The Political Discussion Thread

[garhkal]

And how big / heavy would a giant battery, large enough to "recharge" a filling station have to be?

A battery for a Tesla roadster weighs about 1000 Lbs. This can carry enough energy to go about 250 miles, somewhat lower than the range of a typical automobile.

20 gallons of gas weighs 130 Lbs. Using my 4Runner as an example, (22 MPG highway) that will take me around 440 miles.

How big & heavy would the "battery truck" which would

Combine that with how much gas does it take to produce the batteries And energy that goes into one of those cars..

[Gatefan1976]

Combine that with how much gas does it take to produce the batteries And energy that goes into one of those cars..

AHHH
Now -THAT- and the disposal of the batteries themselves is a good argument.
This is the problem with politics, problems get invented and scenario's "played out" to discredit the idea of something, rather than looking at what could actually be a fair call.

[Annoyed]

It all comes down to how much energy can be stored in the vehicle.
And battery technology just isn't there yet. It cannot at this time come close to the amount of energy stored in say, 20 gallons of gas. Despite the fact that the internal combustion engine wastes roughly 70% of that energy, mostly in the form of heat ( https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml ), it still provides more power and range than battery technology by a significant amount.

Consider someone such as myself. I live in a suburb of a mid size city in the northeast. An electric vehicle would serve my needs most of the time.

But there are times that I need the capacity to pull a heavy load via trailer. Which you cannot do with an electric. So purchasing an electric is out of the question for me, because I can't afford to buy 2 vehicles. I have to choose the one which can do what I ask of it.

Until such time as batteries can match the amount of energy carried by a like volume/mass of gasoline, electric vehicles will be useless for most people. And even after the technology comes off the shelf, it will be a very long time before it is affordable for most people.

[Annoyed]

AHHH
Now -THAT- and the disposal of the batteries themselves is a good argument.
This is the problem with politics, problems get invented and scenario's "played out" to discredit the idea of something, rather than looking at what could actually be a fair call.

It's not a matter of playing out ideas to set up strawmen and knock them down.

Common sense (I know, sadly lacking these days) dictates that when you are evaluating a process or product, you examine the process and look for reasons where it can't work before attempting to carry out that process or purchase that product, simply to avoid wasting time, effort and resources on something which is fundamentally impractical for some reason. Better to discover the problem that way, rather not thinking about things in advance and finding the roadblock AFTER you've started working on it, or purchased it.

[Gatefan1976]

It all comes down to how much energy can be stored in the vehicle.
And battery technology just isn't there yet.

Not yet, no.

It cannot at this time come close to the amount of energy stored in say, 20 gallons of gas. Despite the fact that the internal combustion engine wastes roughly 70% of that energy, mostly in the form of heat ( https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml ), it still provides more power and range than battery technology by a significant amount.

Again, not yet, but battery tech is advancing at a truly impressive rate thanks to in no small part mobile phones.

Consider someone such as myself. I live in a suburb of a mid size city in the northeast. An electric vehicle would serve my needs most of the time.

But there are times that I need the capacity to pull a heavy load via trailer. Which you cannot do with an electric. So purchasing an electric is out of the question for me, because I can't afford to buy 2 vehicles. I have to choose the one which can do what I ask of it.

Sure, but that does in no way discount the technology in the slightest. Some of these cars are 4000lbs, imagine when the car weighs half the amount and even current technology can provide enough power to tow an additional 2000lbs.
Where will they be then?

Until such time as batteries can match the amount of energy carried by a like volume/mass of gasoline, electric vehicles will be useless for most people. And even after the technology comes off the shelf, it will be a very long time before it is affordable for most people.

Most people don't need to haul trailers, and as for the expense of being first vs average item, yes it will take time, but not as much as you may think. 5-10 years sounds about right.

[Annoyed]

According to edmunds.com, the average age of a motor vehicle in the U.S. is 11.4, and this number is expected to rise. I would think that would tend to throw the 10 year figure out.

Cell phones are a completely different animal in comparison to a vehicle. Current draw in a phone is measured in milliamps, or thousandths of an ampere. Even the starter motor in a motor vehicle draws 70 amps and up, a very large difference.

Ever notice your laptop computer's time estimate of battery life? Fully charged, most of them CLAIM to have a battery life of several hours, at least. But start using the computer for anything which places a load on it, increasing current draw (voltage can't go up) and that estimate hits the floor, and fast. On this laptop I'm using to write this, it says 2:15 available from full charge. But if I start a game, or anything which starts using real power, this will run 1/2 hour, if I'm lucky. So even for something which draws as little power as a laptop computer, batteries are only slightly useful. Basically, it will keep it running while you move it from one area of the house to another.

A Tesla with the 85KW battery is fused for 630 amps. Assume the fuse is 2x actual draw, that is still roughly 300 Amps, presumably under heavy load.

Again, I say it's going to be a very long time (if ever) before battery technology is good enough. I rather suspect some other solution will arise before batteries can catch up.

I'm not anti-electric cars. I'm just saying that for majority of drivers, they are quite useless due to their limits, but if someone wants one, feel free. But these buyers should be willing to accept the limitations of what they have purchased.

With such a low usage rate, very few businesses will be willing to invest in the infrastructure to support them; charging stations and such. There will simply not be enough paying customers to justify the expense.

So I have no doubt whatsoever that we will start seeing demands that government entities provide these financially unprofitable facilities AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE.

No. If someone wants to buy one, fine, I have no problem with that. But they had best not expect my tax dollars to cough up for infrastructure to support them. Accept the limits of what you have purchased.

[Gatefan1976]

It's not a matter of playing out ideas to set up strawmen and knock them down.

In politics, yes it is.
You look at places like Fox, or MSNBC who spend so much time "making up problems" when actual problems exist, it becomes laughable.
These High capacity batteries are incredibly hard to dismantle, and use/cause enormous problems when the time comes to dispose of them, but we hear very little on that subject, but hear stuff like what you have presented here which is fairly easy to discredit.

Common sense (I know, sadly lacking these days) dictates that when you are evaluating a process or product, you examine the process and look for reasons where it can't work before attempting to carry out that process or purchase that product, simply to avoid wasting time, effort and resources on something which is fundamentally impractical for some reason. Better to discover the problem that way, rather not thinking about things in advance and finding the roadblock AFTER you've started working on it, or purchased it.

In theory, I would agree with you, but without these first steps, you don't push to find better ways to apply and improve the technology. Doubt it, question it, sure. Give up on it?
Steam powered trains were the bee's knees back in the day, why did we go to petroleum based trains, then to electric ones? We advanced the tech, and both of those advances could have come to nothing, but we tried anyway, and they paid off. Hybrid cars are where we are now in the practical sense, but we are working towards full electric, but it requires advances in many fields for us to make it a reality, and who knows where those advances may lead while we are getting there?

[Gatefan1976]

According to edmunds.com, the average age of a motor vehicle in the U.S. is 11.4, and this number is expected to rise. I would think that would tend to throw the 10 year figure out.

What does this have to do with advancing technology?
I have a 15 year old fridge, I am sure there are better ones out there, let alone what they will be like when that fridge is 30 years old.
That which exists, -now- and that what is possible in 15 years are in no way related.

Cell phones are a completely different animal in comparison to a vehicle. Current draw in a phone is measured in milliamps, or thousandths of an ampere. Even the starter motor in a motor vehicle draws 70 amps and up, a very large difference.

Well, hell, good thing I did not compare the two devices then hey?
I was talking about battery tech, not the device you plug it into, or it's specific needs.

Ever notice your laptop computer's time estimate of battery life? Fully charged, most of them CLAIM to have a battery life of several hours, at least. But start using the computer for anything which places a load on it, increasing current draw (voltage can't go up) and that estimate hits the floor, and fast. On this laptop I'm using to write this, it says 2:15 available from full charge. But if I start a game, or anything which starts using real power, this will run 1/2 hour, if I'm lucky. So even for something which draws as little power as a laptop computer, batteries are only slightly useful. Basically, it will keep it running while you move it from one area of the house to another.

I have used my laptop for over 5 hours today watching vids, playing music, and typing this, I think your battery is stuffed to be honest.
BUT, keep setting up them strawmen if you want.

A Tesla with the 85KW battery is fused for 630 amps. Assume the fuse is 2x actual draw, that is still roughly 300 Amps, presumably under heavy load.

Again, I say it's going to be a very long time (if ever) before battery technology is good enough. I rather suspect some other solution will arise before batteries can catch up.

30 years ago, the notion you could have the entire processing power of the worlds computers in a hand held device would have been seen as a joke, but here we are.

I'm not anti-electric cars. I'm just saying that for majority of drivers, they are quite useless due to their limits, but if someone wants one, feel free. But these buyers should be willing to accept the limitations of what they have purchased.

Sure.

With such a low usage rate, very few businesses will be willing to invest in the infrastructure to support them; charging stations and such. There will simply not be enough paying customers to justify the expense.

So I have no doubt whatsoever that we will start seeing demands that government entities provide these financially unprofitable facilities AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE.

Ahh, now we see what your argument actually is.
You don't want to pay for it.

No. If someone wants to buy one, fine, I have no problem with that. But they had best not expect my tax dollars to cough up for infrastructure to support them. Accept the limits of what you have purchased.

Tax is not the individuals piggy bank to dictate what can and cannot be done with it. "I put in 5000 dollars into this project costing 50 million dollars, respect my wishes dammit!!"
Even the private sector would tell you to stuff off, let alone the public one.

[Coco Pops]

Yay Annoyed sig pic of the best TV character ever .... I viewed "The Lady" as much a character as the human actors on that show.

[Annoyed]

Do the taxpayers subsidize Exxon/Mobil, Hess or anyone else's construction costs for gas stations? Of course not. These businesses build in expectations of making their money back from their sales.

So why should the taxpayers subsidize the costs of electric? There should be no special treatment for people who make boneheaded decisions such as buying a vehicle with severe limitations to its usefulness.

This goes right back to the foundation for a lot of my viewpoints, on many different topics.

If you screw up and make a bad decision, don't expect anyone else to pick up the tab for it. Be responsible for the consequences of your own decisions.

[Gatefan1976]

Do the taxpayers subsidize Exxon/Mobil, Hess or anyone else's construction costs for gas stations? Of course not. These businesses build in expectations of making their money back from their sales.

They are called tax breaks/loopholes/offshore banking etc, etc, etc, look this stuff up.

So why should the taxpayers subsidize the costs of electric? There should be no special treatment for people who make boneheaded decisions such as buying a vehicle with severe limitations to its usefulness.

I am not asking them too.

This goes right back to the foundation for a lot of my viewpoints, on many different topics.

If you screw up and make a bad decision, don't expect anyone else to pick up the tab for it. Be responsible for the consequences of your own decisions.

Some things are beyond personal responsibility.
A company that folds does not just effect those at the top, but the potentially thousands of people who also work for that company who had nothing to do with the decisions that destroyed the company.
Oh well, tough s*** for them I guess. If they were responsible, they would have had redundancy insurance to move on to something new.
If they didn't have such coverage, well, stuff them, they should have thought of it, and been able to retrain, and find new work without burdening the public purse at all.
Hmmmm........ something seems off here, a little smelly as well.

[Gatefan1976]

Yay Annoyed sig pic of the best TV character ever .... I viewed "The Lady" as much a character as the human actors on that show.

That's 'cause Airwolf be cool dude

[Annoyed]

They are called tax breaks/loopholes/offshore banking etc, etc, etc, look this stuff up.

I think we've gone down this road in the past.
Your mindset is apparently such that you think all wealth is first the property of the government, to be doled out as that government sees fit.

My view is that wealth first belongs to those who created it.

Therefore, in your view, a tax break/etc.; any money NOT taken by the government is a gift to that company, same as a subsidy.

In my view, since that money was never the property of the government to begin with, a tax break or some such is NOT a gift from the government. This is different from a government subsidizing a business, which really is a gift from the government.

[Gatefan1976]

I think we've gone down this road in the past.
Your mindset is apparently such that you think all wealth is first the property of the government, to be doled out as that government sees fit.

LOL!!
Hardly.

My view is that wealth first belongs to those who created it.

Yup.

Therefore, in your view, a tax break/etc.; any money NOT taken by the government is a gift to that company, same as a subsidy.

No, it is not.
You should stop drawing these long bows and pay attention.

In my view, since that money was never the property of the government to begin with, a tax break or some such is NOT a gift from the government.

Correct, it is a way to avoid paying a fair share. Joe public pays 10% tax, Joe corporation pays 5% tax, yet demands all the benefits of Joe Public.

This is different from a government subsidizing a business, which really is a gift from the government.

Look into government subsidies sometime, and get back to me.

[SoulReaver]

I think we've gone down this road in the past.
Your mindset is apparently such that you think all wealth is first the property of the government, to be doled out as that government sees fit.

My view is that wealth first belongs to those who created it.

Therefore, in your view, a tax break/etc.; any money NOT taken by the government is a gift to that company, same as a subsidy.

In my view, since that money was never the property of the government to begin with, a tax break or some such is NOT a gift from the government. This is different from a government subsidizing a business, which really is a gift from the government.

this argument's only valid if all taxes are abolished including those paid by the commoners