frenchyd said:
In reply to Tom1200 :
I question the validity of the statements about pollution. Are you saying making EV's will pollute more than making a similar ICE ? Or just that making any new vehicle is a source of pollution?
Any manufactured thing creates pollution; I don't recall the exact numbers but manufacturing EVs (and the related operations) causes more pollution than manufacturing ICEs. The offset is around year 5-7, I don't remember exactly.
If we people want to be nice to the planet simply keep stuff longer...........that way there aren't plants running and trucks driving around to deliver your new stuff.
With that said my keep your stuff longer advice is bad for the economy.
In reply to frenchyd :
https://100percentrenewableuk.org/ England is shooting for 100% renewable by 2050. No mention of Tesla batteries whatsoever in their plan. First thing you lied about.
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/energy-storage/australia-to-replace-coal-plant-with-record-busting-850mw-battery This battery doesn't currently exist. They are trying to make it and hoping to have it done by 2025. Lie 2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source Lowest cost to produce power is actually gas turbines. Lie 3.
https://www.businessinsider.com/building-electric-cars-how-much-pollution-versus-gas-powered-vehicles-2019-11 up to 68% more greenhouse gases created for a midsize electric vehicle over a similar ICE. Lie 4.
https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix Coal is still the largest source of power and has been on the increase for the last 40 years. From here.
This is my last reply to you, as I am certain you are completely ignoring the last one of these that proved all of the things you stated in that post were also false. If the only thing you can do is lie, belittle and make up literally everything you post you are not worth my time. go away troll.
bobzilla said:
The last B-2 bomber was built 23 years ago. They aren't costing us 2.2 billion dollars anytime soon.
China has long range strategic bombers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_H-6
The TU-95 has a longer operational range than the B-52 and a similar top speed/cruising speed.
Actual operating costs for the new carriers is reduced from the previous Nimitz class. ARound $5M per day for the entire carrier air group. The carrier itself with air wing is around $3M per day.
Ford class carriers are actually $12B in cost to manufacture not $22B
China has 2 new Super Carriers under construction and 2 smaller carriers based off the old Russian design but upgraded to actually work. They are planning to build 5 more.
Russia is not our only threat, in fact it's being shown that other than their nuclear capabilities they are nothing but a paper tiger.
About the ONLY thing that you stated that was true was that the MIC is costing us trillions.
For Frenchy since he apparently convienently missed this.
Opti
SuperDork
6/6/23 7:49 p.m.
Our interest alone on the national debt is very quickly scheduled to equal our defense spending and frenchy thinks the problem is the defense budget.
I wouldn't say there isn't waste in the defense budget, but if you think it's the silver bullet or will even come close to putting a dent in deficit spending your only illustrating how little you understand.
I don't feel like looking it up on such a worthless debate, but IIRC if King Frenchy completely eliminated the defense budget it would barely cover HALF of the yearly deficit. (Last years numbers)
In reply to Opti :
I agree with you. The national debt is too high. But since the defense spending is the big item. That's where the biggest potential for savings is without weakening our military strength.
Social spending however isn't to be kind to poor people. It's because it's cheaper to hand out welfare than put them in jail.
And if you want to save 44 billion dollars up front plus 10 million plus a day operating cost per battle group you'll mothball at least some of our super carrier fleet.
Then To help I'll gladly give up the $7500 Federal tax credit for purchasing an EV
America had the debt to GDP down to 22%. Then it voted him out and got another tax break and big military spending.
Every single tax reduction has increased the national debt.
If you are really concerned about the national debt do something.
bobzilla said:
bobzilla said:
The last B-2 bomber was built 23 years ago. They aren't costing us 2.2 billion dollars anytime soon.
China has long range strategic bombers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_H-6
The TU-95 has a longer operational range than the B-52 and a similar top speed/cruising speed.
Actual operating costs for the new carriers is reduced from the previous Nimitz class. ARound $5M per day for the entire carrier air group. The carrier itself with air wing is around $3M per day.
Ford class carriers are actually $12B in cost to manufacture not $22B
China has 2 new Super Carriers under construction and 2 smaller carriers based off the old Russian design but upgraded to actually work. They are planning to build 5 more.
Russia is not our only threat, in fact it's being shown that other than their nuclear capabilities they are nothing but a paper tiger.
About the ONLY thing that you stated that was true was that the MIC is costing us trillions.
For Frenchy since he apparently convienently missed this.
The TU 95 doesn't have in flight refueling capability and with the new engines the B62 is scheduled to get I'd be very surprised if both the range and speed easing improved.
The operational costs also include fueling , yes I understand nuclear but the planes and helicopters need fuel plus the carrier refills the Ford Econobox ships.
On top of that actual daily costs greatly depend on where they are and how close the nearest support port is.
In the Pacific And many places at sea the tankers required can go from 2-5 in order to provide the required fuel and supplies.
Finally daily costs increase dramatically if operations are at full potential. Versus simply training or transiting.
Tom1200 said:
frenchyd said:
In reply to Tom1200 :
I question the validity of the statements about pollution. Are you saying making EV's will pollute more than making a similar ICE ? Or just that making any new vehicle is a source of pollution?
Any manufactured thing creates pollution; I don't recall the exact numbers but manufacturing EVs (and the related operations) causes more pollution than manufacturing ICEs. The offset is around year 5-7, I don't remember exactly.
If we people want to be nice to the planet simply keep stuff longer...........that way there aren't plants running and trucks driving around to deliver your new stuff.
With that said my keep your stuff longer advice is bad for the economy.
Thank you for your response.
I happen to agree with you. Keep your stuff longer.
My MG is 70 years old and owned by me since 1962. My last truck was 20 years old when the dreaded tin worm finished it off. I have lived here for 40 years. ( materials for rebuild were all locally sourced and selected for durability)
One prime reason I'm going EV is forecast durability. There is already a Tesla that has gone a million miles and it's still running reliably ( it only took two batteries ). So far and there is still life in the current battery.
I know about the 2 million mile Volvo and well done!! But what percentage of Volvo's make the million mile mark?
Yet the Tesla was a very early model and a simple electric motor doesn't have the high wear points an ICE does. ( rings, valve seats etc clutch plate, syncro's brakes).
I fully expect this car to last well beyond the rest of my life.
When it finally is finished. I honestly believe it will recycle easier and more completely than ICE's do.
In the decade since that one was made the improvements to construction and operational workings is massive. More than the improvements from the Model T to the model A or even the 1932. ( I hope you are familiar with those?)
On top of that look at the environmental improvements in the Tesla Giga factories. Compared to a typical ICE factory.
Next look at the global changes England is about to be 100% renewable Australia and New Zealand are nearly 75% renewable.
That's all due to the Tesla mega battery. An anticipated Trillion dollar market.
Look in Texas. Oil rich Texas. Why do you think they have more renewables than any other state?
STM317
PowerDork
6/7/23 5:48 a.m.
frenchyd said:
In reply to Opti :
I agree with you. The national debt is too high. But since the defense spending is the big item. That's where the biggest potential for savings is without weakening our military strength.
To clarify, Defense is the largest part of discretionary spending:
Mandatory spending is much higher than discretionary spending, and is primarily composed of social programs:
Social Security and Medicare spending dwarf Defense spending if you look at the whole budget:
The US government is essentially a giant insurance company with a military division.
Tom Suddard
Director of Marketing & Digital Assets
6/7/23 7:31 a.m.
I'll admit that I haven't read most of the recent pages in this thread, but my inbox is filling up with reports about posts in here and it does look a bit like a political argument. Do we need to lock this for a few weeks to let things settle down?
In reply to Tom Suddard :
People are that butt hurt they report posts to you? How about don't click on the thread? Is this thread automatically opening for them?
I enjoy the pro and con of EV versus ICE. Yet the very subject is easy to Get off topic and into the political.
I've repeatedly brought the subject back to the cars. Which if it can stay on those shouldn't be closed.
Opti
SuperDork
6/7/23 9:03 a.m.
Steve_Jones said:
In reply to Tom Suddard :
People are that butt hurt they report posts to you? How about don't click on the thread? Is this thread automatically opening for them?
This. Gettin some strong Prince Harry episode of South Park vibes.
Am I showing my age when I say I don't understand what you mean by that? ;-)
In reply to Tom Suddard :
I'll admit that I haven't read most of the recent pages in this thread, but my inbox is filling up with reports about posts in here and it does look a bit like a political argument. Do we need to lock this for a few weeks to let things settle down?
One person is bringing political finger pointing into the discussion, but it doesn't seem to bother anyone directly involved in the conversation and no one is taking them seriously anyway. Everyone else seems to have done a good job with not taking the bait and avoiding political replies.
bobzilla said:
In reply to frenchyd :
g/electricity-mix Coal is still the largest source of power and has been on the increase for the last 40 years. From here.
Also from that above source: Electricity Generation From Coal, 2022 Be sure to pay attention to the trends.
Remember when I said that climate change doesn't follow smooth steady trends but hits tipping points followed by rapid change? Prepare for an ice free Arctic. Yahoo.com: Arctic could be ice-free a decade earlier than thought
Let's get back to the cars please.
My natural bias is the coming Tesla Model 2
But ignore that and just look at the advances EV's are making globally.
Some Scandinavian countries EV's dominate new car sales. Even though some countries have stopped purchase support of EV's.
In Norway for example just one model the Tesla model Y accounts for 20% of new car sales even though Chinese EV's as low as $11,000 can be sold there.
In Sweden the home of Volvo Tesla is outselling Volvo.
In Italy the home of Fist 500E Tesla is outselling it.
In Germany Tesla is outselling VW.
In China Tesla is outselling BYD. ( some months)
Tom Suddard said:
I'll admit that I haven't read most of the recent pages in this thread, but my inbox is filling up with reports about posts in here and it does look a bit like a political argument. Do we need to lock this for a few weeks to let things settle down?
So as the guy who set this flaming freight train in motion I was inclined to say yes. Given that a couple of posters don't think so I will defer to them.
As a side note if it gets to 1500 posts I want some kind of free t-shirt in recognition of my ability to start a 5000 alarm fire...............that or a life time ban on posting anything about EVs.
In reply to Tom1200 :
But it's so entertaining to read some of the information. The exquisite blend of condescension and opinion stated as fact aren't found anywhere else on the internet. It's almost like watching the assorted nightly opinion-based news shows.
z31maniac said:
I'll take this over any Tesla. I'm sure the fit and finish will be light-years ahead.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/2025-volvo-ex30-is-a-36k-ev-packing-up-to-275-miles-of-range
Well the Swedes disagree with you.
frenchyd said:
z31maniac said:
I'll take this over any Tesla. I'm sure the fit and finish will be light-years ahead.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/2025-volvo-ex30-is-a-36k-ev-packing-up-to-275-miles-of-range
Well the Swedes disagree with you.
Wait, you're saying the Swedes think the Tesla has better fit and finish than their own car? 
If we are discussing EVs and someone brings the "subsidies are awesome" argument into the fray, people should be allowed to respond. I agree economics and automobiles should not be political but the politicians dragged their taxes, subsidies, licensing, and economic and environmental goals into this, not anyone here. Everyone should in fact discuss it openly and without fear of being locked or hidden. If you disagree with that, I'd challenge the claims of being open minded that are often made here.
Everything is political now. Getting angry at anyone but politicians and the media for that is grossly misplaced. You are right, it should not be. So how do we achieve that?
