House Democrats Want US To Jointly Build New EV, Broadband Infrastructure - Slas...
source link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/22/08/05/1713206/house-democrats-want-us-to-jointly-build-new-ev-broadband-infrastructure
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
House Democrats Want US To Jointly Build New EV, Broadband Infrastructure
›
I've not found EV charging to be satisfactory. It takes too long and therefore doesn't scale in situ. Charging at home of course is the best but having to stop for lunch and find a charge will never be practical as long as the number of EV users increases faster than the electrical infrastructure.
Best way to take you EV across country would be to put it on a train car. That's more power efficient and solves the range issues for long distance driving.
So what you are saying is that you are in favor of congress passing a law that incentivizes companies to build out electrical infrastructure, right?
-
Globally transportation emissions make up 27% of GHG emissions.
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehic... [epa.gov]
In the US, auto emissions make up the largest percentage of GHG emissions, so yeah, cutting auto emissions would be a significant part of reducing GHGs.
-
-
Those GHG emissions look like less than if you used ICEVs.
And as we continue to shift our production towards renewables, they decrease still further. And that is in fact the trend.
If what you were trying to say is that EVs don't improve anything because you think they have the same level of emissions, you're an ignoramus. And now that I look at your username... "Oh, right."
-
-
So what?
So what?
You're lying.
Owners disagree.
TCO is lower, most new cars are financed, this is irrelevant.
BLUE MAN BAD!!!!!11!!ones
You left a total bullshit comment, and I know you — you will fail to defend it with actual logic. You're not ready for Slashdot time.
-
-
ICEVs take 2.5 years to pay off their carbon debt, but are so much more efficient than EVs that they have lower cradle to grave emissions — literally the only emissions number that matters.
EV batteries are being recycled right now.
I did look it up. It exists. There is very little of it because "dead" EV batteries still have 50%+ capacity, and are still useful for solar power storage. I have literally watched the prices of used EV batteries outpace inflation.
I already explained why you're wrong.
Nope. T
-
You really believe that EV batteries are unrecyclable? Where did you get that idea? That's also quite expensive for a battery, but I guess if you're going for the higher end vehicles it might cost that.
EV owners typically charge at night at home (convenient and a grid low time). We should be expanding infrastructure to make this possible in more places like apartments and public lots so more people can do it. It's much more convenient to plug in at night than to have to visit a gas station
-
And contrary to what this horse-and-buggy advocate keeps saying, lithium ion batteries have such a small amount of toxic material that they are considered landfill safe. That's not to say that we should throw them away. I'm just tire of the "toxic battery" lie being spread.
-
-
-
-
-
Which is why the transition away from GHG-producing electrical generation is also occurring. But because there's two problems to solve doesn't mean you just sit on your hands about one problem and wait for the other one to be solved. That's simply an argument for the status quo, and the only reason I can see anyone making that argument in this case is either because they're just a contrarian, or they own O&G stock, and are terrified that the transition will begin happening sooner rather than later, and
-
-
They aren't all out chopping firewood. Some of them are digging for coal.
-
It occured to me that I should have added some context to my comment: Germany puts coal power plant back on network after gas supply cut [theguardian.com]
-
-
-
-
-
No, you win the bad math prize
U.S. passenger vehicles contributing 16% of the country's 15% share of global greenhouse gas emissions means 2 percent... which if replaced with EV means 80 percent of that 2 percent will be charged by fossil fuel.
Try again, no kewpie doll for you.
-
16% is a pretty big percentage, reducing it would be a great step in lowering global emissions.
-
-
Of course that is only convincing the choir. As a lot of the people who dismiss EV saying how dirty they are etc... Would rather believe a Ad with a Scary voice saying how bad things are. Than reading an article backed up with facts.
-
-
Sorry, but the ICE is at the end of its technological cycle. There aren't really any more major increases in efficiency to be found in that outdated technology. EVs are pretty much equal to ICEs right now, in terms of total impact on the environment over the life of the vehicle. EVs are at the beginning of their technological cycle. Based on the rate of relevant inventions, they will be far ahead soon. The sooner we commit to that direction, the greater our lead over the rest of the world will be, and the greater our profits.
Now, I get that your tribe has made support of ICEs mandatory for membership and status in the tribe, but that really doesn't matter because your tribe is shrinking quite rapidly and will soon be irellevant. The rest of us don't need to factor your preferences into our decisions.
-
-
Okay, but they aren't. EVs are better than ICEVs right now. That makes that sentence irrelevant.
Right! They're superior.
That is nonsense. EV TCO is less than ICEV TCO, and most new cars are financed. Further, the rebates have been extended.
...never fucking happened, unless it was an overnight at-home charge. More bullshit you made up.
Really ICE does not still have significant efficiency improvements that can practically be done. It's a fundamentally inefficient technology, and trying to make it more effici
-
TCO is one of those luxuries that upper-middle class and the wealthy enjoy.
The intial cost (including month to month cost) is much more relevent when you do not have lots of disposable income.I have a hyrbid and an SUV. My hybrid had issues and cost me $2,400 to fix. With gas prices the way they are, I'll easliy recoup that on gas spend for my hybrid versus my SUV. 10 years ago, even if that had been true then, it wouldn't had mattered as I wouldn't have had the upfront money to hit the TCO savings.
-
That's exactly what TCO is. Costs of financing, maintenance, fuel, etc. Regular people care very much about it, or they'd all be driving used 7-series and S-classe because those are dirt cheap.
-
The vehicle is the collateral on the loan, so it is not a problem to get a loan for a vehicle you cannot afford to pay off today, as long as it is feasible that you will be able to continue making the payments tomorrow. And you can make a higher payment if you don't have to buy petroleum distillates for it to run on, so the term of the loan for an EV doesn't have to be any longer than for an ICEV for you to afford it.
-
-
-
Of course there's no need to switch now. Nobody is saying there is. The point where it will make economic sense for most Americans to switch is about 5 years from now.
Batteries are the biggest downfall of EVs right now, they are toxic, and take a lot of energy to produce. But there are battery technologies in the works now which don't use heavy metals at all, and can be recharged very quickly. 2-5 years out, but still looking very promising. Couple that with new electrically excited synchronous motor techno
-
Sure in 5 years might be ready for prime time... but we don't need the government forcing a bad solution.
So you don't believe the targets the auto makers agreed to under Obama, with doubling the average MPG then to 54 by 2025? I didn't make that up, it's well known. They had and have improvement roadmap.
Sure in long term with a good plan we can get our power mostly from green sources, that will take serious investment for the collectors, the storage tech, the distribution (UHVDC lines). Until I see plan
-
No, I do not believe auto makers will hit those targets. Do you? What evidence do you have that they are on track to do so? Also, I firmly believe that the listed MPG is an outright lie, on every ICE sold today. I've never seen a car that gets close to its rated MPG in actual use.
It's a no brainer though that even with dirty sources of electricity, EVs pollute less than a ICE car. You just can not scrub carbon and other pollutants out of a million cars as easily as you can from a single power plant.
Funny ho
-
really, I do slightly better than the claimed MPG with my Honda civic. Don't have a lead foot, look ahead so not wasting as much energy braking. Gotta drive like a grandpa not a young man, easy.
EV pollute less after they sink their 3.5 year carbon debt... I wouldn't call it a no-brainer. Don't forget the polution of no recycling of batteries, that's another massive problem if solution not worked out quickly, and environmental disaster in making.
I hate fake liberalism and symbolism over substance. EV not
-
-
If they'll be ready for prime time in 5 years the government is doing exactly the right thing by getting the infrastructure in place today.
That target is a combined MPG across their fleet. They are going to make that goal by putting more EV's in their fleet. We are reaching the time of diminishing returns on ICE vehicles. Turbo's, GDI and CVT transmissions have all helped but those all add complexity, cost and with GDI and CVT they have had their own costly reliability issues. If I am Toyota, GM, Ford d
-
-
I'm still VERY concerned about EV's....in areas that have problems with power for VAST areas to be down for month or more at a time.
Let's take for instance...the greater New Orleans area and hurricane Ida last year.
That bitch wasn't even a direct hit on NOLA proper, yet it knocked out every transmission line to the area.
There was no power to New Orleans and the surrounding cities for well over a month for much of it.
If all we had were EVs, it would have slowed down any recovery and progress.
As it was,
-
Counterpoint, the transition to EVs will create incentives for private companies NOT to let their power grids go the way of deeply unregulated states like Texas. It also provides incentives for more decentralized power generation, like solar.
Oddly enough, here in New Mexico we aren't facing rolling blackouts or any sorts of downtime. I can't remember the last time the power went out. Maybe unregulated utilities are the problem?
Did you know that those same natural disasters also affect pipelines, oil storage
-
-
-
-
Well, that's quite a provocative post, so let's go through your big points:
New ICE engines and designs, with improvements in all aspects, continue to be made, and these engines will be produced in mass quantities long after you're gone.
It's not only impossible to know the latter, but most of the promises of quantum-leaps in electric vehicles have thus far been mostly hot air. They still take too long to charge, use up their juice too fast on the roads (especially when hauling heavier loads), and continue to
-
Show me any new technology that will increase engine efficiency more than 1 or 2%. You can't, because it doesn't exist. Most automakers have plans to phase out ICEs, whether you like it or not.
The increases in battery life, efficiency, and decreases in cost for EVs are well known, and quite remarkable. And we are only getting started with this technology.
I don't vote based on cliques, or what letter someone has after their name. I vote based on who will push for the policies I prefer.
Given that red states h
-
I work for one of the world's largest ICE manufacturer, we know the writing is on the wall.
In 15 years, new IC engines will be a niche product while used engines will become collector items or sent to poorer countries. This is not just automobiles but even small CC engines that power lawn equipment.
Right now the battery tech for small engines (residential lawn care) and automobiles is on part with ICE. Battery tech for commercial or industrial use just isn't there yet but will likely be matured over t
-
-
-
What math? EVs are no cleaner than ICEs to actually build - and are arguably dirtier, so you'd have to incentivise cleaner energy (which includes nuclear) to make EVs remotely useful. It would be entirely possible to replace all coal, oil, and gas generators with nuclear power within 10 years if it's sensibly budgeted. So you can't include emissions from energy generation for EVs, you can only include emissions from energy generation for ICEs.
So, over - say - a 20 year period (so 10 years of declining fossi
-
Right, they're actually dirtier. But they are so much more efficient that even if you charge them purely from coal, their cradle to grave emissions are lower than an ICEV. So frankly, that statement is wholly irrelevant. You could look this up if you wanted to know, but that would take time out from your lying.
-
The math's been done. https://youtu.be/L2IKCdnzl5k?t... [youtu.be]
tl;dr: you're burning such a ridiculous amount of gas when driving an ICE vehicle that it pretty quickly offsets any extra emissions incurred during manufacturing or electricity generation on a typical mix.
-
-
I recently took a 400 mile trip. I left my destination with 60% of charge, I ended up charging for about 30 minutes total, 15 minutes for every 2 - 3 hours of driving. It was actually fine for me to take 1 charging stop, but I knew every 2 to 3 hours I would need to stop driving for some biological issues.
If I were to take the same trip with a 400 mile range car, I would still probably be taking those stops, parking the car go to the rest area, then go back into the car and fill up with Gas and actually ad
-
My hybrid easily makes 500 miles on a 14 gallon tank. I really think this is where we should be pushing as it doesn't add more energy demands to the grid and still overall improves the things we're hopinig EVs will fix.
-
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK