Buttgig Speaks
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Buttgig Speaks:
@Jolly said in Buttgig Speaks:
Range.
Some folks need to take a drive through West Texas in their EV.
Why is that the benchmark for an EV? Why would that be the benchmark for any vehicle?
That’s right, you tell them what a bicycle’s range is!
@Axtremus said in Buttgig Speaks:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Buttgig Speaks:
@Jolly said in Buttgig Speaks:
Range.
Some folks need to take a drive through West Texas in their EV.
Why is that the benchmark for an EV? Why would that be the benchmark for any vehicle?
That’s right, you tell them what a bicycle’s range is!
20 miles on a standard bike, about 40 on an eBike. Still just a drop in the bucket for West Texas. -
Electric cars may well be cheaper in the future, but if you are talking about cheap and mobility for the poor, you are talking about $10K for buying a used car, not $50K for a new car. What used electric car can be bought for $10K? Plenty of options in that price range for gasoline cars...
Electric cars can at this point be great "second cars". We are considering an electric car within the next 2-3 years that will only be used for local (within 100km around the house) driving.
-
I dont think he is necessarily wrong. Every article I have seen indicated that the cost of running/operating a electric car are less than a gas powered car.
Just like gas powered cars have gotten more efficient, electric cars will also continue to get more efficient.
If you would have asked 120 years ago, if a gas powered car would save you more money than a steam powered car, there may have been quite a few people who said steam powered car was cheaper.
QUOTE
Steam-powered automobiles were popular with early buyers. Steam was safe, reliable, and familiar. People had decades of experience with it in trains and boats, and even in experimental road vehicles. However, early steam cars required constant care and attention--and up to 30 minutes to start. Automated quick-firing boilers solved these problems, but not before more efficient gasoline engines dominated the market and made steam cars obsolete
UNQUOTEYes, the electricity has to come from somewhere, just like the gasoline has to come from somewhere (oil in the ground --> ship/pipeline --> refinery --> transport to petrol station, etc.)
Change is a constant.
In my opinion, with a 50 year view, improvements in battery technology, and new ways to create energy (hydrogen fuel cells??), electric cars will dominate by 2100.
I think that improvements in electric car technology is following a "squared function" while gasoline car technology is following a "line function"
@taiwan_girl said in Buttgig Speaks:
In my opinion, with a 50 year view, improvements in battery technology, and new ways to create energy (hydrogen fuel cells??), electric cars will dominate by 2100.
So what's the rush? Assume 50 years and think how much things have changed (and improved) by simple market forces since 1972. No need to for ideologically driven governmental meddling (which probably will have tax and other economic implications that most harm poorer people while enriching the wealthy).
-
@taiwan_girl said in Buttgig Speaks:
In my opinion, with a 50 year view, improvements in battery technology, and new ways to create energy (hydrogen fuel cells??), electric cars will dominate by 2100.
So what's the rush? Assume 50 years and think how much things have changed (and improved) by simple market forces since 1972. No need to for ideologically driven governmental meddling (which probably will have tax and other economic implications that most harm poorer people while enriching the wealthy).
@Ivorythumper In your statement, I agree with alot of it. Let the market force the issue.
But, I think that battery technology will develop faster than maybe @Klaus believes and I think that interstructure for electric vehicles will improve quite quickly more than maybe @jolly believes. (I am sure that if someone wanted to drive cross country in 1920, they would have trouble making it from gas station to gas station without very careful planning.) And I think that charging times will decrease, maybe more than @George-K believes, maybe by battery swapping. (Pull into a "battery" station, your battery pack is removed, and a fresh charge one is dropped in. You are on your way in equal time to filling up with gas. You dont "own" the battery pack, so maybe cars would be cheaper. Yes, this would require alot of collaboration between car makers and is something that probably will not happen for many many years, if at all, but I believe that would be the way solve alot of the charging issues)
-
@Ivorythumper In your statement, I agree with alot of it. Let the market force the issue.
But, I think that battery technology will develop faster than maybe @Klaus believes and I think that interstructure for electric vehicles will improve quite quickly more than maybe @jolly believes. (I am sure that if someone wanted to drive cross country in 1920, they would have trouble making it from gas station to gas station without very careful planning.) And I think that charging times will decrease, maybe more than @George-K believes, maybe by battery swapping. (Pull into a "battery" station, your battery pack is removed, and a fresh charge one is dropped in. You are on your way in equal time to filling up with gas. You dont "own" the battery pack, so maybe cars would be cheaper. Yes, this would require alot of collaboration between car makers and is something that probably will not happen for many many years, if at all, but I believe that would be the way solve alot of the charging issues)
This post is deleted! -
@taiwan_girl said in Buttgig Speaks:
In my opinion, with a 50 year view, improvements in battery technology, and new ways to create energy (hydrogen fuel cells??), electric cars will dominate by 2100.
So what's the rush? Assume 50 years and think how much things have changed (and improved) by simple market forces since 1972. No need to for ideologically driven governmental meddling (which probably will have tax and other economic implications that most harm poorer people while enriching the wealthy).
@Ivorythumper said in Buttgig Speaks:
@taiwan_girl said in Buttgig Speaks:
In my opinion, with a 50 year view, improvements in battery technology, and new ways to create energy (hydrogen fuel cells??), electric cars will dominate by 2100.
So what's the rush? Assume 50 years and think how much things have changed (and improved) by simple market forces since 1972. No need to for ideologically driven governmental meddling (which probably will have tax and other economic implications that most harm poorer people while enriching the wealthy).
I think the two go hand in hand. I work in industrial safety, and whilst technology and the market can push for great advances, there also tends to be resistance to change from other stakeholders, which sometimes requires a bit of government 'meddling' to overcome.
The problem tends to be when legislative authorities get involved, they're frequently not knowledgeable enough of the details to help make improvements - a light touch from government is generally better than them getting into the weeds.
I was only joking
-
What electricity shortfall?
https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-will-overload-the-power-grid
-
Uh, Ben may be wrong.
Checked out grain futures lately?
-
@Jolly said in Buttgig Speaks:
Uh, Ben may be wrong.
Checked out grain futures lately?
Bette Midler and Ben Shapiro arguing about energy production.
Has it come to this?
-
@Ivorythumper said in Buttgig Speaks:
@taiwan_girl said in Buttgig Speaks:
In my opinion, with a 50 year view, improvements in battery technology, and new ways to create energy (hydrogen fuel cells??), electric cars will dominate by 2100.
So what's the rush? Assume 50 years and think how much things have changed (and improved) by simple market forces since 1972. No need to for ideologically driven governmental meddling (which probably will have tax and other economic implications that most harm poorer people while enriching the wealthy).
I think the two go hand in hand. I work in industrial safety, and whilst technology and the market can push for great advances, there also tends to be resistance to change from other stakeholders, which sometimes requires a bit of government 'meddling' to overcome.
The problem tends to be when legislative authorities get involved, they're frequently not knowledgeable enough of the details to help make improvements - a light touch from government is generally better than them getting into the weeds.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Buttgig Speaks:
@Ivorythumper said in Buttgig Speaks:
@taiwan_girl said in Buttgig Speaks:
In my opinion, with a 50 year view, improvements in battery technology, and new ways to create energy (hydrogen fuel cells??), electric cars will dominate by 2100.
So what's the rush? Assume 50 years and think how much things have changed (and improved) by simple market forces since 1972. No need to for ideologically driven governmental meddling (which probably will have tax and other economic implications that most harm poorer people while enriching the wealthy).
I think the two go hand in hand. I work in industrial safety, and whilst technology and the market can push for great advances, there also tends to be resistance to change from other stakeholders, which sometimes requires a bit of government 'meddling' to overcome.
The problem tends to be when legislative authorities get involved, they're frequently not knowledgeable enough of the details to help make improvements - a light touch from government is generally better than them getting into the weeds.
My concern here is for ideologically driven meddling, and unintended (or deliberately ignored) consequences which tend to harm some people and help others. Government certainly has a role in oversight and regulation of industry, and promotion of knowledge toward the common good. The "progressivist" mentality is generally ideological, pragmatist, utilitarian, centralizing and collectivist, as well as elitist -- these are all interwoven into a basically technocratic worldview which while perhaps inevitable should not be assumed as nonproblematic.
I think we're on roughly the same page here.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Buttgig Speaks:
@Ivorythumper said in Buttgig Speaks:
@taiwan_girl said in Buttgig Speaks:
In my opinion, with a 50 year view, improvements in battery technology, and new ways to create energy (hydrogen fuel cells??), electric cars will dominate by 2100.
So what's the rush? Assume 50 years and think how much things have changed (and improved) by simple market forces since 1972. No need to for ideologically driven governmental meddling (which probably will have tax and other economic implications that most harm poorer people while enriching the wealthy).
I think the two go hand in hand. I work in industrial safety, and whilst technology and the market can push for great advances, there also tends to be resistance to change from other stakeholders, which sometimes requires a bit of government 'meddling' to overcome.
The problem tends to be when legislative authorities get involved, they're frequently not knowledgeable enough of the details to help make improvements - a light touch from government is generally better than them getting into the weeds.
My concern here is for ideologically driven meddling, and unintended (or deliberately ignored) consequences which tend to harm some people and help others. Government certainly has a role in oversight and regulation of industry, and promotion of knowledge toward the common good. The "progressivist" mentality is generally ideological, pragmatist, utilitarian, centralizing and collectivist, as well as elitist -- these are all interwoven into a basically technocratic worldview which while perhaps inevitable should not be assumed as nonproblematic.
I think we're on roughly the same page here.
@Ivorythumper said in Buttgig Speaks:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Buttgig Speaks:
@Ivorythumper said in Buttgig Speaks:
@taiwan_girl said in Buttgig Speaks:
In my opinion, with a 50 year view, improvements in battery technology, and new ways to create energy (hydrogen fuel cells??), electric cars will dominate by 2100.
So what's the rush? Assume 50 years and think how much things have changed (and improved) by simple market forces since 1972. No need to for ideologically driven governmental meddling (which probably will have tax and other economic implications that most harm poorer people while enriching the wealthy).
I think the two go hand in hand. I work in industrial safety, and whilst technology and the market can push for great advances, there also tends to be resistance to change from other stakeholders, which sometimes requires a bit of government 'meddling' to overcome.
The problem tends to be when legislative authorities get involved, they're frequently not knowledgeable enough of the details to help make improvements - a light touch from government is generally better than them getting into the weeds.
My concern here is for ideologically driven meddling, and unintended (or deliberately ignored) consequences which tend to harm some people and help others. Government certainly has a role in oversight and regulation of industry, and promotion of knowledge toward the common good. The "progressivist" mentality is generally ideological, pragmatist, utilitarian, centralizing and collectivist, as well as elitist -- these are all interwoven into a basically technocratic worldview which while perhaps inevitable should not be assumed as nonproblematic.
I think we're on roughly the same page here.
I don't have a problem with, for example, giving tax breaks to encourage environmentally responsible research programs. As with everything, governments of all colours have a tendency to take a good idea and ruin it by pushing it too far.
-
@Ivorythumper said in Buttgig Speaks:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Buttgig Speaks:
@Ivorythumper said in Buttgig Speaks:
@taiwan_girl said in Buttgig Speaks:
In my opinion, with a 50 year view, improvements in battery technology, and new ways to create energy (hydrogen fuel cells??), electric cars will dominate by 2100.
So what's the rush? Assume 50 years and think how much things have changed (and improved) by simple market forces since 1972. No need to for ideologically driven governmental meddling (which probably will have tax and other economic implications that most harm poorer people while enriching the wealthy).
I think the two go hand in hand. I work in industrial safety, and whilst technology and the market can push for great advances, there also tends to be resistance to change from other stakeholders, which sometimes requires a bit of government 'meddling' to overcome.
The problem tends to be when legislative authorities get involved, they're frequently not knowledgeable enough of the details to help make improvements - a light touch from government is generally better than them getting into the weeds.
My concern here is for ideologically driven meddling, and unintended (or deliberately ignored) consequences which tend to harm some people and help others. Government certainly has a role in oversight and regulation of industry, and promotion of knowledge toward the common good. The "progressivist" mentality is generally ideological, pragmatist, utilitarian, centralizing and collectivist, as well as elitist -- these are all interwoven into a basically technocratic worldview which while perhaps inevitable should not be assumed as nonproblematic.
I think we're on roughly the same page here.
I don't have a problem with, for example, giving tax breaks to encourage environmentally responsible research programs. As with everything, governments of all colours have a tendency to take a good idea and ruin it by pushing it too far.
@Doctor-Phibes I agree.
-
The grid problem...
https://zububrothers.com/2022/03/09/americas-other-emerging-energy-crisis/
-
The grid problem...
https://zububrothers.com/2022/03/09/americas-other-emerging-energy-crisis/
@Jolly Seems like the article tries to say too much but doesnt really give any real answer.
QUOTE
The nation’s electricity transmission system is growing increasingly undependable.
UNQUOTEAnd then says infrastructure, severe weather, etc as the leading causes.
But then seems to say that the answer is more coal power plants. That seems like they are chasing the wrong problem. Building more coal plants will not solve the transmission problems.
(NOTE - I know nothing about the organization that wrote the article, but it would not surprise me if it was funded by the coal industry)
