From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: HUGE Percentage Of EV Owners Want To Go Back To Normal Cars,
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 09:48:19 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 2024-10-04 04:13, JTEM wrote:
> Â AlleyCat wrote:
>
>> Huge Percentage Of EV Owners Want To Go Back To Normal Cars, Study Finds
>>
>> https://dailycaller.com/2024/06/20/electric-vehicle-owners-40-percent-
>> gas-cars-mckinsey
>
> I've been saying it for years:Â "Electric" is stupid for motor vehicles.
>
> Fossil fuels make an excellent fuel for our highway traffic. The
> distribution systems are already in place, no need to build anything.
> They're easy to transport, pack a great deal of energy into a
> comparatively small space, are proven safe to handle and our economy
> is just plain used to them. So why change?
Because:
1. Fossil fuels are non-renewable. Some day, they will run out and we
all use them for a lot of other things in our society.
2. They create CO2 as a by-product, and putting more CO2 into our
atmosphere is a bad idea.
>
> There's a lot of things that could go electric without disruption,
> saving what oil & natural gas for use as a motor fuel:Â Tractors,
> landscaping equipment and anything not unduly burdened by limited
> range and lengthy charging times.
And lots and lots of driving is "unduly burdened by limited range and
lengthy charging times"
Especially given that ranges are going up. There are literally dozens of
EVs that now offer ranges of more than 500km.
How many times a year do you drive more than 500km during a day?
>
> City buses might be an exception, where a reduction in particulate
> pollution would be at least as desirable as a fuel savings. But,
> battery powered public transport has not proven to be the safest &
> most cost effective so far. So even buses with their limited routes
> and easily predicted energy needs are probably better off switching
> to natural gas, rather than battery power.
>
> Oo! I know: If it's a "Crisis," if we honestly NEED TO pass
> legislation and impose hyper regressive taxes in address this "Crisis,"
> let's ban private aviation. This includes corporate jets and even
> charters taking off with fewer than, say, 80 passengers.
>
> And why can you walk into a store and buy heaters (or even air
> conditioners) for your back yard? Why is it legal to heat and cool
> the outside?
>
> "This is a crisis. Just not THAT big of a crisis where we'd need
> to take status symbols away from the rich, and end patio heaters"
>
> Taking meat away from people is okay, if they're not rich so the
> don't deserve it anyway, but we can't end private jets...
<yawn>