metro2036 t1_ixyncar wrote
Reply to comment by wagner56 in US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds, but tough reliability and land use questions lie ahead by nastratin
>> please quote me the prices of these cars >> thats the first multiplier - you have to buy them before you can use them
Sticker prices of EVs are typically higher, but total lifetime cost is lower due to electricty/mile being cheaper than gas/mile as well as reduced maintenance costs. Source1 Source2 Source3
>> and then have the assumed shortages of the materials used for a vastly increased number being built - something you might try to consider the impact of.
This doesn't make any sense. If I'm choosing between buying an EV or a gas car, both will need materials, and it doesn't change the number of cars being built if I'm choosing between one or the other. Choosing the EV isn't going to cause a shortage of materials vs choosing a gas car, other than the materials being different for some components. Either way, it's irrelevant to whether it costs more to own an EV.
>> likewise the manufacture will need to be clean too, and recycling as well.
Why? Does the gas car have have clean manufacturing? No. And this is still irrelevant to ownership cost.
>> And please address the ever present issue of where the power comes from for these autos - explain how all that electricity will be generated without fossil fuels being involved.
Like I said--you can power them with the sun. No fossil fuels needed. I have solar panels on my roof and only pay the energy company a connection fee.
wagner56 t1_iy32rg4 wrote
"""US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds, but tough reliability and land use questions lie ahead"""
This is the WHOLE SYSTEM
It includes all the 'dirty' stuff generated by EVERY ASPECT of this thing to makle it work.
It requires the whole system being reworked.
Funny is : I just noticed the word "can" in that above statement which technically means it does not limit the solution to reasonable cost or lack of imposed tyranny or all the other serious issues and concerns which will likely have to be made use of to achieve this 'goal'.
It sounds very much like a communist 'five year plan' when you consider how it is expressed. The scope of it is also is as potentially catastrophic as such plans historically were.
Notice that word 'but' there too - which already indicates that serious problems ALREADY lay in the path of any such 'solution'.
metro2036 t1_iy4oe3v wrote
Did you lose track of the conversation? We weren't discussing the headline. We were discussing your notion that operating an EV has 5X the total cost of an ICE vehicle.
wagner56 t1_iyc82mv wrote
well I was always talking about the headline
a huge added cost trying to drive massive change in such a short time
forced instead of letting progress be done by what is workable in the market.
And finally the proposal being filled with weasel words to cover the impracticality and postential disaster of such a thing being attempted
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments