[LuisBoston]

Originally Posted by lakefront

Then when everyone is forced to drive electric, what could possibly happen to the price of electricity?

Put up more solar panels. Wind turbines. Geothermal plants. Battery storage. Tidal power.

There are power solutions, and we know what happens the more fossil fuels are burned.

“But, but, but”

Excuses are tiring.

[c1pher]

Originally Posted by LuisBoston

Put up more solar panels. Wind turbines. Geothermal plants. Battery storage. Tidal power.

There are power solutions, and we know what happens the more fossil fuels are burned.

“But, but, but”

Excuses are tiring.

I realize most of us here are probably above the median salary but installing enough solar panels or other alternative power sources is simply not affordable. I love to get off the grid but don’t want to spend retirement savings to do so.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by LuisBoston

Put up more solar panels. Wind turbines. Geothermal plants. Battery storage. Tidal power.

There are power solutions, and we know what happens the more fossil fuels are burned.

“But, but, but”

Excuses are tiring.

Why not nuclear? Clean, efficient, reliable, steady-state power.

Excuses are indeed tiring.

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Why not nuclear? Clean, efficient, reliable, steady-state power.

Excuses are indeed tiring.

A highly viable energy source. Not joking. Agree.

[Germanauto]

Of all the major auto publications, Motortrend has been sucking off EVs harder than any of them. They've clearly had a strong financial incentive to be doing this.

The market is speaking, EVs work for a minority of consumers but are not the end-all-be-all solution for everyone. They will continue to grow in marketshare but more slowly. Hybrids and PHEVs are the more pragmatic solution for now.

ICE should always be permitted to live on in some capacity. EVs just aren't it for sports car enthusiasts, long distance travelers, people who need to tow things, etc.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Why not nuclear? Clean, efficient, reliable, steady-state power.

Excuses are indeed tiring.

Usually people fail to understand just how much equipment is contaminated, how radiation affects it, how it needs inspections and replacing, how it has to be stored safely after use, not to mention the insane level of regulation and oversight necessary. They just tend to think the only negative byproduct is spent fuel…which is just one of the radioactive byproducts. The overhead is enormous. My brother is a nuclear engineer. Yes, it is the best/only solution in some places…but there are good reasons why its not in others. It often costs way above other fuel sources when all is said and done.

[lakefront]

Originally Posted by LuisBoston

Put up more solar panels. Wind turbines. Geothermal plants. Battery storage. Tidal power.

There are power solutions, and we know what happens the more fossil fuels are burned.

“But, but, but”

Excuses are tiring.

Doesn't matter WHERE the electricity comes from. If you don't have a choice to power your vehicles, appliances, etc you will have to pay whatever is the going rate. And to think that just making more solat panels, turbines, and such is going to replace or make up for fossil fuel generation is just silly.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Commerical air travel is what is and going to perpetuate the need for "fossil" fuels. Inexpensive gasoline will be a byproduct of it. To make gasoline expensive to drive the relative cost of EV ownership downwards, Governments are going to tax the everlivingshit out of gasoline and diesel. Read that as Governments are going to drastically increase the cost of driving an ICEV.

They already do. Look at places like California and Europe. Those fools are taxed into oblivion on fuel and do nothing about it. They keep voting for people who just tax them more.

[StradaRedlands]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

They already do. Look at places like California and Europe. Those fools are taxed into oblivion on fuel and do nothing about it. They keep voting for people who just tax them more.

California and Europe are doing just fine, thanks for your concern.

[x622]

Originally Posted by StradaRedlands

California and Europe are doing just fine, thanks for your concern.

I laughed so hard. Thanks for that.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

They already do. Look at places like California and Europe. Those fools are taxed into oblivion on fuel and do nothing about it. They keep voting for people who just tax them more.

It's always funny to see people try and knock CA for taxes when they don't realize the mechanisms in place in their own states to generate the same revenue.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by RM7

It's always funny to see people try and knock CA for taxes when they don't realize the mechanisms in place in their own states to generate the same revenue.

It's always funny to me when people try to act like CA isn't a giant dumpster fire in the major metro areas with the surrounding countryside deeply unrepresented in their state's government, while lower and what's left of their middle class are crushed by a government that cares only about the wishes of the elites and appearances.

Florida has lower sales tax and lower gas taxes than CA. We do have property tax that's 0.2% higher, but because our housing prices aren't as astronomical as CA, we are still paying less.

The revenue generation isn't the issue, it's the government attempting to force you to buy something they're going to make money off by imposing financial hardships on people who are already stretched so thin. The gas taxes just burden the lower and middle class in an exceptionally regressive way. If you're rich, you likely live closer to work or telecommute or can afford a new EV, so those taxes don't affect you at all. If you're just getting by driving an old used car or truck, you're carrying the full weight of that initiative.

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by LuisBoston

There are power solutions, and we know what happens the more fossil fuels are burned.
“But, but, but”
Excuses are tiring.

Do you even have any idea how many products you use and need in your daily life are fossil fuel derivatives?

[RM7]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

It's always funny to me when people try to act like CA isn't a giant dumpster fire in the major metro areas with the surrounding countryside deeply unrepresented in their state's government, while lower and what's left of their middle class are crushed by a government that cares only about the wishes of the elites and appearances.

Florida has lower sales tax and lower gas taxes than CA. We do have property tax that's 0.2% higher, but because our housing prices aren't as astronomical as CA, we are still paying less.

The revenue generation isn't the issue, it's the government attempting to force you to buy something they're going to make money off by imposing financial hardships on people who are already stretched so thin. The gas taxes just burden the lower and middle class in an exceptionally regressive way. If you're rich, you likely live closer to work or telecommute or can afford a new EV, so those taxes don't affect you at all. If you're just getting by driving an old used car or truck, you're carrying the full weight of that initiative.

That's a flat alligator-infested swamp though. CA has mountains AND beaches.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by RM7

That's a flat alligator-infested swamp though. CA has mountains AND beaches.

Yeah, but our beaches are better. CA beaches are ice cold Pacific water. Nobody wants that. Mountains, meh, you can keep them. They were nice in NC when I lived there, but I don't need them. Can go visit them if I wanted to. I'll gladly not have mountains and have a government that's functional and not all up in my business while also making life harder for me.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by RM7

Usually people fail to understand just how much equipment is contaminated, how radiation affects it, how it needs inspections and replacing, how it has to be stored safely after use, not to mention the insane level of regulation and oversight necessary. They just tend to think the only negative byproduct is spent fuel…which is just one of the radioactive byproducts. The overhead is enormous. My brother is a nuclear engineer. Yes, it is the best/only solution in some places…but there are good reasons why its not in others. It often costs way above other fuel sources when all is said and done.

Does your brother speak for the entire energy industry? I'm not sure what knowing your brother is a nuclear engineer has to do with the discussion. But all forms of energy production have side effects, the question is do the benefits outweigh the side effects. I think nuclear energy has proven it does, despite now what the internet says about it.

Regardless, powering an EV drivetrain with a battery is antiquated technique.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Does your brother speak for the entire energy industry? I'm not sure what knowing your brother is a nuclear engineer has to do with the discussion. But all forms of energy production have side effects, the question is do the benefits outweigh the side effects. I think nuclear energy has proven it does, despite now what the internet says about it.

Regardless, powering an EV drivetrain with a battery is antiquated technique.

Nuclear energy has proven it often costs more for the same amount of energy produced as compared to other sources. So it really just depends. Is it worth it to pay a lot more for it? Maybe. It's not "clean" just because you don't see all the piping, water and infrastructure that has to be taken out of service and stored due to radiation hazard, but like I said, in certain areas/regions, it may be the best source when everything else is taken into account. It's not some magic trick or no-brainer solution...except for those with no brain that don't really consider what it actually takes to put it in place and run it. As a nuclear engineer, my brother has a pretty good idea of the infrastructure required and how it compares to other energy sources.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

Yeah, but our beaches are better. CA beaches are ice cold Pacific water. Nobody wants that. Mountains, meh, you can keep them. They were nice in NC when I lived there, but I don't need them. Can go visit them if I wanted to. I'll gladly not have mountains and have a government that's functional and not all up in my business while also making life harder for me.

Those ain't mountains...

[2heeldrive]

We had a Chevy Volt for eight years. Bought it new in 2014. Loved the car. Nice driver and not a single trip to the dealer. The range was perfect for the wife's commute, so it ran mostly electric.

Then, one day it failed to start. Dealer wanted to replace the battery, a $20,000. repair. Um, no. I took the time to diagnose the problem, OMG it was incredibly complex, I felt like I had earned another college degree by the time it was finally fixed. I ended up putting a salvage yard battery in it for $2500. And then promptly traded it for a 330ix. No more hybrids or EV's for us. I'm not a fan of the "mild hybrid" BMW system either.

A hybrid vehicle? Hell No!

[gblansten]

It is interesting that the Porsche 911 hybrid is only 100 pounds heavier versus the 1000 pounds of avoirdupois the upcoming M5 hybrid gains.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by RM7

Nuclear energy has proven it often costs more for the same amount of energy produced as compared to other sources. So it really just depends. Is it worth it to pay a lot more for it? Maybe. It's not "clean" just because you don't see all the piping, water and infrastructure that has to be taken out of service and stored due to radiation hazard, but like I said, in certain areas/regions, it may be the best source when everything else is taken into account. It's not some magic trick or no-brainer solution...except for those with no brain that don't really consider what it actually takes to put it in place and run it. As a nuclear engineer, my brother has a pretty good idea of the infrastructure required and how it compares to other energy sources.

It's clean with respect to theorized anthropogenic globalwarmingclimatechange due to the comparatively minimal emissions of greenhouse gases. All forms of energy have contamination. The nuclear waste storage solution is solvable (a lot easier than trying to develop mechanisims to manipulate the climate). The storage solutions unfortunately became political (Sen. Harry Reid).

[G30M]

terrible battery degradation rendering car pretty much gas only

https://fb.watch/sJH7RfrTH0/