White House threatens to veto anti-EV bill just passed by US House
White House threatens to veto anti-EV bill just passed by US House
The bill would prevent the EPA from enforcing tougher new pollution standards.
White House threatens to veto anti-EV bill just passed by US House::The bill would prevent the EPA from enforcing tougher new pollution standards.
You're viewing part of a thread.
In the future, evs will have better batteries, which has been my entire point. This is now, and now, evs are more expensive to insure.
You don't replace coolant because it stops cooling or looses it's ability to not freeze. It lubricates less effectively and can slowly start to pick up electrical currents over long periods of time. So you still need to change it. If you want to have that one over an ice vehicle though, then I guess "oh noooo. I have to spend $25 every 7 years and replace my radiator fluid"
Tires are less about pollution to me and more about the cost, but either way, you only brought it up because you wanted to complain about me pointing it out, and it being true, and how dare I bring up something true? Whatever, man. You think you're part of this big thing to help the environment, but really you're just naive and jumping on a bandwagon that's forcing something before it's actually going to be beneficial. Most every ev built today is going to be a net loss on the environment. We need clean energy first, then battery tech for EV's (this may be just a few years away if a couple different auto manufacturers aren't blowing smoke about their solid state batteries) and we need a charging infrastructure.
No, cole, that is horseshit and you know it. Coolant contamination is a result of extremes in temperature, same with oil breakdown. Because EVs are not heat engines, whose efficiency directly correlates to the Carnot cycle's rules, they are inherently more efficient. Stop spreading misinformation and pretending to be an engineer.
People don't have to buy an EV, it is their option. It has much lower TCO, and your point about "better hope the inverter doesn't go out..", makes me wonder if you know what exactly goes wrong with them by way of actually knowing how they work.
At any stage in history, the introduction of a new technology tends to be initially inefficient. Time resolves this kind of thing, see the much more energy efficient processor in the phone you spout drivel from vs an older model. Same lithium polymer batteries, not necessarily the same capacity, but much more advanced switching and software techniques to make the energy go much farther.
Get educated before you go sucking off the oil industry under the hilariously thin guise of "EVs aren't ready yet!".
There you go. You keep talking about things being cheaper "in the future". Well you don't live in the future, buddy. EVs have been here for over a decade and they've only gotten more expensive to replace batteries in. Not less, and unlike many other bits of tech, this has a finite and predictable lifespan that is too short and too expensive for something that currently does too little to help the environment. The government forcing their sale right now is a dumb move.
Source your falsehoods, half wit.
Everything but the battery is lower cost than it used to be. Lightweight cast or semi-monocoque construction, better purity silicon for lower resistance igbts & MOSFETs, not to mention very high speed switching configurations, a big deal that your low-quality ass isn't even aware of.
The motors have about 6 -15 parts nominally, at the upper end solely if they're liquid cooled.
I'm an engineer, and I'm calling you a liar in front of everyone. What the fuck are you going to do about it?
I'm thahalf wit, and you think some voltage regulators and better silicone make batteries never degrade, while every source available acknowledges a 1200 to 2000 cycle lifespan of ev batteries. You're a riot.
every source available
provides no sources
I'm thahalf wit
Particularly, the one who doesn't proofread.
I notice that you've retreated on your other points of expense in an EV, back to the only place you feel safe: the batteries. Looks like I'm winning so far.
Let's look at your remaining point: batteries.
Ask yourself some questions: what's the definition of a charge cycle? Does a partial discharge count as a cycle? Your statements suggest poor reading & critical thinking skills, not realizing that in the lab, battery life is tested by fully cycling the battery whereas in real life, people partially discharge their larger capacity devices. Phones are easy to fully cycle, their competing goals of slim, fast and large display requires a very unfortunate concession on battery size. Big batteries like laptops, vehicles don't see getting charged and drained, end to end, very often. Congratulations, you've misinterpreted scientific data the way big oil wanted you to.
Like your mind currently, a battery will eventually become feeble. Enough cumulative charge cycles (affected by temperature, being charged at level 2 or 3, etc), the battery will wear out. Here's the cool part: almost all of the lithium is extracted and purified for recycling into the next battery pack. Redwood materials was started by one of Tesla's actual OG co-founders, and they're not alone, there's ascend materials etc, whose sole focus is reprocessing batteries to extract lithium.
So your battery lasts you 10 years (with current in-field tech), and even then, still has about 70% of original capacity. Li-ion cells are currently about 85% cheaper than they were in 2010, and there's a lot going on behind the scenes I'm not free to share showing it'll continue, albeit on a more modest trend .
As the costs continue to decrease due to network effects such as recycling, your poorly sourced fears of replacement demonstrate how dangerous poor science writing can be for the general public.
Frankly I would've kept scrolling, not responding to your original inane comments but for that people actually seemed to be falling for your pompous charm and snakeoil, vs reality. That's not good for any of us, and you should be ashamed of yourself.