I never said I cared about the environment.
1 Like
Hmm, maybe I should have compared them to spent solar panels.
https://community-new.goactuary.com/t/electric-vehicles/1731/252?u=twig93
I have no kids, and am probably one of the most materialistic people out there. Environment means little to me.
Itās just funny to me that you continue to bring out personal anecdotes to argue against EV, when thatās not even what itās about. your personal inconveniences will not be relevant for the future generations. If you have noticed from COVID, people are able to adapt pretty quickly. If taking a 30 min break every 2 hours is the norm, then that will be the norm, and people will get used to it. I know YOU wonāt be used to it, but you will die, and your offsprings will be used to it, as that will be all they know.
1 Like
I saw that earlier today.
Waste and recycling from solar panels and batteries are clearly problem and apples to apples comparison.
I think comparing them to spent Nuclear Fuel rods is not apples-to-apples.
With existing technology it would add a bit of drive time, but I think we can assume EVs will improve and be able to get you there with only 1 charge pretty soon. You seem to be a bit of an outlier in that you will even do a 15-hour drive in a day. Iām actually in that cohort as well, but most people would just split that trip up anyway. Besides, you can just charge up while you stop for lunch. I prefer to just drive straight through, but to me thatās a reasonable compromise.
Realistically this one reason why carbon taxes are a thing.
Twig should be able to drive all she wants and fly all she wants, and just pay some extra amount for using the extra carbon.
Then edge cases like cannon ball runs and turkey shopping donāt mean anything.
3 Likes
Iāve always expected that EVs would develop towards having batteries that could be swapped out. That could be a pretty quick āfill upā.
They donāt seem to be going that way, though, so there are probably technical issues that I donāt understand.
Okay, I had the numbers wrong. Youāre figuring 200 miles per charge without AC.
I think EVs will eventually do better than that. But, batteries will never (in my lifetime) have the energy density of gasoline.
AOC can say no ICE cars. I can say that lots of ICE cars can easily be replaced by electric. Weāre so far away from ālotsā that Iām not too concerned about how close we will eventually get to 100%.
Iām more concerned about electric generating capacity than about battery capacity.
Well then when and if that happens, I would be less opposed at that time.
Iām off for a few hours and someone drives the conversation off a cliff.
Back to AOC, please.
Yeah, thereās lots of other issues, including battery disposal.
Where I live the power is a mix of coal and nuclear, both of which AOC wants to get rid of.
So Iām not clear on how Iāll even have electricity to power the car, but Iām assuming that theyāll come up with something.
Oil burning power plants maybe?
$\textcolor{red}{\text{Maybe someone should start a new thread and ask mods to move posts}}$
I just might.
EVs are horrid for the environment as far as waste from manufacturing and disposal are concerned. The batteries take a LOT of energy to make and donāt break down into pretty chemicals, like rust. We also simply donāt have enough of the materials needed to move all cars over to EV. Cobalt and Lithium are among the limiting factors.
What everyone seems to forget about them is that they are emission free AT THE POINT OF TRAVEL ONLY. The emissions are moved to the power plant. They also suffer from storage and power transmission leakage. Still better than IC with gas or diesel for emissions, but not a panacea.
Nuclear energy is a terrific idea. Basically no carbon emissions. The new 3rd generation uranium reactors are MUCH safer. They actually have passive safety systems which can fully prevent meltdowns. Thorium pile reactors actually canāt āmelt downā, are scalable, and as a bonus could use high level waste from uranium breeder reactors as part of the fuel. Thus ridding us of a significant portion of our waste problem. Still has low level waste with around a 500yr containment time. But way better than the 10,000 year uranium waste.
3 Likes
Huh? Weāre talking about her policy proposals and their hypothetical impact if they were implemented on her proposed timeline. Seems pretty on-topic, especially by political standards.
Whatās the end result? Why is that worth trillions upon trillions of $'s and immediate disruption to the global economy to fix? Whatās the difference between the US doing something now with no buy in from India and China and the US doing nothing now? How likely are India and China to go along? Iām not sure I understand whatās even possible if the US commits all itās energy towards this and Iām nearly certain there is no political will to commit all our energy towards this.
I mostly agree with your post but will nitpick this part slightly.
The emissions vary a lot by type of power. Where I lived in the Northwest the power was largely hydro, so EVs there really do reduce emissions.
If the nuclear power plant near me now is decommissioned and not replaced when it reaches the end of its life then itāll be almost entirely coal. In that case EV is just moving the emissions from one place to another.
AOCās plan seems to be getting rid of fossil fuel burning power plants altogether (and stupidly also nuclear). So in her hypothetical plan the emissions wouldnāt exist as all power would be wind, hydro, or solarā¦ maybe one or two others that she finds acceptable. (Tidal power is exciting if it can be made to work profitably and without environmental harm, although I have no idea of AOCās position on tidal power.)
I donāt think itās possible or desirable to convert our nationās entire energy production to wind, solar & hydro by 2030, but that does seem to be pretty close to her goal (exceptions for other power sources sheās ok with.)
the solution for the future is nuclear. whether built on earth, or that giant nuclear reactor in the sky.
either way, itās nuclear
Hell, just look at high-speed rail between Chicago and St. Louis. Thatās been discussed since I was in high school. Crossings have been closed, tracks realigned in a few places, and gates installed to prevent vehicles from trying to beat an approaching train so that high speed trains can run between the two cities at 110 mph or more. Itās a relative straight shot, it should be easy to pull off by now.
The max speed is still 79 mph, and thereās 8 or 9 stops on the route - meaning, a trip between the two cities on train is still 5 1/2 hours. I can drive it comfortably in about that time; I can shave an hour or more off if I drive it as the I-55 Superspeedway like some people do. A flight takes a little over an hour (though each airport is well out of downtown) but generally run every 60-90 minutes. Did I mention trains are scheduled? Thereās 5 from STL to CHI; hope youāre good with departing at 4:30am, or 6:40am, or 7:55am, or 3:00pm, or 5:40pm.
I will give credit, though. At least the Amtrak station in St. Louis is now an actual building with seating, instead of a literal trailer in the middle of a rail yard that was converted into a ticket booth with no other cover from the elements or the vagrants wandering around. Progress, people.
1 Like