Electric cars vs Gas powered

[nw_hunter]

https://cnsnews.com/article/national/michael-w-chapman/gallup-only-4-americans-own-electric-car-41-unequivocally-will

[TrumpWon]

There’s going to be a lot of people walking to anti-climate change rallies in the future

[nw_hunter]

Give us a little more detail on that!

[Lloyd Smale]

my guess is what HE MEANT was this nut case global warming ev car bs is in the end make it impossible for a middle class American to own ANY car

[ironglow]

my guess is what HE MEANT was this nut case global warming ev car bs is in the end make it impossible for a middle class American to own ANY car

   Lloyd..it is time we faced facts and call the evil spades..evil spades..  They have no intention that the average Joe will have a car in
   the near future.
  They were serious in Davos when they said "you will own nothing, and be happy" ! 
 
  Now consider that sentence carefully, and please note, the quote was "You will own nothing, and be happy."
   It clearly did not say. "We will own nothing, and be happy" !

   No..what was left unsaid, is that the super billionaires "will own everything, and be very happy"!  ...But they still won't be happy, because their boss won't allow it !

   lowest level "fellow travelers", who are doing the bidding of the worldwide communist movement, just don't "get it' as we see exhibited by some right here. They just don't have a clue, that they are helping to usher in 21st century slavery.

[gypsyman]

Even if everything fell into place and all went as planned, it would be a minimum of at least 50 years before electric vehicles make any kind of impact on emissions in this country. The power grid could not be built in 25-30+ years to handle what is done now by farm tractors and semi's. If they really wanted for cars to be much more efficient, a small diesel engine, 3-4 cylinder turbo can get 50+ miles to the gallon. They've had them in Europe for decade's.

[Dixie-Dude]

From what I have read, the power grid is the biggest problem.  Wind and solar are great, but for instance only about 14% of the power produced by wind in West Texas can get to East Texas where most of the people live.  Building a transmission grid requires buying ROW across country to get the power to where it needs to go.  This is the case for Solar as well as Wind.  The other problem is storage.  Wind and solar sometimes produce more power than is needed at the time, so large storage facilities have to be built. 

I've always thought that hybrid vehicles would take over first as they use both gasoline and battery power for electric drive at the wheels.  It would double the gasoline mileage for almost any vehicle.  They are cheaper than total electric vehicles but higher than pure gasoline. 

From the 1800's until today, the average time for new technology to become widespread is around 30 years.  Our government is trying to force the change.  Let it happen naturally.  If it is cost effective it will pan out. 

[Lloyd Smale]

yup the liberal global warming nuts think the power grid is some electrical fairys living in the ground with mother earth

From what I have read, the power grid is the biggest problem.  Wind and solar are great, but for instance only about 14% of the power produced by wind in West Texas can get to East Texas where most of the people live.  Building a transmission grid requires buying ROW across country to get the power to where it needs to go.  This is the case for Solar as well as Wind.  The other problem is storage.  Wind and solar sometimes produce more power than is needed at the time, so large storage facilities have to be built. 

I've always thought that hybrid vehicles would take over first as they use both gasoline and battery power for electric drive at the wheels.  It would double the gasoline mileage for almost any vehicle.  They are cheaper than total electric vehicles but higher than pure gasoline. 

From the 1800's until today, the average time for new technology to become widespread is around 30 years.  Our government is trying to force the change.  Let it happen naturally.  If it is cost effective it will pan out.

[TrumpWon]

Yep, the flat earthers Will gin up any excuse to deny the reality of climate change.
The end is in sight.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a38213848/automakers-pledge-end-gas-sales-2040/

[ironglow]

Yep, the flat earthers Will gin up any excuse to deny the reality of climate change.
The end is in sight.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a38213848/automakers-pledge-end-gas-sales-2040/

   During his Nobel prize acceptance speech in 2008, Al Gore claimed there would be no Arctic ice cap during summers, starting as early as 2013..  He also said same in his "inconvenient truth" book.  Dr Wislan Maslowski echoed him at the same conference.

  About that same time, John Kerry was quoted;
    "The truth, is that the threat we face is not an abstract concern for the future. Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now." "

...And how many of your greenies predicted a 10-20 foot ocean rise, floodin coastal areas.. before 2020 ?

  So, who are the "flat earthers" now?

[Casull]

Yep, the flat earthers Will gin up any excuse to deny the reality of climate change.
The end is in sight.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a38213848/automakers-pledge-end-gas-sales-2040/

   During his Nobel prize acceptance speech in 2008, Al Gore claimed there would be no Arctic ice cap during summers, starting as early as 2013..  He also said same in his "inconvenient truth" book.  Dr Wislan Maslowski echoed him at the same conference.

  About that same time, John Kerry was quoted;
    "The truth, is that the threat we face is not an abstract concern for the future. Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now." "

...And how many of your greenies predicted a 10-20 foot ocean rise, floodin coastal areas.. before 2020 ?

  So, who are the "flat earthers" now?

Yep.  No matter how many times they are proven wrong, they're adamant that they are right.

[Lloyd Smale]

Yep, the flat earthers Will gin up any excuse to deny the reality of climate change.
The end is in sight.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a38213848/automakers-pledge-end-gas-sales-2040/

   During his Nobel prize acceptance speech in 2008, Al Gore claimed there would be no Arctic ice cap during summers, starting as early as 2013..  He also said same in his "inconvenient truth" book.  Dr Wislan Maslowski echoed him at the same conference.

  About that same time, John Kerry was quoted;
    "The truth, is that the threat we face is not an abstract concern for the future. Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now." "

...And how many of your greenies predicted a 10-20 foot ocean rise, floodin coastal areas.. before 2020 ?

  So, who are the "flat earthers" now?

Yep.  No matter how many times they are proven wrong, they're adamant that they are right.

i believe they call that a democrat.

[Dixie-Dude]

There are far more things affecting climate vs carbon fuels. 

For instance:

NASA is monitoring a hole in the Van-Allen radiation belt in the southern hemisphere.  This allows more solar radiation to hit the earth, thus warming up, especially the southern hemisphere. 

One volcanic eruption can spew more carbon dioxide out than all of human activity for a year.

The Antarchic ice melt was found to be volcanoes under Antarctica recently causing ice to melt and break away.

A large solar flare can cause the earth to heat up. 

Now, it was recently discovered that the UN was fudging climate numbers and there was no heating up during a 15 year period.  So there is that. 

It is not all man made activity.  The first mention of global warming was in 1989 and they said we only had 10 years.  That was 34 years ago.  In 1979 they thought we were entering a new ice age due to the previous extremely cold winter. 

Heat in cities with asphalt and tall buildings is at least 10 degrees hotter than the countryside.  Asphalt absorbs solar heat.  The US has at least one paved road for every square mile of land.  Western Europe and Japan are similar.  Asphalt can heat up the air faster than burning fossil fuels.  I read an article that using lighter concrete roads would help reflect sunlight and the air would be cooler than using asphalt.  Same with using white shingles instead of darker ones on homes. 

Lots of ways to cool down things.  Planting more trees would also take out a huge amount of carbon dioxide from the air. 

Using greenhouses to farm vegetables instead of plowing land and letting the land go back to growing trees would help. 

Getting rid of fossil fuels is not going to help much.  There are far easier and cheaper ways to cool down earth until new technology gets cheaper. 

[TrumpWon]

Hard to believe those automotive giants are going to stop building gas engines because of an Al Gore quote not because they recognize climate change.

[gene_225]

No matter the cause of warming ( if, in your opinion, there is warming), hybrids seem to make the most sense right now, as far as I can see.

[Lloyd Smale]

i think rather the even hybrids theres better ways to spend r&d money today. just look at how far weve come in the last 30 years in emissions and fuel economy. what could happen with ten more years of devlopment. look at outboards and snowmobile. 10 years ago everyone was convinced that 2 strokes were dead and  the entire market would go 4 stroke. but then came direct injection 2 stokes that in many cases are cleaner the 4 strokes, weight much less so you can use a lower hp 2 stroke to get the same performance that would take a larger 4 stroke. the get as good or better fuel economy and are just as quiet. Add to that anyone thats compared equal hp outboards or snomobiles know that a 2 stroke about always out accelerates a 4 stroke. maybe a small 2 stroke car in the future?

[Lloyd Smale]

then factor in all the trees that need to be made into new poles, steel smelted to build new towers transformers and hardware. copper and aluminum for conductors jumpers transformer windings, building all the trucks and heavy euipment and the fuel to run them for a couple decades. then we do all that and unless we are relying on the electrical fairy we will need to somehow produce the power so i can add on all the pollution created build that. basically every bit of conductor from your home all the way back to the inadequate gen station will need to be replaced every transformer in the system from the plant to the sub station to your home. every insulator anywhere voltage will be increased probably half the poles and towers. think all of this might make some pollution and drastically either raise your taxes or electric rates or most likely both. then the president will have to institute a draft for line workers because every utility in the country is short handed and screaming for lineman and it isnt because of low pay. where else can you make over a 100k a year without a degree and some of already are working 7 day weeks and making twice that but the big dowside is you have to put your phone away and actually get your hands dirty. good luck finding men amongst the mamas boys. when someone tells you evs make sense bounce this off of them. thet will do just like biden. smile and walk away

Even if everything fell into place and all went as planned, it would be a minimum of at least 50 years before electric vehicles make any kind of impact on emissions in this country. The power grid could not be built in 25-30+ years to handle what is done now by farm tractors and semi's. If they really wanted for cars to be much more efficient, a small diesel engine, 3-4 cylinder turbo can get 50+ miles to the gallon. They've had them in Europe for decade's.

[Dixie-Dude]

The reason two stroke engines never were used in cars is because they pollute more than 4 stroke.  Volvo, way back in the 1990's built a lunch box size gas turbine engine.  It turned a small generator which powered electric motors at the wheels.  It had battery backup (like a modern hybrid) using about 6-8 plain old deep cycle batteries used for trolling motors.  The batteries assisted in accelerating the car.  The turbine engine maintained the speed and slow charged the batteries while driving.  It was an old full sized Volvo.  It got an average of 50 mpg.  The reason it never made it to market was because back then manufacturing the turbine engine was expensive.  It might have to be revisited if they can use newer CNC or 3D printed turbine engines.  These cars would be cheaper than piston engines to operate using less gas.  By using smaller lithium batteries it might make for a much better hybrid. 

Also, a new Wankel type engine has been developed which might be cheaper than a turbine and could also turn a generator. 

Then, both of these types of engines could use almost any fuel.  If using say compressed natural gas, neither would require and expensive catalytic converter.  Or, they could use propane which also wouldn't require a catalytic converter. 

There are ways to lower carbon emissions.  Growing food in large greenhouses would only take 1/10th the land area as growing on farms.  Then farms could grow trees and trees would take far more carbon dioxide out of the air than anything else.  The Netherlands (Holland) is the third leading exporter of food in the world because they have more greenhouses than anyone else in the world.  They export their vegetables to most of Europe.  Why can't we do that.  When the Pilgrams landed a squirrel could go from the Atlantic ocean to the Mississippi River without touching the ground. 

[teamnelson]

Hard to believe those automotive giants are going to stop building gas engines because of an Al Gore quote not because they recognize climate change.

I wonder what changed their recognition and caused Ford and Toyota to drop EVs?

Could it be that EV production is more harmful to the climate than FVs? Could it be that disposal of EV waste products is more harmful to the climate? Could it be that the infrastructure on the entire planet cannot support the product? That the average car buyer cannot buy an EV? Cannot charge an EV? Doesn't have the time to sit around and wait for it to charge? Doesn't have a home charging station, which is costly? Oh and the grid? That ramping up EVs while ramping up experimental green energy production and shutting down reliable proven energy production (like coal and nuke) hurt the EV market?

I agree that they recognize the political climate, the social climate, and the economic climate is changing about EVs. I believe many of those folks walking to anti-climate change rallies will be folks who have awoken to the lies, had to walk because the wind/solar grid couldn't produce enough energy to charge their federally mandated EV, and they had to choose between paying rent or taking the lpg powered bus.

I mean its not like we have seen other industry giants make really really bad calls recently, have we? Annhueser Busch, Disney, etc. There's a yuge difference between social change and science, and when any industry confuses the two, they lose badly.

[Mule 11]

Let’s not forget the gubment subsidies...

[Lloyd Smale]

those days are gone. newer 2 strokes are every bit as clean as the 4 strokes. but that sure wasnt the case 15 years ago

The reason two stroke engines never were used in cars is because they pollute more than 4 stroke.  Volvo, way back in the 1990's built a lunch box size gas turbine engine.  It turned a small generator which powered electric motors at the wheels.  It had battery backup (like a modern hybrid) using about 6-8 plain old deep cycle batteries used for trolling motors.  The batteries assisted in accelerating the car.  The turbine engine maintained the speed and slow charged the batteries while driving.  It was an old full sized Volvo.  It got an average of 50 mpg.  The reason it never made it to market was because back then manufacturing the turbine engine was expensive.  It might have to be revisited if they can use newer CNC or 3D printed turbine engines.  These cars would be cheaper than piston engines to operate using less gas.  By using smaller lithium batteries it might make for a much better hybrid. 

Also, a new Wankel type engine has been developed which might be cheaper than a turbine and could also turn a generator. 

Then, both of these types of engines could use almost any fuel.  If using say compressed natural gas, neither would require and expensive catalytic converter.  Or, they could use propane which also wouldn't require a catalytic converter. 

There are ways to lower carbon emissions.  Growing food in large greenhouses would only take 1/10th the land area as growing on farms.  Then farms could grow trees and trees would take far more carbon dioxide out of the air than anything else.  The Netherlands (Holland) is the third leading exporter of food in the world because they have more greenhouses than anyone else in the world.  They export their vegetables to most of Europe.  Why can't we do that.  When the Pilgrams landed a squirrel could go from the Atlantic ocean to the Mississippi River without touching the ground.

[Lloyd Smale]

  Then farms could grow trees and trees would take far more carbon dioxide out of the air than anything else. 

think of millions or even billions of trees that will be chopped down make new poles to rebuild the grid

[Lloyd Smale]

sad thing is the car manufacturers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. they had to waste the r&d to be competitive if the remote chance the socialists stay in power. but if saner people get into office the whole ev thing will unravel in a month. like you said ford just came out with a new v8 this year and chev did last year for the vette and another new one for the z06 this year,. they sure wouldnt waste the money to tool up for a motor that will go away in 2 years. even dodges big new car introduction was that lame hornet. the perfect platform if they wanted to get a jump start with ev sales. i look at where you live and think that if this communist plot comes to be a smart man would  have taken all his savings and buy used pickups because they would be priceless in AK, heck even here on the northern border. whats really sad is the libs led by biden forced the car manufacturers to waste billions on evs that wont happen and put them 3 years behind where they would have been if it was used to made cars that work better. what some are to stupid to realize is that all that wasted money will be passed on to car buyers for years 

Hard to believe those automotive giants are going to stop building gas engines because of an Al Gore quote not because they recognize climate change.

I wonder what changed their recognition and caused Ford and Toyota to drop EVs?

Could it be that EV production is more harmful to the climate than FVs? Could it be that disposal of EV waste products is more harmful to the climate? Could it be that the infrastructure on the entire planet cannot support the product? That the average car buyer cannot buy an EV? Cannot charge an EV? Doesn't have the time to sit around and wait for it to charge? Doesn't have a home charging station, which is costly? Oh and the grid? That ramping up EVs while ramping up experimental green energy production and shutting down reliable proven energy production (like coal and nuke) hurt the EV market?

I agree that they recognize the political climate, the social climate, and the economic climate is changing about EVs. I believe many of those folks walking to anti-climate change rallies will be folks who have awoken to the lies, had to walk because the wind/solar grid couldn't produce enough energy to charge their federally mandated EV, and they had to choose between paying rent or taking the lpg powered bus.

I mean its not like we have seen other industry giants make really really bad calls recently, have we? Annhueser Busch, Disney, etc. There's a yuge difference between social change and science, and when any industry confuses the two, they lose badly.

[Casull]

No matter the cause of warming ( if, in your opinion, there is warming), hybrids seem to make the most sense right now, as far as I can see.

My new Ram is a hybrid.  It burns gas and rubber.

[Lloyd Smale]

No matter the cause of warming ( if, in your opinion, there is warming), hybrids seem to make the most sense right now, as far as I can see.

My new Ram is a hybrid.  It burns gas and rubber.

hell ya. just put a2in lift 33s headers and a cat back on mine. sounds like the angels playing a symphony. still doesnt sound as good or put tire smoke in the atmosphere for trump won like the challenger will though but so its fair for his (or her) argument it gets about 10 mpg less then the car. theres a good example of arguing with someone claiming my v8 are burning to much fuel. the ram gets about 17-18mpg. the 392 challenger will easily do 25.my wife got 27 on a trip to MN. dad had a 4 cyl Subaru outback. he got 25 and probably never drove it over 60. he also had a dodge dakota with a 318 mag and best he ever got was 18. now in the case of the hemi ram its motor is OLD technology. fords and chevs make as much power and get 4 to 5 miles to the gallon better. you can get a full size chev with a 6cyl diesel that will get 30mpg. we had a 2013 buick verono which is a small 4 cyl car and it never saw 30mpg. justthink of what we might have today if biden mandated fossil fuel v8 had to be more efficient and they had spent all that r&d money wasted on evs making v8s better

[Casull]

Yep, I remember about a hundred years ago, I had a '71 Plymouth Fury with a 360.  IF I behaved myself, I could get upwards of 13 mpg.  If I ran the a/c and kept my foot in the throttle, it was more like 8 mpg.

[Lloyd Smale]

used to commute a 120 miles a day in a lifted big tire chev 4x4 that got 9 if i was gentle. 16 gallon tank had to top off the tank every day thats with a stick and no air. i spent more on gas every month then my house payment heck my high school car was a 440 gtx that did no better and real world the way i drove it it was probably more like 5!! youd think those global warming nuts like trump won would be satisfied. my 392 challenger has got 26 and id bet if i really tried i could get 30. shoes you how far cars have come. over a 100 more hp and more then three times better on gas. got to wonder what he drives? as much as he talks the talk ill take for granted its an ev. just wonder what brand

Yep, I remember about a hundred years ago, I had a '71 Plymouth Fury with a 360.  IF I behaved myself, I could get upwards of 13 mpg.  If I ran the a/c and kept my foot in the throttle, it was more like 8 mpg.