I still don't see EV's Replacing ICEs.

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

Why is it a poor comparison? Trains are literally the most cost-effective form of transport known to mankind, their benefits are innumerable and we only got away from them as regular passenger use because we were sold the dream of suburbs and car ownership and such.

It's a poor comparison because you compared a large country in which the population is relatively concentrated to a large country in which it is not. It's also a poor comparison because you are comparing a country in which the people have little say over how their resources are used to one in which they can influence policy through their voice and their vote. 

America's population is absolutely concentrated in Cities. 80% of All Americans live in one. As for "Little say over how resources are used", it's no different to the rail owners and corporations-turn Monopolies of the 1850s through 1900s, except with us it was based entirely on profit margin. So I still fail to see how it's a poor comparison; we use them because there's no better way to move huge amounts of freight.

We weren't much better in the recent past, especailly with guys like Robert Moses. Even AARP has stories about it.Either way, building electric or building a rail lines doesn't mean you're gonna slam it though a protected wilderness region; frequently the elevation of the ground will dictate where you go and how you'll do it. Hell, depending on how old the train is running anything else might be an improvement for air quality.

Yes, the irony of the similarities of how our railroads were largely built by the Chinese and how they treat their labor is not lost on me. But are we really comparing present day with methods of the 19th century? 

Considering those people who fought in things like the Civil rights era are very much alive today? Absolutely. 50 years is nothing.

I don't quite get the Robert Moses tie in. China doesn't need to do the shady stuff that he did, they just do what they want, no questions asked. It would seem to me like an example of why large infrastructure projects are more difficult in the US.

Because you said "Unless the ends justifies the means and electric trains trump human rights", so I brought up Moses bulldozing entire neighboorhoods without recourse to make interstates to show that we're not much better. Also you conflated electric trains to erosion of human rights for some weird reason.

Personally, large projects are "Difficult" largely because of two things now- NIMBYs and constant politicization for short term gain for regional politics. My state will likely follow Pennsylvania in doing the same thing about rainwater collection as Curtis discussed 20+ pages ago, and now Texas is proof of that with branding everything from solar panels to energy-efficient appliances to EVs as "woke".

And we don't need to go back to Robert Moses, the current California "high speed" rail project is pretty much following his playbook. 

I'd have to see proof of that, because I've seen nothing but the opposite. 

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

America's population is absolutely concentrated in Cities. 80% of All Americans live in one. As for "Little say over how resources are used", it's no different to the rail owners and corporations-turn Monopolies of the 1850s through 1900s, except with us it was based entirely on profit margin. So I still fail to see how it's a poor comparison; we use them because there's no better way to move huge amounts of freight.
 

You are missing the parts between the cities. The trains need to travel between the cities. The farther apart those cities are, the more expensive converting rail to electric becomes. Los Angeles is far from New York. 
 

Because you said "Unless the ends justifies the means and electric trains trump human rights", so I brought up Moses bulldozing entire neighboorhoods without recourse to make interstates to show that we're not much better. Also you conflated electric trains to erosion of human rights for some weird reason.

I equated China with less human rights than the US. I didn't think I was going out on a limb. While I'm no fan of Robert Moses' tactics, I don't think they are fair comparison to China.

Personally, large projects are "Difficult" largely because of two things now- NIMBYs and constant politicization for short term gain for regional politics. My state will likely follow Pennsylvania in doing the same thing about rainwater collection as Curtis discussed 20+ pages ago, and now Texas is proof of that with branding everything from solar panels to energy-efficient appliances to EVs as "woke".

And we don't need to go back to Robert Moses, the current California "high speed" rail project is pretty much following his playbook. 

I'd have to see proof of that, because I've seen nothing but the opposite. 

The California "High Speed Rail" project followed much of his example. It was promised as a cost effective high speed link between Sacramento and San Diego and the suckers, er, voters believed and approved it. The costs shared were low by orders of magnitude. They knew it, but much like Moses, they knew that once the project was started, it would be difficult to stop. So it was started in The Middle of Nowhere, California where it was cheapest and easiest to build. And still went way over budget. Now it appears that linking any of the major cities isn't going to happen for the predictable reasons, and the whole thing is just going to be a big waste of money. 

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

You are missing the parts between the cities. The trains need to travel between the cities. The farther apart those cities are, the more expensive converting rail to electric becomes. Los Angeles is far from New York. 

Okay? Then prove it's cheaper to keep running things by semi as they are now, so compare costs for fuel, lack of staffing, public health issues from all the diesel exhaust and particulate, and cost in comparison to Europe which have mandated rail transport.

Because you said "Unless the ends justifies the means and electric trains trump human rights", so I brought up Moses bulldozing entire neighboorhoods without recourse to make interstates to show that we're not much better. Also you conflated electric trains to erosion of human rights for some weird reason.

I equated China with less human rights than the US. I didn't think I was going out on a limb. While I'm no fan of Robert Moses' tactics, I don't think they are fair comparison to China.

Both have preformed forced relocations of minorities, as the links I posted discussed:

1. "“Our categorical imperative is action to clear the slums,” Moses said in a 1959 speech. “We can’t let minorities dictate that this century-old chore will be put off another generation or finally abandoned.”"

The California "High Speed Rail" project followed much of his example. It was promised as a cost effective high speed link between Sacramento and San Diego and the suckers, er, voters believed and approved it. The costs shared were low by orders of magnitude. They knew it, but much like Moses, they knew that once the project was started, it would be difficult to stop. So it was started in The Middle of Nowhere, California where it was cheapest and easiest to build. And still went way over budget. Now it appears that linking any of the major cities isn't going to happen for the predictable reasons, and the whole thing is just going to be a big waste of money. 

Again, NIMBYs. I'll post more proof if you being posting some of your own.

I tuned in to see where this thread was.

Glad to see it's going smoothly......silly me I thought it might turn into a right fighters pissing contest.

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

Okay? Then prove it's cheaper to keep running things by semi as they are now, so compare costs for fuel, lack of staffing, public health issues from all the diesel exhaust and particulate, and cost in comparison to Europe which have mandated rail transport.
 

I think you are talking about something completely different from what we were discussing, which might explain things. We were discussing the current system of diesel electric locomotives Vs. Fully electric locomotives, specifically applied to freight moved across the country. Semi trucks were not part of the conversation. 
 

Both have preformed forced relocations of minorities, as the links I posted discussed:

1. "“Our categorical imperative is action to clear the slums,” Moses said in a 1959 speech. “We can’t let minorities dictate that this century-old chore will be put off another generation or finally abandoned.”"

Again, not the same thing as how China operates. You are taking an old, outdated example of our system at it's worst and comparing it to China now. And it's still not even in the same ballpark. And you are comparing a city to a nation. I'd still chose to live in 1959 New York over China today. 

Again, NIMBYs. I'll post more proof if you being posting some of your own.

Exactly, we have NIMBY's! All those damn citizens with their own voices and options, property rights, free speech, etc.. How much easier it would be without those things. 

You want proof that the California high speed rail project is a failure? Do I need to prove the Earth is round while I'm at it? Even the staunchest advocates like Governor Newsome have said that it won't connect the cities promised, is many times over budget, won't achieve the speeds promised, and ridership was way over estimated. Here is the first one Googled...

CA High Speed Rail

Edit: I just saw the YouTube video you included, it wasn't there when I first responded. It's an opinion largely targeted towards someone else's opinion video. Are you sure this is the proof that you want to cite? I can sum it up. 
 

"Yea, it's expensive and way over budget, but it's worth it, because we have to do something, and this is something." 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

I wonder what the neigh sayers have to say about high speed rail in general?   
   Seems to work other places pretty well.   I took  the Japanese bullet train back in the 1970's,  it was pretty neat.  
      So initial  details aren't perfect? Think they won't try to fix them?  
 

  Regarding Tesla's Semi's?   Two companies have signed up for the first batch of 100,000 off the line.   Pepsi and  Tesla. 
      Pretty respectable.  Not really known for failure.  Or for foolish extravagance.  

Are you sure about that 100,000 number? Everything I've seen says Pepsi has only ordered 100. PepsiCo reserves 100 Tesla Semis, likely at $20,000 a pop  ($20,000 is just the price of the reservation, not the price of the truck.

Here's what Emily Conway, Fleet Sustainability Manager for PepsiCo said in an interview from April 2022:  “We don’t believe there’s a silver bullet for a sustainable fleet,” she said. “We always need to be putting the most efficient truck on the road that we can [that] suits our duty cycle. ...  PepsiCo is likely to continue updating its electrification strategy on a annual basis, as more data comes out and the technology develops, Conway said. But, put simply, any long-haul trucks still run on diesel, and medium and other shorter hauls use CNG."  That quote is from this article. She goes on to talk about the pros and cons of renewable diesel, CNG and electric.

Also, of the 21 Tesla Semis that Pepsi is currently using at its Sacramento distribution facility, they only paid for 3, the Sacramento Metroploitain Air Quality Management District gave PepsiCo $4.5 million to help buy those 21 semis, leaving Pepsico on the hook for the equivalent of three trucks. Pepsi would be stupid not to take that deal. Here's a Link to a Jalopnik article about it. They link to a Sacramento Bee article but it's behind a pay wall.  I can only imagine that PepsiCo is getting similar deals from other municipalities.

You said two companies have placed orders for the first 100,000, Pepsi and Tesla so is Tesla ordering the other 99,900 Semis?

Tom1200 said:

I tuned in to see where this thread was.

Glad to see it's going smoothly......silly me I thought it might turn into a right fighters pissing contest.

If we can't discuss topics here that doesn't provide much hope for the rest of our country.  Open discourse is a big part of the solution.  For too long people with different ideas and views have stopped working together.  It's time to reverse that,  this could be a tiny first step.

This will be my last post on this issue (I hope) which will probably be good news for some.

On the subject of trains, both diesel and electric,  trains work well in congested areas like NYC, but not well here in the mid-west.  A few years ago they looked at train service between Cleveland and Cincinnati and for a number of reasons it was determined not to be feasible.

Next I firmly believe that global warming caused by human activity is the biggest hoax ever perpetuated on the working class people of the free world, especially this country.  Russia, China and India are the largest polluters and I don't that changing any time soon.  The climate and weather of the world is cyclical and determined by factors we can not control.  Back in the 90's Time Magazine ran a cover story that we were headed for another ice age, a few years later they changed to global warming.

Lastly one of AOC top aides is now an executive of the NY Communist Party.  

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

This was just getting off-topic by even GRM standards. There was an awful lot of my data can beat up your data back and forth.

There has been some good discussion here. I find the Telsa truck discussion interesting. 

As for large EV vehicles; we ordered a couple of electric school buses; they are three times the price of the diesel bus.

Mustang50 said:

This will be my last post on this issue (I hope) which will probably be good news for some.

On the subject of trains, both diesel and electric,  trains work well in congested areas like NYC, but not well here in the mid-west.  A few years ago they looked at train service between Cleveland and Cincinnati and for a number of reasons it was determined not to be feasible.

Next I firmly believe that global warming caused by human activity is the biggest hoax ever perpetuated on the working class people of the free world, especially this country.  Russia, China and India are the largest polluters and I don't that changing any time soon.  The climate and weather of the world is cyclical and determined by factors we can not control.  Back in the 90's Time Magazine ran a cover story that we were headed for another ice age, a few years later they changed to global warming.

Lastly one of AOC top aides is now an executive of the NY Communist Party.  

 

Too bad you don't follow the news.   China is going all out on renewAbles.  A major one was the 3 gorges Dam.  But 3 of the 4 biggest solar panel manufactures are in China.  Plus the cost of solar panels is seriously going down. 
     In Addition as  next year no new ICE cars can be sold in China. 
  So 90+ Chinese car manufactures are making EV's. 
     BYD is the #2 EV seller in the world ( Tesla is #1 ) and the only one aside from Tesla that is making a profit doing so.  
  In Addition to that  China is planting forests of trees in an area that was previously a desert.  10 's of millions of trees.  To offset its carbon foot print.   
  BYD  is also making seriously big batteries  to deal with solar panels out put.  
     UK is going 100% renewables  may achieve it by 2025 

  Texas. Oil rich Texas.   has more windmills and solar panels than any state in the Union.    Which is probably because Oil Company executives understand making a profit.  
 

New Mexico is putting 900 of those same giant wind generators  in  which will provide electricity for 30,000 homes!!   
   The biggest EV factory in the world is making cars and soon pickups.  In Texas. 
     Across the world people companies, countries are going renewable.   If you don't like the politics of it, you'll love the economics of it. 

In reply to Schmidlap :

I don't know all ofTesla's  customers.   But I'm sure Tesla is going to be using some to feed their Giga factories materials, parts, tires. Batteries,   etc.  plus getting stuff to and from the New Mexican Giga factory which is reportedly going to be 2 times the size  of the Texas factory. ( which holds  the record for the worlds biggest car factory) 

In reply to Tom1200 :

Tom you may also find the congressional testimony of the guy from the American truckers association interesting. EVs in smaller applications are improving rapidly.  There is still quite a ways to go for over the road trucks or trains.  I'm sure it will get solved but forcing a solution by decree usually fails.

In reply to Mustang50 :

This will be my last post on this issue (I hope) which will probably be good news for some.

On the subject of trains, both diesel and electric,  trains work well in congested areas like NYC, but not well here in the mid-west.  A few years ago they looked at train service between Cleveland and Cincinnati and for a number of reasons it was determined not to be feasible.

Next I firmly believe that global warming caused by human activity is the biggest hoax ever perpetuated on the working class people of the free world, especially this country.  Russia, China and India are the largest polluters and I don't that changing any time soon.  The climate and weather of the world is cyclical and determined by factors we can not control.  Back in the 90's Time Magazine ran a cover story that we were headed for another ice age, a few years later they changed to global warming.

Lastly one of AOC top aides is now an executive of the NY Communist Party.  
 

As far as electric vehicles, I see them as more tools in the toolbox. I believe that if the tools are available, most people will adopt the best tool for their job, be it EV, hybrid, or ICE. I'm not a fan of telling people which tools they have to use, and believe that if the new tool is better than the old tool, then you won't have to. 
 

As far as global warming/climate change, I'll take a stab at something I rarely see- an honest assessment of both of the popular opinions on the subject. 

The argument for man made climate change is that while the the climate does shift constantly due to a wide variety of factors, we are seeing the change more rapidly than we have historically and the only factor not accounted for is man made greenhouse gasses. While most  greenhouse gasses are natural and a good thing, and man's contribution doesn't appear to be a lot Vs. nature, the additional gasses upset the balance. Nature emits greenhouse gasses at about the rate in which they can absorb them, and man's addition overfills the cup as others have put it. This could result in increases in global land and sea temps, changes to weather patterns and climate, and sea level rise. All of which could have great cost on people's lives and economies around the world. 
 

Challenges with this arguement- 

There is a lot of money and power that appear to influence the science and the message. Phrases such as "settled science" don't help. Long term predictions are tough. It's a decimal place problem. The farther out you go, the more any deviation adds up. If you aim at a target 50' away and you are a degree off, you are less than a foot off target. At 100', just under 2'. At 1000', you are missing by almost 18'. That is with every parameter. So calculating a compex problem like global climate over the next 100 years can have a wide range of results. The issue is that of the variety of results calculated, the most dire outcome is often the one shared with the intent to scare people into action. It also raises questions when 99.99% of the time, climate change is only associated with negative changes, when analytically we know that can't be true. It's very hard to find any info which places might get better. But it looks like the Great Lakes region would be a nice place to live, so buy up some cheap property now if you think big changes are coming. 

Arguments against man made climate change-

It's about money and power, not climate.  Climate change is natural, and man's contribution is trivial at best. The science has been cherry picked, and opposition has been shut down socially and economically. Many of the steps proposed to fight climate change will have little impact other than weakening our economy and national security if countries like China and India don't take the same measures. Many of the solutions will do little to reduce overall CO2, and amount to rearranging the furniture to look like we did something.  In such a case, we would be better off conserving our resources and maintaining strong economy to better deal with climate challenges as they arise rather than waste them in a futile attempt to delay the inevitable. In short, there is skepticism that a problem exists due to tainted science and reporting, and skepticism that a solution exists if the problem is real. There is confidence however, that many are using it as an opportunity to grab money and power. 

Challenges with this argument- 

There is lots of evidence to support not only climate change, but man's contribution. While climate change is normal- changing as quickly as recorded/projected is not. Someone has to lead, and if the US is the leader of the free world, it should be us. Not acting will be very expensive long term as most of our population lives near the coast and would be affected be sea level rise. This argument also relies on fear to increase money and power- fear that they are going to take your stuff. Though the money side of the equation is extremely unbalanced, there is much more money in global warming. This is too important an issue to get wrong, and we must do all that we can to prevent/mitigate the effects of climate change. We do all kinds of things "just in case," why not take action to preserve our climate "just in case?" 

The above aren't my personal views, but I think it's a fair overall framing of the issue. I think reality is likely a mix of most of the above. My personal take- address the issues with the most bang for the buck, honestly assess where we stand risk wise, and identify how much contribution we will get from other major world players. Then decide how much of our efforts should be focused on reducing or mitigating the effects. 

Very well said.     My only minor contribution would be that 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the last 10 years.  
      
    I really do like your tools in the toolbox analogy. 
     Not every EV is best nor is every ICE Bad. 
     I hope I've been clear enough about  the economic benefits of change.   I also recognize some people really dislike change even though it's is inevitable. 
    We are all going to get older. Until we die.  That alone should have people accepting change. 
      I think some of the resistance to change is fear of making the wrong choices or just being wrong.  
        

Okay it's hotter 9 out of the last 10 years and there is a lot of evidence....  well I'm pretty much a data guy, and this argument has one major problem.  Let's frame it in a story.

My mother in law, that I love and lives with us, stated she was worried about climate change and hurricanes growing in strength due to man after Dorian hit the Bahamas.  It was one of the strongest hurricanes ever recorded.  
 

How long has man had instruments capable of measuring and collecting all this weather data? About 50 years if we are honest and about 100 years for good instrumentation.  Anything prior to that was pretty rudimentary and has questionable calibrations.  Heck I'd like to see the calibration records climate scientists keep.  
 

So how strong was the 1900 Galveston Hurricane?  How about Cheniere Caminada Hurricane?  What about the storms that sank all those wooden ships and put all that gold at the  bottom of the Gulf of Mexico?  
 

The most devastating natural event I know of is the eruption of the super volcano that makes up Yellowstone.  I'd love to hear how man made that happen.  
 

The fact remains the data pool that all  of the climate fear mongering is based on is very small.  It's really too small to draw big conclusions which is why 100% of all the dire predictions have been wrong to date.  
 

There is a lot more evidence and data for nefarious acts of men that the same people screaming climate change won't allow anyone to look at.  Almost each one of those issues is a more dire problem to society as a whole.  
 

No one is saying man shouldn't care for the planet, but it's not the dire problem it's made out to be in the US.  Now if you want to talk plastic in the ocean that is far more dire and it's well known where most of it comes from.  The same people that haven't addressed that aren't going to change the temperature of the planet if we give them more money.  They will just have more money and power over you.  

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

     The shocking thing people haven't grasped at yet,  is China is exporting more cars than any other country. Yes Japan , Germany etc. 

 the vast majority of those cars are EV's, because that's what people want.  
    Further shock is that two companies are making a profit building EV's 

  Tesla and BYD.     Legacy automakers can't figure out how to profit from EV's   I suspect it's because they haven't grasped the benefits of Wright's Law  Henry Ford capitalized on it with the Model T as did VW  with the beetle, and Toyota did with the Corolla.

  The real reason Detroit couldn't make a small car at a profit is they forgot Wrights Law. 
    The new model 2 Tesla is designed to capitalize on Wrights Law  42 million are planned for.  
    
   With regard to the plastics issue.    Private companies are harvesting mid Pacific plastics.   Yet millions of tons are still washing ashore.  
   The problem cannot be solved  until the cost of removal is factored into the cost of manufacturing.  That's only solvable at the global level.  
 

 Global warming is being dealt with at the global level.   Yes China and India  are making progress   

 Anthony continues to refuse anything against his world view it seems. Climate change has long been proven to be real, the existence of Antarctic ice cores and our use of mercury for centuries to read pressure and temperature changes is evidence enough. If I bring up past questions I asked of him he'll probably get mad and change the subject again lmao, like when he was trying to blame climate change on volcanoes a week ago.

Boost_Crazy said:

I think you are talking about something completely different from what we were discussing, which might explain things. We were discussing the current system of diesel electric locomotives Vs. Fully electric locomotives, specifically applied to freight moved across the country. Semi trucks were not part of the conversation. 

OOoOOOohhhhh, I thought people were talking something else, but frankly it's been two days and I don't remember exactly what I thought it was about. Sadly we have to compare to semis as a baseline, since we do SO much over the road.

Diesel-electric hybrid trains have been in use for decades (back as far as the 50s it seems), American rail lines are even using them routinely since regions of Pennsylvania (due to tunnels) forbid the exhaust. Heck, they can even pull power from 3rd rail, so they can be either grid, diesel or battery if needed (though I seriously doubt the battery will be used for more than positioning within a rail yard due to the energy needed to move everything).

Again, not the same thing as how China operates. You are taking an old, outdated example of our system at it's worst

Again, the people this affected are very much alive and America has done FAR worse with slavery and the Native Americans. It's absolutely outdated, but that doesn't mean people just stopped being racist- much in the same way that a pattern of thinking may be a logical fallacy, but it doesn't mean people still don't use said fallacies.

and comparing it to China now. And it's still not even in the same ballpark. And you are comparing a city to a nation. I'd still chose to live in 1959 New York over China today. 

Doesn't matter. It was systemic, and he was one part of that system; he and others did the same things all over America, and only now is it being focused upon.

Exactly, we have NIMBY's! All those damn citizens with their own voices and options, property rights, free speech, etc.. How much easier it would be without those things. 

When the hell did I ever say I was gonna remove someone's rights? You dudes just keep trying to jam words in my mouth, I swear.

Edit: I just saw the YouTube video you included, it wasn't there when I first responded. It's an opinion largely targeted towards someone else's opinion video. Are you sure this is the proof that you want to cite? I can sum it up. 

"Yea, it's expensive and way over budget, but it's worth it, because we have to do something, and this is something." 

Well the video was so good as a response, you'll find the original video it was against was taken down by it's creator.

As for expense? All I hear is the dollar value, but I always have to search for long-term impact. The cost of an electric bullet train is obvious, but what traffic benefits does it provide? What does that lack of exhaust do to public health? Does it's regular use change your tax base by say, condensing a living space? How much longer-lived are your roads if you take thousands of cars off of them? What deficiencies does the project expose, both with people and with government planning? Are they correcting those issues or ignoring them? What infrastructure benefits are happening to make this line? And when it gets completed, will it lead to bigger and better down the line? And when does the constant screeching of "it's too expensive" eventually become a self-serving prophecy, to keep us from building anything?

What I'm getting at is- I have heard for decades the constant whining of "It CoStS tOo MuCh!!!!1!!111!!" about any potential improvement to society without ever hearing anything else, and then days later was having it arrive in my ER because something was ignored out of convenience or worthless political ideology. Even just a page ago someone was trying desperately to ignore ideas because they were "European" or "Chinese" in origin- it's all a worthless cope by people who have been duped for decades into putting on blinders about what we spend taxes on, being told to think that austerity measures EVER work from people who profit from them- meanwhile expensive but world-beneficial things like our military are somehow different. My point is, as an American taxpayer and someone who's only JUST getting out of the "Working poor" class who's tax dollars already go to millions of tiny works I'll never see, I don't really care about cost if the long-term math works out to society getting better. 

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

I'm sorry but I have to stop you on statements comparing the ills of America to China.  Between 1949 and present the Chinese Government has murdered 73 million of it's citizens. These are more deaths than every other mass murderer combined (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pott, Ataturk etc.). 

Note: My Grandparents were an interracial couple (married in 1910) and I am very familiar with the the ills of America so I don't need the lecture should you be so inclined. 

Anthony is not wrong on the Climate models being overstated; they are.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't stop trying to pollute less; but as I stated in my original post EVs in and of themselves aren't going to make the difference that some people think they will (my opinion). 

Tom1200 said:

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

I'm sorry but I have to stop you on statements comparing the ills of America to China.  Between 1949 and present the Chinese Government has murdered 73 million of it's citizens. These are more deaths than every other mass murderer combined (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pott, Ataturk etc.). 

I'm sorry if I made it out to be comparing ills- I'm just displaying that this nation has done similar in the name of roads for cars. Comparing numbers of humans suffered/suffering misses the point to me.

but as I stated in my original post EVs in and of themselves aren't going to make the difference that some people think they will (my opinion). 

Don't sell yourself short my man, that's basically a fact. An EV only matters environmentally depending on how long you own it, and what power source you charge it off of- Hell, If I was truly serious about doing better, I'd be quitting my current job for one of the clinics within walking distance of my home, because then I'm just not using resources.

GIRTHQUAKE said

I'm sorry if I made it out to be comparing ills- I'm just displaying that this nation has done similar in the name of roads for cars. Comparing numbers of humans suffered/suffering misses the point to me.

 

It's a big difference between eminent domain used in a thug like manner and murdering your citizens to get what you want. The CCP is the simply evil.

Back on topic; I'm sure we all could do more to pollute less. I'd rather support a work from home wherever possible over the push to mandate EVs when it comes to curbing emissions. 

If EVs work for folks then great but I just don't think they work or will work as well for the majority of people who use an automobile...........only time will tell. 

The real question is who will have post #1000 in this thread?

There are some really affordable EV's coming out of China.   Starting around $12,000  

  I don't know if they will conform to our rules, but it sure solves the affordability question if they do.   
    They are bringing millions into Europe, Australia, New Zealand etc.   

Seeing the things Those countries are doing on the renewable front, it's impressive.  
  Shut off Russian oil/gas  and Germany is putting up wind generators  and solar plants in coal mine waste areas.  Where coal has been extracted and the overburden dumped. 
     Australia shut down its last coal mine and now that whole area is given over to renewables. 75% renewables.   Same with New Zealand.  
  Using massive Tesla  Batteries,  England is aiming for 100% renewables. 
   India is buying solar panels instead of using their coal because it's cheaper. 
      China is doing everything it can to stop importing energy  by using renewables. Projects like the 3 gorges dam , wind and solar.  
  Plus they are covering deserts with trees, 10's of millions of trees.   

triumph7 said:

The real question is who will have post #1000 in this thread?

Not me......

To those who don't see the long term benefits of cleaning things up. Part of your problem might be your algorithm.  
       As I've said, I'm a voracious reader. Lately I've been looking for renewables etc.   

     It's shocking the number of oil companies and oil executives that are investing in renewables. Even a lot of utilities are investing in renewables. 
     It simply makes economic sense.  Generate electricity with a free fuel source.  Profits will be higher. 
 

  Most people don't understand they can pay as much or more for fuel as they pay for the vehicle.  

    A pick up truck will cost $ 40-$ 50,000  in fuel to run it to the end of its life.  
  A car  $30 000 -45,000( depending on fuel mileage, cost of fuel,  and how long the car lasts.  If you don't drive it to the junk yard  those costs will continue with the current owners. 
     In rough terms an EV is about 1/3 the fuel cost.  ( assuming most Recharges are done at home).  National average is something like 11 cents a KWH. Oil change savings and other ICE costs aren't nothing but aren't likely to be a big budget impact.  
    
   Yes the  environmental  costs of building any new car are high but millions of new cars are sold every year.  When those cars reach the end of their life they typically are recycled. 
    I assume I'm unique in my 61 year ownership of a car,  maybe even the 20 year ownership of a truck?