2779
Comments (167)
sorted by:
75
Grindelwald 75 points ago +77 / -2

It is even more ridiculous to think that these people plug them in at home or at a service station knowing that a coal burning plant or gas powered generator somewhere miles away is doing the same thing.

Then the virtue signaling Tesla drivers return their cars when the batteries wear out and not care about its disposal. Or for that matter that the mining of lithium is destroying the environment and is so much more deadly than coal.

And Lithium can explode.

27
nozonozo 27 points ago +27 / -0

The future is stupid

But magically so very clean!

16
Smurfection 16 points ago +16 / -0

All that electricity they're using to power their cars...it's coming from coal. Coal is dirtier than gasoline although coal burning has become a lot cleaner than it used to be.

Also, little known fact, if we're all going to go get electric cars by 2030, we're going to have to go nuclear energy now because nothing else will sustain it and we need to do it at the rate of four power plants per month being opened. Anything less than that and by 2030 when these stupid EV green laws go into effect, it'll crash the grid.

7
PeoplesRepublicNJ 7 points ago +7 / -0

EV laws...Laughs in I just bought long tube headers, a cam, procharger and new exhaust. The guy I'm doing the install with does inspections.

Ever heard the song Red Barchetta? Listen, it's about a not too far off dystopian future of legislated boring cars.

Worse comes to worse I'm wrapping the car white and pulling a Vanishing Point!

6
KekistaniMemeLord 6 points ago +6 / -0

That and the hilarious and terrible wind and solar farms. Actually the worst use case scenario for both technologies cuz they are dogshit at generating power. Only makes sense as an add on to existing infrastructure to lighten the burden on the grid.

4
SecondProtectsFirst 4 points ago +4 / -0

Eh, it’s very possible to charge your electric car from rooftop solar, but yeah my American made Tesla runs largely on American mined coal. I don’t really see the problem.

5
Smurfection 5 points ago +5 / -0

Two points:

  1. You'll have to charge your car during the day not overnight and
  2. what happens if you have days of no sunshine.

Part of the environmental laws coming down the pike is that Democrats and the left want to outlaw all energy from coal. All. of. it. If that happens, you'll have to rely on your solar panel to charge the car. Furthermore, if the EV laws are fully implemented in 2030, the hit to the entire nation's grid is going to be catastrophic and bring down the entire electric grid. There is simply no way to have everyone who owns a car charging the car from the electrical grid without nuclear energy.

If we want energy that doesn't come from fossil fuel, the only way to do it is nuclear energy but that's the one type of energy the green new deal, Democrats, and lefties will not even consider.

I don't know if you realize this or not, but what the ruling class are really trying to do is roll back the industrial revolution and to that end, they are trying to make all forms of power as costly and non existent as possible. These people are trying to push us into an age where they get to live with their jet planes, cars, electrified mansions etc but the rest of us will have hand tools, public transportation and constant rationing of water and resources. Do you not understand this? Do you not understand that this is what is happening in California, in it's initial stages?

Aristotle said the rich will always think they are very rich and powerful because they are a different, more advanced and superior form of humanity. The poor always believe that they are the victims of misfortunes, bad luck and malign enemies. It's the middle class that keeps the one down and the other from being oppressed. We have lost a reasonable middle class because our middle class is mostly convinced that carbon is bad and CO2 is going to kill the world. This is how the very wealthy and very powerful push us all down into poverty so they can rule without interference from the middle class and the Kulaks (professional class).

1
SecondProtectsFirst 1 point ago +1 / -0

Battery storage systems are the answer to your two points.

If the grid goes down I don’t have to only charge at night though. What, do I have to wake up early and go into the office?

3
Smurfection 3 points ago +3 / -0

k, to power a small town of 1,000 people at 12 noon in winter, a battery that could store that amount of power from windturbines would have to be as big as a house. For 10,000 people, the battery would have to be as big as the town.

let me explain something to you about energy storage.....the bigger the battery, the less efficient it is and the heavier and bulkier it is. The more you try to store, the less you're gonna store. It's not like the bigger it is, the more you get, it's more like the bigger it is, the more power it loses. Energy storage in large quantities doesn't work. There seems to be some physical laws against it. Furthermore, the best energy storage right now, is fossil fuels.....yet, that's what the Dems, lefties, globalists and environmentalists are trying to destroy.

You can go ahead and try to squeeze oil from algae if you want too but it's a fool's errand.

1
SecondProtectsFirst 1 point ago +1 / -0

Why do I give a damn about wind turbines powering 1000 people? We’re talking about rooftop solar and battery storage. I can power my own house from solar power and battery storage right now.

Plenty of people live completely off the grid right now with solar and batteries. There are people mining Bitcoin with solar and batteries.

Also look into Tesla’s mega packs, they are already using battery storage to replace peaker plants.

1
coffee_grdr 1 point ago +1 / -0

maybe you haven't heard,but they haven't made advancements in batteries in decades! many fail before they're expected lifespan. but even so, you'll deplete that battery after one or two charges, and then what?

and what is the distinction between not using gasoline for your car to "protect the environment" but not caring about the pollution that's emitted making batteries and getting rid of old or damaged ones? have you see the size of the battery in your EV?

1
SecondProtectsFirst 1 point ago +1 / -0

Simple, clean air and water is more of a concern to me than worrying about burying something that came from the earth anyway. Trump felt the same way. When you see a city covered in smog it’s just gross and makes it look like a shithole. Ain’t about saving the environment for muh future generations, it’s about giving people a nicer place to live right now.

And they have for sure made advancements in battery tech. Tesla just had a battery investor day last year where they unveiled a new tabless battery cell. New Model S is supposed to have over 500 miles of range. Ten years ago there wasn’t a single EV that could drive more than 200 miles.

Now maybe they haven’t made much headway on battery recycling, that may be the case, but if the whole argument is that caring about pollution is virtue signaling then what are you doing be even bring up battery disposal?

1
hiddensfinger 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thorium reactors would be nice, but then big Gov wouldn't get weapon grade materials.

-1
posedgeclk -1 points ago +2 / -3

The nuke thing isn't going to happen, and they know it. Look at how long it takes to open a plant from a proposal to criticality. That is just the TIME that it takes. They are cornering us into energy shortages. Look what happened to fracking. There goes the natural gas supply. Look at what happened to the Keystone XL pipeline during Barry Soetoro's tenure. Did you ever see that butch lesbo at the State Department stonewalling everyone when a dozen other administrations gave their rubber stamp albeit reluctantly about ten years ago? She said, "We need more time" which she could do for decades with no repercussions. And even during Barry's administration, the progress crept along!

Also, this meme is kind of retarded, and I am tired of seeing is posted ad nauseam. One, it is presumable that the owner was dumb enough to run the battery out. If you run a gas tank until it is empty, someone has to burn gas to get you a jug of gas. Two, that generator is fairly efficient. This is similar to how a diesel electric locomotive or a Prius runs. You have an efficient engine tuned for the use case, and it charges a battery and/or runs an electric motor. The generator is picked to be efficient in this case for charging cars broken down on the side of the road. It's probably on par with coal for "carbon emissions," and this is a one-time kind of thing.

If you're going to meme about this, find one where they have a Supercharger style station next to a coal plant or something.

3
Smurfection 3 points ago +3 / -0

Actually, the fac that they won't go for nuclear given all the leaps that nuclear technology has made is the dead give away that they aren't really interested in moving away from fossil fuel energy but are very interested in destroying all energy everywhere and roll back the industrial age.

Watch the documentary Pandora's Promise.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObcgG9vjUbs

decades ago, I naively believed that the left, Democrats and environmentalists were truly honest about getting away from "dirty" fossil fuel energy and really wanted clean air, clean water and clean living. I am no longer under any such illusions at all. Their goal is to eliminate energy altogether and role back the industrial revolution and usher in an age of oligarchical rule. Wind power, solar power, battery storage, algae oil is never going to happen in the quantities needed nor will it ever be reliable. There is a natural limit to the size of a battery. Solar power, if produced in the quantities needed, will end up being far more toxic than coal mining and burning. Few people understand how incredibly toxic it is to make solar cells and how to dispose of solar panels. Wind is simply not reliable and very inefficient.

Nuclear is the only way to go if we don't want to use fossil fuels. yet, it is the one energy source that the left, Democrats, environmentalists and Fake News will never, ever consider and will never, ever even talk about as an alternative.

The goal of the anti carbon and anti CO2 movement is not a cleaner world. It is to destroy all the progress since the industrial revolution so only the ruling class will have the conveniences of life. This is why left wing media and Hollyweird always positively portray the nutballs who are vegans, raw food diets, use bicycles instead of cars, and promote public transportation. The fact is, the ruling class want to shove the professional class and the middle class into serfdom. That is their goal. If Al Gore, John Kerry, Obama, Joe Biden and all those fakers believed in even half of what they say about climate change, they wouldn't be jet streaming all over the world, buying water front property, owning shares in energy companies and telling us what to do rather than following their own policy advice. They are all hypocrites because the goal isn't clean energy. The goal is them being able to act as an oligarchy while we're all pushed into servitude.

13
DonJr2032 13 points ago +13 / -0

Some say that even though the energy is coming from coal plants, it's still more efficient and cheaper by a lot. I'm not buying it

4
SecondProtectsFirst 4 points ago +6 / -2

What gets better mileage out of its fuel, your ride-on lawnmower or a steam train?

2
SleepWoker 2 points ago +2 / -0

What a weird question....

5
SecondProtectsFirst 5 points ago +5 / -0

I’m just saying, a car engine is very small compared to a coal-fired steam turbine. Smaller engines tend to be less efficient.

4
Gyromancer 4 points ago +4 / -0

Power generation turbines are around 60% efficient. Small IC engines are usually below 10%.

1
SecondProtectsFirst 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well there it is.

Not sure how anyone could be “not buying it” regarding the cost difference too. When’s the last time anyone’s electric rate doubled in a few months like we’ve seen gas do?

1
SleepWoker 1 point ago +1 / -0

Where the hell are you getting those numbers? Lots of modern ICEs are getting close to 50%. And EVs are around 85% with 25% loss during charging.

So....let's assume I'm not lying but try to make it better by saying 35% efficiency on modern ICEs (which are also getting better).

You have 60% from the power plant, 75% during charging, and 85% in use...............that's 36% efficiency.

I'd argue at best electric cars are similar to gas on efficieny with the one downside that they run using a VERY scarce material.

I'm cool with electric cars. But electric cars are like cross fit. Just because they're the hotness doesn't mean you have to keep trying to convince everyone else they're dumb because they don't drink the cool aid.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
-1
kakuretatsumi -1 points ago +4 / -5

Dont bother trying to explain this to people here. They are as scared of EV's as the original horse owners were of cars.

0
SecondProtectsFirst 0 points ago +3 / -3

Eh, there at least seems to be a decent chunk of people who don’t see the need to politicize the existence of a technology.

I agree that the government shouldn’t force the adoption of EVs, and I don’t even think it’s necessary, but EVs themselves are legit, they’re here to stay, and they’re just going to get better and better until it doesn’t make sense to buy gas cars anymore.

2
kakuretatsumi 2 points ago +3 / -1

I own one ICE and one EV. I wish the government would back off trying to steer the industry with handout even though I benefited from it. I got a 40k car for 24k thanks to handouts by the government to push the EV revolution. That should piss you off if you dont have one.

For those claiming that electric cars are more harmful they dont understand one real fact. EV's do indeed get over 100miles per gallon of gas. Thats right the Tesla model 3 extended range has less than the equivalent of a five gallon gas tank!!!

Last point i would say is the future energy plants will not be burning fossil fuels

0
anonymousdonor 0 points ago +1 / -1

They use different fuel. Also, I don't care which is more efficient.

1
SecondProtectsFirst 1 point ago +2 / -1

Well it’s nice of you to insert your completely irrelevant comment but energy efficiency between the two different fuel sources is exactly what the other commenter I responded to was talking about.

Energy efficiency aside, the cost comparison is simply not up for debate. It’s very easy to do the calculations on kWh price to fill up an EV vs price to fill up a gas car and see that it’s dramatically more expensive to use gas. For one, electric rates generally don’t fluctuate like gas prices.

3
yeldarb1983 3 points ago +3 / -0

electric rates generally don’t fluctuate like gas prices.

usually dont fluctuate. Sorry, My autistic ass couldn't let this one go.

also, the price of gas has more to do with which group of idiots are running the regulatory agencies than it does any actual market value, least in the states.

2
SecondProtectsFirst 2 points ago +2 / -0

No that’s pedantic and false bullshit. Electric prices never fluctuate LIKE GAS PRICES. Show me a single instance where electric prices doubled and then went back down within a year. Utility prices are very stable in comparison to gas prices. They go up gradually but they absolutely don’t double and then half.

1
yeldarb1983 1 point ago +1 / -0

oh, easy, Feb/March 2021 when we got hit with one of the worst blizzards in Texas history, the EPA authorized the production of more juice at texas' coal and oil powerplants, but under the condition that the price per kw/hr be jacked way up on the extra production.

after the blizzard, the price more or less stabilized to normal levels.

I only know, because I happened to read about it while freezing my ass off at the time, lol

0
anonymousdonor 0 points ago +1 / -1

You're the one that brought up two radically different engine types that use very different fuel. That isn't irrelevant. It might be to you, but that doesn't make it so. Especially when we're talking about fuel efficiency.

Home electricity fluctuates as well big guy. EV's cost more, do less, and have more home infrastructure requirements.

1
SecondProtectsFirst 1 point ago +1 / -0

No, again, I’m actually not the one who brought that up. Read this comment and actually attempt to comprehend the context.

My home electric costs have changed once in 6 years. They don’t fluctuate, they just gradually go up over time. If you’re going to honestly argue that your electric costs fluctuate as much as gas prices then you’re a completely out of touch moron who probably doesn’t even pay bills or drive a car and there’s no use in continuing this conversation.

1
anonymousdonor 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah man reading is what got me here. Again, you may not care for the point, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. You think I just rambled in here? If you aren't the one that brought up the completely idiotic point, why are you defending it?

When I lived in Texas my electricity price fluctuated with every contract I signed. Some people, believe it or not, have different experiences than you do. Did I say they fluctuate as much? No. And why is gas fluctuating like it does? Government. What set the prices spiking was Biden refusing leases on federal land.

EV's cost more, do less and have home infrastructure requirements my gas vehicles never will.

1
Ghostof_PatrickHenry 1 point ago +3 / -2

It took many decades for the proliferation of the automobile to arise as a widespread commercial product. For the first 80-90 years of its existence, the combustion-based automobile (invented in 1860) was largely considered a toy for the upper class-- used for leisurely drives or for sports racing by the turn of the 20th century. (It lacked the suspension systems needed to make it comfortable enough for extended use, asphalt roads weren't yet a thing, and petrol was too expensive to justify use for routine transportation purposes, outside of the obscenely wealthy.)

Even in WWI-- over 55 years after the advent of first single-cyclinder gas-powered automobile-- horses were the primary means of moving artillery, officers, and supplies around battle lines. (The precious fuel--which was in short supply, mostly controlled by the Ottomans, who were allied with the Germans-- was reserved for airplanes, tanks, and navy ships.) And if the military was still using horses in the biggest war ever fought, then the public was absolutely still dependent on animals for routine transport back home.

The automobile did not become a commercialized product (viewed as a primary means of transportation) until the hyper-industrialization of WWII. While cars and trucks were certainly prevalent in major cities leading up to the war, the provincial regions of the US (99.9% of the country) lacked the roadways and infrastructure to justify the average family saving up to buy a car. (Eisenhower built the interstate highway system after WWII, which revolutionized the way Americans perceived distance and travel.)

When every factory in American converted into wartime production to facilitate the manufacturing of combustion-based engines and vehicles, it was a natural segue to the mass production of cars, in the aftermath of the war. And most men, having served in the war, were comfortable and familiar with the maintenance and construction of these complex machines. (as were the women, who worked in the wartime factories that made them)

TLDR

It took nearly a century for America to develop an appetite and desire to make petrol-based-combustion-engine automobiles a widespread commodity. It was never FORCED on them, either. It was a slow developing relationship that required the a historic advancement in technology, an industrial revolution, and 2 world wars with an economic BOOM to cultivate the necessary conditions to promote widespread use of the automobile. So it would be just as ludicrous to expect helicopters or airplanes to become commonplace, overnight, as it would be electric cars.

5
anonymousdonor 5 points ago +5 / -0

None of this is true. Your timeline stretches out to 1950 for the mass adoption of the automobile. That's complete nonsense. The Model T was made between 1908 and 1927. 3 1/2 million were made in a decade. This was done in a time of no roads, private roads, competing signage on roads and general automotive chaos.

Also, we call it gas, not petrol. In WW1 the rates of mechanization varied greatly. The Germans were nearly entirely horse driven and continued to be so in the second world war. The Ottomans had nothing to do with it, as oil was only discovered there right before WW1 and didn't start getting exploited until after the fall of the Ottomans. Europeans were too busy making shells to be bothered with making automobiles.

2
Ghostof_PatrickHenry 2 points ago +2 / -0

The entire reason the Ottomans sided with the Germans is because the British wanted their oil.

3-1/2 million model T's were made in a decade? That's 350,000 a year. The US population during that time was roughly 100M. (90M in 1908, and 107M in 1920)

That means that over a TEN YEAR PERIOD enough cars were made for 3.5% of the population. Each year, only 0.35% had the opportunity to purchase a Model T-- assuming they could afford it. Therefore, only the richest people in America could own a car.

In contrast, during the 1950 decade, 58 million cars were produced and sold-- nearly 20x as many as the decade that you claim to be the "mass adoption" of the automobile. The US population in 1950 was 150M, meaning that during that decade, over 30% of America had the opportunity to purchase a car.

(Thank you for helping prove my point.)

The reason I refer to it as "petrol" is because there are many by-products created by the refining process of crude oil. Gasoline is only one of them, and for over a century, it was considered waste and thrown out. (going back to when oil came mainly from whales, and was used almost exclusively as a light source)

Gasoline wasn't even used as fuel source for engines until the turn of the turn of the 20th century, and even then it would be the aviation industry that would develop the Otto cycle and raise the octane levels so that it would burn at the necessary levels to power aircraft. We also added ethanol and other additives to make all different types of fuel sources. (In fact, the refinement of aviation fuel has evolved so much over the past century that we don't even call it 'gasoline' anymore; it's official moniker is ATF, or 'avtur,' which is short for "Aviation Turbine Fuel.") All of which occurred over the course of decades. And even today-- 150 years after the invention of the combustion engine-- we still use the less refined diesel fuel to power our industrial and maritime equipment.

So yes, "petrol" (short for petroleum) is a much more accurate descriptor when discussing combustion engines in a general sense, since the majority of combustion engines that have been developed don't even use the colloquial "gasoline" as a fuel source.

1
anonymousdonor 1 point ago +1 / -0

Was the model T the only car in production? Why would Henry Ford make it as cheap as possible if only the richest Americans could buy it? Why did his assembly line revolutionize production if it was only for rich people, who could afford bespoke custom cars? Why would a rich person want the same car that a poor person can afford?

1
Ghostof_PatrickHenry 1 point ago +1 / -0

The Germans were nearly entirely horse driven and continued to be so in the second world war.

This statement alone discredits your knowledge of history. The Germans are notoriously renowned as the greatest engineers and machinists in the world, and they have been for centuries. German minds developed every almost every significant mechanical discovery before, during, and after the Industrial Revolution. (Many of these Germans had emigrated to America, but were German born and raised, nonetheless.)

These inventions include, but not limited to: steel cabling (suspension bridges and aircraft control cables needed for flight), elevators, structural steel, submarines, tanks, the steam engine, the locomotive, the COMBUSTION ENGINE, the rocket, the original US space shuttle, the first American satellite, the Nuclear/Atom bomb (all made by ex-Nazi scientists working for the American government), the theory of relativity (Einstein), and the list goes on and on and on.

While it is true that the German Empire had less armored vehicles and naval ships than the allies in the first World War, at the beginning of WWII the Nazi war machine dwarfed the Allied Powers in industrial production. (Blitzkrieg-- ever heard of it?) It wasn't until the United States joined the war and nationalized its manufacturing sector that the Allies were able to outproduce the Germans.

Prior to WWII, the military minds of Europe all believed that tanks were nothing more than mobile fortifications whose primary function was to advance the battle line for infantry. (how they were primarily used in WWI) The weapons that were mounted to French, English, and other Allied tanks were wimpy and relatively useless in terms of effectively killing enemy troops.

It was the Germans who viewed the tank as the future of modern warfare, developing the Panzer, and later the Tiger, which became the most feared terrestrial military units in the war, due to their speed and efficiency in dispatching both enemy armor and infantry, alike. The American response to the Panzer, the Sherman tank, only gained superiority on the battlefield due to its numbers. (In a one-on-one fight, a Panzer or a Tiger would beat a Sherman.)

Sorry. I only felt the need to write all of this due to your arrogant response. The claim that the Nazi war machine was dependent on horses is perhaps one of the wildest and least accurate statements I've ever read. (There were no horses used in WWII, at least in an official military/battle capacity--I'm sure you can find an example of somebody riding a horse during battle. It was a fully mechanized war.)

1
anonymousdonor 1 point ago +1 / -0

u mad

1
iamherefortheluls 1 point ago +1 / -0

I find it believable because usually a single large point of generation is more efficient than multiple small points of generation.

That said, there are tons of factors to be accounted for every case. For example there is a loss of energy based on distance the electricity has to be transported by wire from plant to charging station, but there is also a cost of energy to transport the gasoline. So depending on how far your house is from the plant, how far your nearest gas station is, the supply line of fuel to that plant, and to that gas station - all those factors can change the scales of what's more efficient

8
SleepWoker 8 points ago +8 / -0

I honestly believe people think power comes from the holes in the wall. Even here you get electric car nuts claiming that somehow, burning fuel, converting it to energy, shipping it across the world then taking that energy, converting it back to potential energy and then taking that potential and turning it BACK into useful energy is somehow more efficient than burning fuel for immediate power.

2
SecondProtectsFirst 2 points ago +2 / -0

Use energy drilling for oil. Use energy shipping oil. Use energy refining oil. Use energy shipping refined gasoline. Use energy pumping gasoline into car. Finally, at this point, you can convert the gasoline into energy.

Yeah, sounds a lot more efficient than just burning the oil directly into energy and transmitting it over power lines.

1
SleepWoker 1 point ago +1 / -0

Wow. Just wow. Firstly, the first three things are all required to make power regardless. "Crude" power plants are basically non existent. So you're down to "shipping gasoline" and "pumping gasoline" vs converting power into electricity then turning it BACK into fuel again. You'd have to drive in lots and lots of circles with a hole in the tank before you make up that difference.

Charging batteries is ridiculously inefficient. Terrible. You can't make it work unless you're getting power from loss (sunlight, wind, gravity etc.) and even then it's incredibly inefficient. Batteries are a tool. A tool with a cost. That cost is power inefficieny.

1
SecondProtectsFirst 1 point ago +1 / -0

I’m not sure I follow on how an electric car has to turn electricity back into into fuel. It’s using stored electricity to power electric motors. It’s converting electricity into motion the same way any other motor in your house works…your HVAC blower fan, the cylinders on your washer and dryer, your garbage disposal, garage door openers, etc. You use electric motors everywhere but for some reason in a car they’re utopian hippie shit.

1
SleepWoker 1 point ago +1 / -0

Dude......batteries are literally called "Fuel cells". I'm not trying to be a dick, but I think you may need to learn more about batteries. It's not like a bucket of marbles being moved from one bucket to another.

You are using power from the lines to cause a chemical reaction within the battery. That chemical reaction has loss, usually in the form of heat. It causes the chemistry (usually done with some lithium magic) in the battery material to change and create a potential that you can then tap into at a later date.

As you pull energy out of the battery, which has been positively charged, they lose that charge and the chemistry changes back. This also has a loss, usually heat. Because the batteries 'don't want' to be charged, this reaction has less loss than the charging process.

It also damages the battery JUST A LITTLE every time as you create unwanted chemistry that you can't undo easily. Thus....how batteries die.

Again, I have nothing against electric cars, but there are a lot of misconceptions about them.

0
kakuretatsumi 0 points ago +1 / -1

Please explain how they burn fuel to convert to energy and then it shipped?

1
yeldarb1983 1 point ago +1 / -0

same way you ship oil or gas; pipelines and storage tanks, except in the case of electricity, we call them powerlines and batteries, respectively.

And yes, they leak in all cases.

2
kakuretatsumi 2 points ago +2 / -0

You think we ship electricity across the world?

1
yeldarb1983 1 point ago +1 / -0

Across the world? probably not, although these kinds of idiots would certainly try. ;)

I assumed you were asking how it was shipped in general, my bad.

4
footinmouth 4 points ago +6 / -2

Because of the poor efficiency of transporting power across power lines, and the efficiency in charging batters, it is actually more CO2 per mile for electric cars than gas cars unless you are charging them with nuclear/hydro/solar/wind.

3
Brucesky420 3 points ago +3 / -0

I like electric cars, well some electric cars - but I've never understand the virtue signal of it. If an electric car fits your needs, then sure drive it. But you're not saving the planet

27
Torrvarpen 27 points ago +27 / -0

I remember this one on reddit, a busload of leftist trolls quickly gathered like flies around Pence shit smelling head, in an attempt to debooonk this. Their best worker managed to prove that it's not a diesel generator on the trailer, but in fact a large lithium battery.

Fair enough I thought, that's even worse than a diesel generator. But the leftists still argued that this would be better than gasoline and diesel cars.

22
Dirk_Diggler 22 points ago +22 / -0

Leftist have no clue about thermodynamics.

9
nozonozo 9 points ago +9 / -0

How long does it take to charge that puppy?

Is a cross country trip now longer than a fast covered wagon?

9
Peashout 9 points ago +9 / -0

Well we have to stop here, here, here, here, here and also here to charge the car.

So about the same amount of time.

1
yeldarb1983 1 point ago +1 / -0

Fun anecdote with no real point; When i was a kid, my grandmother used to make a trip from iowa to pennsylvania around christmas to visit her other kids and grandkids who lived out east. It was usually a two-day trip where we only stopped for peebreaks and gas, but we usually passed over three or four turnpikes along the way and hand a good old time, smelling like ass sweat by the time we got there...

Sorry, think i had a biden moment there, what were we talking about again?

3
SecondProtectsFirst 3 points ago +7 / -4

Something like a Nissan Leaf is basically just for driving around town virtue signaling in. Teslas can actually make for a fairly comfortable road trip. Teslas have their superchargers figured out pretty well, you can get 50% or so of charge in 15 mins and then drive a couple hours to the next charger.

So it’s not going to be quite as fast as if you only stopped for fuel in a gas car, but on a long road trip it’s a good idea to stop for 15 minutes every 2-3 hours anyway, stretch your legs, use the bathroom, etc. You can charge to full while you stop for a meal, usually only takes 30 mins or so to get from 20% to 80%. It takes a little more planning but all the charging stops are built into the nav so not really. Other EV makers don’t have the fast charging infrastructure figured out yet though and it could take hours. Based Elon knew there was no hope for EVs without a charging infrastructure for road trips.

4
Torrvarpen 4 points ago +4 / -0

Fast charging significantly reduce the battery life length, you also only get a fraction of the capacity in colder places. In Northern Europe and Russia you need extreme luck to even get your Tesla to start.

4
Isolated_Patriot 4 points ago +4 / -0

Fast charging significantly reduce the battery life length,

Consumers have been trained well in how to destroy their batteries so they have a reason to want that new phone.

1
yummy_yumm_yumms 1 point ago +1 / -0

On top of all that, the cost of the charge is a fraction of a tank of gas. I drove my Model S from NJ to TX and it cost 90 bucks. I could have made it even cheaper but I was going 90-100 the whole way! ;)

3
philnmdg 3 points ago +3 / -0

Science was thrown out the window first. Now they're going after math.

-1
deleted -1 points ago +1 / -2
14
WarViper1337 14 points ago +16 / -2

Pretty much a boomer meme at this point but I understand what it's getting at. Also it should be noted that is not a diesel generator. That is an inverter and battery pack designed to rapidly deliver a partial charge to a dead vehicle. So basically it's roadside assistance helping someone out which also exist for gas vehicles. At least the other pictures with actual diesel generators connected to rapid chargers are correct and make a valid point but using roadside assistance as a basis for not liking EV's is kind of silly.

4
anonymousdonor 4 points ago +4 / -0

Rapid roadside assistance for a gas vehicle entails putting a gallon of gas in their rank. Someone on foot can offer roadside assistance to a gas powered car. Good luck pushing that battery by foot.

2
oilybohunkofshit 2 points ago +2 / -0

Both the driver running out of gas and the driver running out of battery are retarded.

1
anonymousdonor 1 point ago +1 / -0

Not everyone can be from such genetic superior stock as yourself. Some of us have driven cars with a faulty gas gauge and only found out once it ran out of gas.

1
oilybohunkofshit 1 point ago +1 / -0

I guess aspire to be more.

1
anonymousdonor 1 point ago +1 / -0

Alas, aspirations are but motes on the wind when compared to such fine breeding as yourself.

1
oilybohunkofshit 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thanks for noticing.

11
SecondProtectsFirst 11 points ago +12 / -1

I don’t think we need to do the us vs them thing with electric cars. Electric cars are great technology but they need to take over on the merits of the tech and only as the infrastructure becomes ready.

I’m all for better and newer technology, I just don’t think there’s any reason for the government to force gas cars off the road if people want to drive them.

3
anonymousdonor 3 points ago +5 / -2

We do need to do an us versus them with EV's, because it is an us versus them thing. Increasing insane fuel regulations on yearly on everything from gas powered hedge trimmers to tractors to trucks to big rigs while continuing EV subsidies? That's being done for a reason.

2
SecondProtectsFirst 2 points ago +3 / -1

Yeah well we can just not do that and EVs will still be a valuable technology for the private sector to offer people. Again, on the merits of the tech.

Steven Crowder drives a Tesla. Joe Rogan too. Elon called the lockdowns fascist. It’s not a liberal thing to drive a Tesla... in fact liberals are now anti-Tesla because of Elon.

0
anonymousdonor 0 points ago +1 / -1

Crowder is a childless faggot, Rogan is a liberal trying to ruin Texas, Elon Musk is a grifter. It shows a simple mind that you think this rouges gallery will somehow influence me.

EV's would not exist for the mass market if it were not for the federal government. They would be niche vehicles.

1
SecondProtectsFirst 1 point ago +1 / -0

Fair points on Rogan and Elon I guess but didn’t Crowder’s wife have a miscarriage? Believe she’s now pregnant with twins. Shows what kind of man you are to look down on someone and judge them for having trouble having kids - something completely out of control.

Then again you’re the type of man that gets offended about the kind of car another man drives so I guess you’re just bitchmade like that.

1
anonymousdonor 1 point ago +1 / -0

My only offense is being forced by the government to buy something. I am eventually going to be forced to buy some kind of EV.

You're the kind of man that thinks doing something is good because a famous person did it. You're useless.

7
freewillsetstruth 7 points ago +7 / -0

Natural law dictates that entropy only grows. Therefore we are diminishing in quality of life in every aspect. Energy spent on technology thought to comply with theories will be wasted and produce comical results. That is nature's way of exposing our hubris!

2
philnmdg 2 points ago +2 / -0

In other words, all things tend towards chaos, only in some instances it tends faster like our current culture.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
7
GodSaveTheWest 7 points ago +9 / -2

Tbf once we develop better battery technology to hold much more power this would happen much less, and electric cars/electricity storage would be much better as a whole. Electric cars could still be the future.

That being said theyre rushing it, just like "clean energy". Trying to force it on people before its reliable or practical.

6
CA-Refugee 6 points ago +6 / -0

Or if we're going to have charging stations, have them be powered by nuclear fission plants.

1
TenFeetHigher 1 point ago +1 / -0

I mean technically solar is nuclear. Just from 93 million miles away so not powerful enough for charging stations.

1
yeldarb1983 1 point ago +1 / -0

I, for one, await the day when all electric vehicles are powered by a Mr. Fusion. device which converts everyday trash into usuable energy to power our Flux Capacitors so that when we hit 88.8 mph, you see some serious shit. B-)

1
yeldarb1983 1 point ago +1 / -0

In all seriousness, I just realized that for being a genius, Doc Brown was kind of a dumbass...

He could build a time machine with 1980s tech, feed lightning(high voltage static electricity) into an electrical device(they don't like even tiny amounts of static electricity, even today) without frying it on the spot using 1950s tech, and build both an overly complicated icemaker and superhot pressed logs using 1880s tech, but he couldn't figure out how to wind an electric motor to move said time machine when he blew out the fuel pump int he 1880s?

1
anonymousdonor 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ah, yes, the future.

5
mickusa1 5 points ago +5 / -0

If I can quote one of the most relevant movies of our generation.

"Well, don't want to sound like a dick or nothin', but, ah... it says on your chart that you're fucked up. Ah, you talk like a fag, and your shit's all retarded."

-Idiocracy

4
bobobob 4 points ago +4 / -0

Green energy is a scam. Solar panels and wind farms that end up in a landfill in 10 years. "Green" biomass plants that require trees to be cut down and harvested for fuel.

The 'Planet of the Humans' documentary does a good job of showing what a total scam this whole thing is.

4
TheJustin 4 points ago +4 / -0

The future is a bunch of electric vehicles Towing gas powered generators plug directly into them to run. In fact that actually whatever single card is already, except most cars have all of that built into the system.

5
that_sound 5 points ago +5 / -0

The future is a bunch of electric vehicles sitting dead in their garages because the electricity was turned off. Because it was windy.

Also anytime people question the government.

2
SecondProtectsFirst 2 points ago +3 / -1

Jokes on them I can charge my Tesla from my rooftop solar

2
Rusty4x4 2 points ago +2 / -0

Does your solar work without the grid being up?

1
SecondProtectsFirst 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes it just has to be connected to the grid in case I generate more than I can use or store on the spot. But my battery storage keeps the power going when the grid goes down.

3
TenFeetHigher 3 points ago +3 / -0

Tesla is about the most American car company left. I don't give a shit about the fuel source. I'll still support them over the others. Plus, the leftists hate Elon, so that's a nice bonus.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
philnmdg 3 points ago +3 / -0

Ever see the movie Idiocracy? That's what the future hold for us. "It's got electrolytes you know".

3
RealRedneck 3 points ago +3 / -0

Being from WV, I want to get a Tesla ... but with a "Friends of Coal" license plate.

3
Fourtyandfourtyfive 3 points ago +3 / -0

I look at this and hear, in my head, George Carlin yelling in drive by mode his line about “Save the whales, fuck the seals!”

This rig is gonna kill us all!

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
Leatherwood [S] 3 points ago +3 / -0

Excellent comment. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
3
RolandDelacroix 3 points ago +3 / -0

Electricity that was originally generated by burning coal, gas, or even oil.

3
Americomrade1 3 points ago +3 / -0

Electric engines are so environmentally friendly the need two internal combustion engines to make them go!

2
Pepbrandt 2 points ago +2 / -0

And inside the car’s driver is mining crypto to pay for it all.

2
notCIA 2 points ago +2 / -0

Uuuh, fact check RETARD. That is a mobile battery being towed by gas powered van, charged with electricity from a coal plant, all of which have tires made from petroleum and elements in their batteries mined using slave labor. Get your facts straight, biggut.

2
anonymousdonor 2 points ago +2 / -0

You can say their future all you want but that's our future. We do not need EV's. They are being forced on us.

2
yeldarb1983 2 points ago +2 / -0

Stupid but hilarious and ironic...

2
sir_rockness 2 points ago +2 / -0

YOU VILL EAT ZE BUGS!

2
operatorstorm712 2 points ago +2 / -0

Their future is lethal.

2
Tardigrade 2 points ago +2 / -0

Dont you mean present?

2
MySidesGoUp 2 points ago +2 / -0

That’s the progressive way- Unsustainably job-secure.

2
TrustyTrumpenTrumpet 2 points ago +2 / -0

How to cripple a foreign nation's economy and puppeteer them at the same time:

  1. Convince them that being energy independent would destroy the planet so they have to import everything and thus be able to be leveraged against.

  2. In order to sell this to the public, buy out an entire political party and make it part of their platform to push climate change all the time.

  3. Congratulations, not only has this country weakened their economy because their politicians were more than happy to take money to cripple their own country via the economy, but you can also puppeteer them for whatever else you need too.

Democrats and Chicoms, scratching each others' backs at the expense of the world.

2
TheWinningNeverStops 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's so fucking retarded it physically hurts...

2
dsm1cxm 2 points ago +2 / -0

Just in case any of you pedes have ignored previous advice, watch Idiocracy. Its starting to seem sane.

1
DogFacedPepeSoldier 1 point ago +1 / -0

You could have an electric truck pulling a thorium reactor that is charging both the truck and the car.

But no. "Muh nuclear is dangerous. We have to use bullshit fauxgreen sources" even though thorium can't even melt down.

2
kxitx 2 points ago +2 / -0

I thought they were still developing thorium salt reactors?

mind you if we didn't have the nuclear bad crowd fucking things up we might have LFTR by now

1
Barthaneous 1 point ago +1 / -0

You know I'm 33 years old and I saw electric solar powered cars 20 years ago . You'd think by now that since Tesla also has Solar powered roof shingles that they would just incorporate a top roof panel completely comprised of solar panels built in to help elevate this sort of thing. Like even if it takes an hour to charge for only ten miles that would be a great thing as a normal person works 6-10 hours a day and thus would charge the battery for a near full trip home.

Truly doesn't make any sense that we live Ina. World with so much creativity yet no one is allowed to use it.

3
anonymousdonor 3 points ago +3 / -0

TFW you have to pay 5 grand extra for a recharging roof but you live in Oregon and never see the sun.

1
Hoofa 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well that would mean self-charging Teslas only make sense in Texas or Australia.

3
finscreenname 3 points ago +3 / -0

That and a 40 watt solar panel will take about 7 years to charge a Tesla battery

1
SmokeyAF 1 point ago +1 / -0

Nuclear is the future, just saying.

1
BilRoGar 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's just because you dont know how to use spices.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
GeoG85 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's just a stupid person. The future isn't stupid.

There was a stupid person 100 years ago. Free Will exists. Earth attracts all sorts of likes.

There will ALWAYS be stupid people. The human race just shits them out~

1
Hoofa 1 point ago +1 / -0

For me it was finding out how many oil and nuclear reserves we still have untapped that the whole question of fuel sources became completely moot. If we can survive for over 100 years just burning oil and gas without blinking, then I'd rather focus on other more pressing problems before this one.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
0
Kaiheitai 0 points ago +3 / -3

Electric vehicles aren't dumb. They're the future. But forcing it on people is dumb. As for conventional trucks and generator doing emergency juice up of an EV, literally so what. Before there were gas stations there was a trade of gasoline delivery and this job was done with draft horses and heavy wagons. There's always a tech transition.

2
anonymousdonor 2 points ago +2 / -0

They're dumb and they're getting forced on us. Go buy a new 8 cylinder sedan that seats 6. I'll wait.

2
durkadurka 2 points ago +2 / -0

I have both and both do the job that I need them to do.

1
anonymousdonor 1 point ago +1 / -0

They're getting forced on us. Without force and without subsidies, EV's would not exist.

1
durkadurka 1 point ago +1 / -0

You might be right. When I bought mine in 2013 there was an Obama 10k rebate. It’s still a great car and really fun to drive.

0
Areyoukidding15 0 points ago +2 / -2

Honestly Teslas and Toyota’s lates RAV 4 Prime that gets 600 miles make the most sense. The above is neither so it falls into the “half-baked” idea camp.

Some Tesla superchargers run off of solar energy. Home solar panels obviously too. I like Toyota’s battery + gas approach. You get 40 miles of electric range and it charges in 2 hours. If you want to drive across country it also takes 11 gallons of gas to a tank and total combined is 600 miles. The RAV4 Prime may just make it through the apocalypse.

But anyone feeling smug from temporarily owning a piece of equipment can kick rocks. Value comes from inside and achievements, not because you places yourself in 100K debt to virtue signal.

Teslas are just really good at everything a car is supposed to do. Drive one. You will instantly understand they really are the future and who cares if you are swapping one “pollution” for another? The earth is effectively a closed system anyway. That’s why we can even harvest the carbon from dinosaurs who died hundreds of millions of years ago.

0
oilybohunkofshit 0 points ago +3 / -3

I drive a Tesla. These kinds of memes are pretty retarded. I’m not driving it to save the world but because dollar for dollar they're the best cars you can buy right now.

-1
kakuretatsumi -1 points ago +3 / -4

This post is as dumb as showing a EV dropping off a gas can to a ICE vehicle that forgot to fuel up and saying that people in the past were retards.

Need I remind you that the smug Tesla owners with battery walls and solar panels are more "prepper" than you because I really doubt any of you here own fuel refinery on your property. Did they worry when the pipelines are shut down??? nope...

Do current gen EV's have issues? Yes, of course they do. However I don't hear a damn word out of any of you saying we should bring back steam locomotives instead of modern trains that, oh by the way, are powered by diesel generators driving electric motors.

Oh and if you are thinking to yourself that you can't ever get one because they run on "faggot sauce" go ahead and watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIuvaRLaOe0

2
Leatherwood [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Do you generate you own electricity on your property?

2
kakuretatsumi 2 points ago +2 / -0

The sun generates it, but i steal it with 12kw of solar. And yes i know this works great where i live in a sunny state and would not work if i got snow.

-2
DrSourRaspberries -2 points ago +3 / -5

This electric vehicle hate is foolish.

Also, notice the picture is not taken in America.

-64
Ponzo -64 points ago +2 / -66

That is in Austria. The service is called ÖAMTC, you can buy a membership and can call them anytime anywhere you are stuck/blown tire etc. Neat service but fuck electric cars.