with the state of our current grid and do nothing, because that has ramifications and large potential for failure as well?

[Mark Rippetoe]

Where exactly did I say I favored any mandate? I would suggest that you avoid using any generic blanket assertions. For me personally, if I decide to make the switch to an EV it would be due to cost savings as they are cheaper to own and operate over the life span of the vehicle. I suspect that many more people will come to this realization over the next decade as they become more affordable and the transition will be natural and inevitable. If you want to stay with your gas powered car that is fine with me. But your choices will become much more limited as demand for such vehicles plummets. I would love to check back in with you after the next decade to see what you will be driving. I am betting you will be sitting behind the wheel of a plug in hybrid type of vehicle.

But if your concern is about the requirements placed on California's power grid, they also signed legislation for updating it as well and are investing in the infrastructure to do so. Perhaps the growth of EVs will outpace the updates to their grid and it will fail which is certainly possible. But change takes time and investment. Our current power grid is old and outdated and needs updated regardless of EV use. Or do you suggest we just stick with the state of our current grid and do nothing, because that has ramifications and large potential for failure as well?

Stupid ass, look: I'm explaining the resistance to the idea. People don't like being told what cars they can drive. When you start doing that, people get pissed. And absent a discussion about nuclear power, this is all bullshit anyway.

Did you wear the mask during Covid?

[anticausal]

All infrastructure is deteriorating at an accelerating pace, the borders are being flooded like no nation in history, California is 100 billion in the red on their high-speed rail disaster, and the US deep state is desperately trying to pick unwinnable fights with Russia and China, while they can't even secure shipping routes in the Red Sea from Houthi Rebel attacks. Yet there are still people who actually think we're about to enter a techno-bright future with a fully modernized power grid, where everyone is buzzing around in a shiny new EV like it's an episode of the Jetsons. It's absolutely hilarious.

[Frivillesid]

The fact that a 15 minute commute is mentioned here is very interesting.

How so? Is your point that you don't think it is far enough to make a a huge difference? If that was your point I agree and that is why I am not in a rush to go buy a new vehicle at the moment. As I said, my current car is paid off and is reasonably good on gas. Keeping my current vehicle will save me more money at the moment. But when the time does come to get a new vehicle I will purchase what will make the most sense for me financially at the time which is unlikely to be a car with an ICE.

Stupid ass, look: I'm explaining the resistance to the idea. People don't like being told what cars they can drive. When you start doing that, people get pissed. And absent a discussion about nuclear power, this is all bullshit anyway.

Did you wear the mask during Covid?

The thing is, you are not explaining anything. Your response was simply a link and a quote from the article without any context. Learn to use your words. I am not telling you what car you need to drive, but I am willing to bet that within the next 10 years your own personal choice will be a vehicle with an electric engine. But if you do decide to stick with and ICE, I am perfectly fine with that. Most other people wont.

[Jason Donaldson]

But if your concern is about the requirements placed on California's power grid, they also signed legislation for updating it as well and are investing in the infrastructure to do so. Perhaps the growth of EVs will outpace the updates to their grid and it will fail which is certainly possible. But change takes time and investment. Our current power grid is old and outdated and needs updated regardless of EV use. Or do you suggest we just stick with the state of our current grid and do nothing, because that has ramifications and large potential for failure as well?

california rolling blackouts at DuckDuckGo

You're talking about a state that has already been failing to provide an adequate electric grid for quite some time, prior to forcing an explosion in EV-based demand. Your "perhaps" is the wrong adverb.

[Frivillesid]

california rolling blackouts at DuckDuckGo

You're talking about a state that has already been failing to provide an adequate electric grid for quite some time, prior to forcing an explosion in EV-based demand. Your "perhaps" is the wrong adverb.

So you are arguing that California's energy grid (much like the rest of the nation) is failing and is unable to keep up with current energy demands, which is a problem that will only get worse in the future. And your solution is to do what? Nothing? There is an incentive and need for change and technology is making this possible. Why invest in the future when we can keep everything the same and certainly fail? Perhaps we should have listened to all those folks complaining about the impracticality of those horseless carriages back in the early 1900s. The arguments on this board are astonishingly similar to the arguments back then.

[Jared Hunt]

But if your concern is about the requirements placed on California's power grid, they also signed legislation for updating it as well and are investing in the infrastructure to do so. Perhaps the growth of EVs will outpace the updates to their grid and it will fail which is certainly possible. But change takes time and investment. Our current power grid is old and outdated and needs updated regardless of EV use. Or do you suggest we just stick with the state of our current grid and do nothing, because that has ramifications and large potential for failure as well?

The push for EVs is an environmental push. It's supposedly based on concern for the planet and fears of global warming/climate change.
When it is pointed out that our current electrical grid is sometimes inefficient even without having to power a substantial percentage of personal travel, the response is that we can improve the grid, expand capacity, etc.

But if you read about how Biden and company plan to "modernize" the electrical grid, there's just a lot of hand-waving about wind and solar. No mention of nuclear or coal. One gets the impression, they aren't actually interested in increasing the supply of electricity.
I also hear bits and pieces, as one does when one pays attention, about how this or that leftist billionaire wants to reduce the world's population.

So putting all of that together, the conclusion I draw is that they want to make the switch to EVs without significantly expanding the capacity of the grid and that they want to do this by decreasing the demand for electricity instead of by increasing the supply. In other words, they want us to stop reproducing and start dying faster.

[Frivillesid]

Here is an interesting quote taken from the congressional record in 1875.

The dangers are obvious. Stores of gasoline in the hands of people interested primarily in profit would constitute a fire and explosive hazard of the first rank. Horseless carriages propelled by gasoline might attain speeds of 14 or even 20 miles per hour. The menace to our people of vehicles of this type hurtling through our streets and along our roads and poisoning the atmosphere would call for prompt legislative action even if the military and economic implications were not so overwhelming… [T]he cost of producing [gasoline] is far beyond the financial capacity of private industry… In addition the development of this new power may displace the use of horses, which would wreck our agriculture.

Congressional Record, 1875

[Mark Rippetoe]

So you are arguing that California's energy grid (much like the rest of the nation) is failing and is unable to keep up with current energy demands, which is a problem that will only get worse in the future. And your solution is to do what? Nothing? There is an incentive and need for change and technology is making this possible. Why invest in the future when we can keep everything the same and certainly fail?

No, stupid ass: California's solution is to do nothing.