☰
×
Login Register an account
Top Submissions Explore Upgoat Search Random Subverse Random Post Colorize! Site Rules Donate
7

EVs Replacing Fuel and Saving the Planet is One of the Funniest Jokes

submitted by patchCodeUnsuccessful to whatever 2.9 yearsMay 31, 2022 11:17:12 ago (+7/-0)     (whatever)

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/

^^^ Look at the graph for the electric power sector. 65% energy loss.

So, to change to everything electric they'd have to increase the electric grid to handle 6x the load, increase nuclear/solar/wind/hydro by 30x. That would then cover the USA. This would cost roughly 10T if we just used nuclear and did the upgrades.

I don't ever see this happening on a global scale in my lifetime.


7 comments block

sort by: hot new top old low

[ - ] La_Chalupacabra 0 points 2.9 yearsMay 31, 2022 21:45:52 ago (+0/-0)

They were never going to replace gasoline-powered vehicles with electric on a 1:1 ratio.
The intent all along has been to eliminate personal ownership of vehicles for all but the extremely rich and the government and all this talk is just to get everyone else to go along with the incremental dismantling of that ability before it's too late for them to get wise and fight back.

[ - ] pickingrinninspittin 1 point 2.9 yearsMay 31, 2022 20:29:31 ago (+1/-0)

Everything about EVs screams niche and gimmick and has from day 1. And yet everyone is certain they will save the planet. Yet if you even try to have that conversation you get looked at like you're from a different planet.

Here's a recent study that compares the carbon footprint of electric and gas powered cars (tl/dr keeping and maintaining your existing ICE car is preferable to buying a new EV) https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/7/2703/htm

[ - ] patchCodeUnsuccessful [op] 0 points 2.9 yearsJun 1, 2022 06:14:44 ago (+0/-0)

Very cool paper.

As for the niche and gimmick. I didn't really get that feeling for some time. Tesla was operating in a way early on where they were showing how cool their tech was, not how good of a person you are for having one. These days seeing the white snub nose cars with soy boys behind the wheel screams niche and gimmick to me. I think they were trying to just create an alternate car, but investors became stupid. Now, to attract those investors actual auto companies have become stupid.

Sad part is I still like a lot of the tech behind it. With fewer moving parts under strain, the potential for longer lived engines exists. Less noise, more torque, etc. Lot of cool stuff. And, the really funny bit is that prius performed the vast majority of this perfectly (https://jalopnik.com/check-out-what-a-toyota-prius-engine-looks-like-after-3-1848018980 <- 303000 miles engine) but they never took their hybrid model and put it into a cooler body.

[ - ] CPU 0 points 2.9 yearsJun 1, 2022 12:57:47 ago (+0/-0)

They are forcing us into EVs as they want us to be connected to charging stations, especially when people travel. They will be forced to use smart fast chargers, which will be controlled.


Right now the car companies could easily build a v8 4x4 suv with a motor attached to the front drive of the transfer case, and make the vehicle get much more fuel mileage. They could even use super capacitors instead of batteries, caps should be easier to implement. But they won't, that is not the agenda, the agenda is full EVs.

[ - ] patchCodeUnsuccessful [op] 0 points 2.9 yearsJun 1, 2022 14:14:17 ago (+0/-0)*

which will be controlled
They can already remotely kill a vehicles engine. That's rather dumb.

make the vehicle get much more fuel mileage
On what are you basing this idea on? I get that a low percentage of the combustion is turned into kinetic force (https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml ) which leads to loads of room for the concept that they could do it better but don't. But, I would actually like to know what theory you're going by. Because everything I see their's a large force trying to generate more fuel economy then there is for a lack of it.

They could even use super capacitors instead of batteries
Yeah, at a 20x increase in weight. Major loss of power.

[ - ] CPU 0 points 2.9 yearsJun 2, 2022 02:15:26 ago (+0/-0)

They can already remotely kill a vehicles engine. That's rather dumb.

Why do you think they are spending huge amounts on a smart grid? Right now with forced EV adoption, and a smart grid. They certainly want to control every station.


On what are you basing this idea on?

I am referring to a KERS based system attached to a normal large engine vehicle. Not simply downsize the engine for more fuel mileage.

Yeah, at a 20x increase in weight. Major loss of power.

Not sure if the caps would weigh more, caps are designed for high charge and draw scenario. Not saying they have to use it with a KERs, but it is an option.

[ - ] patchCodeUnsuccessful [op] 0 points 2.9 yearsJun 2, 2022 08:27:14 ago (+0/-0)

Ah, the breaking reclamation system. I think they have to take city vs highway driving into the calculation. A general rule of thumb is that you'll lose about 1% fuel efficiency for every extra 100lbs in most cars. A KERS system ways around 50-1200 (depending on type). So, over the long run will the 10% return on fuel efficiency on stop heavy traffic work out.

Even though it's about 20 years old in functioning automobiles, it's still a relatively young technology. Or, they're just waiting for the patent to expire.

As for why I think they're pushing for a smart grid. To charge more and use fewer workers. Already seen this between the smart grid and dumb grid electric meters. Smart grid shows the usage time, dumb grid only shows the over all usage.