The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

You are assuming that the battery charges full in one hour. It does not

No, I was using the figure given, 1 hour charge gives 30 miles.

[jelgate]

Then you weren't thinking critically.

[mad_gater]

For the sake of argument let's say that running a car completely off electric power would be cheaper than buying gasoline....another thing that hypothetical cost savings would have to be weighed against is the fact that currently hybrids and full electrics cost at least 2 - 3 times as much as a gas-powered car...at least here in the US

[SGalisa]

A few selected excerpts:

Another cost associated with electric vehicles is a home charging unit. A charger that can provide 30 miles of range an hour costs about $600. Electric vehicle chargers can be purchased from common retailers such as Home Depot or Amazon.

To make installing chargers more affordable for drivers, some electric utilities provide discounts. For example, Alliant Energy offers customers in Wisconsin and Iowa up to a $500 rebate for purchasing and installing a Level 2 home charger.

Level 2 chargers supply 240 volts which is what an electric dryer or oven needs to operate. This type of charger provides up to 70 miles of range per hour and could be purchase for about $450.

An hour charge time for 30 miles? Or even 70? Absurd.

Agreed. See my comments further below.

How many hours of sleep per day do you get Sir? 5-6-7? Absurdity debunked.

Chaka-Z0, maybe in your world where you live and work, but not to some other folks. I personally know someone who has to drive over 100 mile round trip every day to and from work, and loses between 8 to 16 hours of sleep WEEKLY because of a split shift schedule that TPTB will NOT change. It's damaging that person's health in more ways than one. And this person has to either give up retirement altogether or stick with the current program and suffer for the next 7 years before even thinking about retiring to eventually work part-time, if that option is even available...!

How many hours of sleep per day do you get Sir? 5-6-7? Absurdity debunked.

Unless of course, you have to drive more than 30 miles.... Which many people do on their daily commute, let alone trips.

Yes, I know several someones who have to drive LONG distance to get to work every day. One particular person drives about 50 miles or more one-way / each way (to and from) work. That little trek takes about an hour or more in light traffic (but traffic is NOT always light; sometimes traffic is stop and go heavy). In parking lot jams with stop and go, bad weather traffic or other problems, it can take up to 2-1/2 hours or more to drive just one direction...and that is in a very congested, urban area. Taking a bus or train is not even near either place of work or home residence (plus those transit methods costs more money anyway).

Moving closer to work is NOT an option. Been down that road already and it didNOT work out. So, these intellectual policy-making *experts* need to back off and re-calculate their ultimate environmental goals for the poorer folks who are stuck on limited incomes and WITH *limited* TIME factors to deal with, as well...that includes getting quality SLEEP time, already with little time inbetween for family and friends-type socializing. Folks who are just above poverty level for extra assistance but too far below "wealthy" level to get ahead (basically living paycheck to paycheck when home maintenance/repairs is included into the equation as well).

Not everyone has an *ideal* life, like so many in the wealthier categories do have.

For the sake of argument let's say that running a car completely off electric power would be cheaper than buying gasoline....another thing that hypothetical cost savings would have to be weighed against is the fact that currently hybrids and full electrics cost at least 2 - 3 times as much as a gas-powered car...at least here in the US

Problem with all-electric cars relying on batteries is that batteries have a limited lifespan... they either die out or corrode. Plus, there are limited resources to make enough batteries for the entire world to survive on, IF this is the intended goal of the politicians suggesting these ideas. Car and HOME generator batteries are not a $5.00 pack of double D's. At least over $150.00 for current car battery and generator batteries are even more expensive (like over $1000 to start with)... How many people on extremely limited incomes have those spare dollar amounts weekly to play with? I lived for over 25 years in paid job fields before I ever saw an extra $10.00 to spare for gas or snack frills from the store.

[Annoyed]

For the sake of argument let's say that running a car completely off electric power would be cheaper than buying gasoline....another thing that hypothetical cost savings would have to be weighed against is the fact that currently hybrids and full electrics cost at least 2 - 3 times as much as a gas-powered car...at least here in the US

Well, economies of scale would mitigate that to some degree; with mass adoption the cost / unit goes down.

But the people who advocate this don't seem to have any idea how people are going to have to pay for a new car. Many people get 10-20 years out of a car. Or can't afford anything besides used cars to begin with.

Or maybe the people who advocate these are willing to buy everyone else a new car?

And while an electric may suit someone's needs most of the time, some times people need the additional capabilities of gasoline. They're supposed to buy 2 cars?

All of this because some people believe an unproven theory that mankind is the cause of global cooling warming whatever they're claiming this week?

Sorry, wrong answer.

If you want to replace gasoline, come up with something which does the job better, and it will replace the gasoline engine over time in the marketplace. Till then, don't try to tell me what I have to drive.

[Gatefan1976]

Then you weren't thinking critically.

It's outside his skill set, he does not own a sheepskin.

[Annoyed]

It's outside his skill set, he does not own a sheepskin.

You have to have a college degree to think? Hardly.
In fact, with the "programming" many schools engage in these days, it might be the other way around.

[jelgate]

You have to have a college degree to think? Hardly.
In fact, with the "programming" many schools engage in these days, it might be the other way around.

That is not what he said. Once again you are moving goalposts

[Womble]

Well, economies of scale would mitigate that to some degree; with mass adoption the cost / unit goes down.

But the people who advocate this don't seem to have any idea how people are going to have to pay for a new car. Many people get 10-20 years out of a car. Or can't afford anything besides used cars to begin with.

Or maybe the people who advocate these are willing to buy everyone else a new car?

You can get 20-30 years out of a horse. Why buy a car?

Seriously though, it's like any other purchase. Higher upfront cost vs. cheaper upkeep. Everyone does their own calculation.

And while an electric may suit someone's needs most of the time, some times people need the additional capabilities of gasoline. They're supposed to buy 2 cars?

Or rent one as needed. Although as technology improves, there likely won't remain anything that a gasoline car does that an electrical car can't do as well or better.

All of this because some people believe an unproven theory that mankind is the cause of global cooling warming whatever they're claiming this week?

There we go again...

If you want to replace gasoline, come up with something which does the job better, and it will replace the gasoline engine over time in the marketplace. Till then, don't try to tell me what I have to drive.

If a car could run on stupidity, oil would have been phased out decades ago, I suppose.

[Annoyed]

Seriously though, it's like any other purchase. Higher upfront cost vs. cheaper upkeep. Everyone does their own calculation.

If they were going to leave it to choice, I'm fine with that.. But they want to FORCE people to drive what they want them to.

[edit]
And they don't want to wait for technology to improve. I grant that it will eventually do so, so electric is the better choice. But these idiots want to force the issue BEFORE the tech is ready.

Same deal as the low energy use light bulbs. But on a bigger scale.

[SoulReaver]

All of this because some people believe an unproven theory that mankind is the cause of global cooling warming

by the way there are also people who believe viruses can give you fever. can you believe that? I mean look at those tiny nanoscopic things how the hell could those insignificant things affect us? therefore it can't be true :|

whatever they're claiming this week?

what are you talking about climate change was always about global warming nothing else

[Annoyed]

by the way there are also people who believe viruses can give you fever. can you believe that? I mean look at those tiny nanoscopic things how the hell could those insignificant things affect us? therefore it can't be true :|

what are you talking about climate change was always about global warming nothing else

Sorry, wrong answer. Prior to "warming", they were telling us that we were gonna be headed to a new ice age.. or cooling.
And there have also been times when they outright say they don't know what its doing. They can't even make up their minds what they want to tell us. Does wonders for their credibility.

[SoulReaver]

Sorry, wrong answer. Prior to "warming", they were telling us that we were gonna be headed to a new ice age.. or cooling.

you mean prior to science

And there have also been times when they outright say they don't know what its doing. They can't even make up their minds what they want to tell us. Does wonders for their credibility.

there you go if climate's so complex then more of a reason not to mess with it

[Annoyed]

you mean prior to science


there you go if climate's so complex then more of a reason not to mess with it

Oh, I'm pretty sure science existed in the 1970's/1980's.

And if they can't even understand it, what business do they have wanting us to completely disrupt our economy?

Oh, and btw, that is the real goal behind all their efforts. It has nothing to do with the environment.
Haven't you noticed all the other socialist crap the Kindergartner has in her "green new deal"? That's not about the environment either, it's all about converting the US to a socialist paradise. The environmental crap is just the sugar on the pill to get people to swallow it.

[jelgate]

Is it factless conspiracy theory time again?

Someone get the popcorn. I find the ignorance hilarious