2oldman
NM
Senior Member
Joined: 04/15/2001
View Profile
 Offline
|
way2roll wrote:Nope, it's because no one can answer the question. . You don't want an answer, you wouldn't accept an answer. You want an argument. It's always the same with you deniers. Science is stupid and you know better.
|
way2roll
Wilmington NC
Senior Member
Joined: 10/05/2018
View Profile
Offline
|
2oldman wrote:way2roll wrote:Nope, it's because no one can answer the question. . You don't want an answer, you wouldn't accept an answer. You want an argument. It's always the same with you deniers. Science is stupid and you know better.
I love science. I do however prefer unbiased science with no agenda. I think you're holding the mirror the wrong way. They do say ignorance is bliss though.
2023 FR Sunseeker 2400B MBS
|
2oldman
NM
Senior Member
Joined: 04/15/2001
View Profile
Offline
|
way2roll wrote:I think you're holding the mirror the wrong way. They do say ignorance is bliss though. Yeah. Bye
|
wapiticountry
Mountain West
Senior Member
Joined: 10/02/2011
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
Offline
|
Apparently the option for Long distance travel by EV is to eat meals when charging. That’s a deal breaker for me. I don’t want to be limited to what restaurant I patronize or when I eat because fueling and eating must occur in lockstep.
Often my long distance travel is work related where getting there and getting back is time sensitive. Eating is pulling thru the drive thru and continuing down the road. No time for a leisurely meal. Even vacation travel is hurry up and get there. I have seen enough truck stops and logged enough highway miles to realize they aren’t interesting enough to dawdle. When EVs can recharge comparable to refueling an ICE then maybe I will be interested. Until then, no.
|
time2roll
Southern California
Senior Member
Joined: 03/21/2005
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
|
way2roll wrote:2oldman wrote:way2roll wrote:Not a single person has yet to explain to me what problems EV's are actually solving. Automobile and truck tailpipe emissions of co2.
Yeah it's always "tailpipe emissions". That was the original earth saving mantra. Unfortunately that's only a small percentage of the actual impact. You think the machines that mine raw materials have decent tailpipe emissions? How about the ships that transport it, or the trucks that deliver them? How about the caustic and hazardous waste, ecological impact from mining, continued dependency on foreign nations and the lack of their eco and humanitarian friendly operations? Nevermind the continued emissions and impact from producing electricity to run EV's. Ev's aren't saving the planet and reciting "tailpipe emissions" means you haven't bothered to do any real research on the topic. You have to look deeper. You'd think people really interested in saving the planet would do the homework to ensure that their fancy purchase is having the actual benefit they have been lead to believe.
But snippet "talpipe emissions" and bury heads in sand to justify the continued digging in pockets to support them. Just don't look behind the curtain so you can keep feeling good about it.
Of course the ever popular responses when presented with these facts are "we never really cared about it being green, they're just cool". "reductions in emissions yielded $270 billion in social benefits in the U.S. in 2017"
"deaths attributable to air pollution due to vehicle emissions dropped from 27,700 in 2008 to 19,800 in 2017"
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-........in-deaths-attributable-to-air-pollution/
Just a quick example. Tons of articles on this.
Direct health benefits is a great reason to continue reducing vehicle emissions from burning gas/diesel.
Also a good reason to continue to expand solar/wind/battery/hydro/nuke power and reduce coal/gas generation.
2001 F150 SuperCrew
2006 Keystone Springdale 249FWBHLS
675w Solar pictures back up
|
|
|
Grit dog
Black Diamond, WA
Senior Member
Joined: 05/06/2013
View Profile
Offline
|
JRscooby wrote:2oldman wrote:Huntindog wrote:i cannot fathom a stop at only 100 miles we often go 7-800 miles a day. I cannot fathom going 7-800 miles a day.
But may accept somebody that drives a desk 40 hours a week is just fine spending 13-14 hours alert enough to drive.
Yup, not a problem…maybe it will be when I get old, or get a CDL….lol. You know, unless it’s under “local” (100mile) exemption.
PS, why do you assume us desk drivers have narcolepsy? Should I apologize for getting an education and promotions and not just becoming a cab lizard?
PPS, I’m a desk driver that could also drive your dump truck and scratch your back with an excavator bucket or make critical lifts with a friction crane.
However I do agree with you that there are plenty of people who have no business pulling a trailer in the first place. Yet they do. You know the types. The ones who take 3 whacks at getting their Prius into a parking spot and actually between the lines.
But how long they are towing is of little consequence, it’s the fact they’re towing at all….
2016 Ram 2500, MotorOps.ca EFIlive tuned, 5” turbo back, 6" lift on 37s
2017 Heartland Torque T29 - Sold.
Couple of Arctic Fox TCs - Sold
|
Grit dog
Black Diamond, WA
Senior Member
Joined: 05/06/2013
View Profile
Offline
|
Also vote it’s time to close this thread… paging Mr. moderator.
|
way2roll
Wilmington NC
Senior Member
Joined: 10/05/2018
View Profile
Offline
|
time2roll wrote:way2roll wrote:2oldman wrote:way2roll wrote:Not a single person has yet to explain to me what problems EV's are actually solving. Automobile and truck tailpipe emissions of co2.
Yeah it's always "tailpipe emissions". That was the original earth saving mantra. Unfortunately that's only a small percentage of the actual impact. You think the machines that mine raw materials have decent tailpipe emissions? How about the ships that transport it, or the trucks that deliver them? How about the caustic and hazardous waste, ecological impact from mining, continued dependency on foreign nations and the lack of their eco and humanitarian friendly operations? Nevermind the continued emissions and impact from producing electricity to run EV's. Ev's aren't saving the planet and reciting "tailpipe emissions" means you haven't bothered to do any real research on the topic. You have to look deeper. You'd think people really interested in saving the planet would do the homework to ensure that their fancy purchase is having the actual benefit they have been lead to believe.
But snippet "talpipe emissions" and bury heads in sand to justify the continued digging in pockets to support them. Just don't look behind the curtain so you can keep feeling good about it.
Of course the ever popular responses when presented with these facts are "we never really cared about it being green, they're just cool". "reductions in emissions yielded $270 billion in social benefits in the U.S. in 2017"
"deaths attributable to air pollution due to vehicle emissions dropped from 27,700 in 2008 to 19,800 in 2017"
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-........in-deaths-attributable-to-air-pollution/
Just a quick example. Tons of articles on this.
Direct health benefits is a great reason to continue reducing vehicle emissions from burning gas/diesel.
Also a good reason to continue to expand solar/wind/battery/hydro/nuke power and reduce coal/gas generation.
My main question would be around the root cause of such a reduction. Since EV's had hardly any market share when these studies were done, and ICE's were/are still the primary vehicle, isn't safe to say that the efforts in CO2 reduction in ICE's for decades attributed to this decline, as well as environmental regulations on companies? These articles are great but have really nothing to do with EV's. They actually highlight the fruits of efforts to reduce CO2 and increase efficiency in ICE's.
BTW I am not an EV hater. I think they're neat. Awesome if you want one. But they are not the silver bullet to saving the planet that the sales pitch in order to garner votes and taxpayer dollars would have you believe. And that is my overarching point. Buy what you want, I couldn't care less. But I don't like that some facts from some science was cherry picked to support the massive capital injection via tax dollars. I totally support saving the planet. but I've read article after article about how raw materials are mined and shipped for EV's and it's ugly. Permits are already landing on desks to mine unknown regions of the sea floor because they know the resources on the surface are finite. We don't have a clue about the geological impact of such deep sea mining or the ecosystems they could destroy. And that's just one example of impacts that get swept under the rug. Do EV's themselves reduce CO2 emissions at the tailpipe? Sure. Of course there is no tail pipe. Is the entire process green? Nope. Unless you are considering the cash being fleeced from taxpayers.
https://www.motorbiscuit.com/ev-car-batteries-destroy-environment-violate-human-rights/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2022/09/19/dig-this-the-shift-to-evs-requires-a-massive-expansion-of-battery-metal-mining/
https://youmatter.world/en/are-electric-cars-eco-friendly-and-zero-emission-vehicles-26440/
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/03/1031434711/your-next-car-may-be-built-with-ocean-rocks-scientists-cant-agree-if-thats-good
Just a few
|
Huntindog
Phoenix AZ
Senior Member
Joined: 04/08/2002
View Profile
|
JRscooby wrote:2oldman wrote:Huntindog wrote:i cannot fathom a stop at only 100 miles we often go 7-800 miles a day. I cannot fathom going 7-800 miles a day.
In very few parts of the country can a professional run over 600/day without tripping interest of Fed.
But may accept somebody that drives a desk 40 hours a week is just fine spending 13-14 hours alert enough to drive. i said "we" as in multiple drivers.
go ahead and report us.
Huntindog
100% boondocking
2021 Grand Design Momentum 398M
2 bathrooms, no waiting
104 gal grey, 104 black,158 fresh
FullBodyPaint, 3,8Kaxles, DiscBrakes
17.5LRH commercial tires
1860watts solar,800 AH Battleborn batterys
2020 Silverado HighCountryC CD/A 4X4 DRW
|
Huntindog
Phoenix AZ
Senior Member
Joined: 04/08/2002
View Profile
|
blt2ski wrote:Reisender wrote:Huntindog wrote:pianotuna wrote:Do any of us take a highway trip without filling up first?
My day use of an RV would be supported by level 1 charging.
My preferred charge level around town would be 50% and I'd recharge when I reached 40%. I would certainly not exceed 85%.
If, on the other hand I were going 205 miles, I'd fully charge, and do a lunch stop at 100 miles. i cannot fathom a stop at only 100 miles we often go 7-800 miles a day.
I’m not sure how to read this. Are you under the impression that EV’s charge every 100 miles? i dont know ask pianatuner
running a BB 454 towing i got around 150 to a max 175 miles per before i was looking to fill up my 35 gal tank. 250-300 pulling the same trailer with a 6.5td and 35 gal tank.
doesnt matter what my propulsion is, it doesnt matter what the actual fuel is for many of us, its how big of a tank do i have! gas has fewer BTU's than diesel, so with the same sized tank, same lbs, frontal area, im going fewer miles per tank same will hapen with DC power. if i dont have enough AHR in mt tank, ie battery pack, i wont go as far as one with more AHR's.
at the end of the day, choose your poison! At least at the moment, u have some choice in what fuel I use. Hoping it will stay that way!
marty
|
|
|
